Stanislaw Burzynski gets off on a technicality

Countless patients? Zero could be said to be countless, I suppose, in the convoluted logic that holds sway at that clinic.

Could someone explain why the FDA or other entity can’t, or won’t shut him down?

The more I hear, the more disgusted I get.

I’ll join you in hoping they go after his subordinates. I suspect once they tear down that shield against responsibility, Burzynski might be too greedy to stop and hopefully he’d get caught as soon as he did anything personally.

But I’d worry that he’d retire to his mansion and start writing books on how you, too, can fleece the terminally ill for profit.

As far as I’m concerned: until Burzynski’s shut down for good, Orac can’t write often enough about him.

Once again, I suggest that folks write to PBS’s Frontline to nudge them into doing an episode on him. Let’s shine a light on the darkness, people!

It’s my understanding that the most you can usually expect from charges such as these are a letter of admonition against the supervising license-holder. Spin value aside, this action may have throw some cold water on B’s inner workings.

@David N. Brown

Frontline generally takes the following format:

First half: present the topic in a neutral light, from the POV of those promoting the issue.
Second half: apply a no-punches-pulled reality-based critique of said POV.

I’ve been impressed by how they’ve handled other controversial topics, like Facilitated Communication (Prisoners of Silence) and vaccines (The Vaccine Wars). No one who watches those would come away with any doubt as to the reality of the subject, other than via willful ignorance. I think they could do a very good job with Burzynski, showing what he claims and what actually goes on, with the very real (and very depressing) results.

@Todd W:
Sorry to ask something that may be obvious here, but I really want to know: why does the government/FDA let him get away with it? I know the FDA is under-funded/staffed, but it seems like his drug and clinical trial offenses is a gigantic pile of turd that would be easily actionable by the FDA, if not other entities. Who could pressure them? (and I agree with Edith Prickly: don’t let up on Burzinski, Orac)

@ Ism, the ultimate irony here (well two actually) is that the FDA has actively enabled Burzynski by allowing him to continue to “conduct” phase II and III trials without publishing results. I urge you to get your hands on Dr. Goldacre’s “Bad Pharma” when it becomes available in the U.S. as it is a stunning litany of pharma and regulatory offences that keep this circle jerk going.

The other oddity is how Burzynski can be let off on this technicality when he is the ringmaster of his scam circus. Physicians in his employ are doing his bidding so I can only hope that the Texas Medical Board do go after them.

OT note from the antivax front: there’s a truly excellent op-ed piece in the Newark Star-Ledger today (along with the typical run of sane and demented comments from the peanut gallery):

ht_p://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/11/pro-vaccine_parents_need_to_sp.html#incart_river_default

The op-editorialist (co-author of a new book on vaccination) could use some additional favorable reviews on Amazon.

ht_p://www.amazon.com/dp/144221578X

Why does this writer continue to embarrass himself? He/she has never even there during this legal process. Go back to your vaccine drivel. Good luck with your “hourly posts” in avoiding scientific fact. FDA sanctioned clinical trials, duh. Burzynski has never once lost a legal case, because, uh, he is always found to be right. Flat Earth Society is calling you all. Ring ring.

There is some good “news” on the Burzynski clinical trials. In January of 2011, he had five open trials and the Phase III trial was supposed to open sometime that year. In January of 2012, he only had 1 open trial, and the Phase III trial is still not open for recruitment. In fact, that may explain why Deb wasn’t able to enroll her child in his clinic – of the trials that may still be open (no updates since June 2009, primary end-date December 2011), none are open to both adults and children. We know that he recently treated an adult. So it appears that he may not be able to treat children unless he can manage to open the Phase III trial, which is restricted to children under 18.

Perhaps the FDA has finally told him “Tits or GTFO”?

Burzynski has never once lost a legal case, because, uh, he is always found to be right.

Roger, did you even read the post you’re commenting on? If so, could you explain precisely how in this case Burzynski was ‘right’ and his accusers were ‘wrong?’

Not specifically related. But an interesting example of the dark side of “evidence.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story_4.html

@Denice Walter:
Actually, judging from web results, the most visible propaganda outlets are dedicated sites and social media pages that appear to be either the direct work of Burzynski’s staff or those who openly identify as his patients and/or supporters.

The wider “alt med” scene is no doubt a source of support for Burzynski, but I think there is a strong potential for the movement to turn against him. The problem for Dr. B on that front is that, while “alties” are infamously unfazed by questions about efficacy and even safety, they tend to be sensitive about overt commercialism and paranoid about any hint of “Big Pharma” influence. In those terms, it is to be expected that many of them are already getting uncomfortable with the clinic’s publicity machine and the sheer size of the cash flow. If, on top of that, it came out that Burzynski was relying on “Big Pharma” products and even funding, then there could be an open backlash.

David N. Brown
Mesa, Arizona
http://www.exotroopers.wordpress.com

I read many of the files at SOAH last summer. I think in one of the recent rulings the board agreed to take some of them out of public view. My impression was that would protect the ability of the doctors working under Burzynski to defend themselves if there’s further action? (I’m not a lawyer.)

The last I remember, Burzynski said in his documents, yes, he saw some of the MRIs and advised the physicians, but that didn’t make him responsible. At about the same time, a person offering to refer terminal cancer patients on an online support forum to Burzynski promised that he treated every patient personally. And s/he claimed to have no knowledge about any lawsuits.

What has happened to the Lola Quinlan lawsuit against Burzynski? I looked for information the other day and saw that Ms. Quinlan died last May. Will her heirs pursue the case?

I think in one of the recent rulings the board agreed to take some of them out of public view. My impression was that would protect the ability of the doctors working under Burzynski to defend themselves if there’s further action?

I don’t think it would. As I recall this fairly late tidbit, the issue was that the TMB wanted to be able to use material from the informal settlement talks, which Burzynski opposed, but Burzynski included some of the information in a response, and it was later decided that the material could be submitted under seal if things went forward, and the clerk was supposed to pull the original and replace it with a redacted version. (I believe I got this backward once before, so caveat lector; the response in question hadn’t been marked as redacted the last time as looked at it, so I’m not sure if that step was left off or if the response didn’t get replaced as it was intended to.)

Anyway, it doesn’t really impinge on the ability of the TMB to move forward in separate complaints, but that seems politically unlikely just on the basis of having blown this one.

edit-meant to say information on cancer support boards.

Lola Quinlan did die, May 2012. I located this, which indicates that Ms. Quinlan (or her estate), did prevail with the lawsuit against Burzynski and his pharmacy, when Burzynski overcharged Quinlan for chemotherapeutic drugs.

Did Burzynski then start to appeal that verdict…then make a motion to dismiss his own appeal…which was granted?

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/texas/first-court-of-appeals/01-12-00617-cv.pdf?ts=1344614867

By the way, don’t hold out much hope for the TMB of doing anything. PublicCitizen had a full article in the “Outrage of the Month” section in their Oct. Health Letter on the “Deficiencies of the Texas Medical Board.”
Essentially, “the report provides evidence concerning the inadequate capacity of the Texas Medical Board to protect Texas patients form preventable medical harm.”

Roger: “Burzynski has never once lost a legal case, because, uh, he is always found to be right.”

Rog, could you pass along this wisdom to the folks at Wikipedia?

“Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General,] and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result…
In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment.”

Jim

Ahhhhh…….relativism. The poltically correct notion that all ideas, however nonsensical, no matter how discredited, should be given equal weight when being considered.

You are just plain WRONG. Asking how Orac would have responded were the facts different is pointless. Search out and watch Terence Mckenna’s discourse on relativism on youtube to see why you are wrong, he explains why your point of view is ridiculous far more succinctly and amusingly than i am able to do.

Burzynski himself put his ideas outside the realm of what should be given serious consideration when he refused to back up his grandiose claims with actual evidence and began his 30+ year campaign of fraud against the desperate and confused.

Jim:

Your posts are too biased. I neither defend nor support Dr. Burzinski, but it is more than obvious that you are already too opinionated to write objectively (I actually doubt this has ever been a premise for you).

[sarcasm ]Yeah! Isn’t it terrible that Orac is so biased against taking tens of thousands of dollars from families who are just trying to cure their loved ones. Oh, and he just keeps asking, asking and asking for the papers for those clinical trials. Jeesh, those people were going to die anyway, so why not let Burzynski continue to let them pay for him to do his experiments. He will tell us the results when he is and ready to, he doesn’t need Orac, the FDA, and others to tell him how run his clinics. Right? [/sarcasm]

@ DFR: Orac has already blogged about Benny Hinn…and other faith healers:

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/02/10/benny-hinn-dark-lord-of-the-sith/

And…

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2010/11/19/for-shame-oprah-winfrey-shills-for-faith/

IANAL. I agree with Todd W’s post about the difference between an administrative hearing conducted by the Texas Medical Board and civil tort lawsuits instituted by Burzynski’s patients, or the survivors of those patients.

Orac and other science bloggers have posted about Burzynski’s “treatment” and the indiscriminate use of traditional chemotherapeutic medications. These blogs have had an impact on potential patients and their families. Perhaps some of Burzynski’s victims and or/their families will institute lawsuits against Burzynski and his staff. Enough negligence lawsuits against them, would result in them being uninsurable against medical malpractice.

@Todd W.

I did not miss anything. I spend days to cover all Orac has written about that case.

“Burzynski’s practices and work” is too broad in scope to comment on it in a definitive manner.

@MarkL

You have no idea what you are talking about, and you obviously had not idea what I was talking about. Hence, dismissed.

@Chris

Yes, and perhaps you think this is very different from what you are basing your sarcasm on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html

Oh, I forgot – these were real companies, real researchers doing real science. It is just 4 years = 80,000 people becoming victims – nothing to compare with 30+ years and hundreds dying from something that they would … have died from anyway.

If Burzynski is wrong (and probably he is), so is almost everybody else in this “business”. Oh, did we forget that Orac is perhaps in the same or similar business? Shifting the focus is a very convenient strategy. Finding a scapegoat while doing that is even better. Throwing accusations without presenting known facts of similar cases from the “real science field” is definitely subjective. All of this combined = biased representation. A fact, regardless of whether or not you like it. I understand your feelings and ego may be hurt, but try to detached yourself from them to see the world from a logical, objective point of view.

@All

As a matter of fact, I support more than 50% of what Orac has written about the case. But not acknowledging the obvious is simply a prejudiced behavior derived from specific personal experiences and motives.

Life is subjective, as is science. Don’t try to represent science as the only true solution to all problems – it is not. You know nothing about how exactly the human body functions at molecular level, as does Dr. Burzynski. Therefore, please don’t make huge conclusions based on superficial knowledge.

You could try to be more objective, because you can. You simply don’t want to. It’s called ego and defense of the own territory.

Jim,

You’re wrong to write “You know nothing about how exactly the human body functions at molecular level” as some out-of-hand straw-man dismissal.

Orac is a researcher as well as a surgeon – he has a decent enough knowledge of the molecular biology of cancer.

Likewise, some of us ‘@All’ commenting do in fact know molecular biology.

Regards your idea that Science is subjective: individual people might have their interpretations of data (like your own for that matter) but the data itself are the data – you can’t wave them away.

FWIW, I emailed the following to [email protected]:

There is a doctor in Houston, Texas, who runs an eponymous “cancer clinic”. He purports to have an “all natural” cancer cure called “antineoplastons”, that is not chemotherapy, and will cure when conventional treatment has failed, even on the most rare and difficult types of cancers.

In fact, he sells chemotherapy – conventional chemotherapy drugs – marked up far beyond the prices patients would pay at regular hospitals. He treats on a cash only basis, and has attracted desperate patients from the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia.

Many of these are parents who have young children that have been treated by experts. Rather than enjoying their last days together as a family, they spend time in run-down motels, having scraped together the needed cash through friends, family, charity appeals, and others.

Google searches will yield names of some of Burczynski’s victims, as well as a couple of former patients that were mad as hell when they found out they were being swindled.

Burczynski has, in the past, threatened people. See the Respectful Insolence blog (written by breast cancer surgeon and researcher Dr David Gorski) and the Quackometer blog (written by Andy Lewis) for further details.

I believe this would be a good story for ProPublica to research and write. Exposing Burcynski would help to make a case to have his doctor’s licence revoked by the Texas Medical Board, one of the laxest medical licensing bodies in the country.

There is more, but I am sure – should ProPublica decide to look into this story – you will find out how horrible it is, and how many lives he has touched for the worse.

Jim, how does other pharmaceutical companies doing bad things exonerates Burzynski charging tens of thousands of dollars to desperate cancer patients okay dokay? Or makes it okay to claim he is doing clinical trials when he has never published any results?

At least the those drug companies do publish results, and are required to have the unpublished data available.

By the way, Burzynski also owns real companies: his clinic and the pharmacy where he charges exorbitant prices.

Quickly again, cause work needs to be done. 🙂

@Grant

Please read carefully my sentence again. I’m not wrong, because I know what I’m talking about. Had you known “how exactly the human body functions at molecular level”, a cure for cancer would have been found.

Molecular biology touches only the surface. I’m talking about different spatial and temporal scales – access to which will provide a complete picture of the molecular processes within the human body. Yes, you do have some knowledge, but it just remains “decent”. Similar to the $200 billions over the last 35 years the US have invested in the “fight against cancer”. Scientific result = some “decent” progress. Real result = zero.

As for the subjectivity, how many times do you carefully and methodologically look at raw data coming from work done by other people, researchers, institutions? And how often do you just read the abstracts, introductions and conclusions of their reports? Give me these two numbers per number of reports per year and then we can talk about data and interpretation. Moreover, big (raw) data introduces even bigger biases.

@MarkL

You are funny too. Why do you think that I care about Burzynski? No need to convince me of anything – he is not the first, won’t be the last one to generate such a controversy. My point was that if he was a bad person of 100 on some random scale, there were many other people who would fell within the range 90-100, but apparently they served special interests and hence, better not talk about them. Objective and fair?

@Narad

No, it was not supposed to mean that. He also falls within the “not-knowing” category.
Grammar in comment sections in blogs is not my priority. When writing quickly, I often omit or misplace certain words/letters. Moreover, literature and language are not my strengths, so don’t claim proficiency.

@Chris

Let’s not go into the money thing, because healthcare takes 17.8% of the GDP of the country, so please. Healthcare costs faced by a cancer patient elsewhere are on the same order of magnitude as what Burzynski charges patients. When exactly the money is taken, before, during or after a clinical trial, is irrelevant from a patient’s point of view. It’s simply a “technicality”.

Drug companies have been required to provide their data to the public for about a couple of years now. Burzynski is not that different – sooner or later he will show you the data, what’s the problem? I don’t really see a big difference between his way of hiding data from the way drug companies and some researchers had hiden data for many years in the past.

@Orac

I disagree on two points:
1. You should go after all that do unethical things. Not “go after” Burzynski and just “keep an eye” on pharmaceutical. Bias?
2. How much does a human life cost? Let’s then talk about who behaves “more unethically”.

@DJT

This is actually a small list.
I know most of you would say that “all these companies did ethical things, but were unfortunately fined on technicality”…
Cheers!

Jim, project much oh great and mighty OZ?

Let’s say I claimed to have a dietary cure for advanced cancers–lots of fresh green veggies, for example, and for several decades I’d been charging patients 10’s of thousands of dollars to participate in clinical trials of my diet but refused to make public the results of these trials. Further, I insist that my patients purchase their veggies at a specific grocery store where a head of lettuce goes for $2800 and tomatoes cost $395 each (and which–what a coincidence–I own.)

Now top that off with the fact that not only do I offer no evidence my diet works, but the diet has previously looked at by multiple independent researchers and found not to be an effective cancer treatment (just as phenyl butyrate–the pro-drug for the metabolites Burzynski calls antineoplastins–had been evaluated extensively without evidence of practical efficacy.)

Would you still be saying “No biggie–sooner or later he’ll show us the data so -where’s the problem?

Okey-dokey. Exhibit 1:

Please read carefully my sentence again. I’m not wrong, because I know what I’m talking about.

Exhibit 2:

[Burzynski] also falls within the “not-knowing” category.

So, let’s play a game. Call it “Bunny Feedies.” Why was the cellular dynamics of non-purse-string wound healing well reckoned by washing out precisely the details of “molecular processes” that you’re nattering on about?

So, your argument is, Didymus Judas Thomas, that because of Big Pharma was naughty that it is okay dokay for Burzynski to charge tens of thousands of dollars to be part of his “clinical trials”, that he has conducted for thirty years but has not published are real results.

Please provide “FACTS” that support your false allegation that SRB “behaves more unethically” than Big Pharma in that he does things that Big Pharma doesn’t do.

Are you going to get to the question that was posed to you?

“The writer shows a huge bias in this post probably derived from his opinionated nature, personal experiences and biological & social instinct for survival pushing towards finding a culprit and exposing him (as a scapegoat), which makes the writings unattractive and highly subjective. 25% more objectivity by showing other sides of the same problem would make a pleasant difference. Otherwise, it looks like the author has something personal against some individual, named Dr. Burzynski in this particular case.”

Yup. Classic crap artist techniques. “In actuality, all I know about Orac is that my fee-fees get hurt when he says mean things about my pwecious Stanley. But if I talk about his ‘opinionated nature,’ ‘personal experiences,’ ‘biological & social instinct for survival pushing towards finding a culprit,’ I might fool some rubes into thinking I’m doing anything more than airing out my pie-hole.”

Fact: Burzynski has been claiming for thirty years that he has vital knowledge about how to treat cancer.

Fact: Burzynski has had thirty years to actually demonstrate the truth of that claim by doing the studies. He hasn’t.

Fact: Burzynski has instead over those thirty years enriched himself by misleading desperate patients into buying standard chemotherapy drugs at highly inflated, nonstandard prices.

Fact: Nothing that anyone else on Earth does – not Big Pharma, not Pol Pot nor Idi Amin nor Jeffrey Dahmer nor Charlie Manson – make any of the above less wrong for Burzynski to do.

How come you don’t care about cannibalism and murder, Diddums? Surely you can’t criticize Big Pharma unless you first criticize everyone who’s actually gone out and committed violent murder with their own hands, especially those who then go on to eat their victims! If not, aren’t you essentially giving a free pass to murderous cannibals by focusing on Big Pharma instead?

See, that’s the kind of absurd logic you get by refusing to realize that “tu quoque” is a fallacy. The fact is that Burzynski acts unethically and nothing obligates us to delay talking about his unethical acts until we’ve gone through all the conversational detours you’d love us to go through.

Chris, it is somewhat ironic that your Location is “Neither here nor there…” since “Neither here nor there” did I indicate that my argument was “that because of Big Pharma was naughty that it is okay dokay for Burzynski to charge tens of thousands of dollars to be part of his “clinical trials”, that he has conducted for thirty years but has not published are real results.”

I will be happy to accept your apology.

Chris, if I understand you correctly, you want me to do your research for you. Thank you for the opportunity to do your research for you.

Below are resources for your reading enjoyment.
You can access the link below re SRB and view the clinical trials. Please feel free to read the available information about exceptions to results being required to be submitted. Perhaps SRB’s work comes under an exception. You may contact them on their site by phone & live chat with any questions you might have.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resultsterm=Burzynski&Search=Search

Per-patient clinical trial costs have risen an average 70% across all development phases since 2008. Phase I per-patient costs increased an average 46%. Phase II costs increased an average 72%. The largest increases in per-patient costs came in Phase IIIa & Phase IIIb, which saw an average 88% & 86% rise, respectively.
The most significant factor for increased clinical trial costs is patient recruitment. This comes as no surprise because clinical development teams have struggled to enroll sufficient volunteers to fill trials for several years now.
Dramatic rise in cost to research & develop drugs that are eventually brought to market: In 1975, bringing a drug to market cost $100 million in 2012-adjusted dollars. By 2005, that figure had exploded to more than $1.3 billion, according to numbers from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.
The top 20 drug companies spend $30 billion on research & development, about 40% of which goes to fund clinical trials.
8 of the top 15 drug companies did not get the go-ahead for a single drug last year.
In 1980, drug companies spent some $2 billion on R&D, and 34 new drugs were approved. In 2000, they spent close to $30 billion, but only 24 drugs were approved.
Completing all the phases of clinical trials required for approval of a new drug can cost anywhere from $300 to $800 million.
Although the NIH budget has doubled in the past five years-with the implied purpose of encouraging the development of new drugs-the FDA’s budget remains inadequate to review these drugs for qualification.

http://www.pdpipeline.org/2011/clinicaltrials/recruitretention.htm

http://www.cuttingedgeinfo.com/2011/per-patient-clinical-trial-costs

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/07/clinical-trial-costs-for-each-patient-rose-rapidly

http://www.raps.org/focus-online/news/news-article-view/article/1359/report-phase-iii-clinical-trials-behind-increase-in-the-cost-of-pharmaceuticals.aspx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/25/how-the-fda-stifles-new-cures-part-ii-90-of-clinical-trial-costs-are-incurred-in-phase-iii

http://www.ciscrp.org/professional/facts_pat.html

Narad, did you read the post I posted before your post? Here is more interesting reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/dr-peter-breggin/drug-companies_b_1646934.html

Extreme tactics have also been used by other drug companies in regard to marketing psychiatric drugs for children. Drug companies allegedly paid 7 figures to 3 Harvard professors of psychiatry – who then went on to encourage diagnosing children with bipolar disorder & medicating them with antipsychotic drugs.

Diddums has just cited well known crank Peter Breggin, can Mercola, Adams and Null be far behind. Does anyone know if Breggin has been on Alex Jones’ Prison Planet?

1. You should go after all that do unethical things. Not “go after” Burzynski and just “keep an eye” on pharmaceutical. Bias?

Apparently there is an Internet Law that prevents Jim and any bloggers other than Orac from criticising ethical violations in the cancer-treatment field. Otherwise Jim would be able to “go after all that do unethical things” rather than demanding that Orac do it.

DJT,

Although the NIH budget has doubled in the past five years

What planet are you living on?

http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2010/05/10/the-post-arra-nih-budget-omg-a-cliff/

You can access the link below re SRB and view the clinical trials. […].
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resultsterm=Burzynski&Search=Search

Most commenters here are familiar with the clinicaltrials.gov database. It lists 62 trials under “burzynski”, most of them registered in a flurry of activity on Nov. 1 1999 which presumably corresponds to the opening of the legal loophole that Burzynski is exploiting. One of those 62 is someone else’s research on tuberculosis.

*One* study has been “completed” (in 2009; no results published); two have been “terminated” (i.e. abandoned without results due to too few subjects). Seven were “withdrawn” after seven years because Burzynski had not bothered recording any subjects at all. One (registered 2010) is not yet recording subjects.

The other 51 are all “status unknown” because Burzynski has not bothered updating the records with information about subjects.

Is this intended to convince anyone of Burzynski’s sincerity and commitment to testing the efficacy of his treatment?

So Jim has departed having been exposed as a troll. Did he ever put forward a real complaint other than “I don’t like Orac” ?

It is ironic in the extreme that his complaint was dressed up as “Orac holds a personal grudge against Burzynski”.

Some of your statements are not factual.
Which statements are not factual? Be specific.

Regardless, if you hold a single person so much accountable when evidences for a myriad of similar or even worse practices exist , my answer to your question would be Yes.

Would you argue we should not spend time and resources addressing domestic abuse and burglary as long as murders and armed robberies occur? A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.

It will be Yes until you realize how hypocritically you act by showing double standards.

Strawman fallacy–what double standard could you be talking about? No one here, and certainly not me, is arguing pharmaceutical companies should not be held accountable if and when they act in an unethical or illegal manner.

Didymus Judas Thomas, most of those are ongoing and not final reports. Did you even read the titles when you cut and pasted? The last one is just an editorial.

Now pick out one that proves Burzynski’s form of chemotherapy works better than present treatments. Just one, and quote the results.

As a comparison, tell us if it works better than Gleevec does for chronic myelogenous leukemia for the condition that the one report you choose is about.

Then go and find out what happened to the Phase 3 clinical trial. How many subjects have they recruited? Are they charging them?

Diddums, your Gish Gallup shows exactly what? Self-promotion of Burzynski, old and failed trials for safety and efficacy and zero replication. After 30+ years of this scam he still doesn’t have FDA approval.

Science Mom:

After 30+ years of this scam he still doesn’t have FDA approval.

As opposed to Gleevec. It took less than five years for it to be approved for a couple types of cancer.

JGC, that is why I asked him if he had even read the titles of those papers.

the biggest problem advocates of the various woo’s face isn’t that they have no evidence their preferred brand of woo is effective, it’s that they have no idea what evidence it works would look like.

@Didymus – so, no comment on the fact that the links you provided in PubMed don’t say what you think they say?

the above link I provided re Breggin; which I guess you did not read, is dated 2006 as far as the case. We all know that Wikipedia is a credible resource seeing as how under Burzynski / Legal issues, at the very bottom it cites a “review” where the “reviewer” didn’t actually “review” (watch) the movie

Um, something about a review of the Merola infomerical has precisely what to do with your LOOK A SQUIRREL injection of Breggin going on in the eminently “credible resource” HuffPo?

Christ:
Tell me the title, date and journal of the PubMed indexed paper where the results of those clinical are published.

Didymus Judas Thomas:
Chris, here are the PubMed’s:
[…]

I hope it is not unduly pedantic to point out that anything labeled “Preclinical studies” or “Toxicology study” is not clinical results.

JGC, please explain how I would have been able to provide the above links without following up on them.

Perhaps by going to the list of publications on the Burzinsky clinic website (www.burzynskiclinic.com/publications.html) and then pulling up the pubmed links without looking further? OR maybe you got lucky amd simply cut and paste the list with the pubmed links intact from one of the many websites Burzynski’s marks, convinced he’s the real deal, have set up to promote his clinic.

The real question, if we accept you did actually follow up and examine the citations you’ve offered, is however did you fail to realize they offer no evidence antineoplastins are safe or effective?

As far as I’m concerned that left it up to my discretion as to what to choose to post.

*Of course* it’s up to you what information you link to, whether or not it’s relevant or persuasive. This is an internet comment thread — not a Wikipedia page where someone else will delete your contributions if they’re bullsh1t.

The “Magic Word” is “Please.”

I thought the magic word was “abracadabra”.

@flip

Forgive my ignorance, but are studies allowed to be open-ended in terms of time scales? Is there any regulation that says the study lasts X long, and after that date, you need to get an extension and/or end the study? And if extensions exist, are there any limits on how long/how many you can get?

To my recollection, there are no such laws. However, IRBs who are doing their jobs would normally take a look at subject enrollment and expected targets, then decide that if enrollment is stagnant for some period of time, that perhaps the study should be closed, unless there is some very compelling reason to keep it open.

One way that his trials might be shut down is to target the IRB. If they persist in violating IRB regulations, they could be stripped of their approval. If that happens, then he would need to find a new IRB to oversee his studies. If he doesn’t do that, then his studies would be illegal, as they would be operating without IRB approval.

^ “having it pointed out”

@ Peebs:

You are so correct.

Didymus Judas Thomas:

Chris, do you have any “FACTS” supporting your innuendo that I did not read the titles? Please explain why I should “pick out one.” After all, I have not yet seen your apology and you have not used the “Magic Word.” You do know what the “Magic Word” is, right, Chris? The “Magic Word” is “Please.”

The fact that you claimed that some papers were results, when the titles clearly indicated they were not. I even included one of those titles. Now here it is again with some others:

ntineoplastons: history of the research (I).

Preclinical studies on antineoplaston AS2-1 and antineoplaston AS2-5.

Toxicology studies on antineoplaston AS2-5 injections in cancer patients.

Toxicology studies on antineoplaston AS2-1 injections in cancer patients.

Toxicology studies on antineoplaston A10 injections in cancer patients.

Chronic animal toxicity studies on antineoplaston A2.

Potential of antineoplastons in diseases of old age.

The present state of antineoplaston research (1).

Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme.

Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies

Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD: novel cancer research and the fight to prove its worth.

From reading the titles, I can see none of them are results of a full clinical trial. In fact, in some of the papers claiming to be “results” were actually opinion pieces. You were asked specifically before you posted that Gish Gallop:

Tell me the title, date and journal of the PubMed indexed paper where the results of those clinical are published. Then tell us why the one Phase 3 clinical trial is not allowing participants.

Though I did skip the word “trials” after the word “clinical.” This is a blog, typos and dropped words happen.

Now, please cite one paper that shows the clinical results that match the efficacy of Gleevec. And do you have an answer as to why the Phase 3 clinical trial is not allowing participants?

@ Narad:

Or-
DJT Dow Jones Transportation ( average)

Science Mom, have you read my previous post & links re the difficulties, time, and expense involved in obtaining FDA approval?

Believe it or not, I’m quite familiar with the FDA approval process and I’m not exactly feeling sorry for rich old Burzynski who has made his nut off the backs of desperate people. He has chosen to make claims of miracle cure then he had better have something to show for it; no one is keeping him from doing so.

Did you watch the Burzynski movie as I did & note near the end where it showed that it would take $300 Million for the FDA III trial? And that amount may have risen since then.

But of course, let’s decide treatment merit based upon a self-promoted and aggrandised movie. In fact, screw peer review and regulation, let’s pass drugs onto consumers based upon YooTube vids.

Aww, and poor wittle Burzynski sitting in his gauche mansion. What do you think venture capitalists are for Diddums? If he had such a great product, he would have no trouble getting investors. Why doesn’t he?

Antaeus Feldspar, please state “FACTS” that support your false claim that I “don’t care about cannibalism and murder.” The post in question is about SRB and that is what my writings have been directed at. Sure I can criticize Big Pharma first, because I live in The United States of America and have Freedom of Speech. I am not bound to discuss what you may want to discuss as an aside.

Wow, you really don’t have much self-awareness, do you?

We are discussing Burzynski. You are the one coming along and trying to tell us that we are violating some principle or other if we discuss Burzynski rather than Big Pharma, and that our violation of that principle indicates that we don’t want to hold Big Pharma responsible for its misdeeds.

My mocking suggestion that, if you wanted to focus attention on Big Pharma rather than cannibalism and murder, you would be violating a similar principle and indicating you didn’t want to hold murderous cannibals responsible for their acts, is what’s called a reductio ad absurdam. It’s a way of saying “your logic is BS, because you can apply it to a valid set of premises and yet reach this completely absurd conclusion.”

I’m afraid I made a mistake in assuming you could think clearly enough to draw the obvious connection between what you were facetiously accused of and what you had just accused us of. I’ll try not to overestimate you like that in the future.

Are we to read this as a concession that Burzynski has in fact no intention of conducting a Phase-III trial, and that his application to do so — and his claim to be recruiting subjects — are fraudulent?

Nice catch HDB. Perhaps Diddums will be along to throw another shiny object in our paths to avoid answering this.

In which case of course he’s a monster.

This is a test since I submitted a response to JGC over 4 hours ago which indicated it was under review for posting but hasn’t posted. So, I am seeing if my posting is being denied, or what.

JGC, did you actually access the link you provided? Because there are no links on the Publication page to PubMed. Please advise which SRB site has links to PubMed and/or matches the list I made from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed
Please explain to me how & when it became my responsibility to state an opinion re the efficacy of Antineoplastons (not Antineoplastins). Don’t take my word for it, read what the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/patient/page2
and American Cancer Society says:
http://m.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy

Non-SRB Antineoplaston 1990-1999 (in date order)
Theoretical investigations on the structure and potential binding sites of antineoplaston A10 and experimental findings. Michalska D, et al. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2092960
Pharmacokinetic study of radioactive antineoplaston A10 in rats and mice. Xu W, et al. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2092961
Studies of the release rate and bioavailability of antineoplaston A10 capsule. Wang H, et al. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2092962
The anticancer effect of antineoplaston A-10 on human breast cancer serially transplanted to athymic mice. Hashimoto K, et al. Nihon Gan Chiryo Gakkai Shi. 1990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2157780
Inhibitory effect of antineoplaston A-10 on breast cancer transplanted to athymic mice and human hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines. The members of Antineoplaston Study Group. Tsuda H, et al. Kurume Med J. 1990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2175003
3-phenylacetylamino-2,6-piperidinedione inhibition of rat Nb2 lymphoma cell mitogenesis. Wood JC, et al. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1991
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1871151
[Antineoplastons–structure, chemical properties and mechanism of activity]. Kochman A, et al. Postepy Hig Med Dosw. 1992. Article in Polish.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1308583
The inhibitory effect of the combination of antineoplaston A-10 injection with a small dose of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum on cell and tumor growth of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Tsuda H, et al. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1377669
‘Antineoplastons’. An unproved cancer therapy. Green S, et al. JAMA. 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1583762
Inhibition of estrogen stimulated mitogenesis by 3-phenylacetylamino-2,6-piperidinedione and its para-hydroxy analog. Copland JA, et al. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1993
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8217876
The influence of antineoplaston A5 on the central dopaminergic structures. Juszkiewicz M, et al. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7813388
Antiestrogenic piperidinediones designed prospectively using computer graphics and energy calculations of DNA-ligand complexes. Hendry LB, et al. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8180110
Synthesis of Mannich bases of antineoplaston A10 and their antitumor activity. Choi BG, et al. Arch Pharm Res. 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10319160
The effect of Antineoplaston, a new antitumor agent on malignant brain tumors. Sugita Y, et al. Kurume Med J. 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7474850
Cellular accumulation of antineoplaston AS21 in human hepatoma cells. Sołtysiak-Pawłuczuk D, et al. Cancer Lett. 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7850766
The influence of antineoplaston A5 on particular subtypes of central dopaminergic receptors. Juszkiewicz M, et al. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8529528
Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients. Tsuda H, et al. Kurume Med J. 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8667595
Inhibitory effect of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 on human hepatocellular carcinoma. Tsuda H, et al. Kurume Med J. 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8755117
3-[(Phenylacetyl)amino]-2,6-piperidinedione hydrolysis studies with improved synthesis and characterization of hydrolysates. Revelle LK, et al. J Pharm Sci. 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8897269
Enantioseparation of 3-phenylacetylamino-2,6-piperidinedione and related chiral compounds. Tang Y, et al. J Chromatogr A. 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8962498
Lessons from antineoplaston. No authors listed. Lancet. 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9091754
Lessons from antineoplaston. Silver H, et al. Lancet. 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9164346
Lessons from antineoplaston. Baldwin of Bewdley, et al. Lancet. 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9164347
Lessons from antineoplaston. Fahner JB, et al. Lancet. 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9164348
Lessons from antineoplaston. Tweddle S, et al. Lancet. 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9164349
Antineoplaston AS2-1 for maintenance therapy in liver cancer. Tsuda H, et al. Oncol Rep. 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21590224
Quick response of advanced cancer to chemoradiation therapy with antineoplastons. Tsuda H, et al. Oncol Rep. 1998
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9538158
[Assessment of early treatment results with antineoplaston AS2-1 in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis]. Sobczyk W, et al. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 1997. Article in Polish.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9591301
Antineoplaston treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Kumabe T, et al. Oncol Rep. 1998
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9769368
Synthesis of antineoplaston A10 analogs as potential antitumor agents. Choi BG, et al. Arch Pharm Res. 1998
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9875424
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma. Buckner JC, et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
[The evaluation of the use of antineoplaston AS2-1 treatment in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis]. Sobczyk W, et al. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 1999. Article in Polish.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10612094

@flip

Thanks – so it’s clear to me that if the IRB is corrupt, then the studies have very little chance of being done properly?

It’s not a surety, but it definitely ups the likelihood. Remember, the IRB is there to ensure that subjects are protected. They have the authority to shut down a study if the investigator and/or anyone else on the study is screwing up. If the IRB is not doing their job properly, then the risk to subjects goes up as the potential for PI shenanigans goes unchallenged.

In Burzynski’s case, the IRB overseeing his research was cited on quite a number of violations:

1) They did not ensure that risks were minimized and reasonable compared to anticipated benefits/knowledge to be gained.
2) They did not have written procedures for initial/continuing review of research involving a medical device. (Apparently, at least one study involved medical devices.)
3) They did not ensure that informed consent would be sought or documented.
4) They had voting IRB members who were directly involved in the research being reviewed (Carlton F. Hazlewood, the IRB’s chair, is an investigator on one study and advisor on the DSMB. Another IRB member was a coinvestigator of another study.)
5) They did not conduct continuing reviews for a couple studies, instead having only verbal conversations with the PI.
6) They did not keep complete copies of all study-related documents (protocols, consent forms, etc.).
7) They did not keep minutes of their meetings, recording who attended, who voted, basis for changes/disapproval, or discussion summaries of controverted issues and how they were resolved.
8) They allowed non-IRB members to vote in place of individuals who had conflicts of interest.

These violations were all documented in a letter to the IRB dated October 5, 2009. No close-out letter is recorded, meaning that either FDA just didn’t post it, or the deficiencies listed in the warning letter have not yet been corrected or any corrective actions have not yet been verified by FDA inspectors.

@DJT: Until you can prove to us ONE of those many copy/pasta links shows that antineoplastins are: 1)nontoxic (the only real study I know about them closed early due to toxicity) 2)effective at safe levels (not found) 3)safer and more effective than current treatments (not proven) then all you are doing is spamming.

Chris asked you many comments ago for ONE clinical study that showed antineoplastins were as or more effective than the fast-tracked chemotherapy drug. You haven’t answered that. Why not? And no, it’s NOT our job to find the study. You made the claim, you provide the proof. That’s how it goes (AKA: CITATION NEEDED).

Otherwise, we’ll just assume you are trolling. We aren’t as vicious to chew toys as they are on Pharyngula, but we do have fun with them.

@Didymus

Oh holy hell Batman, no wonder your comments ended up being delayed… Try fewer links next time.

@Todd W

It’s not a surety, but it definitely ups the likelihood.

Of course – with lax oversight there’s more opportunity to screw up, with more oversight there’s more opportunity to fix the screw ups.

But if the IRB in this case isn’t paying attention to the ‘no results for 30 years’ thing, then shutting down the study isn’t very likely is it?

Remember, the IRB is there to ensure that subjects are protected.

And in this case, it’s not doing much of anything to protect them from fee-gouging or from paying to be in clinical trials.

In Burzynski’s case, the IRB overseeing his research was cited on quite a number of violations:

So basically if the IRB isn’t doing their job properly, all they get is a letter? (Presumably law cases come after numerous letters) So the FDA/etc are really quite toothless in this whole case…

Yes, I did go the the clinic’s website and noted taht it didn’t include the pubmed links; as you recall I suggested puled up the links from pubmed and appended them to the titles before posting them here, without actually investigating the articles further. That’s the only way I can imagine you’d offer these articles, which represent review articles, poster abstracts and opinion pieces and don’t present any clinical study results, in response to Chris’ question “Tell me the title, date and journal of the PubMed indexed paper where the results of those clinical are published.”

Please explain to me how & when it became my responsibility to state an opinion re the efficacy of Antineoplastons (not Antineoplastins).

You’ve voluntarily expressed an opinion regarding antineoplastons, by arguing we should cese criticizing Burzynski’s clinic and simply wait and see. Surely that isn’t what you’d advise if you did not beleive they were potentially a safe and efficacious treatment for the advanced cancers his patients present?

By the way, which do you think he is– fraud, who is witholding publishing the results of his clinical trials because they provide evidence of antineoplastons efficacy, or a monster who’s witholding publication to maintain a very lucrative monopoly, thereby denying thousands of cancer victims access to the cure?

Minor correction to my last comment. FDA has its own set of IRB requirements separate from the Common Rule. Some differences are noted here.

The FDA can disqualify an IRB for failure to comply with regulations. If that happens, then:

(d) The Food and Drug Administration will not approve an application for a research permit for a clinical investigation that is to be under the review of a disqualified IRB or that is to be conducted at a disqualified institution, and it may refuse to consider in support of a marketing permit the data from a clinical investigation that was reviewed by a disqualified IRB as conducted at a disqualified institution, unless the IRB or the parent institution is reinstated as provided in 56.123.

Didymus Judas Thomas. how come you did not provide the one paper showing the clinical trial results that show Burzynski’s treatment is as effective as Gleevec, with direct quotes from the paper about the effectiveness?

Seriously how does a paper with a title like (going up to check the Gallop Gish) “Synthesis, spectroscopic characterization, stability assessment and DNA-binding of new 2,6-piperidinedione derivatives” in any the results of any clinical trial? How is one case report as in “Long-term survival following treatment with antineoplastons for colon cancer with unresectable multiple liver metastases: report of a case.” about a full clinical trial?

Come on, just one paper with a direct quote showing effectiveness equivalent to Gleevec for its particular type of cancer. If you do not answer as the question is asked, then we know that there are none.

Also, Didymus Judas Thomas, you have failed to answer why the Phase 3 clinical trial has no participants.

And we can ask why there’s been so much research and patents issued re Antineoplastons

Given that you plainly didn’t understand the papers you posted the first time around and apparently don’t grasp why that’s important, I suppose it would have been a bit much to expect the ability to extract information from journal titles or author lists, either.

Here’s a hint: When you see three identically titled Lancet articles in a row, they’re not original work. Moreover, “Baldwin of Bewdley” as author should really be a flag. However, I think it’s equally hilarious that you disgorged this one as an example of extramural antineoplaston “research.”

Narad:

Here’s a hint: When you see three identically titled Lancet articles in a row, they’re not original work. Moreover, “Baldwin of Bewdley” as author should really be a flag.

He never checked them, they are comments on an article, most likely not in support of Burzynski. Actually, he is having trouble with vocabulary, especially the concept of the “one.” One, as in a number between zero and two.

Didy,

Read our lips: patents mean nothing. Anyone can patent anything, if they thought of it first (except for a perpetual motion machine–they are “unpatentable.”) The patent office doesn’t give a crap if anything works or not.

And a Ralph Moss reference? Sheesh. What’s next? Whale.to? Mike Adams? Mercola?

What’s your point? Internet search on “Antineoplastons” “a form of chemotherapy” displays a google 2006 books link re “Get Healthy Now” (pg. 575) where SRB indicates that Antineoplastons are a form of chemotherapy.

Perhaps you’d like to take a look at the posts of Mr. Saunders, the parent of a Burzynski patient, who was clearly misled into believing that antineoplastins are not chemotherapy. That’s the point.

Perusing DJT’s citation gishgallop I notice that the number of citations about antineoplastons has been steadily declining, suggesting a steady decrease in interest.
1986-1989 13 citations = 4.3 per year
1990-1999 32 citations = 3.2 per year
2000-2009 18 citations = 1.8 per year
A further check myself also reveals:
2010-2012 1 citation = 0.3 per year
A close examination also reveals there is literally nothing of any substance in there. These are nearly all preclinical, in vitro, or animal studies with a few case reports, a few small uncontrolled studies of patients often also receiving standard treatment, some of unknown status (in Polish for example) and (as Narad noted) one social science study on how one of Burzynski’s trials ended up a complete shambles. Smoke and mirrors.

@Didymus – #1 – the point is Dr. B & his supporters are specifically telling people that his treatment is not Chemo – which is a lie.

#2 – Where are the “PUBLISHED” clinical results that show that Dr. B’s treatment is effective vs. conventional cancer treatments?

Direct question, DJT: to the best of your knowledge has Burzynski ever published results from a completed Phase II trial of antineoplastons which demonstrates their safety and eficacy at treating advanced cancers?

If so, where?

There are some (typical) unbelievable fan comments about Burzynski on the Healthy Home Economist link Orac provided above. In addition to plugs for Simoncini and Cantron, most comments are a response to this first comment from an unhappy former Burzynski patient:

I have experienced this treatment and this case is not the “persecution” you claim. This treatment is NOT harmless! It can be deadly itself. They don’t mention that when you show up. It was $20,000 upfront for the first few days of treatment. How is this not monopolizing?? Like chemo, it makes the patient sick and unable to function normally. It requires a complete overhaul of your life(and diet) and the lives of those around you. Not to mention the antineoplastons WREAK!! I cannot even describe the awful smell that you are subjected to all day, every day. It permeates the house, everything, and everyone it touches. While I’m sure the treatment works for some, so does just a dietary change, so does doing nothing, so does a placebo. The FDA approval doesn’t mean anything. If there’s enough money, the FDA has approved many drugs that are then found to be deadly. In our experience, every patient that we met while there was dead within 2 months of returning home.
I do agree that every patient should have the right to choose their treatment. However, there is a lot of info missing about this particular case and this clinic. The government may not be as unfounded in their case as you are leading people to believe.

There is a follow-up comment about how they never even got to meet Burzynski, etc.

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/case-dismissed-alternative-cancer-treatment-wins-big/#more-10776

The website is full of other Mike-Adams-style panic stories about ther perils of wireless baby monitors, Pop-Tarts, and other woo.

@Todd W

No need to follow up – I had just meant to explore the issue of IRB loopholes and oversight. It’s a side topic that I’m not informed about. Thanks for the links. I can set myself a little light reading when I have more time.

Actually, it makes me wonder about something else. Some years ago I remember havoc in the press due to a UK doctor who had been struck off there, working here in Aus. It concerns me that if Dr B gets royally trounced in the US, he’ll simply pack up and move somewhere else. I can guess that different countries might not care (ie. Mexico), but if he say, went to the UK, would he have problems developing research and/or setting up an IRB? As an example, Wakefield is not likely to attract any private or public funding anymore, but do IRBs ever decide to avoid a particular researcher? Can you shop around for IRBs? (Again, showing my ignorance of how this all works…)

@Didymus

What’s your point? Internet search on “Antineoplastons” “a form of chemotherapy” displays a google 2006 books link re “Get Healthy Now” (pg. 575) where SRB indicates that Antineoplastons are a form of chemotherapy.

Well sure, because books and patents are exactly the same as results from double blind placebo trials in a peer-reviewed journal. *rolls eyes

@MSII

While I’m sure the treatment works for some, so does just a dietary change, so does doing nothing, so does a placebo. The FDA approval doesn’t mean anything.

That worries me – they went to him, presumably to treat life threatening cancer, but dietary changes fixed it? Something doesn’t smell right. (And it’s not the antineoplastons)

DJT Dow Jones Transportation ( average)

Oh, I wasn’t kidding. There was what seemed to be an active “let’s try to put on a pump-and-dump” scene centered around BZYR for a while. I just happened to note that some of DJT’s poorly demarcated quote-barfs also (indeed, exclusively) appeared a while ago in association with PPHM. The former apparently no longer has a market maker and is off the OTCBB.

Wonder what the SEC filings would reveal…

Oh, you know, the usual.

The Company has not generated any significant operating revenue since its inception. The Company’s sole source of funding for its operations has been and continues to be payments made by Dr. Burzynski from funds generated from Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice pursuant to various arrangements between the Company and Dr. Burzynski.

@Todd W

Can you shop around for IRBs?

Short answer, yes, but you’re supposed to be open.

Ok, thanks. So if shutting down Burzyinski is also about going after the IRB, then the regulatory bodies need also to make sure he doesn’t just grab his 5 next closest buddies and offer them positions on a new one….

But without an IRB at all, he can’t do much of anything in terms of marketing the clinic/treatments. …?

Interesting find! Wonder what the SEC filings would reveal…

Do I recall a 21st Floor post about that? I can’t get the search to work there and I don’t have it bookmarked.

@flip

So if shutting down Burzyinski is also about going after the IRB, then the regulatory bodies need also to make sure he doesn’t just grab his 5 next closest buddies and offer them positions on a new one….

But without an IRB at all, he can’t do much of anything in terms of marketing the clinic/treatments. …?

He could try to set up another IRB under a different name, but he may have trouble with that. Might get more scrutiny due to past concerns about how he’s operating.

But, yes, without an IRB, he would not be able to get his antineoplastons approved for marketing, which means he could not advertise it for the treatment of any disease or condition. Also, all use of it would have to be within the confines of a clinical trial.

So can we assume that the brave maverick has seen the writing on the wall for his particular brand of thievery and is preparing to bolt for countries more amenable to con-men and fraudsters?

Looks more like a Colonel Sanders–type of setup that they’re after. The target countries (Bahrain, Dubai, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Qatar, Singapore, and Thailand) are something of a mixed bag.

Am I correct in guessing that Worldwide Medical Consultants, Inc — the other entity mentioned in that licensing deal between Burzynski’s various fronts — is itself another Burzynski money-laundering front?

This is difficult to say, given New Jersey’s system of providing public records. What it’s been doing for the past 14 years is certainly interesting. Still, if one entertains notions of Al Capone (I’ve really gotten the “bang bang” line in a taxi in Spain), I think one would really like to see how much revenue flux there is in a four-doctor clinic that seems to specialize in paternity testing.

MarkL, why should I try to find the RESULTS?

herr doktor bimler, “bullsh1t?” Wow! I wonder how many people will now follow your lead & use profanity because “the doktor did it!” I am so glad you used the “1” in it so as not to offend as much. :-O

AdamG, you have not yet advised me what solar system you are living in. So, you think it’s from 2012 but the link has 2011 in it. My research shows that that link was linked to another site as far back as 11/5/06, which as Narad pointed out, means that it likely applies to 1998-2003.

Todd W., No, “abracadabra” is Steve Miller’s “magic word” when he sings “Abra Abra Cadabra, I want to reach out & grab ya.”

flip, what’s your point? You write that “[p]atients do not pay anything, before, during or after a clinical trial.” Below are some sources which do not agree with you:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/understand?file=resources.html&amp%3bJServSessionIdcs_current=amq3u42ht9

http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/learningabout/payingfor

http://health.usnews.com/health-conditions/cancer/information-on-clinical-trials
Narad, I am amazed at your mastery of the English language! “[A]sshurt,” “sh*tty,” & “f*cking!!” The “*” sign really differentiates you from petulant “yoots.” However, I will not stoop to your level & ASSUME what your mental or emotional state is, because the “FACT” is that I do not know yours & you do not know mine, but I do know that you make an ASS out of U & ME when you ASSUME.

Peebs, nice try, but DJT refers to “Doubting Thomas.”
I think we should call Peebs “Peeps.” Do you “see” what I did there?

Denice Walter, you are so politically incorrect.

Narad, Dead Wood.

Chris, please point out where I stated that the PubMeds were “results” & cite which law or regulation requires the information you are requesting. Feel free to look up the contact for the Phase 3 clinical trial & e-mail or call them since you have so much time on your hands.

Science Mom, if you want to decide treatment based on a movie, that’s fine with me! Venture Capitalists are great if you want to turn over some of your decision-making power to the people with the money. Just think, instead of wasting $60+ million trying to go after SRB the gub-ment could have given the $ to NIH to fund clinical trials! You did know that earlier this year it was reported that some NIH funded trials were not being published up to more than 2 1/2 years after completion, right?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120103211056.htm
herr doktor bimler, read it as whatever you want to read it as, or you can go on the clinical trials site & look up the e-mail & phone # & use one of those resources to contact SRB & ask, or go on one of the SRB sites & look up the Public Relations/Media contact & contact them, or you can take the below video comments at face value that a new documentary is to be released re SRB in 2012, and watch it when it comes out to see if it answers your questions:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=jRua3NLg-Z8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjRua3NLg-Z
Antaeus Feldspar, your absurd conclusion is that you would rather spend more time & energy re SRB who you have not provided any information as to how much he has been fined, rather than Big Pharma who has been fined $13 BILLION in the past 4 years. The difference is that Big Pharma has violated laws significantly more than SRB.

Science Mom, see above for your “shiny object!” 😉

Lawrence, when Orac whined that SRB “got off on a technicallity,” did you ask him to offer a “real retort” like SRB did not “get off on a technicallity,” but he got off because the law is the law?

Todd W., yes, this is why the HHS filed 11 patents based on Antineoplastons.

M. Dawn, I am under no requirement to prove or not prove anything to you. I made what claim? As far as I’m concerned, based on your theory of thinking, your post is spam & trolling since it proves nothing.
Oh, and I should have added that I am under no requirement to show you anything.

A response to the father of a Burzynski patient – Respectful Insolence, SRB did not “slither away from justice again,” but like Orac, he did have good legal advice.

JGC, please cite where I argued that you “should cese (sic) criticizing Burzynski’s clinic and simply wait and see.” Should we assign any blame to NIH which was running a clinical trial re Antineoplaston & didn’t complete the trial but published the results of the incomplete trial?

Chris, why have you not apologized for misstating my argument?

Shay, from what I can tell, alot of this lot doesn’t question the “FACTS.”

Also, Chris, you have failed to say “Please.”

Marc Stephens Is Insane, you’re insane in the membrane because you have no verifiable “FACTS” that I did NOT read both articles.

Narad, you really are clueless, aren’t you? How would I have been able to provide the links if I did not actually access the actual page(s) with the information I linked to? Here’s a hint: you can search “Baldwin of Bewdley” on the internet like I did & see that this is the actual Title of a person. To me, “this one” is research

Marc Stephens Is Insane, did you access the link(s) & information & actually read what it’s about? What’s your motivation for not giving any indication that you’ve read the information available re the last 4 points of the post? What am I trying to prove that’s unproveable? What was Orac’s motivation for writing his comments on:
12/5/11 “[D]espite all of the attempts of Dr. Burzynski and supporters to portray them otherwise antineoplastons are chemotherapy…” &
12/12/11 “Why do his supporters (and, let’s be honest, Dr. Burzynski himself) portray his therapy as “nontoxic” and “not chemotherapy…” &
1/20/12 “…contrary to Dr. Burzynski’s claim that he doesn’t use chemotherapy…”
though my post indicates this is not the case since at least the book 11/1/2006. If SRB indicates one thing in a book, something else in a movie, and something else elsewhere, then people should fact-check it. Maybe some people should post less & fact-check more.
My motivation is that if I am expected to believe that the information on this blog is “FACTUAL,” then the people on this blog shouldn’t take everything Orac posts as “FACT” without fact checking it. Orac should be held to the same standard he is holding SRB to. If Orac wants to be believable then he needs to be less vitrolic & more factual. I can not force anyone to believe anything if they are not open-minded enough to believe. No I do not work for SRB. I am not being paid to post comments. Those are rediculous questions unless you have asked Orac if he works for Big Pharma & is being paid by them to post comments.

AdamG, I didn’t see you raise that issue on that blog, but I did. That’s my point.

Marc Stephens Is Insane, if SRB is indeed making claims that are not backed up by “FACTS,” then his feet need to be held to the fire like anyone else’s.

Kreblozen, it would be interesting to find out what the final result are of the research re the trial that ended up in complete shambles.

Narad, they can’t have it both ways. See my above previous reply to you re NIH. With all the fact-checking of people’s posts it takes time for me to reply because some people are making comments that are questionable when it comes to their “FACTS.” :-O

Lawrence: #1 – question the conflicting information. #2 – Why are you asking me? Find the law or regulation that requires it, contact their Public Relations/Media contacts like Orac has done, and post the results. Everyone on here should have the ability to find information on the internet.

JGC, I have not had time to address this since I’m too busy replying to everyone’s posts.

Chris, see above reply to you. How many people have posed questions to you today compared to me? Thank you for your impatience.

flip, I can see you don’t give a flip. Question conflicting information. It is the responsibility of the consumer to ask questions. That is the advice of the organizations I have posted links to today re cancer.

And we can ask why there’s been so much research and patents issued re Antineoplastons:

It’s an article of faith within the Burzynski support network that the US Gubblement has been using its dictatorial powers to deny the brave embattled researcher of his patents and of the recognition he deserves, so DJT has done everyone a favour by exposing this story as a load of cobblers.

@Todd W

He could try to set up another IRB under a different name, but he may have trouble with that. Might get more scrutiny due to past concerns about how he’s operating.

But, yes, without an IRB, he would not be able to get his antineoplastons approved for marketing, which means he could not advertise it for the treatment of any disease or condition. Also, all use of it would have to be within the confines of a clinical trial.

@Science Mom

Let’s not forget how easy it was for the Geiers to pull this off with their own hand-picked IRB and no clinical trial registration. This went on for years and I don’t recall their completely unethical IRB even being a point of charges against them. Although their malfeasance is so vast that I could be wrong on that.

Thank you both. That helps clarify things for me, and put into context the problems of regulation.

Didymus Judas Thomas:

MarkL, why should I try to find the RESULTS?

Simple, you are making a claim, therefore you must provide the evidence. So if you wish to prove that Burzynski is not profited from desperate cancer patients with false hope, you must prove his methods work as well as another treatment that does, Gleevec.

Chris, please point out where I stated that the PubMeds were “results” & cite which law or regulation requires the information you are requesting. Feel free to look up the contact for the Phase 3 clinical trial & e-mail or call them since you have so much time on your hands.

Again, if you wish to show Burzynski is not a quack, you must prove it.

Shay, from what I can tell, alot of this lot doesn’t question the “FACTS.”

Also, Chris, you have failed to say “Please.”

Actually I did, to both.

Now you must either answer the questions that show Burzynski is legit, or apologize for wasting our time.

Chris, see above reply to you. How many people have posed questions to you today compared to me? Thank you for your impatienc

Unlike you, when I make a statement I already have the evidence at hand, which I provide for as I make the statement. And as of last night, I answered many questions. Mostly from my daughter on how best to make an outfit she is designing. I also answered why my laptop was acting weird (cookies not being recognized, being told security certificates were expired): after it crashed it reset its time and date to be 2083 and everything was 70 years out of date.

Now, be a good boy and stop whining, just answer our questions.

Shay, from what I can tell, a lot of this lot doesn’t question the “FACTS”

Many of this lot are scientists, researchers and medical professionals, and hey’re doing a fair job of shredding whatever you’ve managed to produce. You’ve demonstrated that you’re doing a quick copy/paste without bothering to check the articles you’re citing to see if they support your claims. I am not a researcher or medical professional, but even I can spot the “throw it at the wall and see if any of it sticks” tactics, just by actually, you know, READING a couple of your links.

But carry on. It’s fun to watch.

Shay:

I am not a researcher or medical professional, but even I can spot the “throw it at the wall and see if any of it sticks” tactics, just by actually, you know, READING a couple of your links.

Also, the little whiny boy could not even be bothered to read the titles to his cut and pasta links! That has provided more than a few laughs.

jergen, and that makes it all more despicable that a whiny little boy, Didymus Judas Thomas, spends so much time trying to defend Burzynski without providing any real evidence.

Narad, I am amazed at your mastery of the English language! “[A]sshurt,” “sh*tty,” & “f*cking!!” The “*” sign really differentiates you from petulant “yoots.”

As I do not care to waste the time of our host with releasing comments from moderation for simple cursing, that’s the way it goes, pillock.

However, I will not stoop to your level & ASSUME what your mental or emotional state is, because the “FACT” is that I do not know yours & you do not know mine, but I do know that you make an ASS out of U & ME when you ASSUME.

Thanks for the profound schoolmarmishness. There’s nothing to assume. You plainly don’t understand why what you’re coughing up ranges from unimpressive to laughable.

Narad, you really are clueless, aren’t you? How would I have been able to provide the links if I did not actually access the actual page(s) with the information I linked to? Here’s a hint: you can search “Baldwin of Bewdley” on the internet like I did & see that this is the actual Title of a person.

I’m already able to recognize the style of a title in the peerage, you prat. As for accessing the “actual page(s),” no, I don’t think you went and dug up an actual article from, say, Биомедицинская химия (moreover, there’s a punchline if one does go after this one). Perhaps by “actual page(s)” you mean “PubMed entries.” However, in this case, you would have noted, for example, that the entry from Lord Baldwin doesn’t have any content there. It’s a comment on an editorial. It is this, you imbecile. And this you cite in a linksplosion of “research” that is supposed to stun people who have already observed that you can’t even make inferences about content from article titles with your towering mobile-device-based intellect?

To me, “this one” is research

Hammer & Jonas? Sure. But it’s not the sort of research that has any bearing on the point that you thought you had made. The fact of the matter is that you were too goddamned stupid to figure out that you embarrassed yourself the first time and therefore tripled down with the same routine.

It’s a comment on an editorial.

I was amused by Earl Baldwin’s turn of phrase in that comment, where he worries about “peer pressure”.

Antaeus Feldspar, your absurd conclusion is that you would rather spend more time & energy re SRB who you have not provided any information as to how much he has been fined, rather than Big Pharma who has been fined $13 BILLION in the past 4 years. The difference is that Big Pharma has violated laws significantly more than SRB.

Well, let’s ignore for the time being the idiocy of your still pursuing the tu quoque “you can’t say anything bad about my guru Stanwey until you’ve criticized everyone worse than he is.” Let’s also ignore the idiocy of thinking that fines are automatically proportional to wrongdoing and not being fined is therefore a sign of innocence.

Big Pharma is the term you’re using to refer collectively to, let’s see, how many multinational corporations? At least ten multinational corporations? And you’re seriously suggesting that SRB can’t come in for his fair share of criticism until he does more wrong (as measured by amount fined) than ten-plus multinational corporations?

Tell you what, Diddums: why don’t you go out and find us any one individual who was fined $13 BILLION dollars? If you can’t find one, you have two choices: you can either assert that obviously, no individual on earth can be criticized for wrongdoing because no individual matches the infamy of ten multinational corporations, or you can acknowledge what the rest of us already know, that trying to absolve one individual by comparing them to a plethora of multinational corporations is pretty damn stupid.

DJT:
Did you watch the Burzynski movie as I did & note near the end where it showed that it would take $300 Million for the FDA III trial?

Me:
Are we to read this as a concession that Burzynski has in fact no intention of conducting a Phase-III trial

DJT:
herr doktor bimler, read it as whatever you want to read it as, or you can go on the clinical trials site & look up the e-mail & phone # & use one of those resources to contact SRB & ask, or go on one of the SRB sites & look up the Public Relations/Media contact & contact them…

Dude, I am asking you for a clarification of your comment. How in the name of $DEITY is any advice from Burzynski going to help me understand what you meant when you cited the high cost of a Phase-III trial as a justification for not performing one?

DJT,

Kreblozen, it would be interesting to find out what the final result are of the research re the trial that ended up in complete shambles.

I can help you there. It (PMID:10069350) only accrued 9 patients because of disagreements between Burzynski and the NCI and only 9 were eligible for the study. Here’s what Vickers had to say (PDF) about this study:

All six patients eligible for the study showed evidence of tumor progression after treatment durations of between 16 to 66 days. Neurologic side effects occurred in five patients. The mean time to treatment failure was 29 days. All nine patients died, eight of whom died due to tumor progression. Study authors concluded the study with the following statement: “The efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 remains uncertain. We were unable to document efficacy in any of six assessable patients.”

@Didymus

flip, I can see you don’t give a flip. Question conflicting information. It is the responsibility of the consumer to ask questions. That is the advice of the organizations I have posted links to today re cancer.

And I can see you like sentences that are too all over the place to make any sense, Gish gallop and preference for assertions over evidence. Oh, and that sentence above also suggests you enjoy strawmen.

Here’s what I said to you last:

Well sure, because books and patents are exactly the same as results from double blind placebo trials in a peer-reviewed journal. *rolls eyes

If you missed my point, let me spell it out for you. Anyone can get a patent on anything. You don’t need to actually make something in order to get a patent. In fact, many items haven’t been made. Getting a patent only means you had the time, energy and money to fill out a form.

Books aren’t peer-reviewed. Here’s why they are useless as evidence.

Feel free to question conflicting information. But you might want to try raising your standards a little as to what you accept as information. For example, plenty of books and patents exist on blood letting. It doesn’t mean that that old pre-scientific technique worked though. (Most of the patents I saw on the US Patent website were for legitimate blood letting stuff – from what I could tell, things like blood collection, etc. Still my point holds true)

But why do I waste my breath? It’s clear you don’t care about that stuff, you just want us to pat you on the head and say “you’re right”. Shifting the goal posts (float like a butterfly, sting like a bee seems to be an apt way of describing your antics) and making distracting arguments is nice and all, but you still haven’t provided us with any reason why we should accept Burzyinski’s methods work: since he hasn’t even done that himself.

Also, see Marc’s reply to you about the clinical trial payments. The links you supply suggest, at best, that a patient may have to pay some side costs – ie. what you’d pay to see a doctor as part of your illness anyway – but none state that you have to pay for the research costs themselves. In other words, you wouldn’t normally be paying $300k or more for participation. The others are right, you’re not reading what you’re posting links to.

@Science Mom

He’s making money without approval; he has no intention of getting approval so enough with the boo-hoo poor Burzynski can’t fund regulatory hurdles.

More to the point, if he can afford a multi-million dollar home, he can afford to put it up for sale to pay for a proper trial.

float like a butterfly, sting like a bee seems to be an apt way of describing your antics

Please, let’s not sully Ali here. DJT is more along the lines of Reggie Strickland.

offtopic:

Politics at casa securivm: http://www.securivm.ca/2012/12/why-are-we-glutton-for-punishment.html

Let me know, on the blog, if it’s inappropriate to post here.

Alain

@Narad

Please, let’s not sully Ali here. DJT is more along the lines of Reggie Strickland.

Forgive me, sports is not in my vein of interest. It was the first thing that popped into my mind. DJT’s writing style has a feel of hopping from one foot to another trying not to get caught.

Posted on the response to Saunders, but will repeat here:

People should check out the excellent and heavily resourced post on Josephine Jones that recaps a lot of the info about Burzyinski. It’s a bit of an encyclopedia of newspaper articles, blogs, papers, and a historical account of various issues:
http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/burzynski-blogs-my-master-list/

Thats it DJT?

Your position of last resort is to just to be a blatant troll? I knew you were thick, but I hadn’t guessed quite how thick!

Ah, I see now. DJT is just a promoter for a new ‘movie’.

Nice to see that he’s really not interested in answering my questions.

Book by Sawanobori including information about him

So, now you’re down to appealing to the authority of a Japanese proponent of intravenous vitamin C quackery? Well done.

Narad, how old are you? 9? Because that’s what your choice of coarse language suggests.

When was the last time that a nine-year-old called you a prat, Fanny? Have some salad creme and relax.

And if you are “already able to recognize the style of a title in the peerage,” why did you write on 11/30/12 that “Baldwin of Bewdley” as author should really be a flag,” but not state why it should be a flag?

Well, I was mocking you on the grounds of general ignorance, so I don’t know that I’m really responsible for providing an exercise key.

Way to ASSUME that i somehow attempted anything “that is supposed to stun people.”

Oh, look, it’s the magic teaching puzzle again.

Since you obviously have the miraculous power to read my mind, what is the “point that” I” thought “I” had made”?

Precisely that which you stated at the outset of your humiliating and comically inept self-immolation: that these offererings represented support for the assertion that “there’s been so much research.”

Didymus Judas Thomas, you are pathetic. As a acolyte of Burzynski you are adept at using the Gish Gallop, but completely unable to find one paper that shows his methods are as effective as Gleevec for the treatment of any cancer. It is truly sad that you spend so much time defending a fraud without any evidence.

@DJT

Do you understand the meaning of the word ‘prove’ or ‘evidence’? You’re like those people who insist it’s up to everyone else to disprove god.

Your word salad Gish gallop is almost incomprehensible. Can you perhaps slow down and take small bites?

The rest of your comment about who pays for what in a trial either shows you can’t/won’t read, or you have trouble understanding English. Is it not your native language?

In none of the above have you even come close to proving that Burzyinski has published evidence, that you have provided it, or that we should stop asking for it for any reason.

The reason why Earl Baldwin of Bewdley is a red flag when discussing alternative medicine is that the same reason Kent Hovind would be a red flag if we were discussing evolution: Baldwin is a known and prominent promoter of woo, who as a member of House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine wrote a report in support of homeopathy.

Narad, www . radaris . com/p/Dvorit/Samid

Antaeus Feldspar, if you don’t watch out you’ll have a brain aneurysm trying to prove that False Positive! 😮
Please cite the post(s) & their date which you misguidededly think exists, proving that my guru is Stanwey. I’m seriously suggesting that you & others are expending more energy on SRB than on executives from GlaxoSmithKline; which was fined the biggest drug co fine to date of $3 BILLION, yet no executives were fined.
“What we’re learning is that money doesn’t deter corporate malfeasance,” said Eliot Spitzer, who, as New York’s attorney general, sued GlaxoSmithKline in 2004 over similar accusations. “The only thing that will work in my view is C.E.O.’s and officials being forced to resign and individual culpability being enforced.”
Others have said that to institute real change, executives must be prosecuted criminally or barred from participating in the Medicare & Medicaid programs, an action known as “exclusion.”
This has occurred in only a handful of cases, and rarely in a case involving a major pharmaceutical company. In 2011, 4 executives were sentenced to less than a year in prison for conducting clinical trials that were not authorized by the FDA.
That same year, the former chief executive of a drug co was sentenced to 30 days in jail & fined $1 million for selling misbranded drugs.The previous year, HHS excluded him from doing business with the federal government.
www . nytimes . com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html?pagewanted=all
Yet Glaxo earned $27.9 BILLION on 3 drugs during the time-period covered.
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued GSK in 2004; which earned $3 BILLION in 2003 on the drug in question, alleging they misled doctors by concealing it’s adverse effects & released only 1 out of at least 5 studies on the drug:
www . ecommercetimes . com/story/36159.html
That an internal memo said that in light of the poor study results, the company’s “target” was to “effectively manage the dissemination of these data in order to minimize any potential negative commercial impact”. It says that the company also gave its salespeople a memo stating that the drug “demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety…” Attached to the memo, the suit says, was the 1 published study that showed some positive results:
www . nature . com/drugdisc/news/articles/429589a.html
Estimated that the drug was prescribed to 2.1 million people & earned $55 million that year:
www . ag . ny . gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/bureaus/health_care/newsletters/hcnews_junjul04.pdf.
“Because so much drug company data submitted is considered proprietary, it is up to the F.D.A. to decide when to disclose possible safety concerns.”
www . nytimes . com/2004/06/03/business/spitzer-sues-a-drug-maker-saying-it-hid-negative-data.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who’d sued GlaxoSmithKline previously while serving as New York’s attorney general – argued that seeking monetary damages isn’t going to change most problematic practices of the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, they say, we should seek criminal charges against specific executives, the risk of jail time being the only way to actually change behavior. In the last 3 decades, the FDA has become increasingly dependent for its continued functioning upon user fees paid by the very drug makers it’s meant to regulate.
www . ideas . time . com/2012/07/06/glaxo-fine-what-will-stop-big-pharma-fraud

W. Kevin Vicklund, look behind you.
www . thenhf . com/article.php?id=3326

www . healthlifee . com/disease/cancer/12754-the-many-trials-of-dr-burzynski.html

https: // docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ElTW2l484TUJ:www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/storage/Research%2520-%2520Digital%2520Library/jennings-hsa/Box%2520038/647904-correspondence-buryznski-stanislaw-2.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgTZjL8ZaHuyFVVZ0jgSthZTEd8IBSj7m6E5EMiBgMAUm_HuXZAcTRaEKxJRaspiDlO_AOwyTAe4aNl162ddc5prFMX69WVZrUQGDICVkfKRmYzm2JZElyyYWeh07F6ejJ4Rc2j&sig=AHIEtbS2iobO2tOSfDKA6P9-zBxSvBnaSw

https: // docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Q5CJZ7wMlm8J:dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9453691/mstennes.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgpwuCsrSXG4QtI80dh0bj5gapqSiOCt–5MZHN1yPkemicxoBErvoU4OS9_rjKlHo7KR7afzi_YKNmo-0nyWUR7kOYuv8nNR7jy1s3MKTlBdeDCxBqURMWNOCvcB2JxOlowbaG&sig=AHIEtbQ-32lniQlIAduG2ZMSTX1gbT-Qgg

https: // docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:gU3fCI4uOhoJ:www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/storage/Research%2520-%2520Digital%2520Library/jennings-hsa/Box%2520038/647904-correspondence-buryznski-stanislaw-1.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg507sz38woNzSvUboFoihXr6CgDyiY6p66MlI25LflJhDbA3QtD9YQrRfF495cxXLGlxNwiAYKKTgMZ5GS92TRs5iVU8WnRKh5FmM2HDcuLOTYwuW5Y7Sbd5YKqMEH1FL45fxT&sig=AHIEtbRe80fGTp17jpbBUtVjafDB-3O0MA

Lawrence, please enlighten me on how my 2 11/28 posts
were proven incorrect, for example.

MarkL, let me guess, you suffer from insecurity? You perhaps posit that people are not interested in the Trailer or anything else which might answer some of the questions they have posted on this blog.

Lawrence, did you view the trailer?

flip, I think we know who’s getting more questions from other posters on here, and it’s not you!

Narad, I haven’t been to Limey Blimey Pea Soup Country. Have some tater salad & relax. And I am mocking you on the grounds of feigned ignorance. You should learn how to use that “matching teaching puzzle.” Have you ever solved a Rubix Cube? Research like those in the above last link to Science Mom?

Chris, you are more pathetic because of your “stick-my-head-in-the-sand” ostrich-like standing that you are so physically & mentally inept that you keep positing theory along the lines that ignorance of the law is an excuse.

CONCLUSION: Antineoplastons contributed to more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients.

Um, one cannot legitimately arrive at this conclusion, given the “design.” Did you get this from Moss again? Do you understand why ICT is not exactly an impressive source?

DJT is a true blue Burzynski fanboy who has graduated into a full troll. Time to ignore him.

Insecurity?

Not at all Diddums, I just think it pointless to argue with a Burzynski fanboy who ignores any request for even the smallest sliver of evidence that the object of his perverse support is anything other than a con man, yet continues to post advertorials and puff pieces from dubious sources as “proof” that the maverick doctor deserves other than ridicule and condemnation.

Everything you have posted in this thread adds up to a big fat zero, you have achieved nothing other than to make yourself look ridiculous.

I love the sources Didy provided written by Dr. Julian Whittaker, a very special kind of quack who has been discussed here by Orac (and debated with Orac!) in depth.

A master of the graph.

He’s in Burzynski’s back pocket because of that anti-aging project they’ve been working on and he is the only doctor who will speak out in support of Burzynski (not counting the two anonymous doctors in the new movie trailer). What else do you expect? They’re partners.

By the way, I strongly suspect the Asian Burzunski clinics he’s looking to open will heavily promote the anti-aging angle of his business. Just a hunch.

And he’s also a scientology doctor who endorses their lethal Narconon program.

Sorry, I put an extra “t” in Whitaker’s name.

Here’s part of his entry on Wikipedia (I know, I know, but the sources are good…):

Whitaker opposes the use of pharmaceuticals in the treatment of mental illness and believes that psychiatry is fraudulent. In a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, Whitaker states that psychiatric diagnoses have “no basis” and are fabricated or voted into existence by powerful groups of doctors with financial interests. The combination of medication and talk therapy endorsed by psychiatry is a “script”, says Whitaker, who claims in the interview that his golden retriever can provide talk therapy just as well as a psychiatrist. According to Whitaker, vitamins, such as those promoted on his website, can cure psychiatric disorders by improving general health.

Whitaker claims to be a leading expert in “anti-aging medicine.

Furthermore, does he think we’re not aware of all the puff pieces, vanity articles, insignificant studies published in non-credible journals, etc.? Or support editorials by other quacks? Several of those pieces have provided fodder for Orac and other science bloggers in recent times, to be explained, debunked or ridiculed.

I’m suprised he hasn’t posted the Dr. Oz/Eric Merola TV interview yet.

Denice,

Whitaker is “board certified” in anti-aging, except there’s no such thing.

By the way, someone named “Leah” posted a comment triumphing the Burzynski dismissal and championing other brave mavericks like Budwig. The comment seems to have been lost in the shuffle as there are no replies, and it’s a few comments up from the end, so I thought I’d bring it to your attention in case anyone feels like doling out some respectful insolence.

@DJT

I will only bother in reposting what Krebiozen said:

DJT,

You still don’t understand what the tu quoque fallacy is, or what a controlled clinical trial is, apparently. You swamp this blog with references to articles about Burzynski, none of which are good evidence of anything, and then claim you are not supporting him. What was the point of posting all those links? If you are trying to destroy any small amount of remaining credibility you have left, don’t bother, you lost it all some time ago.

and Science Mom and I are in agreement:

Sorry, can’t keep track of your incoherent word salads.

I have no idea what you were trying to say to me.

It seems her entire post, lock stock and barrel was lifted right off a Burzynski site, or Facebook posting.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Leah’s post. Burzynski definitely belongs in the same category as Gerson, Rife, Hoxsey and Budwig. Just not the way she means.

Leah’s post actually made me aware of some other quacks I’d never heard of, and have been merrily Googling them too. Some serious fruitcakes and nutbars in that list. I love the people who believe shining coloured lights on different parts of your body can heal.

From Leah’s post:

The bottom line is this; if it’s owned or patented by a private individual, or can’t be patented at all, and can be used to cure cancer especially, you are not going to be allowed to practice your craft or use the technique or substance as a treatment and especially call it a “cure,” as long as the medical establishment can help it, thus far at all costs.

But it seems as if the medical establishment has so far been unable to stop Burzynski from “practicing his craft” so the entire paragraph is meaningless.

I came across this earlier tonight: the blog of another Burzynski patient who died this past summer, six-year-old Supatra Adler. There’s a chart of all the treatments the parents were forcing this little girl to undergo beside the antineoplastons. They had her on Thai herbal medicine, mushroom extract from Taiwan, grapeseed extract, algae (to “detox” from radiation), several large glasses of juice a day (Gerson?), AND a Budwig diet. They complain that the little girl didn’t take to the cottage cheese and flax seed: what six-year-old eats that?

Take a look at this chart:

http://supatrascancerfight.blogspot.ca/p/treatments.html

I will always have a soft spot for Reich, for inspiring Trevor Constable to become one of the great lunatics of our time.
http://www.trevorjamesconstable.com/

flip, I knew in your rigorous search for the truth that you would want to know any new information on SRB that comes to light. 🙂

Militant Agnostic,
$1.58 BILLION: Drug co’s & healthcare marketeers projected to spend on online advertising in 2012:
www . pharmalot . com/2012/06/pharma-will-spend-how-much-advertising-online
19 times more: Amount drug co’s spend on self-promotion compared to basic research.
$200 BILLION: Amount drug co revenues rose between 1995-2010
www . huffingtonpost . com/mobileweb/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html
$6+ BILLION: Amount of revenue earned by top 5 drugs 3rd Quarter 2012:
www . fiercepharma . com/press-releases/drugscom-releases-q3-sales-top-100-us-drugs-singulair-drops-nexium-and-abil
$307+ BILLION: Amount spent on prescription drugs in USA 2010
http:// mobile . pharmacytimes . com/publications/issue/2011/May2011/Top-200-Drugs-of-2010
Marc Stephens Is Insane, yep, unfortunately people die.

Narad, I expected no less from you. Bring up Vitamin C & ignore his other research, publications, and education. Well done!

Chris, you are apathetic. Like a misguided chicken little dissumulator. It is truly sad that you spend so much time trying to prove a False Positive by claiming that I am defending a fraud without any evidence, because you’re unable to cite said evidence, because it doesn’t exist!

MarkL, who famously has no FACTS to support his position: “MarkL, please cite any post(s) & their dates that buttress your misguided belief that I “claimed that” I was “not asked for results.” At least I am an Adult who does not need to stoop down to your level of adolescent name-calling.”
Or do you clearly have no intention of answering any of the questions put to you, and are more intent on frustrating the debate than in joining it”?
Please do not feed MarkL “London Broil.”

flip, do you understand the meaning of False Positive? Can you prove the devil? Do you have a Gish Gallop Poll (or Pole) where you live? Do you have trouble understanding American English? Is it not your American native language? Have you ever opened Black’s Law Dictionary? It’s not my responsibility to “even come close to proving that Burzyinski has published evidence.” You as a Human Being; if you are indeed one instead of a Bot or Pet Rock, should be inquisitive enough to research things yourself instead of asking people to spoon feed it to you. Is the above post which has at its end, the HighWire Stanford University edu site, the “Research” you want?

Lawrence, read between the lines.

JGC, OH MY Goodness! Homeopathy!! Why that must be like sacrilegious!!! It reminds me of the story of the FDA vs. John S. Najarian:
http:// dash . harvard . edu/bitstream/handle/1/9453691/mstennes.pdf?sequence=1

www . ncbi . nlm. nih . gov/m/pubmed/7575112

www . mndaily . com/1996/02/22/najarian-acquitted-all-counts

http:// minnesota . publicradio . org/display/web/2006/02/28/uofmhospital

www . surg . umn . edu/Faculty_Alpha/najarian_john_s/home.html

www . surg . umn . edu/Faculty_Alpha/najarian_john_s/najarian_cv/home.html
flip, i see the idea lightbulb appeared above your head! Yes, I am saying I’m neutral as indicated in my 12/1 post.
Ever heard of the American Language?

Narad, do you need glasses? I’m concerned about your eyesight. Have you considered LASIK? Did you see the NCBI NLM NIH gov site link? I didn’t get this from Randy Moss. People can whine about ITC all they want.

Krebiozen, I really don’t give a “flip” about tu quoque. Do you know what law & regulations are? Black’s Law Dictionary? How to file a lawsuit? So your fallacy is that to neutrally post things so people can draw their own conclusions about the credibility of the information … oh wait! I think this is one of the reasons that the American Revolution against the British happened! Here’s my suggestion. Take your issues to the FDA.

Chris is a true blue Gleevec fanatic. Side Effects Associated With GLEEVEC: Some of these side effects may be minor, others could be very serious. Severity of some side effects may be reduced with the help of other medicines, others may require stopping therapy for a while or changing the dose. In some cases, therapy may need to be discontinued. Serious side effects: Severe fluid retention (holding water) & swelling, Cytopenias (reduction of certain elements in blood circulation), Severe congestive heart failure (impaired ability of the heart to pump blood) & left ventricular dysfunction (impaired functioning of the left side of the heart), Severe liver problems (hepatotoxicity), Hemorrhage (abnormal bleeding), GI perforation (holes in the stomach or intestine), Hypereosinophilic (a condition with increased eosinophils, which are a type of white blood cell) heart disease, Skin reactions (such as fluid-filled blisters), Hypothyroidism (reduction in thyroid hormones), Potential toxicities from long-term use, specifically liver, kidney, and/or heart toxicities, Potential harm to an unborn child, Growth retardation (slowing of growth), Tumor lysis syndrome (electrolyte disturbance), Dizziness, blurred vision, & somnolence. Common side effects: Almost all patients experience side effects at some time. Most side effects are mild to moderate in severity. Some common side effects that you may experience include: Fluid retention (holding water), Muscle cramps, pain, or bone pain, Abdominal pain, Anorexia (loss of appetite), Vomiting, Diarrhea, Decreased hemoglobin (decrease in blood cells which carry oxygen), Hemorrhage (abnormal bleeding), Nausea, Fatigue, Rash. It is especially important to tell your doctor about any fever, shortness of breath, blood in your stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin and/or eyes), sudden weight gain, symptoms of heart failure, or if you have a history of heart disease or risk factors for heart disease.
www . gleevec . com/patient/kit-gist/gleevec-therapy/side-effects.jsp?usertrack.filter_applied=true&NovaId=4029462064338618122
Sounds like fun!

Science Mom, you disappoint me greatly, but I guess there is a lot of science involved in using the “Search” function for this blog. So … you made the claim but can’t remember your claim. But this’s the same NIH which funded him 1974-1976! 😮
http:// books . google . com/books?id=ImIJAAAAIAAJ&q=Burzynski&dq=Burzynski&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&output=html_text&cd=52
MUAH !! (Multiple Unsuccessful Attempts at Humor) Please cite any “FACTS” that substantiate your hallucinatory fantasy that Burzynski is my mate. NCCAM funds Ducks? The “clinical trials” in the above post to Science Mom where I provide a link for HighWire Stanford edu?

MarkL, I just think it pointless to argue with a LIAR who has no reply for “MarkL, please cite any post(s) & their dates that buttress your misguided belief that I “claimed that” I was “not asked for results.” At least I am an Adult who does not need to stoop down to your level of adolescent name-calling.” You LIE when you write that I am “a Burzynski fanboy” as you have not onw iota of evidence in support of that: because i dont live in the same State as him, have never met him, have never communicated with him, don’t personally know anyone who has met him, and have never received anything from him. Who LIES when he writes that I am one “who ignores any request for even the smallest sliver of evidence that the object of his perverse support is anything other than a con man” since you don’t have a scintilla of evidence that I support SRB or in the least exhibit perverse support for him or “yet continues to post advertorials and puff pieces” which is another LIE as I was the one who pointed out on 11/30/12 the Internet search on “Antineoplastons” “a form of chemotherapy” displays a google 2006 books link re “Get Healthy Now” (pg. 575) where SRB indicates that Antineoplastons are a form of chemotherapy…’ & pointed out “Orac writes: “[D]espite all of the attempts of Dr. Burzynski and supporters to portray them otherwise antineoplastons are chemotherapy…” and you LIE when you post that my information is “from dubious sources as “proof” that the maverick doctor deserves other than ridicule and condemnation.” You cite not 1 dubious source & you also conveniently do not point out that I’m the one who pointed out on 11/30/12 the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health & American Caner Society had information re Antineoplatons & SRB, thusly proving the last sentence of your post to also be a LIE.

W. Kevin Vicklund, you’re the one who asked: “Whose ass did you pull that number out of?” Didn’t you feel it come out of you right after you realized what a stupid question that was to posit in that manner? So you blithely ignore the author of the article & write her off as: “Not a reliable source.” However, you write “no source other than Burzynski” as if you were in the room with writer of the article, and state no FACTS to support your claim. You also write “author not involved in the trial in any capacity.” However, this proves nothing as the information could have been obtained from Attorney Rick Jaffe or through a Fredom of Information Act (FOIA) request or by other means. Would you care to try & pull a rabbit out of a hat?

Marc Stephens Is Insane, are you a curmudgeon? Because there is a Search function on the blog which allows you to search for “Whitaker,” and come up with nothing. Please cite the post(s) & date which contain Whitaker as the source.

Alain, I think there are quite a few “characters” trying to “ventilate” my posts without much success.

Narad, if you can’t remember what you wrote that I’m replying to, then maybe you’re just writing superfluous material.

flip, why am I not surprised you need someone else to reply for you? Don’t worry, people who have a lollipop as their picture generally have no idea what someone is trying to say to them.

DJT< regarding Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
This paperdoes not give results from a double-blind, randomised clinical trial. Instead it includes subjects from four different trials, without stating what trials they were part of. Burzynski has cherry picked subjects from separate trials to make a false case for antineoplastin efficacy.

Note that subject numbers, even across four trials, is low (18 patients)

Further teh subjects aren’t matched with respect to cancer stage, etc.: while the paper states that 14 patients had diffuse intrinsic tumors it does not state what the remaining four patients had.
Even with the cherry picked best cases antineoplastons were at best marginally effective–12 of 18 patients suffered recurrence.

The paper states 12 patients had radiation therapy or chemotherapy simultaneously or prior to receiving antineoplastons but does not match outcomes to treatment, so there’s no way to tell if the marginal success he’s claiming for his tehrapy can be attributed to to antineoplastins or to standard chemo/radiation.

In short, this paper is a massive fail as far as providing evidence antioneoplastions effectively treat paper. I know that Journal Integr Cancer Ther is a low impact journal, but I’m still surprised they’d accept an submission this flawed for publication.

As for my having no facts to support my position that Burzynski is a con-man………….. What more do I need? It isnt my job to show that his medicine doesnt work, it is up to him to get FDA approval.

Burzynski has failed to provide ANY evidence that his treatment works. After closing on 4 decades of experimentation, he cannot put together ANY results that support the efficacy of Antineoplaston therapy. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Yet still he relies on fanboys like you to fight for his reputation. Why has he not sued people for calling him a money grubbing worm? Why does he answer almost universal condemnation and ridicule with advertorials and puff pieces in woo-friendly journals.

So what of your contribution here? What have you actually achieved but put forward the same tired arguments supported by the same evidence free bullsh1t that the brave maverick’s supporters always produce? Arguments and articles that have been dissected and repudiated a dozen times or more here and in many other blogs & journals.

Burzynski is a fraud, a description that applies equally to you and your tired word salad of copy/pasta bull.

Sorry, forgot to include the VERY SAME LINK Didy sent us with the Whitaker newsletter as the first document:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ElTW2l484TUJ:www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/storage/Research%2520-%2520Digital%2520Library/jennings-hsa/Box%2520038/647904-correspondence-buryznski-stanislaw-2.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgTZjL8ZaHuyFVVZ0jgSthZTEd8IBSj7m6E5EMiBgMAUm_HuXZAcTRaEKxJRaspiDlO_AOwyTAe4aNl162ddc5prFMX69WVZrUQGDICVkfKRmYzm2JZElyyYWeh07F6ejJ4Rc2j&sig=AHIEtbS2iobO2tOSfDKA6P9-zBxSvBnaSw

And Didy, since you love newspaper articles so much, why don’t you read this, a recent profile piece from 2008 from the doctor’s own hometown newspaper. I know it’s long, but maybe you can read it in chunks and take a nice lie-down in between if your brain starts to hurt.

Tell me this is a man you would trust with your life, or a loved one’s life. Who talks like this to reporter when they know they’re on the record? Calling a reporter a shit with a little brain? The man is deranged, and this brilliant reporter didn’t try to hide his contempt for Burzynski.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/news/cancer-doctor-stanislaw-burzynski-sees-himself-as-a-crusading-researcher-not-a-quack/

Hey, there are some pretty intelligent electronic doorknobs out there now. Computer chips, memory, etc. Don’t insult the hardware industry!

And for the record, I speak Canadian English, eh? Et francais aussi. But not American English. Unless I take a trip to Burlington Vt. and I drop the “u” in words like colour and neighbour.

On the Burzynski Clinic website, there’s a relatively new link to an interview with Stan published this summer in some rag called “Alternative Therapies”. In his own words, he says he was receiving a substantial salary in Poland and got a research job at Baylor as soon as he arrived in the US (he says at that point he still could barely speak any English.) So what’s all this BS about coming to this country with $15 in his pocket and not being able to pay for staff or research protocols? He only struck out on his own after he had being employed here for some time. He didn’t set up his clinic the second he stepped off the boat, so what does that “$15 in his poecket” even mean?

More seriously, in this interview he addresses everything: the clinical trials, the adversaries trying to stop him, the cost of his treatments, “targetted” gene therapy, the new era of antineoplastons, everything. All paranoia and lies, of course, like this. (Sorry for the formatting, it’s cut-and-paste from a pdf:)

Dr Burzynski: When patients come to us, most of them are treated
in our oncology practice. We try to help obtain payments from the
insurance companies for them—they have insurance policies and
for most of them, insurance covers the treatment which is done
here. If you are talking about antineoplastons clinical trials, we
provide medication free of charge, which costs us a lot of money.
Annually, we spend $5 to $6 million for this purpose. If you have
support from the government, then this money probably would
come from the government. But instead we have to generate the
money through our business activities and use this money for the
approval process. It can be done. In medical history, it was always
done this way. Only recently have the doctors become the slaves of
organizations like the NCI or pharmaceutical companies. We are
independent and can do whatever we would like to do without being
manipulated by the other agencies…

I almost spit coffee when I read this nonsense:

ATHM: Do you think that understanding in the medical community
about your research is improving with time or evolving?
Dr Burzynski: Absolutely. Some of the brightest oncologists are
working together with us. We have a group of about 100 top oncologists.
We are treating patients together with oncologists from
all over the world. We are talking about the brightest guys. The rest
of the club does not understand what we do at all and hate us. They
would like to get rid of us. They hate to see our good results. But
this crowd also will change if the breakthrough comes. So at this
moment, we have to convert oncologists one by one. Of course,
I am giving lectures at the oncology congresses, but only a few of
these doctors will pay attention to what I have to say because I am
not from a big medical institution. They don’t believe something
can come from a small clinic, a small research center. They all assume
research must come from a big pharmaceutical company or
big institutions. Unfortunately, not much good came from these
institutions within the last decade. But a number of doctors are beginning
to understand what we do, and the number of those who
would like to be trained in our strategy is increasing all the time.
We have oncologists coming to us from various countries almost
all the time to learn how to use our approach.

Please read the entire thing. I’m sure you’ll find things to pick apart in every single sentence.

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/Burzynski-Interview.html

@Krebiozen,
Regarding Reich, it’s beyond serious dispute that he had some kind of mental health issue, but it’s problematic to treat it as an issue in appraising his work. From all we know of mental illness, it’s VERY unlikely that he ever had a problem that was not with him all along. It is plausible, however, that his symptoms and overall condition worsened over time. The period from the late 1930s onward, when he evidently went through significant turmoil in his personal life, could be especially significant.

It’s a valid link, but Didy puts in all these annoying spaces in order to carpet bomb us with mutiple links in a single comment. Here it is without the spaces, but there’s nothing earth-shattering there:

Thanks MSII; I thought I had gotten all of the spaces (cripes you don’t need that many to slip through the filters). Yea, looks like Burzynski is in good company with Gerson and Hoxsey. Diddums shouldn’t be drawing attention to that hot mess.

Jodi Fenton – Anaplastic Astrocytoma Grade III
http://www.voobys.com/video/video.php?q_search=+linggo&id=xNW5afr6vmM&backid=r4GZ_O6kSW0

Typo – that should read “the size of the tumor was 0.17 cm³ “.

@Diddums

Perhaps your response made sense to you, but it doesn’t match up with what I last wrote. In fact, it just shows you to be sidestepping anything and everything that we say.

I wrote:

I will only bother in reposting what Krebiozen said:

DJT,

You still don’t understand what the tu quoque fallacy is, or what a controlled clinical trial is, apparently. You swamp this blog with references to articles about Burzynski, none of which are good evidence of anything, and then claim you are not supporting him. What was the point of posting all those links? If you are trying to destroy any small amount of remaining credibility you have left, don’t bother, you lost it all some time ago.

and Science Mom and I are in agreement:

Sorry, can’t keep track of your incoherent word salads.

I have no idea what you were trying to say to me.

And you wrote back:

flip, I knew in your rigorous search for the truth that you would want to know any new information on SRB that comes to light

So how in the world does one lead into the other? (Added, after reading the full comment: I see now that he’s replying to various comments but there’s no way to tell what sentences reply to what comments. I can’t be bothered scrolling up to figure it out, so here it remains…)

flip, do you understand the meaning of False Positive? Can you prove the devil? Do you have a Gish Gallop Poll (or Pole) where you live? Do you have trouble understanding American English? Is it not your American native language? Have you ever opened Black’s Law Dictionary? It’s not my responsibility to “even come close to proving that Burzyinski has published evidence.” You as a Human Being; if you are indeed one instead of a Bot or Pet Rock, should be inquisitive enough to research things yourself instead of asking people to spoon feed it to you. Is the above post which has at its end, the HighWire Stanford University edu site, the “Research” you want?

My question required a yes/no. I do not see such a sentence above. And no, American English is not my native tongue. I do however, speak Australian English, which is hardly different. And I use proper grammar and sentences that flow on from each other from one thought to the next in a manner that can be followed easily.

Perhaps you need to step out of your geocentric sphere for 2 seconds and recognise that the internet is international and that those international people can understand how to write English far better than you can. And by the way, I was attempting to defend a possible non-English speaker. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and for that, I guess I’m sorry. You’re not struggling with ESL, you’re apparently just an idiot who doesn’t know how to write well.

— By the way, is this even grammatically correct? “Is it not your American native language?” Sounds like you transposed your words.

I’m also not sure you actually know or understand the references we made and you ‘satirised’.

As for requiring you to post evidence, maybe you need to clarify why you’re here and why you’re posting. We’re talking about one person who is supposed to be curing cancer. WTF are you talking about?

And I have yes, been looking at files and publications and reading various things here and there. I don’t have a lot of time to read everything; but the world and internet is large and you can’t just ‘research’ something based on doing a google. You and Jenny Mcarthy would get on fine I’m sure.

Yes, I am saying I’m neutral as indicated in my 12/1 post.

That isn’t exactly clear from your ranting. If you’d like to make it clearer, start writing in a way people can understand you. I’d recommend replying to one person at a time, and using shorter comments, and perhaps some decent paragraph styling.

By the way, I don’t understand this need to remain neutral. Science doesn’t give a flying f* about being nice to everyone, it picks sides. You’re either wrong or you’re not. Big Pharma can be wrong in certain instances; it can be right in others. The bold mavericks are hardly ever right; but can be in rare occasions. Like the others have been trying to say to you: we do not need to criticise everything to criticise Burzyinski. If you don’t understand, here’s a link:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

flip, why am I not surprised you need someone else to reply for you? Don’t worry, people who have a lollipop as their picture generally have no idea what someone is trying to say to them.

Or you dimbulb, I didn’t want to reinvent the wheel as I was in the middle of five other things and they had said what I had wanted to in a perfectly eloquent manner. Feel free to use all the ad hominems you like, it won’t make you any more legible or my re-use of their comments any less apt.

Feel free to continue blathering to yourself, I am not going to bother reading your replies as they’re so unintelligible, evasive, and full of ranting.

(To regulars, I get the feeling this crank is a libertarian – ‘balance’ and ‘freedom’ seem to be what he’s aiming for, and the right for customers to get screwed because it serves them right)

Diddums, you may wish to remain ignorant of tu quoque, but unfortunately I can explain it so simply that it will be apparent to everyone that you know you’re not arguing in good faith.

A tu quoque argument is one in the following form:

1) You shouldn’t talk about A doing wrong if B did something worse.
2) B did something worse.
3) Therefore you shouldn’t talk about A doing wrong.

Sadly for you, premise 1 is bullshit and that makes the whole argument bullshit. You may try – you’ve already tried – to pretend that you aren’t trying to disrupt and shut down discussion of Burzynski’s wrongdoing; that too is bullshit. There’s no point in dignifying it with any other name.

Still no evidence?

Just more copy/pasta?

Yawn.

Troll.

What in holy hell was that from Diddums?! Trying to read his post is what I would imagine being on an acid trip is like.

Well, at least he seems to be learning. But he could try harder at making sentences shorter and allowing one thought for each. Perhaps somewhere in that mess is an actual point….

Anyone besides me notice that some of Orac’s comments show up on:
—-———————————
www. sciencebasedmedicine. org
————————————-
www. sciencebasedpharmacy. wordpress. com
————————————-
www. skepticalhumanities. com
————————————-
www. skeptico. blogs. com
————————————-
www. skepdic. com
————————————-
www. anaximperator. wordpress. com
————————————-
www. beforeitsnews. com
————————————-
www. doubtfulnews. com
————————————-
www. hepinfo. net
————————————-
🙂

Orac has commented twice on this thread and I cannot see any sign of those comments being recycled elsewhere. So the answer is “No, it’s just you”.

Science Mom, I’ve been on several excursions via LSD and they made a lot more sense.

If I were looking for info on Burzynski because I was considering utilizing his services and found these addled prattlings of DiddyMau5 JT, I’d drop the idea like a bad habit.

DJT,
I’m disappointed you haven’t responded to my comment above, pointing out that at least 97% of Jodi Fenton’s tumor was surgically removed before she started antineoplastons. Yet the YouTube video you linked to claims that, “Jodi Fenton was cured of a Grade 3 Anaplastic Astrocytoma after being treated only with Antineoplastons”. Do you anything to say about that? Doesn’t that make you wonder just a little bit about the honesty of the rest of Burzynski’s propaganda?

Anyone besides me notice that some of Orac’s comments show up on…

No, but I comment on most of those blogs from time to time, since they all cover subjects I am interested in. So what?

Seriously? Anonymous?

Don’t know why I’d remind you of this letter, as neither I nor anyone else is criticizing Burzynski because anonymous scientists question whether his studies could produce interpretable data. I’m quite willing to stipulate that they may be wrong and –who knows?–maybe Burzynski’s studies could provide interpretable data. The real problem is that there’s nothing to attempt to interpret: Burzynski has never published data from the clinical trials he’s supposedly been conducting for a couple of decades.

Meanwhile, studies have been published which found antineoplastins ineffective. Like those found at the link you provided, which you conveniently ignored to focus on the whole anonymity red herring (Green S. Antineoplastons: an unproved cancer therapy. JAMA. 1992;267:2924–8; 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. 1999;74:137–45.)

12/5 comments:
__________________________________________
flip, what did you say?
See my 12/4 response to: “Lawrence, read between the lines.”
Have you ever considered that maybe you’re posting too much garbage if you need to scroll up to remember what you posted?
I post replies in the same order as the posts I’m replying to.
12/2 my post re Part II of the SRB documentary was commented on 3 posts later by you on the same day where you whined that i didn’t respond to your Dingo Didgeridoo Kangaroo questions, and then the 4th post on 12/3 you again posted away about SRB & later posted: “I have no idea what you were trying to say to me.” So the 8th post of 12/4 was my: “flip, I knew in your rigorous search for the truth that you would want to know any new information on SRB that comes to light,” because I knew you would want to watch Part II of the Documentary to learn if any of your questions are answered.
For someone who “can’t be bothered scrolling up,” you sure had time to post a lot.
Yes/No.
Really? We all know from History that except for the aboriginal people, everyone else from Down Under are decendants of criminals, Right? 🙂
How’s your Geosphere? And the Vegamite sandwiches?
I like transposing words to make people think.
I think I’ve made it clear why I’m here:
12/4 to MarkL: ” you also conveniently do not point out that I’m the one who pointed out on 11/30/12 the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health & American Caner Society had information re Antineoplatons & SRB.”
Need some more? Check out my above post with links to SRB’s SEC filings.

12/5 comments:
__________________________________________
flip, is that where they play ‘”ock-eh?
__________________________________________
Antaeus Feldspar, Really? If Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mussolini were around, I guess you’d go after the prison guard.
Sadly for you, you resort to using a curse word as if that will somehow legitimize what you post, and you may try – you’ve already tried – to pretend that I’m trying to disrupt and shut down discussion of Burzynski’s wrongdoing. There’s no point in dignifying it with any other name.
You conveniently tu-quack.
See my above post to flipper.
__________________________________________
12/6 comments:
__________________________________________
MarkL, still no apology from Chris for misrepresenting what I posted?
Yawn.
I feel no compelling need to do what Chris requested when Chris can’t apologize for misrepresenting what I posted. So, when people pile on after Chris, and want me to do what Chris wants, well, there’s your answer!
__________________________________________
Alain, Cheerio!
__________________________________________
Science Mom, I guess being a Science Mom you would know what an acid trip is like.
__________________________________________
12/7 comments:
__________________________________________
flip, sure, the point is in the above post to MarkL.
__________________________________________
Narad, Black’s Law Dictionary is impressive because the Gub-ment has gone after SRB numerous times, and if their lawyers knew how to practice law, then SRB wouldn’t be where he is today if they knew how to do legal research, discovery, depositions, and present a compelling case.

@DJT

The truth is out there somewhere.

And it’s not likely anyone will find it hidden in your screeds.

Diddums,

Chris merely requested that you fulfill the basic minimum requirement for arguing in support of the brave maverick – that you provide real evidence to support your argument.

Not journalistic puff-pieces, not advertising, not anecdote, REAL DATA. Strawmen, tu quoque arguments, Onus probandi, Gish gallops, Appeals to accomplishment and other logical fallacies are not going to get you any traction here either.

Burzynski is a fraud, and unless you have some hard evidence to the contrary (you don’t, even Burzynski himself doesn’t have that), you are a fraud too for insisting that the “brave maverick” Doctor is anything other than a snake-oil salesman.

Antaeus Feldspar, Really? If Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mussolini were around, I guess you’d go after the prison guard.

It’s obvious that it’s not an either-or situation, where either you go after the dictator who’s killed millions or you go after the individual perpetrator whose crimes may have shown depraved indifference to the welfare of others but whose crimes didn’t affect as numerically large a group of people.

Which means it just comes right back to your premise “You shouldn’t talk about A doing wrong if B did something worse.” That premise is crap, it’s always been crap, and the fact that you keep trying to push that crap shows your true nature.

Sadly for you, you resort to using a curse word as if that will somehow legitimize what you post,

Actually, I’m just keeping in mind what an old friend of mine once said. He said the most devastating insult is actually “You’re stupid,” because the minute you start crafting a wittier, more intellectually elegant response, you’re implicitly saying that the other person’s nonsense requires some sort of sophisticated intellectual counter.

“A shouldn’t be criticized because B is worse” does not need a sophisticated intellectual counter. It was countered millenia ago. It’s bullshit plain and simple. End of story. It may be the only move you have available to you, but that’s what happens when you defend a creep like Burzynski.

I think it’s time for an ultimatum question; it’s often the only way to deal with Gish gallopers like you.

Here’s how it works: we ask you a question. If you post three comments, on this thread or any other, without giving an answer to the question, you will be treated as having answered it, in a way you probably won’t like.

The question is this: Burzynski claims to be conducting clinical trials, testing out a treatment that has clinical equipoise (that is, it may or may not work or might even potentially make things worse; not knowing which it is is why we are doing trials.) If he was truly doing clinical trials, then the people who agree to be his subjects in the trials are doing him a great service, putting their precious remaining years or months of life at risk so that his treatment can be tested; they should certainly be receiving some compensation for the risk they are taking to test out his putative treatment. But as we all know, Burzynski actually charges his patients five and six figures to be in his trials; hell, you have to pay him just to get him to consider whether you’d be a suitable subject for his trials.

What possible justification can there be for Burzynski to be charging such exorbitant sums when a) the patient is the one providing something of value, b) the very fact of charging such huge amounts actually taints any data that theoretically might come out of the trials, since it excludes people who aren’t rich and can’t do effective fundraising from the study population?

If you don’t give us your answer within your next three comments, it will be taken as you answering: “Burzynski’s trials are just a ruse so that he can sell his ‘treatment’ without having to ever prove it works, and that’s okay because Burzynski shouldn’t have to follow the same rules that restrict everyone else.”

I find it hilarious that the NG ad server is posting all kinds of ads for medical malpractice lawyers on this page! The ad server picks up the context of the discussion and serves up the ads it deems germane to the subject. (Like the MMS banner ads that popped up on the MMS thread, or the alkaline water machine ads I see here all the time.) Except it’s ironic in this case.

I wonder how much Stan pays for malpractice insurance. Oh, right, probably nothing, as he doesn’t treat or see patients based on this TMB ruling.

He will throw his own staff under the bus if push comes to shove, though. They all must carry huge coverage.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried the medical malpractice route with Stan or do his waivers protect him from liability?

Narad, Black’s Law Dictionary is impressive because the Gub-ment has gone after SRB numerous times, and if their lawyers knew how to practice law, then SRB wouldn’t be where he is today if they knew how to do legal research, discovery, depositions, and present a compelling case.

No, sorry. The invocation merely indicates that you are completely unable to summon a single thoughtful comment on the subject of law and probably wouldn’t be able to recognize one even if it dropped out of the sky scrawled on a 16-ton weight. (Actually, given that you did it twice in one text-evacuation, “incantation” might be a better choice of words.)

I have a comment with an ultimatum question for Diddums; however, because I used a bad word, the comment is being held for moderation.

Just to clarify, I don’t think any comments DJT may post before my comment is actually released should count towards his three. It may be hard, however, to work out exactly when the comment came out of moderation and which of DJT’s fewmets came afterward.

I guess his ‘thoughtful’ comment about the law was reserved for me

Nah, he tossed the same laughable posturing at Krebiozen in the same bowl of wilted word salad.

I would note that DJT abruptly switched away from Katherine Lee Bates to the Field Artillery March just as he arrived at the fruited plain.

Orac blogs near the top:
__________________________________________
“The documentary was awful, full of biased misinformation and overall just a plain bad movie.”
__________________________________________
Let’s examine Orac’s statement, shall we?
__________________________________________
1:44:44 – 1:44:52 of the Ducumentary displays:
“None of the oncologists who originally diagnosed each patient presented in this film would agree to go on-camera, or submit a written statement.”
__________________________________________
Garden State Film Festival, New Jersey
http://www.app.com/article/20100321/ENT01/100320023/Garden-State-Film-Fest-moviegoers-delight?nclick_check=1
__________________________________________
Newport Beach Film Festival, California
Humanitarian Vision Award 2010
http:// newportbeachfilmfest. blogspot. com/2010/04/update-burzynski-2nd-screening-added_25.html?m=1

http:// blog. bigmoviezone. com/docs/awards2010.pdf

http://www.kpfa.org/events/burzynski-movie-fda-big-pharma-fight-doctor-who-has-cancer-cure
__________________________________________
Palm Beach Film Festival
http://www.pbifilmfest.org/past_festivals/2010/documentaries/burzynski
__________________________________________
Winner! Audience Award Best Documentary! documentary channel, 2011
http:// blog. documentarychannel. com/post/15572363380/space-tourists-and-burzynski-cancer-is-serious

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1752221/pg1
__________________________________________
Winner! National Audience Award, HumanDoc Festival, Warsaw, Poland, 2011

Winner! Warsaw Audience Award, HumanDoc Festival, Warsaw, Poland, 2011
http://festival.humandoc.net/25?lang=en
__________________________________________
Moondance International Film Festival
Feature Documentary Film Semi-Finalist 2011
http://www.moondancefilmfestival.com/02_festival.winners_film.html
__________________________________________
San Luis Obispo International Film Festival, California
http://www.visitslo.com/cm/Releases/Release-FilmFest.html
__________________________________________
ALIVE Documentary Award, New York
https:// docs. google. com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4TdKU8yqn4oJ:www.alivenewyork.org/uploads/1/0/3/3/10338129/aliveawardsfinal.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi5cq6TtHVuyWQzVSbig8CHTiQAkAuTEiU-p2jYGOChV6hKmG3YuHSQgLAakM-Eli9RmDuDX0nQ22Nkz2lzT9bG-CIJTj5p52AMKwzmvAwqluSr6fpgziQzhXNERoIq6YkF6wtO&sig=AHIEtbSBvfjNFC9q281gTaotgApRk1WEwQ

@ DJT:

Seriously, do you really think that winning awards at *film festivals* is a measure of what is accurate? It has more to do with technical achievements and- possibly- audience appeal, i.e. it sells its message well. The people who judge these things are in the field: they create and work on films ( like my cousin who creates ‘movie magic’), and for some awards ( audience choice), are the general public who viewed the film. It has nothing to do with science or medicine.

For example, Gary Null, who never met a pseudo-science hypothesis that he didn’t like- or try to promote- has won a plethora of awards at various festivals around the world ( see his websites for a list: Gary Null.com/ Progressiveradionetwork) for his films that:
discuss the link between vaccines and autism,
deny the realtionship between hiv and aids,
promote nutrition-based cures for cancer,
frighten people away from psychiatric meds for learning disabilities and mental illness in children,
state that SBM is the cause of death in hundreds of thousands each year,
as well as other social and environmental issues, including using the difficulties of veterans, poverty and AGW as avenues for self-promotion.
NONE of his so-called scientific essays hold any water in the real world.

Seriously, do you really think that winning awards at *film festivals* is a measure of what is accurate?

Hey, it works for Anne Dachel.

It has more to do with technical achievements and- possibly- audience appeal, i.e. it sells its message well. The people who judge these things are in the field: they create and work on films

One wonders if DJT believes in the accuracy of every advertisement that won a Lion Award from the marketing industry.

I’m disappointed you hadn’t figured out that I’m responding in order by date completely incompetent at this “commenting” thing.

FTFY. HTH. HAND.

treatment options such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy & gene targeted therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials. As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations.

Because the Company currently is entirely dependent upon the contributions for research provided by Dr. Burzynski under the Research Funding Agreement, the Company would not be able to continue conducting its clinical trials if Dr. Burzynski ceased funding the Company’s research. In such event, the Company would be required to find immediate funding which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. If this were to occur & the Company were not able to find adequate sources of funding, the Company would be required to cease operations. Even with Dr. Burzynski’s continued contributions under the Research Funding Agreement, the Company may be required to seek additional capital through equity or debt financing or the sale of assets until the Company’s operating revenues are sufficient to cover operating costs & provide positive cash flow; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to raise such additional capital on acceptable terms to the Company. In addition, there can be no assurance that the Company will ever achieve positive operating cash flow.
———————————————————-
8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS & SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
———————————————————-
The Company’s Annual Financial Statements, Notes to Financial Statements & the report of Pannell Kerr Forster of Texas, P.C., independent registered public accounting firm, with respect thereto, referred to in the Table of Contents to the Financial Statements, appear elsewhere in this report
———————————————————-
9. CHANGES IN & DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE – None
———————————————————-
9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls & Procedures. Within the 90 days prior to the date of this report, the Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision & with the participation of the Company’s management, including the Company’s principal executive officer & principal financial officer, of the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls & procedures pursuant to Rule 13a-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Based upon that evaluation, the Company’s principal executive officer & principal financial officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls & procedures are effective & designed to ensure that the information required to be included in periodic Securities & Exchange Commission filings is recorded, processed, summarized & reported on a timely basis. A controls system cannot provide absolute assurance, however, that the objectives of the controls system are met, & no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues & instances of fraud, if any, within a company have been detected.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. The Company’s management is responsible for establishing & maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting & the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the US.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives.

The Company’s management, with the participation of the Company’s principal executive officer & principal financial officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of 2/29/2012. In making this assessment, the Company’s management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control — Integrated Framework. Based on this evaluation, the Company’s management, with the participation of the principal executive officer & principal financial officer, concluded that, as of 2/29/2012, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective.

This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities & Exchange Commission that permit the company to provide only management’s report in this annual report.

(b) Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There were no significant changes in the Company’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of the evaluation above.
———————————————————-
9B. OTHER INFORMATION – None
———————————————————-
10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Set forth below are the names, ages & positions of the Company’s directors & executive officers:

Name / Age / Office
**********************************************************************
Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. / 69 / Director & President
Barbara Burzynski, M.D. / 71 / Director
Michael H. Driscoll, J.D. / 66 / Director
Carlton Hazlewood, Ph.D. / 76 / Director
Gregory S. Burzynski, M.D. / 32 / Director
Patryk P. Goscianski, M.B.A. / 34 / Treasurer & Secretary
Tomasz Janicki, M.D. / 46 / Vice President of Clinical Trials
*********************************************************************
STANISLAW R. BURZYNSKI, M.D., PH.D., has been the President & Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company since its inception in 1984. He also served as the Company’s Secretary & Treasurer until 3/1/2012. Dr. Burzynski is a physician in private practice in Houston, Texas specializing in the treatment of cancer. Dr. Burzynski is the husband of Barbara Burzynski, M.D. & father of Gregory S. Burzynski, who are each directors of the Company.

Currently listed in Who’s Who In The World & a member in good standing with both the American & World Medical Associations, Dr. Burzynski is an internationally recognized physician & scientist who has pioneered the development & use of biologically active peptides in diagnosing, preventing, & treating cancer since 1967. In 1967, Dr. Burzynski graduated with distinction with an M.D. degree from the Medical Academy in Lublin, Poland, finishing first in his class of 250, & he subsequently earned his Ph.D. in Biochemistry.

From 1970 to 1977, he was a researcher & Assistant Professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. At Baylor, Dr. Burzynski’s research was sponsored & partially funded by the National Cancer Institute. Also at Baylor, he authored & co-authored 16 publications, including five concerning his research on peptides & their effect on human cancer. 4 of these publications were also co-authored by other doctors associated with M.D. Anderson Hospital & Tumor Institute & Baylor College of Medicine. In May 1977, Dr. Burzynski received a Certificate of Appreciation from Baylor College of Medicine & in that same year founded the Company.

Dr. Burzynski is a member of the American Medical Association, American Association for Cancer Research, Harris County Medical Society, New York Academy of Sciences, Society for Neuroscience, Texas Medical Association, the Society of Sigma Xi, & the Society of Neuro-oncology. He is the author of over 300 scientific publications, presenter of scientific papers at major international conventions, & has been awarded 243 patents covering 42 countries for his Antineoplaston treatment & other inventions. Other groups are working in conjunction with him, including researchers at the University of Kurume Medical School in Japan.
*********************************************************************
BARBARA BURZYNSKI, M.D., a Director since 1984 & the wife of Dr. Burzynski, has been the Chairman of the Department of Pharmacy of the Burzynski Clinic since 1977. From January 1976 to July 1977, she was a Research Assistant in the Department of Pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine. She was a physician at the Medical Academy, Lublin, Poland, from 1970 to 1975. Dr. Barbara Burzynski graduated with an M.D. in 1966 from the Medical Academy, Lublin, Poland, & has published 6 publications on studies with Antineoplastons.
*********************************************************************
MICHAEL H. DRISCOLL, J.D. has been a Director of the Company since 1984. Mr. Driscoll was formerly a judge & served as the County Attorney of Harris County, Texas from 1981 until he retired in 1997.
*********************************************************************
CARLTON HAZLEWOOD, PH.D. has been a Director of the Company since 1997. He also serves as Chairman of the IRB, an independent review board for the Company’s clinical trials designated according to federal regulations. Dr. Hazlewood currently operates his own consulting company, Research Consultant’s International, is president of Petroclean, L.L.C. & is an adjunct professor at Kingwood College. In addition, Dr. Hazlewood was employed in various capacities by the Baylor College of Medicine from 1965 until December 31, 1997, where he was a professor of Molecular Biology & Biophysics. Dr. Hazlewood received his Ph.D. in Medical Physiology from the University of Tennessee. Dr. Hazlewood is a prolific writer on medical topics & has been recognized for his research with numerous awards, honors & research grants.
*********************************************************************
GREGORY S. BURZYNSKI, M.D. has been a Director of the Company since 2011. Dr. Gregory Burzynski is a licensed medical doctor who has worked at the Burzynski Clinic in Houston, Texas since July 2010. After Dr. Gregory Burzynski graduated from Jagiellonian University Medical College in 2007, he was accepted in the internal medicine residency program of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Austin, Texas. He is currently the Vice President of the Burzynski Clinic. In addition, Dr. Gregory Burzynski is board certified in internal medicine & has been involved in co-authoring numerous publications regarding Antineoplastons.
*********************************************************************
PATRYK P. GOSCIANSKI, M.B.A. was appointed as the Treasurer & the Secretary of the Company on 3/1/2012. Mr. Goscianski currently works at Burzynski Clinic. Mr. Goscianski joined Burzynski Clinic in Houston, TX in 2011 & holds the positions of Director of Finance & Director of Administration, where he oversees the external financial reporting for Burzynski Clinic as well as manages various other accounting, finance & administrative functions. In the past few years, Mr. Goscianski has worked for a variety of companies in areas of finance & business consulting. Mr. Goscianski holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Texas State University & a Masters of Business Administration degree from the University of North Alabama.
*********************************************************************
TOMASZ JANICKI, M.D. was appointed as the Vice President of Clinical Trials of the Company on 3/1/2012. Dr. Janicki currently works at Burzynski Clinic. Dr. Janicki joined Burzynski Clinic in 1997 as Research Associate & has served as Director of Medical Documentation at Burzynski Clinic since 2002. Dr. Janicki has been involved in the administrative oversight of the Research Department at Burzynski Clinic, & has co-authored 43 publications & presentations for the advancement & acceleration of research & clinical trials at Burzynski Clinic. Dr. Janicki received his M.D. degree from Medical University in Wroclaw, Poland. Dr. Janicki is the son-in-law of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski.
*********************************************************************
Audit Committee Financial Expert

The Company has not established an Audit Committee. Therefore, the Board of Directors has not designated any of its members as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by the rules & regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
*********************************************************************
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Based solely upon a review of Forms 3 & 4 & amendments thereto furnished to the Company under Rule 16a-3(e) during the fiscal year ended 2/29/2012 & Form 5 & amendments thereto furnished to the Company with respect to such period, except as set forth below, the Company is not aware of any director, officer, or beneficial owner of more than 10% of any class of equity securities of the Company registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) that has failed to file on a timely basis, as disclosed in the above forms, reports required by Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act during the Company’s most recent fiscal year. A Form 3 was not filed for Gregory S. Burzynski, Patryk P. Goscianski & Tomasz Janicki during the fiscal year ended 2/29/2012; instead, a Form 5 was filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 4/12/2012 for each such individual.
*********************************************************************
Code of Ethics

The Company has adopted a code of ethics that applies to our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief accounting officer & all persons performing similar functions. The Company hereby undertakes to provide a copy of this code of ethics to any person, without charge upon request made in writing to: Investor Relations, 9432 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas 77055.
———————————————————-
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

Annual Compensation

Long-Term Compensation

Name and Principal Position / Fiscal Yea Ending / Salary($) / Bonus ($) /Other Annual Compensation ($) / Restricted Stock Awards($) / Securities Underlying Options/SARs($) / LTIP Payouts ($) / All Other Compensatio ($)
=========================================
Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., President & Chairman of the Board of Directors (1)
2010 -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0-
2011 -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- /-0- / -0-
2012 -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0-
=========================================
Patryk P. Goscianski, M.B.A., Treasurer & Secretary (2)
2012 -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0-
=========================================
Tomasz Janicki, M.D., Vice President of Clinical Trials (3)
2012 -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0- / -0-
=========================================
(1) In May of 2000, Dr. Burzynski began drawing his entire salary through his medical practice & is not currently compensated by the Company for his services.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
(2) Mr. Goscianski is not currently compensated by the Company for his services.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
(3) Dr. Janicki is not currently compensated by the Company for his services. ………………………………………………………………………………………..
Directors do not receive any compensation for serving as directors; however, directors are reimbursed for all ordinary & necessary expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors or otherwise incurred in their capacity as directors. In addition, any director also serving as a director of the IRB, the independent review board for the Company’s clinical trials designated according to federal regulations, is compensated by the IRB approximately $1,200 annually for serving as a director of the IRB.
———————————————————-
12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

The following table sets forth, as of 5/1/2012, the # of outstanding shares of Common Stock (the Company’s only class of voting securities) owned by (i) each person known by the Company to beneficially own more than 5% of its outstanding Common Stock, (ii) each director, (iii) each named executive officer, & (iv) all officers & directors as a group. The address for all of the beneficial owners listed below is the Company’s address.

Name of beneficial owner / Amount and nature of beneficial ownership / Percent of class (1)
==========================================
Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. / 106,368,278 / 80.9%
==========================================
Barbara Burzynski, M.D. / 106,368,278 / (2) / 80.9%
==============================•===========
Michael H. Driscoll / 125,000 / *
Carlton Hazlewood / 0 / *
Gregory S. Burzynski, M.D. / 55,912 / *
Patryk P. Goscianski, M.B.A. / 0 / *
Tomasz Janicki, M.D. / 55,912 / *
=========================================
All Current Directors & Executive Officers as a group (7 persons)
106,605,102 / 81.1% / *Less than 1#.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
(1)Percentages shown are based upon 131,448,444 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of 5/1/2012. Certain shares are deemed beneficially owned by more than 1 person listed in the table.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
(2)All of the shares listed above for Dr. Barbara Burzynski are included in the total # of shares for Dr. Burzynski, her husband.
———————————————————-
13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Dr. Burzynski is the President & Chairman of the Board of the Company, as well as the beneficial owner of 80.9% of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock. Since 1983, Dr. Burzynski has personally funded & supported the Company’s operations out of funds generated from his medical practice pursuant to various agreements with the Company.
*********************************************************************
License Agreement

The Company entered into the License Agreement with Dr. Burzynski which gives the Company the exclusive right in the Territory (composed of the US, Canada & Mexico) to use, manufacture, develop, sell, distribute, sublicense & otherwise exploit all of his rights, title & interests in Antineoplastons in the treatment & diagnosis of cancer, including but not limited to any patent rights which may be granted in these countries. The License Agreement will terminate upon the earlier of the expiration of the last patent licensed to the Company, or termination by Dr. Burzynski, at his option, if he is removed as a director or officer of the Company without his consent, if the Company files for bankruptcy or is the subject of any proceeding under applicable bankruptcy laws where such proceeding is not dismissed within 90 days from the date a petition is filed, or if any shareholder or group of shareholders acting in concert becomes the beneficial owner of the Company’s securities having voting power equal to or greater than the voting power of the securities Dr. Burzynski holds. Amendments to the License Agreement on 4/24/1984 & on 3/1/1990 granted Dr. Burzynski the limited right to manufacture, use, & exploit Antineoplastons in the Company’s exclusive territory solely for the purpose of enabling Dr. Burzynski to treat patients in his medical practice until such date that the FDA may approve the sale of Antineoplastons for the treatment of cancer in the US.
*********************************************************************
Research Funding Arrangements

Effective 3/1/1997, the Company entered into the Research Funding Agreement with Dr. Burzynski & terminated all of the prior funding agreements between the Company & Dr. Burzynski. Pursuant to the Research Funding Agreement:

·The Company agreed to undertake all scientific research in connection with the development of new or improved Antineoplastons for the treatment of cancer & other diseases. The Company will hire such personnel as is required to fulfill its obligations under the agreement;

·Dr. Burzynski agreed to fund in its entirety all basic research which the Company undertakes in connection with the development of other Antineoplastons or refinements to existing Antineoplastons for the treatment of cancer & other diseases;

·Dr. Burzynski agreed to pay the expenses to conduct the clinical trials for the Company;

·Dr. Burzynski agreed to provide the Company such laboratory, research space & office space as the Company needs at no charge to the Company;

·The parties agreed that Dr. Burzynski may fulfill his obligations in part by providing such administrative staff as is necessary for the Company to manage its business, at no cost to the Company;

·Dr. Burzynski agreed to pay the full amount of the monthly & annual budget of expenses for the operation of the Company, together with such other unanticipated but necessary expenses which the Company incurs. Payments from Dr. Burzynski to the Company of the monthly budget shall be made in 2 equal installments on the 1st & 15th of each month;

·In the event the research described in the agreement results in the approval of any additional patents, Dr. Burzynski shall own all such patents, but shall license to the Company the patents based on the same terms, conditions & limitations as provided by the License Agreement;

·Dr. Burzynski shall have unlimited & free access to all equipment which the Company owns, so long as such use is not in conflict with the Company’s use of such equipment, including without limitation to all equipment used in manufacturing of Antineoplastons used in the clinical trials;

·The amounts which Dr. Burzynski is obligated to pay under the agreement shall be reduced dollar for dollar by the following:

·Any income which the Company receives for services provided to other companies for research and/or development of other products, less such identifiable marginal or additional expenses necessary to produce such income (such as the purchase of chemicals, products or equipment solely necessary to engage in such other research & development activity); &

·The net proceeds of any stock offering or private placement which the Company receives during the term of the agreement up to a maximum of $1,000,000 in a given Company fiscal year.

Effective 3/1/2007, the Company entered into a 3rd amendment to the Research Funding Agreement, whereby the Company & Dr. Burzynski extended the term thereof until 2/28/2008, with an automatic renewal for an additional 1-year term, unless 1 party notifies the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the term of the agreement of its intention not to renew the agreement. In addition to the foregoing termination provisions, the agreement automatically terminates in the event that Dr. Burzynski owns less than 50# of the outstanding shares of the Company, or is removed as President and/or Chairman of the Board of the Company, unless Dr. Burzynski notifies the Company in writing of his intention to continue the agreement notwithstanding this automatic termination provision. Subject to the foregoing, the term of the Research Funding Agreement was renewed & extended until 2.28/2013, which extended term is also automatically renewable for an additional 1-year term unless 1 party notifies the other party at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the term of the agreement of its intention not to renew the agreement.
*********************************************************************
Royalty Agreement

The Company & Dr. Burzynski entered into the Royalty Agreement, pursuant to which Dr. Burzynski agreed to act as the principal clinical investigator of the clinical trials necessary for obtaining FDA approval for interstate marketing of Antineoplastons. The Company & Dr. Burzynski agreed that in the event the Company receives FDA approval for interstate marketing & distribution, of which there can be no assurance, the Company shall pay Dr. Burzynski a royalty of 10% of the Company’s gross income, which royalty shall be paid on all gross receipts from all future sales, distributions & manufacture of Antineoplastons.

Pursuant to the Royalty Agreement, Dr. Burzynski retains the right to either (i) produce Antineoplaston products for use in his medical practice to treat up to 1,000 patients, at any one time, without paying any fees to the Company or (ii) purchase from the Company Antineoplaston products to treat up to 1,000 patients, at any one time, at a price equal to cost plus 10%. Dr. Burzynski has the right to lease or purchase all the manufacturing equipment located at Stafford, Texas at a fair market price. The Royalty Agreement further provides that the Company will have the right, when & if Antineoplastons are approved for use & sale by the FDA, (i) to produce all Antineoplaston products to be sold or distributed in the US, Canada &Mexico for the treatment of cancer & (ii) to lease from Dr. Burzynski the entire premises located at Stafford, Texas at terms & rates competitive with those available in the real estate market at that time, provided that Dr. Burzynski does not need the facility for his use.
———————————————————-
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES

The following table sets forth the aggregate fees billed to the Company by its independent registered public accounting firm, PKF, for fiscal years ended 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011, respectively:
*********************************************************************
2012 / 2011

Audit Fees
$43,000 / $43,000

Audit-Related Feesp
0 / 0

Tax Fees
0 / 0

All Other Fees
0 / 0

Total
$43,000 / $43,000

Audit Fees were for professional services rendered for the audit of BRI’s financial statements & review of the interim financial statements included in quarterly reports & services that are normally provided in connection with statutory & regulatory filings or engagements.

Audit-Related Fees are for assurance & related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of BRI’s financial statements & are not reported under “Audit Fees.” There were no Audit-Related Fees incurred in fiscal years 2012 or 2011.

Tax Fees were for professional services for federal & state tax compliance, tax advice & tax planning. There were no Tax Fees incurred in fiscal years 2012 or 2011.

All Other Fees were for services other than the services reported above. There were no Other Fees incurred in fiscal years 2012 or 2011.

Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies & Procedures. As disclosed above in Item 9, the Company does not have an Audit Committee. The Board of Directors has not adopted any pre-approval policies or procedures.
———————————————————- 15. EXHIBITS & FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, as amended (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3(i) — (iii) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 11/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

Amended Bylaws of the Company (incorporated by reference from Exhibit (3)(iv) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 11/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

Form of Certificate Representing Common Stock (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.1 to Form 10-KSB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 5/2/2001 (File No. 000-23425)).

License Agreement, effective as of 6/29/1983, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10(1) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 11/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

Amended License Agreement, dated 4/2/1984, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by referenced from Exhibit 10(2) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 11/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

2nd Amended License Agreement, dated 3/1/1990, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10(3) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 11/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

Research Funding Agreement, effective as of 3/1/1997, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10(4) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 1-/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

First Amendment to Research Funding Agreement, effective as of 3/1/2001, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.5 to Form 10-KSB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 5/2/2001 (File No. 000-23425)).

2nd Amendment to the Research Funding Agreement, effective as of 2/29/2004, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.6 to Form 10-KSB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 6/1/2004 (File No. 000-23425)).

Royalty Agreement, dated 3/25/1997, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10(5) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 11/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

1st Amended Royalty Agreement, dated 9/29/1997, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10(6) to Form 10-SB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 11/25/1997 (File No. 000-23425)).

3rd Amendment to Research Funding Agreement, effective as of 3/1/2007, by & between the Company & Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski (incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.9 to Form 10-KSB filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 5/29/2007 (File No. 000-23425)).
*********************************************************************
Power of Attorney (Included with the Signature Page).

Certification pursuant to Rules 13a-14 & 15d-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, filed herewith (Chief Executive Officer).

Certification pursuant to Rules 13a-14 & 15d-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, filed herewith (Principal Financial Officer).

Certification furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chief Executive Officer).

Certification furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Principal Financial Officer).

101.INS / XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH / XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

mt

101.CAL / XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF / XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document

101.LAB / XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE / XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document
*********************************************************************
SIGNATURES

In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
=========================================
BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
By:
/s/ Stanislaw R. Burzynski
Stanislaw R. Burzynski, President & Chairman of the Board of Directors
Date: 5/29/2012
=========================================
Each person whose signature appears below constitutes & appoints Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski his/her true & lawful attorney-in-fact & agent, with full power of substitution & resubstitution, severally, for him/her in his/her name, place & stead, in any & all capacities, to sign any & all amendments to this report, & to file the same, with all exhibits thereto & other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities & Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact & agent full power & authority to do & perform each & every act & thing requisite & necessary to be done in & about the premises, as fully to all intents & purposes as he/she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying & confirming all that said attorney-in-fact & agent may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons in the capacities & on the dates indicated.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
/s/ Stanislaw R. Burzynski
Stanislaw R. Burzynski
Date: 5/29/2012
President & Chairman of the Board of Directors
………………………………………………………………………………………..
/s/ Barbara Burzynski
Barbara Burzynski
Date: 5/29/2012
Director
………………………………………………………………………………………..
/s/ Michael H. Driscoll
Michael H. Driscoll
Date: 5/29/2012
Director
………………………………………………………………………………………..
/s/ Carlton Hazlewood
Carlton Hazlewood
Date: 5//9/2012
Director
………………………………………………………………………………………..
/s/ Gregory S. Burzynski
Gregory S. Burzynski, M.D.
Director
Date: 5/29/2012
………………………………………………………………………………………..
/s/ Patryk P. Goscianski
Patryk P. Goscianski, M.B.A.
Treasurer & Secretary
Date: 5/29/2012
………………………………………………………………………………………..
/s/ Tomasz Janicki
Tomasz Janicki, M.D.
Vice President of Clinical Trials
Date: 5/29/2012
*********************************************************************
Burzynski Research Institute, Inc.

Financial Statements

For the years ended
2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011
———————————————————-
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors & Stockholders
of Burzynski Research Institute, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. as of 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011 & the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, & cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan & perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, audits of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts & disclosures in the financial statements. An audit includes assessing the accounting principles used & significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. as of 2/29/2012 ‘ 2/28/2011, & the results of its operations & its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
5/29/2012
Houston, Texas
/s/ Pannell Kerr Forster of Texas, P.C.
*********************************************************************
BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
For the Years Ended 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011

2012 / 2011

ASSETS

Current assets
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Cash & cash equivalents
$17,297 / $17,476
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Total current assets
17,297 / 17,476
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Property & equipment, net of accumulated depreciation
3,419/ 4,120
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Total assets
$20,716 / $21,596
———————————————————-
LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT

Current liabilities
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Accounts payable
$12,265 / $39,223
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Accrued liabilities
49,699 / 33,628
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Total current liabilities
61,964 / 72,851
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Total liabilities
61,964 / 72,851
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Commitments & contingencies
— / —
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Stockholders’ deficit

Common stock, $.001 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized; 131,448,444 shares issued & outstanding as of 2//9/2012 & 2/28/2011

131,449 / 131,449
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Additional paid-in capital
101,428,376 / 94,260,707
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Retained deficit
(101,601,073) / (94,443,411)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Total stockholders’ deficit
(41,248) / (51,255)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Total liabilities and stockholders’ deficit
$20,716 / $21,596
………………………………………………………………………………………..
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
———————————————————-
BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Years Ended 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011
2012 / 2011

Operating expenses
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Research & development
$6,925,519 / $4,780,072
………………………………………………………………………………………..
General & administrative
231,442 / 250,434
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Depreciation
701 / 736
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Total operating expenses
7,157,662 / 5,031,242
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Operating loss before other income
(7,157,662) / (5,031,242)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Other income
— / —
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Loss before provision for income tax
(7,157,662) / (5,031,242)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Income tax expense
— / —
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Net loss
$(7,157,662) / $(5,031,242)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Net loss per common share:
Basic & diluted
$(0.05) / $(0.04)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
Basic & diluted
131,448,444 / 131,443,156
………………………………………………………………………………………..
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
———————————————————-
BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ DEFICIT
For the Years Ended 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011

Additional

Total

Common Stock
Paid-in / Retained

Stockholders’
Shares / Amount

Capital
Deficit / Deficit
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Balance February 28, 2010
131,388,444 / $131,389 / $89,232,302 / $(89,412,169) / $(48,478)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Cash contributed by S.R. Burzynski M.D., Ph.D.
— / — / 505,110 / — / 505,110
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Shares issued (60,000) for services rendered pursuant to prior year obligation
60,000 / 60 / (60) / — / —
………………………………………………………………………………………..
FDA clinical trial expenses paid directly by S.R. Burzynski M.D., Ph. D.
— / — / 4,523,355 / — / 4,523,355
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Net loss
— / — / — / (5,031,242) / (5,031,242)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Balance 2/28/2011
131,448,444 / 131,449 / 94,260,707 / (94,443,411) / (51,255)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Cash contributed by S.R. Burzynski M.D., Ph.D.
— / — / 503,885 / — / 503,885
………………………………………………………………………………………..
FDA clinical trial expenses paid directly by S.R. Burzynski M.D., Ph. D.
— / — / 6,663,784 / — / 6,663,784
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Net loss
— / — / — / (7,157,662) / (7,157,662)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Balance 2/29/2012
131,448,444 / $131,449 / $101,428,376
$(101,601,073) / $(41,248)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
———————————————————-
BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Years Ended 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011
2012 / 2011
………………………………………………………………………………………..
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Net loss
$(7,157,662) / $(5,031,242)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used by operating activities:

Depreciation
701 / 736
………………………………………………………………………………………..
FDA clinical trial expenses paid directly by S.R. Burzynski M.D., Ph. D.
6,663,784 / 4,523,355
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Change in operating assets & liabilities

Accounts payable
(26,958) / (2,548)
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Accrued liabilities
16,071 / 3,943
———————————————————-
NET CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES
(504,064) / (505,756)
———————————————————-
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash contribution recorded
503,885 / 505,110
———————————————————-
NET CASH PROVIDED BY FINANCING ACTIVITIES
503,885 / 505,110
———————————————————-
NET DECREASE IN CASH
(179) / (646)
———————————————————-
CASH AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
17,476 / 18,122
———————————————————-
CASH AT END OF YEAR
$17,297 / $17,476
———————————————————-
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW DISCLOSURES:
Cash Paid During the Year For:
Taxes
$0 / $0
………………………………………………………………………………………..
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
———————————————————-
BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. Background, Basis of Presentation, Economic Dependency & Significant Accounting Policies:
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Background & Basis of Presentation

The financial statements of Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. (the Company), a Delaware corporation, include expenses incurred related to clinical trials, which were sanctioned by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993, for antineoplaston drugs used in the treatment of cancer. These expenses are incurred directly by S.R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. (Dr. Burzynski or “SRB”) on behalf of the Company & have been reported as research & development costs & as additional paid-in capital. Other funds received from Dr. Burzynski have also been reported as additional paid-in capital. Expenses related to Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice (unrelated to the clinical trials) have not been included in these financial statements. Dr. Burzynski is the President, Chairman of the Board & owner of 80.9% of the outstanding common stock of the Company, & also is the inventor & original patent holder of certain drug products knows as “antineoplastons,” which he has licensed to the Company.

The Company & Dr. Burzynski have entered into various agreements, as further described in Note 2, which provide the Company the exclusive right in the US, Canada & Mexico to use, manufacture, develop, sell, distribute, sublicense & otherwise exploit all the rights, titles & interest in antineoplaston drugs used in the treatment of cancer, once the drug is approved for sale by the FDA.

BRI’s administrative offices are located in Houston, Texas; its research & production facilities are in Stafford, Texas. The Company operates primarily as a research & development facility of antineoplaston drugs currently being tested for the use in the treatment of cancer, & provides consulting services. Segment information is not presented since all of the Company’s operations are attributed to a single reportable segment. The Company has had no significant revenue from external sources. The Company is currently conducting clinical trials on various antineoplastons in accordance with FDA regulations, however, at this time none of the antineoplaston drugs have received FDA approval; further, there can be no assurance FDA approval will be granted.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Economic Dependency

BRI has generated no significant revenues since its inception. As of 2/29/2012, the Company had a working capital deficit of approximately $45,000 & accumulated deficit of approximately $101,601,000. For the years ended 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011 the Company incurred losses of approximately $7,158,000 & $5,031,000, respectively.

Dr. Burzynski has funded the capital &operational needs of the Company since its inception from revenues generated through his medical practice pursuant to various agreements as described in Note 2.

The Company is economically dependent on its funding from Dr. Burzynski through his medical practice. Management estimates that approximately 1/10th of Dr. Burzynski’s patients are admitted & treated as part of the clinical trial programs which the FDA regulates. The FDA imposes numerous regulations & requirements regarding these patients & the Company is subject to inspection at any time by the FDA. These regulations are complex & subject to interpretation & though it is management’s intention to comply fully with all such regulations, there is the risk that the Company is not in compliance & is thus subject to sanctions imposed by the FDA.

In addition, as with any medical practice, Dr. Burzynski is subject to potential claims by patients & other potential claimants commonly arising out of the operation of a medical practice. The risks associated with Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice directly affect his ability to fund the operations of BRI.

It is the intention of the directors & management to seek additional capital through the sale of securities. The proceeds from such sales will be used to fund BRI’s operating deficit until it achieves positive operating cash flow. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to raise such additional capital.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Significant Accounting Policies
Cash & Cash Equivalents

The Company considers all highly liquid investments purchased with an original maturity of 3 months or less to be cash equivalents.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Property & Equipment

Property & equipment are recorded at cost & depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, which range from 5 to 10 years. Expenditures for major renewals & betterments that extend the useful lives of property & equipment are capitalized; maintenance & repairs are charged against earnings as incurred. Upon disposal of assets, the related cost & accumulated depreciation are removed from the accounts & any resulting gain or loss is recognized currently.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Income Taxes

The Company uses the asset & liability method of accounting for income taxes, under which deferred income taxes are recognized for the tax consequences of temporary differences by applying the enacted statutory tax rate applicable to future years to differences between financial statement carrying amounts & the tax basis of existing assets & liabilities.

Valuation allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized. Income tax expense is the tax payable or refundable for the period plus or minus the change during the period in deferred tax assets & liabilities. The costs incurred related to the conduct of FDA approved clinical trials incurred directly by Dr. Burzynski within his medical practice are deducted by Dr. Burzynski & are not included in the Company’s tax provision. The portion of the Texas gross margin tax that is based on income is treated as income taxes & included in the income tax provision.

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 740-10, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, clarifies the accounting for income taxes by prescribing the minimum recognition threshold a tax position is required to meet before being recognized in the financial statements. ASC 740-10 also provides guidance on derecognition, measurement, classification, interest & penalties, accounting interim periods, disclosure, & transition. For the years ended 2/29/2012 & 2/28/2011, no uncertain tax positions were identified.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Loss Per Common Share

Basic & diluted loss per common share information for all periods is presented under the requirements of FASB ASC 260 “Earnings per Share.” Basic loss per common share has been computed using the weighted average # of common shares outstanding during the period. Potentially dilutive securities have been excluded from the computation of diluted loss per common share, as their inclusion would be antidilutive.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Research & Development

Research & development cost are charged to operations in the period incurred. Equipment used in research & development activities, which have alternative uses, is capitalized.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The carrying value of cash & accounts payables approximates fair value due to the short term maturity of these instruments. None of the financial instruments are held for trading purposes.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Management Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates & assumptions that affect reported amounts of assets & liabilities at the dates of the financial statements & the reported amounts of revenues & expenses during the reported periods. The significant estimates are the allocation of payroll & other expenses between the clinical trial expenses reported with Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. &Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice expenses. Department managers review at least quarterly the duties of each employee in their department & estimate the percentage of time each employee spends between clinical trials & the medical practice. Payroll costs are allocated between clinical trials & the medical practice based on these percentages. Other expenses are allocated based on the % of payroll allocated to either clinical trials or the medical practice. Management believes that the estimates & allocations are reasonable. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Stock Options

The Company accounts for stock-based compensation under the provisions of FASB ASC 718, “Compensation — Stock Compensation”, which requires the measurement & recognition of compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees &non-employee officers based on estimated fair values as of the date of grant. Compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period.

The Company did not grant any options & no options previously granted vested in any of the periods presented in these financial statements. Thus, there was no effect on net loss & earnings per share regarding the provisions of FASB ASC 718 in any of the periods presented.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
2. Agreements With, & Other Related Party Transactions:

The Company has agreements with its majority shareholder & President Dr. Burzynski as further described below:
………………………………………………………………………………………..
License Agreement

Dr. Burzynski is the owner of patents involving the formulation, preparation, manufacture, production, use, dosage & treatment with antineoplastons. The US Office & Patent Offices & Patent Officers of 34 other countries have issued the patents. The Patents for cancer treatment & diagnosis in the US & Canada are licensed to the Company pursuant to a License Agreement.

The License Agreement grants to the Company the exclusive right, in the US, Canada, & Mexico, to use, manufacture, develop, sell, distribute, sub-license & otherwise exploit all of Dr. Burzynski’s rights, title, & interests, including patent rights, in antineoplaston drugs in the treatment & diagnosis of cancer. The Company will not be able to exploit such rights until such time as antineoplastons are approved, of which there can be no assurance, by the FDA for sale in the US & the appropriate authority in Canada & Mexico.

The Agreement gives Dr. Burzynski the right to make, use, sell, distribute, & otherwise exploit antineoplastons in connection with the treatment of patients in his medical practice.

The License Agreement will terminate upon the earlier of the expiration of the last patent licensed to the Company, or termination by Dr. Burzynski, at his option, if he is removed as a director or officer of the Company without his consent, if the Company files for bankruptcy or if any shareholder or group of shareholders acting in concert becomes the beneficial owner of the Company’s securities having voting power = to or greater than the voting power of the securities Dr. Burzynski holds.

Under the License Agreement, the Company currently owns exclusive rights to 8 issued US Patents, 4 issued Canadian Patents & 1 issued Mexican Patent.

The 5 initial US Patents (the “Initial Patents”) relate to: (i) Determination of Antineoplastons in body tissue or fluids as a testing procedure to aid in the diagnosis of cancer; (ii) Processes for the preparation of purified fractions of Antineoplastons from human urine; (iii) Processes for the synthetic production of Antineoplastons & methods of treating neoplastic disease (cancer); (iv) Administration of Antineoplastons to humans; & (v) Methods of synthesizing A-10. All of these Initial Patents have expired as of 2/28/2009. The Company does not believe the expiration of any of the Initial Patents will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The 6th US Patent (the “2000 U.S. Patent”) covers Liposomal Antineoplaston therapies with markedly improved anti-cancer activity. The 2000 U.S. Patent expires 5.14/2017.

The 7th US Patent (the “2001 U.S. Patent”) is for a treatment regimen for the administration of phenylacetylglutamine, phenylacetylisoglutamine, and/or phenylacetate. The 2001 U.S. Patent expires on 8.23/2018.

The 8th US Patent (the “2005 U.S. Patent”) relates to a divisional application to the 2001 U.S. Patent. The 2005 U.S. Patent was issued in September 2005 & will expire 7.31/2018.

The 4 Canadian Patents (the “Canadian Patents”) relate to: (i) Processes for the preparation of purified fractions of Antineoplastons from human urine, (ii) Processes for the synthetic production of Antineoplastons & methods of treating neoplastic disease (cancer), (iii) Liposomal formulation of Antineoplastons & (iv) Treatment regimen for the administration of phenylacetylglutamine. The Canadian Patents expired or will expire on 6/4/2002, 11/14/2006, 5.14/2017, & 7.2/2019, respectively; however, the Company does not believe the Canadian Patents that expired in 2002 or in 2006 will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Mexican Patent relates to a treatment regimen for the administration of phenylacetylglutamine. This patent will expire 1.14/2019.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Research Funding Agreement

Effective 3/1/1997, Dr. Burzynski restructured his funding arrangement with the Company & entered into a Research Funding Agreement. Under this agreement the 2 parties agreed to the following:
………………………………………………………………………………………..
1. The Company agrees to undertake all scientific research in connection with the development of new or improved antineoplastons for the treatment of cancer. The Company will hire such personnel as is required to fulfill its obligations under the agreement.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
2. Dr. Burzynski agrees to fund in its entirety all basic research, which the Company undertakes in connection with the development of other antineoplastons or refinements to existing antineoplastons for the treatment of cancer.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
3. As FDA approval of antineoplastons will benefit both parties, Dr. Burzynski agrees to pay the expenses to conduct the clinical trials for the Company.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
4. Dr. Burzynski agrees to provide the Company such laboratory & research space as the Company needs at the facility in Stafford, Texas, & such office space as is necessary at Trinity Drive and at his medical facility.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
5. In the event the research described in the agreement results in the approval of any additional patents for the treatment of cancer, Dr. Burzynski shall own all such patents, but shall license to the Company the patents based on the same terms, conditions & limitations as is in the current license between the parties.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
6. Dr. Burzynski shall have unlimited & free access to all equipment which the Company owns, so long as such use is not in conflict with the Company’s use of such equipment, including without limitation to all equipment used in manufacturing of antineoplastons used in the clinical trials.
………………………………………………………………………………………..
7. The amounts, which Dr. Burzynski is obligated to pay under the agreement, shall be reduced dollar for dollar by the following:
………………………………………………………………………………………..
a. Any income which the Company receives for services provided to other companies for research and/or development of other products, less such identifiable marginal or additional expenses necessary to produce such income (such as the purchase of chemicals, products or equipment) solely necessary to engage in such other research & development

@DJT – why yes, you managed to cut and paste an SEC filing….so where exactly would that be considered “science” and publication of results in qualified medical journals – oh yeah, and also showing multiple positive results from replication of his results by others?

You don’t seem to understand how real medical science operates, but you sure do understand the cut and paste functions on your computers……but again, they aren’t the same thing.

@Agashem – I still can’t understand what point he/she/it is trying to make, since almost everything is just “word salad.”

I see Diddums doesn’t know what plagiarism is either.

DJT,

Krebiozen, great job of re-posting basically everything I posted.

Unlike you I put the information into a coherent and comprehensible form and added the information you omitted, such as the methods used to make the measurements i.e. CT, MRI or proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and the fact that 97% of Jodi’s tumor, as measured by MRI, disappeared between 05/11/00 and 06/01/00, that she had surgery on the tumor on 05/15/00 and that she started Burzynski’s treatment on 06/06/00.

The difference is, you ASSUME (make an ASS out of U & ME) & I don’t assume.

You don’t need any assistance in making an ass out of yourself, you seem to have an extraordinary talent for it, judging by your performance here.

Would you care to point out what I have assumed, and what alternate explanation you think is more likely?

Just noticed that the troll says he didn’t come from a monkey. Really, good reading of evolutionary theory. (snark)

Narad, the Big Difference between me & you is that i actually filed my own suit vs. Gub-ment & won, without an Attorney.

There’s also the difference that I actually have some grasp of English capitalization, but I digress. Do go on, as this pro se story promises to be quite amusing.

@Denice

Regarding Gary Null who frighten people away from psychiatric meds for learning disabilities and mental illness in children,

I would err on the side of caution for a few factors: the proponent of psych meds for mental illness in childs was Nemeroff, an MD/PhD who was recipient of both NIMH grant as well as paychecks for promoting psych meds for childs (and numerous other condition) and he also polluted the literature with ghost-written articles and a textbook (for GP). On the other hands, for Ritalin (& other stimulant), I’m not sure either way because most of the proponent seem to be primary grade teachers who have too many pupils in the classroom; are there objective measurement method to determine if a children need stimulant?

Alain

@ Alain:

Certainly there is over-prescription.
However, woo-meisters like those I survey admonish ANY and ALL usage of meds for any condition including SMI and LD in people of ALL ages.

12/8 Comments:
__________________________________________
Antaeus Feldspar, so you wanna play “3 Questions?”

OK. The only way this is going to happen is if you answer MY 3 Questions as well, which I will pose when I have some time.

Agree?

DJT:

OK. The only way this is going to happen is if you answer MY 3 Questions as well, which I will pose when I have some time.

You shall get no where until you answer my one question: post the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed paper showing that the results of a Burzynski Phase 2 clinical trial showed that his methods were as effective with a direct quote explaining it was as effective for that particular cancer as an approved and conventional treatment like Gleevec is for what it is approved for.

Come on. Do it. It should take you less than ten lines of verbiage to provide that answer.

I repeat from above (in between the copypasta):

I forget, is DJT being *neutral* towards Burzyinski, or not? Because he does seem to be going out of his way to defend him…

@Agashem

Who knew DJT could make me miss Th1Th2 so much? At least her droppings were succinct.

Ramen.

@DJT

The difference is, you ASSUME (make an ASS out of U & ME) & I don’t assume.

Unless it involves what other people do or do not know about history/medicine/law/English language….

12/9 Comments:
__________________________________________
Denice Walter, thank you for your erudite observations, but nowhere did I offer an opinion, just “FACTS.”
__________________________________________
Now, if you want an OPINION, in my OPINION the most important “FACT” is that:
__________________________________________
“[n]one of the oncologists who originally diagnosed each patient in the film would agree to go on-camera, or submit a written statement.”
__________________________________________
What was Orac’s MOTIVATION to NOT post this in the blog post?
__________________________________________
After all, in Orac’s 11/29 blog it leads the reader to believe that the goal was to be:
__________________________________________
“reviewing Burzynski The Movie and bringing what attention I can to it.”
__________________________________________
Let’s analyze Orac’s post since it contains a link by selecting “overall just a plain bad movie,” to Orac’s 11/29 blog.
__________________________________________
Here, the reader learns that Orac prefers to:
__________________________________________
“…concentrate on science much more than moviemaking…”
__________________________________________
Our good Friend flip flippantly flouts his “Conspiracy Theory” that it is my intent to DEFEND SRB!

Whilst I posit that flip is flip-flopping & maybe doesn’t understand the grand idea of DEFENDING the TRUTH.

As Jack Nicholson said in the 1992 movie “A Few Good Men,” “You Can’t Handle the Truth.”
__________________________________________
I can sympathize with flip since maybe Jesse Ventura’s “63 Documents the Government Doesn’t Want You to Read” has whipped flip into a furious curious frenzy!!
__________________________________________
Orac assures the reader.
__________________________________________
“I might even look into a couple of Burzynski’s studies that I’ve read and found to be–well–lacking, to put it kindly.”
__________________________________________
To put it kindly, what is Orac’s “Review,” well-lacking?

(Using Orac’s own words.)
__________________________________________
Is it Orac who “certainly deserves a heapin’ helpin’ of not-so-Respectful Insolence, but, oddly enough, hasn’t gotten it. One might even say, he’s been Insolenopenic, if you know what I mean.”

(Using Orac’s own words.)
__________________________________________
Of course, I can fix that.

(Using Orac’s own words.)
__________________________________________
I wonder if Galileo ever let FACTS get in the way of SCIENCE? (Or Orac?)
__________________________________________
We have to give Orac some credit for at least providing a link to the TruthMovies interview with Merola, (by selecting “claims the movie was his idea”) after Orac does a fine job of kicking him in the mud underthe proverbial Bus.
__________________________________________
Orac doesn’t seem to want to believe him, but maybe Orac is a “Conspiracy Theorist” akin to our Friend flipper.
__________________________________________
Orac advised readers that:
__________________________________________
“[t]he documentary was awful, …and overall just a plain bad movie.”
__________________________________________
Obviously, some people thought otherwise based on the Awards the Documentary.has won & a number of “reviews” of the Documentary.
__________________________________________
Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times “reviewed” the Documentary 6/17/2010. Yet his review is not on the LATimes on-line archive, though articles done the same day are.
__________________________________________
Conspiracy Theory?
__________________________________________
Orac calls Merola a “Propogandist,” “He’s a hack,” & “a shill.”
__________________________________________
Orac, please tell us how you really feel !!!
__________________________________________
For someone who claimed above:
__________________________________________
“…concentrate on science much more than moviemaking…,”
__________________________________________
Orac sure opines a lot about the “moviemaking.”
__________________________________________
By the time I got through reading Orac’s “Review,” I was drained.

(to use Orac’s own words.)
__________________________________________
Orac even cites “Quackwatch;” which has an interesting “Legal History,” but lets not get side-tracked by that.
__________________________________________
Orac states to the reader:
__________________________________________
“In the movie, little snippets of these reports, key parts of the text highlighted in yellow, are rapidly flashed onscreen, after which they disappear…”
__________________________________________
I have 1 word for you, Orac. “PAUSE.”
__________________________________________
There’s a “Pause” function you can use; just as you would when viewing Big Pharma adds on TV with their tiny legal medical warnings re their drugs & all their side-effects.
__________________________________________
Orac mentions the “Conspiracy Theory” soup of the “NCI,” “Texas Medical Board,” FDA,” & “Big Pharma,” but lets not get sidetracked by that subject-matter either.
__________________________________________
Orac whines & whines & whines about the “moviemaking,” instead of the “Science.”

(To use Orac’s own words.)
__________________________________________
Lets look at the “FACTS,” shall we?
__________________________________________
Instead of just linking to an Article about Merola, lets actually “review” what HE said.
———————————————————-
5/26/2010 in Yes! Weekly.
———————————————————-
“I just became obsessed with the story,…and the more time I spent with Burzynski, his patients and his story, the more obsessed and excited I became.”
———————————————————-
“I haven’t had a single audience member approach me after a screening and criticize or question the validity of the information in the film.”
———————————————————-
“There is nothing in the film that is ‘assumed,’ ‘theoretical’ or not backed by the highest of documentation and forensic evidence.”
———————————————————-
“I have trouble seeing what, if anything, the FDA can possibly say about the film to discredit it.”
———————————————————-
“The only thing perhaps they can do is discredit me — which is usually what happens to directors like me. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens. I am prepared for anything.”
__________________________________________
In the interest of disclosure & transparency, I contacted Merola re his comments.
__________________________________________
6/3/10 in TrustMovies;
———————————————————-
I’m not really sure how to respond to that one. I made a living in advertising, never really enjoyed it. I sort of got stuck in it, while always wanting to be in TV & Film. This is obviously an attack on my character, while ignoring the subject matter.
———————————————————-
(Re the 6/1/10 Village Voice “hack” “Yellow Journalism” piece – My OPINION.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_journalism&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
———————————————————-
As I stated in my press kit, I have always been interested in documentaries that delve into hard truths, I’m a huge fan of “The Cove,” “Food Inc,” “Why We Fight,” “No End In Sight,” and so on.
**********************************************************************
Orac – “I have to wonder whether Dr. Burzynski just hired Merola to make an infomercial.”
**********************************************************************
Orac, there’s your answer.
———————————————————-
I had originally included many of the opposition in the film, but I cut them for the final running time.
———————————————————-
For instance, Dr. Keith Black, a famous neurosurgeon in LA was on Larry King last fall sitting right next to Burzynski and waved around those invalid NCI trials as “proof” the treatment doesn’t work.
———————————————————-
i had planned on calling him out on it.
———————————————————-
Second Dr. Black also claimed that the brain tumor patient he sent to Burzynski died shortly after.
———————————————————-
Well, the reality is, Jodi Fenton, who is the first patient in my film consulted with Dr. Black before going to Burzynski.
———————————————————-
Dr. Black told her he was a fraud and a quack.
———————————————————-
30 days later – Jodi was cured of her brain tumor.
———————————————————-
Dr. Black fails to acknowledge this.
———————————————————-
As Jodi said in the film
———————————————————-
he just wrote it off”.
———————————————————-
I did have the film packed with “opposition”, but between running time and meeting the goals I felt I had to meet plus just looking at how absurd the “opposition” is, I decided to cut it.
———————————————————-
Again, anyone can spend hours reading the opposition.
———————————————————-
However, I also think that I do show some opposition in the film.
__________________________________________
Orac makes various statements re Antineoplastons:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“as a promising new treatment that can do much better than existing therapies with much less toxicity, even though there’s no evidence that it can.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“unproven therapy”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“The short version of the story behind antineoplastons is that there is no good basic science or clinical evidence to suggest that antineoplastons have any significant activity against cancer.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“When other researchers do a trial with his neoplastons, the results aren’t nearly as promising; in fact, the results are pretty much always negative, and significant adverse reactions are observed.”
———————————————————-
Orac -[NOTE: The Documentary Channel has apparently asserted a copyright claim and forced YouTube to take the video down
———————————————————-
I found at least 7 YouBoobTube links.
__________________________________________
Let’s NOT let “SCIENCE” get in the way of “FACTS.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Wikipedia – Mayo Clinic study found no benefit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That was not what the study concluded.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2/1999

“CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. 1/1/1986 – SR Burzynski

Drugs Exp Clin Res, January 1, 1986; 12 Suppl 1: 1-9.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Historical medicinal use of urine & urine extracts known for centuries in ancient times.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
1897 Research initiated by Polish researcher.
1937 1st modern study of certain substances in urine.
1967 Research began when significant differences noted in cancer patients compared to control group.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Research programme established for identification of antineoplastic from urine.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Antineoplastons found to be completely different from certain derivatives isolated from urine by other authors.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Research of urine led to Antineoplaston A1, A2, A3, A4 & A5, which possessed high anticancer activity & low toxicity.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
1st active component named A10.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
2 Synthetic derivatives of A10 named AS2-1 & AS2-5.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
All antineoplaston formulations submitted for Phase I clinical studies in advanced cancer patients.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Treatment free from significant side-effects & resulted in objective response in # of advanced cancer cases.
__________________________________________
3. 1/1987- MC Liau, M Szopa, B Burzynski, & SR Burzynski.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Drugs Exp Clin Res, Jan 1987; 13 Suppl 1: 71-6. PMID: .3569019
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Synthetic Antineoplaston A10 shown to produce promising clinical results, similar to those obtained with antineoplastons derived from urine.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
A10 capable of reducing excessive excretions often associated with cancer patients, boosting levels of antineoplaston.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Therapeutic partially attributable to antineoplastons, the level of which A10 can help to raise.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Patient must have certain reserve of antineoplastons to benefit from therapy with A10.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Patients who responded favourably to treatment with A10 invariably showed an increase of certain levels & decrease of certain urinary excretions.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Results suggest body, under normal circumstances, is protected by antineoplastons against cancer.
__________________________________________
4. 1/1/1994 – M Juszkiewicz, A Chodkowska, SR Burzynski, M Feldo, B Majewska, and Z Kleinrok
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Drugs Exp Clin Res, Jan 1994; 20(4): 161-7. PMID: .7813388
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Influence of A5 on certain structures.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Antineoplastons naturally occurring…agents.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Exist in blood, tissues & urine.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
In clinical trials in advanced cancer, in addition to anticancer activity it was observed that patients suffering from both cancer & Parkinson’s disease exhibited marked improvement in parkinsonian… when treated with A5.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Present study designed to analyse the influence of A5 on certain structures.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Mice & rats given A5 intraperitoneally at 3 different dosage levels.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Experiments demonstrated A5 stimulates certain receptors.
__________________________________________
5. 11/1997 – Authors: H Tsuda, M Sata, H Saitsu, K Yamana, H Hara, S Yamada, T Kumabe
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Affiliations: KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT SURG,
KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT INTERNAL MED. KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT RADIOL,
KURUME,FUKUOKA 830,JAPAN.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Oncology reports, November 1997, Volume 4 Number 6
Pages: 1213-1216
.….…………………………………………………………………………
AS2-1 exhibits certain growth inhibition of human…carcinoma cells in vitro & showed minimum adverse effects in phase I clinical trial.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Reviewed 2 clinical cases of liver cancer in whom we believe A2-1 was useful as maintenance therapy after TAE & MCN.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
2 patients continued to be in good condition for more than 2 years without limitation of normal activities.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
AS2-1 may be effective & useful as maintenance agent…in patients with liver cancer.
__________________________________________
6. 5 – 6/1998 – Authors: H Tsuda, M Sata, T Kumabe, H Hara, N Eriguchi, Y Sugita, H Nagamatsu
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, 67 Asahimachi, Kurumeshi, Fukuokaken, 830, Japan.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Oncology Reports, May-Jun 1998, Volume 5 Number 3
Pages: 597.- 1197
.….…………………………………………………………………………
A10 & AS2-1 exhibit growth inhibition of cancer cells.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Observed antitumor responses within 2-3 weeks of combination treatment of…therapy & A10 & AS2-1 in phase I clinical study conducted in Kurume University Hospital.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Reviewed 3 clinical cases of advanced cancer in which we believed A10 & AS2-1 may be contributing to rapid antitumor response.
__________________________________________
7. 11.- 12/1998 – Authors: T Kumabe, H Tsuda, M Uchida, Y Ogoh, N Hayabuchi, M Sata, O Nakashima, H Hara
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Affiliations: Department of Radiology, Kumabe Hospital, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurumeshi, Fukuokaken 830.-0011, Japan.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Oncology Reports, Nov-Dec 1998, Volume 5 Number 6
Pages: 1363-1370
.….…………………………………………………………………………
A10 injection exhibited…growth inhibition of human…carcinoma cells in vitro & showed minimum adverse effects in a phase I clinical trial.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Reviewed 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…infusion of A10 I & other showed resolution of…tumor thrombosis with systemic infusion of A10 I.
__________________________________________
8. 6/1/1999 – SR Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc, June 1, 1999; 74(6): 641-2., PMID: .10377942
__________________________________________
9. 1.- 2/2002 – Authors: H. Tsuda, M. Sata, H. Ijuuin, T. Kumabe, M. Uchida, Y. Ogou, Y. Akagi, K. Shirouzu, H. Hara, Y. Nakashima
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken .830-0011, Japan
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Oncology Reports, January-February 2002, Volume 9 Number 1, Pages: 65-68
.….…………………………………………………………………………
A10 & AS2-1 chemically identified & synthesized antineoplastons proven to inhibit cancer cell growth by…inhibiting tumor growth.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Cases of advanced cancer responded well to combination treatment…with A10 & AS2-1 in clinical trials being conducted in Kurume University Hospital.
__________________________________________
10 4/2003 – SR Burzynski
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Med Hypotheses, Apr 2003; 60(4): 578-83., PMID: .12615527
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Antineoplastons work as…switches, turning inactive tumor suppressor genes back on.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
While they activate tumor suppressor genes, they also activate some additional genes silenced during aging process.
__________________________________________
11. 3/1-2004 – Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Burzynski Research Institute, Houston, TX
.….…………………………………………………………………………
doi: 10.1177/1534735403261964 Integr Cancer Ther March 2004 vol. 3 no. 1 47-58
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Antineoplastons work as…switches, which regulate expression of genes.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Phase II trials indicate efficacy of antineoplastons in low-grade glioma, brain stem glioma, high-grade glioma, adenocarcinoma of the colon, & hepatocellular carcinoma
..….…………………………………………………………………………
Best results observed in children with low-grade glioma, where 74% of patients obtained objective response, & in patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon…whose survival rate of more than 5 years is 91% versus 39% in controls.
__________________________________________
12. 9/2004 – Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, Robert I. Lewy, MD, FACP, Robert Weaver, MD, Tomasz Janicki, MD, Gabor Jurida, MD, Mohammad Khan, MD, Chymbeelyn B. Larisma, MD, Jaroslaw Paszkowiak, MD, Barbara Szymkowski, MD, Burzynski Clinic, Houston, Texas
.….…………………………………………………………………………
doi: 10.1177/1534735404267748 Integr Cancer Ther September 2004 vol. 3 no. 3 257-261
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme carries extremely poor prognosis & median survival less than 7 months.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Authors report good results in 40-year-old man diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme who received antineoplastons.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Brain tumor diagnosed in 5/1999, & subsequently underwent subtotal tumor resection & standard radiation therapy.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
MRI &…tomography scans documented tumor recurrence.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Approximately 2 months after completion of radiation therapy, he was admitted for administration of…A10 & AS2-1.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Administration of A10 & AS2-1 was over 655 consecutive days with exception of few short interruptions.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Administration was very well tolerated with only mild reversible side effects.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Follow-up MRI &…tomography scans revealed decrease & eventually disappearance of tumor
..….…………………………………………………………………………
Complete response documented after approximately 1 year of A10 & AS2-1.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
More than 4 years later, off A10 & AS2-1, patient is tumor free, able to carry on normal activities, & works full-time, & KPS increased from 50 to 100.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Extensive phase II trials with A10 & AS2-1 in patients with glioblastoma multiforme are nearing completion.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Trials may provide more data regarding efficacy of A10 & AS2-1 in treatment of glioblastoma multiforme in untreated patients compared to results in patients with tumor recurrence after radiation therapy.
__________________________________________
13. 3/2005 – Authors: Keiko Matono, Yutaka Ogata, Hideaki Tsuda, Yasumi Araki, Kazuo Shirouzu
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Oncology Reports, March 2005, Volume 13 Number 3
Pages: 389-395
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume City, Fukuoka .830-0011, Japan
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Investigated efficacy & mechanisms of AS2-1 against post-operative lung metastasis following removal of implanted human colon cancer in…rat.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Influence of AS2-1 on in vitro…human colon carcinoma cell activities evaluated.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
AS2-1 administered…after removal of implanted …cancer in…rat.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
AS2-1 inhibited…cell proliferation through…cell arrest &, at higher concentration, induction of apoptosis.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
AS2-1 showed significant reduction in lung metastasis at 5 weeks & cecal removal.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Survival rate in AS2-1 group significantly higher than control.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
TUNEL staining on lung…tumors revealed apoptosis index in AS2-1 group significantly higher.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
AS2-1 showed… effect against post-operative lung metastases from…cancer through…cell arrest & subsequent induction of apoptosis.
__________________________________________
14. 6/2005 – Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, Robert A. Weaver, MD, Tomasz Janicki, MD, Barbara Szymkowski, MD, Gabor Jurida, MD, Mohammad Khan, MD, Vsevolod Dolgopolov, MD, Burzynski Clinic, Houston, Texas
.….…………………………………………………………………………
doi: 10.1177/1534735405276835 Integr Cancer Ther June 2005 vol. 4 no. 2 168-177
.….…………………………………………………………………………
13 children, either with recurrent disease or high risk, treated in phase II studies with antineoplastons.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Median age of patients 5 years, 7 months (range, 1-11).
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Medulloblastoma diagnosed in 8 patients
pineoblastoma in 3 patients.
Other PNET in 2 patients.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Previous treatments included surgery in 12 patients.
(1 had biopsy only)
chemotherapy in 6 patients.
radiation therapy in 6 patients.
6 patients hadn’t received prior chemotherapy or radiation.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Treatment consisted of…infusions of 2 formulations of ANP, A10 & AS2-1, & administered an average of 20 months.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Complete response accomplished in 23%,
partial response in 8%,
stable disease in 31%,
progressive disease in 38% of cases.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
6 patients (46%) survived more than 5 years from initiation of ANP.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
5 not treated earlier with radiation therapy or chemotherapy.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Serious side effects included single occurrences of fever, granulocytopenia, & anemia.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Study ongoing & accruing additional patients.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
% of patients’ response lower than standard treatment of favorable PNET, but long-term survival in poor-risk cases & reduced toxicity makes ANP promising for very young children, patients at high risk of complication of standard therapy, & patients with recurrent tumors.
__________________________________________
15. 8/2005 – Authors: Teruhiko Fujii, Anna M. Nakamura, Goro Yokoyama, Miki Yamaguchi, Kosuke Tayama, Keisuke Miwa, Uhi Toh, Daisuke Kawamura, Kazuo Shirouzu, Hideaki Yamana, Michihiko Kuwano, Hideaki Tsuda
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahimachi, Kurume, Fukuoka, .830-0011, Japan.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Oncology Reports, August 2005, Volume 14 Number 2
Pages: 489-494
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Cells treated with A10 monitored for changes.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
A10 markedly inhibited SKBR-3 proliferation due to arrest in G1 phase.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
A10 down-regulated expression…resulting in inhibition.
increased expression…, with resultant inhibition.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Study defined pathway in which A10 arrested…cells.
findings indicate that A10 antitumor effect could be utilized as effective therapy for breast cancer patients.
__________________________________________
16. 3/2006 –
.….…………………………………………………………………………
doi: 10.1177/1534735405285380 Integr Cancer Ther March 2006 vol. 5 no. 1 40-47
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Brainstem glioma carries worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy & chemotherapy & do not survive longer than 2 years.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Treatment even more challenging when inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG).
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Objective of report to summarize outcome of patients with HBSG treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Patients: group of 18 patients was evaluable:
4 patients with glioblastomas.
14 patients with anaplastic HBSG.
14 patients had diffuse intrinsic tumors.
12 patients suffered from recurrence.
6 patients did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Methods: Antineoplastons, which consist of antineoplaston A10 (A10I) & AS2-1 injections, were given in escalating doses.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Median duration of antineoplaston administration was 5 months.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Responses were assessed by…enhanced MRI &…tomography.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Results: overall survival at 2 & 5 years was 39% & 22%, respectively.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Maximum survival was more than 17 years for patient with anaplastic astrocytoma.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
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%.
Progressive disease in 39% of patients.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Antineoplastons were tolerated very well with 1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia).
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Conclusion: Antineoplastons contributed to more than 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas & anaplastic astrocytomas of brainstem in small group of patients.
__________________________________________
17. 11/18.- 21/2010 – Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Robert A. Weaver, Tomasz J. Janicki, Gregory S. Burzynski, Barbara Szymkowski & Sheryll S. Acelar, Burzynski Clinic
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology 2010
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Neuro Oncol (2010) 12 (suppl 4): iv69-iv78. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq116.s9 This article appears in: Abstracts from the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), November 18–21, 2010, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Purpose of study was to evaluate efficacy & toxicity of antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1 (ANP) in adult patients with recurrent mixed gliomas.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
13 of 20 patients enrolled were evaluable.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
7 patients could not be evaluated due to inadequate duration of treatment & lack of follow-up MRI scans
..….…………………………………………………………………………
4 women & 9 men.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Median age was 38 (range, 29–54).
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Median KPS score at baseline was 70 (range, 60–100).
1 patient had low-grade & 12 patients had high-grade mixed gliomas.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
All patients received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, & surgery prior to ANP, with exception of 1 patient who received no chemotherapy or radiation therapy postsurgery.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Patients received escalating doses of…ANP 6 times daily.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Median duration of treatment was 4.4 months.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
ANP was well tolerated, with most common side effects being urinary frequency, hypernatremia, dysgeusia, myalgias, nausea, & hypersensitivity.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Serious (grade 3) toxicity (urinary frequency) was observed in only 1 patient & there were no grade 4 toxicities.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Response to ANP monitored by MRIs of the brain.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Responses were as follows:
Complete response, 23%.
Partial response, 8%.
Stable disease, 23%.
Progressive disease, 46%.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Progression-free survivals (PFS) at 1, 2, & 5 years were 31%, 23%, & 8%, respectively.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Overall survivals (OS) from diagnosis & start of treatment at 1, 2, & 5 years were 92% & 54%, 85% & 23%, & 46% & 8%, respectively.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Preliminary results of our small study of adults with recurrent mixed gliomas revealed ANP to be very effective in resolving or stabilizing disease in more than 50% of treated patients as well as encouraging PFS & OS with minimal toxicity.
__________________________________________
18. 9/18.- 21/2010 – Sonali Patil, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Emilia Mrowczynski & Krzysztof Grela, Burzynski Research Institute
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology 2010
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Neuro Oncol (2010) 12 (suppl 4): iv7-iv25. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq116.s2 This article appears in: Abstracts from the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), November 18–21, 2010, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
.….…………………………………………………………………………
In this study, we report the changes in expression of several…glioblastoma cells in response to exposure to AS2-1.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Using total human microarray screen we noted reduced expression…& enhanced expression of genes involved in apoptosis in…cells exposed to AS2-1.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Antineoplastons will be used in phase III U.S. FDA-regulated clinical trials this year.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Once approved, these…derivatives may offer promising treatment in many types of brain tumors.
__________________________________________
19. 9/6.- 9/2012 – S. Patil⇓,S. Burzynski, E.Mrowczynski & K. Grela, Burzynski Research Institute, Houston, TX, United States
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology 2012
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Neuro Oncol (2012) 14 (suppl 3): iii1-iii94. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nos183 This article appears in: Abstracts from the 10th Congress of European Association Of NeuroOncology, Marseille, France September 6-9, 2012
.….…………………………………………………………………………
In this study we investigated effectiveness of combination of PG…
.….…………………………………………………………………………
PG is used in formulation of AS2-1 .
.….…………………………………………………………………………
FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for A10 & AS2-1 for treatment of gliomas, in 2009.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
12 FDA supervised Phase II clinical trials have confirmed anti-tumor efficacy in several types of brain tumor.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
PB is indicated for treatment of glioma & acute… leukemia.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
PB has been shown to inhibit…, induce differentiation & apoptosis in cancer cells.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Previous studies in our laboratory have shown the combination of PG &…acts synergistically to inhibit growth of…glioblastoma cells.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Another published report has shown that PB induces apoptosis in…cancer cells.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
In this study we examined effect of combination of PG with…on.. cell line.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
We found PG causes down-regulation of…in
…cells.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
PG is not toxic to normal cells.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
We describe the novel combination of.. & PB as effective anti-proliferative agents in glioblastoma & medulloblastoma cells.
.….…………………………………………………………………………
Links not included on this post in order that it not be Orac Spam Bot Tu-Quack Blocked.

@hello…

Goodbye, brainless and logic-free troll, you will not be missed, although your stupidity would be amusing.

@djt

Strike one, djt, you still haven’t posting a shred of proof, like you have done in all of your posts.

Somehow, with all the important national security concerns over the flu and how we must all get vaccinated, I missed this news. Way to go Stanislaw Burzynski.

Didymus Judas Thomas, are you a programmer? That hierarchical formatting looks like the way I used to subdivide assembly language programs. Just a hint for future reference: in programming it makes sense; in text it is bizarre and renders your output unintelligible.

As often occurred with with Th1Th2, this has reached a point where I feel a bit uncomfortable arguing with someone who appears to be unable to conduct even the semblance of a rational discussion.

Sigh–blockquote fail. Hopefully i haven’t italicized the internet again…

@hello

Should have been ‘goodbye’, but I digress:

Funny how you condemn Dr. Burzinski but then you have no other solution. Its absolutely hysterical.

Ah yes, the old “you have no better ideas, so his must be right” trope. No, even if everything we know is wrong, that doesn’t make him right.

Its so funny to me that there can be so many brainwashed people who believe everything the government and the media say. Honestly. Wake Up.

Funny, we’re the ones asking for the evidence *because* we refuse to believe everything we’re told. And yet, it’s usually the Burzyinski fans who do all the believing and none of the questioning.

Sadly I am wasting my time right now chatting to a bunch of brainless and utterly hopeless bunch of sheep who will know no better. So without further will do, im off. Have a nice day.

Read: I have no evidence, so I’ll go now before you start asking me for it.

@DJT

Our good Friend flip flippantly flouts his “Conspiracy Theory” that it is my intent to DEFEND SRB!

Whilst I posit that flip is flip-flopping & maybe doesn’t understand the grand idea of DEFENDING the TRUTH.

Your reading comprehension still fails you. I said that I didn’t know *what* you were trying to achieve. And posted a question in the hopes you’d clarify yourself. Which you have also failed at.

Can you, I don’t know, learn how to use blockquotes? It’s very easy, here I’ll teach you. Before the text you want to quote, put a left triangular bracket, usually found to the right of the letter ‘M’ on your keyboard. Then type the word blockquote. Then type in a right triangular bracket. Then enter the text you are quoting. To close the whole thing up, add a left triangular bracket, a backslash (the one on the same key as the question mark), type the word blockquote, and then a right triangular bracket.

So it will be like this, but minus the spaces:

Text

Do that from now on and your comments will be easier to read. Maybe people will understand you a bit better…Smaller comments will help too, and less copying and pasting of random stuff. Of course, that won’t help with the general word salad, but it will help reduce the confusion.

@LW

Didymus Judas Thomas, are you a programmer? That hierarchical formatting looks like the way I used to subdivide assembly language programs. Just a hint for future reference: in programming it makes sense; in text it is bizarre and renders your output unintelligible.

I know they’re not the same things, but surely a programmer can figure out basic HTML?

Darn you wordpress! Ok, use triangular brackets instead of the square ones shown below:

[blockquote] Text [/blockquote]

@Chris is the fear salesman.

I’m reminded of some things I’ve read about Uwe Boll. He sometimes challenges the people who criticize his movies to boxing matches. Other times, he argues along the lines that they should just shut up and make better movies, as if the ability to create good movies is a prerequisite for recognizing and criticizing bad ones.

I don’t need to be able to cure cancer to recognize and point out warning signs of a cancer quack.

@Bo – do you actual have a point or do you just enjoy spamming multiple threads with your inane comments?

Oh wait…I think I just answered my own question….lol

I think bo’s point is “Look at me! Look at me! Aren’t I so clever?”

So, JGC, I see you have also suffered through a high school poetry reading. I was so glad that my daughter had the start time wrong and I only had to sit through half of it.

Answer the questions, Bo. What part of Burzynski has to do with flu vaccines?

So, JGC, I see you have also suffered through a high school poetry reading.

Just be glad you’re not stuck with the public radio station in the third-largest DMA. Their relentless coverage of teen poetry slams has been going on for years.

@Adam – I guess it would be great to actually have “published clinical results” to refute, wouldn’t it? I mean, you’d think after 30 years that Dr. B would have oodles of results that could be published to shut us up, right?

Wouldn’t it be very easy for Dr. B to just go ahead & publish his “cure” for Cancer, spread it far and wide (via the Internet to avoid Guv’ment repression) and silence his critics once and for all?

Of course, being able to play the victim / martyr seems to be an extremely lucrative business – and if results were ever published that showed his treatment didn’t work, it would be the end of the gravy train, wouldn’t it?

FDA, DOJ, and the Texas Board of Medical Examiners can’t seem to refute him, discredit him, or prosecute him

Bo, until such time as Burzynski offers evidence in support of his claims that antineoplastons are effective at treating advanced stage cancers by publishing the results of the multiple ‘clinical trials’ he’s supposedly been conducting for the past couple of decades there simply isn’t anything which needs refutation.

Guys we should be utterly embarrassed that we are attracting this quality of troll. We can and should do better.

How I long for the days of Thingy, blackheart, and the cannabis troll. Truly those were the golden years 🙂

Adam, how could you forget Pegemily?