NOTE: Special thanks to Jann Bellamy for advising me regarding the legal aspects of this post.
There are times when I fear that I'm writing about the same topic too many times in too brief a period of time. Most commonly, I notice this concern when writing about the lunacy of the anti-vaccine movement. In fact, it's fairly rare that I feel it for any other topic. There is, however, one topic other than antivaccinationist assaults against science and reason that will sometimes obligate me to go on a roll such that I might write multiple posts in a short period of time. I'm referring, of course, to the dubious doctor known as Stanislaw Burzynski, a man who charges desperate patients with advanced (and usually incurable) cancer tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in his "clinical trials" of antineoplastons, compounds that he claims to have isolated from urine and that he now represents 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. He's even starred in his very own documentary, which his very own propagandist Eric Merola, used as a paean to the greatness that Burzynski obviously considers himself to possess. The documentary was awful, full of biased misinformation and overall just a plain bad movie. Lately, Burzynski has been claiming to use what he refers to as "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy," which is more appropriately described as "personalized therapy for dummies," given how incompetently it is carried out and the manner in which Burzynski mixes and matches very expensive targeted therapy and chemotherapy in ways guaranteed to produce synergistic toxicity.
Through it all, Burzynski collects huge fees for his "services," motivating the desperate families of dying cancer patients to hold massive fundraisers. This sort of story has become a depressingly common topic for this blog over the last year since I really started to notice Burzynski and his followers in a big way. Most recently it was Rachael Mackey and Amelia Saunders. Before that, it was a parade of children and adults that included Brynlin Sanders, Jesse Bessant, Shana Pulkinen, Billie Bainbridge, Kelli Richmond, and Olivia Bianco. There are more, so many more, but they all share two things in common. First, Stanislaw Burzynski failed them, and, second, they made the news because they held fundraisers to try to pay the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars that Burzynski charges for his services. Meanwhile, although Burzynski somehow has a phase 3 clinical trial that was apparently approved by the FDA (although it hasn't accrued a single patient in nearly two years), the FDA has slapped him down for serious problems with the institutional review board (IRB) that oversees his "clinical trials" and for making claims for his antineoplastons even though they are not FDA-approved.
Unfortunately, as I noted last week, although the Texas Medical Board (TMB) brought action against Burzynski to strip him of his medical license, it appears that he he will slither away yet again, given that the proceedings against him have apparently been dismissed. At the time I took note of this development, I didn't know how Burzynski had managed to slither away from accountability for his actions and justice yet again. Certainly, the gloating by the likes of Patrick "Tim" Bolen shed no light on the question, nor did this triumphant screed by someone who calls herself Sarah the Healthy Economist:
Why has Dr. Burzynski been so relentlessly persecuted first by the United States Government and then the Texas Medical Board for so many years?
Follow the money my friends!
The multi-agent gene targeted therapy called Antineoplastons is a nothing short of a huge medical breakthrough that promises to completely shatter the cut, poison, burn Standard Of Care – surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment. When clinical trials are completed and Antineoplastons approved, it will be the first time in history that a single individual and not a pharmaceutical company holds the exclusive patent to manufacture and distribute these gene targeted medicines on the open market.
Uh, no. Antineoplastons don't represent "multi-agent gene targeted therapy." The person who wrote this bit of gloating is clearly too ignorant of what Burzynski actually does and claims to know that the "gene-targeted" therapy he claims to provide is not antineoplastons (although Burzynski somehow manages always to include antineoplastons in his concoctions). Nor is what Burzynski does anything that will "completely shatter" the current cancer treatment paradigm.
None of this stops the hyperbole, though:
Parents have particular reason to rejoice that the case against Dr. Burzynski has been dismissed. One form of childhood cancer – diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma for which conventional medicine has no cure has been cured by Antineoplastons (with dozens of others). [ANP - PubMed 2003] [ANP - PubMed 2006] [ANP - Cancer Therapy 2007] [Rad & other - PubMed 2008] [Chemo/Rad - PubMed 2005]
Congratulations Dr. Burzynski on this huge win against the foes that are attempting to silence you and stop your amazing work. The road ahead is still long until treatment with Antineoplastons is widely available to all Americans, but this recent victory brings a big one home for the little guy!
No, it's not. It is, unfortunately, a victory for a man who uses the desperation of dying cancer patients to extract huge sums of money from them or, as one of his patients put it, to use them "as an ATM" and coercing her into buying her prescriptions from a Burzynski-owned pharmacy at "outrageous" prices. Meanwhile, the heart of the case brought against Burzynski brought by the TMB was his off-label use of targeted therapies in treating cancer patients. When I last reviewed this, I was astounded at the number of targeted drugs in the drug cocktails used. Not only was Burzynski using chemotherapy and a lot of it, but he was using some very expensive products of big pharma in a medically unsupportable manner. So let's head over to the actual legal rulings. I do this, of course, with a bit of trepidation because, of course, I'm not a lawyer. However, even not being a lawyer, I think the reasons for the dismissal become fairly obvious by reading some of the motions and rulings. Plus I had input from a real lawyer.
So why was Buryznski's case dismissed? Fortunately, some of my readers helped me out in the comments of my last post. You, too, can get these PDFs if you wish, just by going to the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) and, using a guest account, searching for docket 503-11-1669. The "money filings" are ORDER NO. 12 - RULING ON RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR DISPOSITION, STAFFS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND MEMORIALIZING PARTIES STIPULATION OF FACTS and ORDER N O. 16 » GRANTING AND DENYING IN PART STAFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION OF ORDER NO. 12. Basically, the TMB had gone after Burzynski based on the doctrine of vicarious liability, which means in essence that the TMB was arguing that Burzynski was responsible for the actions of the physicians working for him who had cared for the patients at the heart of the TMB case against Burzynski. In response, Burzynski moved to dismiss and/or strike TMB allegations against him to the extent that the allegations were based on the actions of other physicians working at his clinic. His attorney's argument was that, under administrative law, there is no vicarious liability for the actions of others. This is apparently different from tort law (for example, medical malpractice), where the physician can be held liable for the actions fo physicians working under his control or supervision in some circumstances. The bottom line is that the administrative judge ruled in Burzynski's favor. From the RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO THE BOARD STAFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE ON THE CONSOLIDATE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND SUMMARY DISPOSITION:
Respondent's ownership of the clinic and his self-designation as the clinic's chief physician on some forms, his ability to hire and fire everyone, and even that the forms which state that he is in "charge of treatment" (as stated in the informed consent forms for patient A) is only evidence of responsibility under vicarious liability theory, given the fact that the medical records detail exactly what doctors provided services to these two patients and who was involved in the delivery of medical care to these patients.
The judge accepted this reasoning, which meant that the TMB faced the bad option of trying to prosecute a case based only on what the complaint alleged that Burzynski himself did. It's not clear why the TMB voluntarily dismissed the case after this ruling, but perhaps the TMB's lawyers concluded that there wasn't a strong enough case based only on the allegations against only Burzynski. Basically, by throwing his fellow physicians working for him under the bus, Burzynski walks. Why do I say "throwing them under the bus"? Simple. The TMB could, if it so desired, begin actions against the individual physicians who took care of these patients, and I sincerely hope that the TMB does just that.
As for the significance of the ruling, contrary to what Burzynski's apologists would like you to believe, this ruling says absolutely nothing about whether what Burzynski is doing is good science or not. It says exactly nothing about whether what Burzynski is doing is good medicine or not. It says even less about whether Burzynski's clinical trials are ethical or not. All the board found was that, as a matter of law, the TMB couldn't bring action against Burzynski on the basis of actions performed by doctors under his supervision. So when someone like Patrick "Tim" Bolen exults that Burzynski's somehow been vindicated, Sarah the Healthy Economist says "alternative cancer treatment wins big," or Burzynski's lawyer Richard Jaffe says something like, "The cutting-edge, multi-agent gene targeted therapy devised by Dr. Burzynski which was at the heart of this proceeding is still being given at the clinic and is helping countless patients," it's a non sequitur. Just because the judge ruled on a narrow point of law regarding whether specific allegations were admissible in a case against Burzynski says nothing about the validity of Burzynski's work, nor does it in any way vindicate him. He got off on a technicality, and that's all.
That still leaves the claim by Jaffe that "two medical board informal settlement panels found that the use of these combination drugs on the advanced cancer patients involved was within the standard of care." Unfortunately, we have no way of finding out what the settlement panels did or didn't find because the proceedings of such panels are confidential, being as the name implies an attempt to see if the parties can settle the case prior to litigation. One notes that the board appears to have disagreed with Burzynski's characterization of the settlement proceedings.
I'm not going to lie or downplay it here. The dismissal of the TMB action against Burzynski is a major setback to efforts to stop what Burzynski is doing. He's now basically free to continue to do what he's been doing for the last thirty years. Once burned, it's unlikely that the TMB will take another crack at him any time soon. The last time it did was back in the 1990s. Will it be in the 2020s before a future board decides to try again, or will Burzynski retire or die before then, leaving his son Greg to carry on the family business?
- Log in to post comments
I did at least get a varsity letter out of the deal (I think we were really JV), although I never got a jacket to affix it to. I also discovered that the coloring of the border and letter were reversed for lowly nonathletic types.
DJT: heretic not heritic.
12/16 Comments:
__________________________________________
All & Tu-Quackers,
Has anyone heard from those time-wasters Narad & MarkL?
who ask questions but don't want to answer questions?
__________________________________________
novalox,
No. It's Comedian Carlos Mencia!
__________________________________________
herr doktor bimler
Please go on Wikipedia & let them know.
They obviously didn't get your memo re Galileo.
__________________________________________
Shay,
I can handle be mocked by faceless beings who ask questions but don't want to answer questions, & can't back up the fount of knowledge supposedly flowing forth from their alleged firing synapses.
I call them "Tu-Quackers."
__________________________________________
LW,
Looks like you need to help herr doktor bimler correct Wikipedia re Galileo.
__________________________________________
LW,
Your supposed knowledge of SRB's history made me think you were 15 since you could even go on the Harvard University web-site & find that from:
1997 The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis, Citing Burzynski.
1997 - The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najaran and Burzynski Cases.
Why don't you digest those if the prospect that they come from Harvard doesn't frightens you away.
__________________________________________
herr doktor bimler,
dok,
Afraid of research about incarceration?
2012 - Wikipedia
4/22/12 - CBS News
7/3/2012 - CNN
10/15/2012 - Bloomberg
10/31/2012 - Aljazeera
Bureau of Justice Statistics
__________________________________________
Science Mom,
And you know so much about law how?
You have filed a case without a lawyer, citing Supreme Court cases like I have, and won, when?
The U.S. Constitution doesn't give me rights, it just enumerates rights I already have.
Have you read my suggested reading for LW, above?
__________________________________________
Krebiozen,
I find it interesting that your name refers to an unapproved cancer treatment.
Yet here you are on a science blog where Orac tries to be the voice of the Oncologists who couldn't "Man Up" and defend their own position, that's what Orac's for, I guess.
The "FACT" is you & Orac want to surmize. best guess, theorize, assume.
It's obvious that individual's on here will swallow anything the great Wizard of Orac says without requiring "FACTS."
This is why Orac should stick to Medicine, because being a true "Investigative Journalist" is not Orac's calling.
Orac also "cherry picks.
There's a Village Idiot who has claimed that in Orac's absence that "Trolls" have allegedly taken over the blog!
Who on here is going to call that "Tu-Quacker" out
Anyone else besides me have the COBOLS to do it?
FDR said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
I see the clear MOTIVATION of someone who posts GIGO like that as being obfuscation & fear of answering questions.
It reminds me of people who believe Alen Specter's JFK "Magic Bullet" theory.
I see that no one around here wants to ask the tough questions to those who need to answer them, unless its someone else than them.
And still DJT flails helplessly, thinking that making *lots* of accusations is somehow almost as good as making accusations backed by facts.
@Antaeus - I still want him to post in actual sentences & paragraphs. This weird format that he insists on using doesn't relay a single coherent thought or argument - again, making Dr. B look bad that these are the type of people that step up to defend him.....
Given that you haven't managed to figure out a way to hawk up any details of your Darrowesque exploits, you're not exactly impressing anyone with this moronic incantation, which comes off as lying somewhere between contesting a parking ticket and having an autographed photo of Joseph Wapner.
Thanks, Eli Stone. Try taking that one on the road. Attica! Attica! Attica!
DJT, in its usual polite and coherent manner, suggests review of The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis. I actually read it in full, which I suspect DJT did not. It is an interesting review (as of fifteen years ago) of the tension between the FDA's mandate to protect the public against unsafe drugs and medical devices and the Practice of Medicine Exception.
The Introduction states,
Most of the text is a discussion of the history and some proposed legislation. The paragraphs relevant to Burzynski are these:
(I have removed the footnotes which are interpolated in the middle of the text.)
We learn little new about Burzynski except that by the time he was charged he had been ignoring the law for twenty years and that, fifteen years ago, he had already "treated" a breathtaking three thousand patients.
How many clinical trials recruit three thousand patients? If he had kept careful records of everything known about each patient, one could do data-mining to determine what factors appear to correlate with better results and what with worse. One could really learn something from those tragic cases. One could help future patients with that knowledge.
The utter waste of the opportunity by that unmitigated swine Burzynski, as revealed by just this snippet, is sickening beyond my ability to express.
DJT in its delightfully civil manner, also recommended The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases
This student article from 1997 describes the cases of John Najarian, transplant surgeon, and of course Burzynski.
The Najarian case, if it played out as described, sounds like a nightmare of bureaucratic bumbling where the FDA first seemed to encourage the use of a new drug, then to forbid it, and to permit its manufacture and sale under some conditions, then to change the conditions, then to bring criminal charges.
The description of Burzynski's case gives us little new information except this:
So Burzynski openly defied both the FDA's regulations and a federal court order specifically directed at him for fourteen years before the FDA finally brought charges against him. Moreover, he "treated" patients for AIDS and Parkinson's with his antineoplastons.
DJT operates under the delusion that Burzynski's troubles with the FDA somehow exonerate him from accusations of battening on the blood of desperate patients. If the FDA had patted him on the head and said "Go to it", the fact remains that he hasn't proved that his nostrums work and that they don't do more harm than good.
Squidymus,
Run out of spamming material? Your insistence that Galileo discovered that the world is round and your defence of your statement that, "It’s great that the USA is #1 in incarnation of individuals in prisons" is hilarious, thanks for the laugh. I'm also enjoying your random capitalizations, weird use of quotation marks and extraneous apostrophes, which add a certain je ne sais pas to your comments.
You have bragged about this here before, using a different name, haven't you? Didn't we establish that you contested a parking fine or something equally trivial? (I see Narad has suggested something similar.)
My choice of pseudonym is far more significant and sinister than you could even imagine (or I may just have a perverse sense of humor).
You have quite a knack for the curious non sequitur. You use a biblical name, the name of a man Richard Dawkins described as the patron saint of skeptics, yet here you are on a science blog, defending pseudoscience. Very interesting. Anyway, conventional oncologists don't generally have to defend their position since conventional cancer treatment is supported by plenty of evidence from clinical trials. It's doctors without any oncology training who make unsupported claims and charge vast sums of money to treat cancer without the evidence of clinical trials to back them who should be defending themselves. Vulnerable cancer patients and their parents deserve protection from predatory scam artists, don't they?
In the absence of any decent evidence published by Burzynski, that's all we, you, his unfortunate patients and indeed Burzynski himself can do. That's the problem. However, what facts we do have are not consistent with Burzynski's claims. You apparently assume that anything a salesman and his publicist tell you about his product is true. Are you interested in acquiring a lovely historic bridge here in London by any chance?
What specifically has Orac said that isn't factually true? Over the years I have often checked what Orac says and I have found him to be very reliable indeed.
Another curious non sequitur.
Where does Orac claim he is an investigative journalist, sorry an “Investigative Journalist”?
Example?
Just the one troll, sorry "Troll", I'd say. Posting vast amounts of mostly irrelevant verbiage to multiple threads on a blog is considered trolling, and is annoying and rude besides. You might try posting a small apposite passage and linking to the source.
Is there any purpose to this blathering? Do you even understand what tu quoque means?
Maybe you could resubmit that sentence in FORTRAN as it appears to be COBOLlocks. The person who needs to answer the tough questions is Burzynski. He is the one using clinical trials as a loophole to treat patients with an unapproved drug and charging then large amounts of money.
Which questions have you asked that have remained unanswered anyway? It is quite possible they may have been missed in amongst the large amounts of incoherent verbiage you have dumped here. Why not put them in a clear, concise comment that people can understand and might even have time to read?
DJT's droppings really aren't doing Burzynski a lot of good. Putting together the numbers of patients Burzynski had "treated" by 1997, with the testimony of Dr. Patronas, the radiologist, in 1993, I reach this conclusion:
Between 1977 and 1997, Burzynski “treated” some three thousand patients, or about 150 per year. Thus we can estimate that between 1977 and 1993, he “treated” 2,400 patients. Out of those 2,400, those described by Dr. Patronas are presumably his seven best cases. And one died and another did not respond. So the results Burzynski presented appear to indicate that five out of 2,400 — a little over 0.2% — went into remission. That’s ever so impressive.
Dr. Patronas, the radiologist, said he was not aware that these tumors ever underwent spontaneous remission. But would he know if the rate were as low as, say 0.2%?
@Krebiozen: "Why not put them in a clear, concise comment that people can understand and might even have time to read?"
I don't think DJT is capable of clear, concise thought -- or even rational thought. Note that it suggests that herr doktor bimler and I should correct Wikipedia on the topic of Galileo -- which is outright ludicrous; of course Wikipedia does not claim that Galileo proved the Earth was round or was persecuted for saying so.
@HDB
LOL :)
.. I'm getting close to thinking that Squidymus is a Poe. Surely this is just getting too ridiculous?
By the way, DJT, just FYI: Galileo was born in 1564. The Magellan expedition returned from circumnavigating the globe in 1522. That is 42 years before Galileo was born. It would have been rather trivial for Galileo to prove that the Earth was round and the one could circumnavigate it, and rather ludicrous for the Church to persecute him for saying so.
@flip: "I’m getting close to thinking that Squidymus is a Poe."
I think it's a barely literate fifteen-year-old that thinks it's showing off how good it is with Google.
12/16 Comments:
__________________________________________
LW,
Simply AMAZING, LW!!!
How were you able to discern?:
____" That fascinating testimony above was from 1993."
Did you perhaps pick that up from the 1st page where I posted?:
____"May 24, 1993". :-o
"That was nineteen years ago. "
_____Did you have to remove your "JACKA$$ slippers" from off your feet to count this high?: :-)
"Oncologists do not clamor for it?"
_____FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!
How are they going to make money off of this?
Do they think they will get kick-backs, free vacations to the Bahamas or Aruba, free golfing excursions, & other special considerations for curing people with cancer?
_____"Maybe because those few patients..."
Uhmmm ... Page 117?
_____"A : we reviewed the material of seven cases."
Have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, a la Osoma Bin Laden?
Thousands of patients.
You are indeed a "Conspiracy Theorist."
See below.
__________________________________________
All & Tu-Quackers,
Has anyone heard from those wasters of time, MarkL & Narad?
Because I have the feeling that if we did, they would be espousing some "Conspiracy Theory" like:
_____"7 cherry-picked patients."
(And where have you been when Orac "Cherry Picks?")
"A: Yes, it was when Michael Hawkins from NCI asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientist and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute in order to assess the BEST CASE SCENARIO that he had to present us of his patients who were treated with antineoplastons." (pg. 116)
That was requested by NCI:
_____"the data on whom was SUPPLIED BY BURZYNSKI."
NO SH*T SHERLOCK??? ;-)
_____"A: Yes, ... and we reviewed the material that was given to us." (pg. 116)
_____"We checked the names of the patients on the films, and the FILES WERE OBTAINED AT DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS CROM THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, basically where the patients were located." (pg. 119)
"In a case that (1) was not about the EFFECTIVENESS of the treatments, meaning that nobody needed to bother to further examine the opinions offered..."
_____"A: So that was the first time when I was aware that there was an anticancer agent. And I was called as an expert in assessing the images to evaluate, together with the rest, the other five members of that team, to evaluate the EFFECTIVENESS of his treatment." (pg. 116)
Would you please repeat that last part, because I think some might have missed it considering where their heads are located? :-)
_____"to evaluate the EFFECTIVENESS of his treatment." (pg. 116)
What kind of JackBerk "Conspiracy Theorists" would question THAT???
_____" the forces of inertia prevailed."
Why am I NOT surprised?
_____"I did at least get a varsity letter out of the deal (I think we were really JV), although I never got a jacket to affix it to. I also discovered that the coloring of the border and letter were reversed for lowly nonathletic types.
Was there a Yellow Stripe down the middle?
See below.
__________________________________________
herr doktor bimler,
"with no attempt to show its relevance to anything."
_____"THE TUMOR DISSOLVED" (pg. 118)
_____"But THE TUMOR WAS VERY BIG the last one, the seventh, last two cases did not survive, although THERE WAS DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT in one of the two last cases." (pg. 119)
_____"you testified that five of the patients had their TUMORS RESOLVED." (pg. 120)
_____"DISAPPEARED." (pg. 120)
"Q: All right. What about these five patients that are all basically doing– how come they lived?" (pg. 122)
_____"Q: All right. What about these five patients that are all basically doing– how come they lived? (pg. 122)
A: Well, IT's AMAZING, the fact that they are living and some of them are doing well. They are not– they are not handicapped from the side effects of any treatment, and worse than the tumor itself. So these particular individuals not only survived, but they didn’t have major side effects. So I think it is IMPRESSIVE and unbelievable." (pg. 122)
_____"The TUMOR WAS VERY LARGE AND VERY INVOLVED the hypothalamus, a very sensitive part of the brain cannot be operated, and had both cystic components and fleshy components, mass like. AND THE LESION DISAPPEARED." (pg. 123)
_____"In this particular patients case the tumor disappeared, and there was a small, tiny remnant left, small percentage of the original size. And there has been several years since then and the patient is well." (pg. 123)
"Not convinced about the efficacy of most other projective tests either"
_____Have you considered an ENEMA?
_____I've heard it'll knock the BULLSH*T right out of you!!! :-)
__________________________________________
Mephistopheles O'Brien,
Says the Dungeons and Dragons character in their "Computer-Generated Fantasy World." :-)
__________________________________________
flip,
" Do I just have to keep making common-sense comments, or do I have to include something special?"
_____Where have you offered ANY common-sense comments?
__________________________________________
h d b
Then excretes it all. Try Cheese!
__________________________________________
LW,
_____"I guess I didn’t learn much from the constructive criticism."
Trust me. It shows!!!
__________________________________________
Krebiozen,
Hence emphasis on "Master" "Baters."
__________________________________________
Politicalguineapig,
You are mistaken.
I wasn't calling for any "tics" to come "here."
@DJT:"“A: Yes, it was when Michael Hawkins from NCI asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientist and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute in order to assess the BEST CASE SCENARIO that he had to present us of his patients who were treated with antineoplastons.” (pg. 116)"
Yep, cherry-picked, best cases out of something like 2,400 patients, and he still couldn't come up with seven *survivors*.
I don't think DJT can reason at all.
@Didymus Judas Thomas,
Your last message - a string of juvenile abusive comments - was entirely uncalled for.
In particular, I have no idea what your comment Says the Dungeons and Dragons character in their “Computer-Generated Fantasy World.” refers to or is supposed to mean. I suppose you're trying to taunt me in some way; I cannot find anything I've said that this would appear to relate to.
I find your ability to be abusive while agreeing to the facts remarkable.
@Mephistopheles O'Brien: I don't think we're dealing with an adult. Its abuse is juvenile because *it* is a juvenile.
@Didymus Judas Thomas,
LW has been remarkably patient in trying to explain your own references to you, so you might try actually reading what LW tells you for comprehension. You might learn which arguments you make are worthwhile, which are contradicted by fact, and which are logically inconsistent.
Krebiozen has been extremely patient and he is much more knowledgeable than I am. I was very interested in his explanation of the medical reports. It was most clear and informative.
You want answers part 1 doesn't offer references to published Phase I or Phase II clinical trial results: instead the citations are to review articles, abstracts from poster sessions, etc.
Burzynski hasn't published the results of the trials he's supposedly been running for the last 2 decades anywhere that I can determine.
DJT, let me lake this as easy as possible for you: where can I find published reprot of the Phase II clinical study you believe argues most strongly for the safety and efficacy of antineoplastons as a treatment for advanced stage cancer?
I'm asking for just one citation of just one clinical trial report of a Phase II clinical antineoplaston trial completed by Burzynski sometime in the past 20 years. He's initiated over 60--surely one of them has yielded usuable results?
If diddums can't perhaps find that information, perhaps he can find published clinical trials results for the efficacy of antineoplastons for the treatment of HIV or Parkinson's, the previous two diseases the brave maverick was 100% sure he was able to cure with "his invention".
Antineoplastons, the medicine in search of a disease.
Don't miss DJT's latest droppings over on the "Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies" post. Here's how to compute the survival rate if five survive out of seven:
This may be better than "Galileo was persecuted for saying the Earth was round."
LW,
That's a good point. The other thing to bear in mind is that these patients had all had conventional treatment previously. Some people are late responders to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, sometimes not showing clear signs of improvement until 12 weeks after treatment.
I see that Dr. Patronas wrote:
He was mistaken. This review of the literature found over 6,000 cases, 4 of them brain tumor cases. It reports that about 20 cases of spontaneous remission are reported every year, but many more undoubtedly go unreported. A brief review of PubMed and Google Scholar comes up with several case studies of spontaneous regression and remission of gliomas and astrocytomas. It's rare but by no means unknown.
The bottom line is that only Phase 3 clinical trials can tell us if Burzynski's treatment really works.
@LW
Re: Diddum's mathematical expertise
Isn't that the most spectacular self-destruct you have seen here?
I wonder what his next gambit will be (if, indeed, there is one)? I predict a new pseudo-identity at least!
@LW
Either that or someone who thinks that reading a few books is the same as being educated in medicine.
He seems fixated on conspiracy theorists without realising what the F one looks like.
@Mark L
Or even supplying evidence that it works as an anti-aging product.
@DJT
That answers that question. Evidently I have to include something super special.
Squidymus, you thundering nincompoop, at Burzyinski, we realize how to strategize cyber-holistically. We apply the proverb "You cannot have your cake and eat it too" not only to our raw bandwidth management but our aptitude to grow. Your budget for incubating should be at least twice your budget for disintermediating. The capacity to innovate virally leads to the aptitude to transition compellingly. Quick: do you have a e-business game plan for monitoring new cross-media, customer-defined data hygiene reports? We invariably revolutionize C2C2B reporting. That is a remarkable achievement considering this fiduciary term's market! The metrics for sexy distributed data hygiene are more well-understood if they are not best-of-breed, C2C2C. What do we streamline? Anything and everything, regardless of semidarkness! We will regenerate our capacity to productize without reducing our power to harness. Your budget for expediting should be at least one-tenth of your budget for reinventing. We often engineer killer returns-on-investment. That is a remarkable achievement considering this year's cycle!
Burzyinski practically invented the term "TQM". The metrics for data hygiene are more well-understood if they are not cross-media. What does the industry jargon "bleeding-edge" really mean? Think nano-ubiquitous. Is it more important for something to be 60/60/24/7/365 or to be client-focused? The metrics for metrics are more well-understood if they are not mission-critical. Do you have a game plan to become virally-distributed? Think macro-dynamic. What does the commonly-accepted term "process management" really mean? Our technology takes the best features of Apache and Python. The process management management factor can be summed up in one word: clicks-and-mortar.
Great scientists throughout history: Copernicus, etc, agree on the principle of astro-nihilistic reactivity is the fundamental principle behind all religions. Giordano Bruno knew everything about resonation astrochemistry; that is why the Illuminati annihilated him. the cosmic quasi-time constant is 8.71. only from the principle of vibro-temporal instability can one calculate the MISSING MASS OF THE UNIVERSE. End unemployment, terrorism, poverty, etc -- adopt a personal philosophy based on harmonic field optics now!.
Burzyinski has revamped the abstraction of obfuscation. We frequently brand mission-critical portals. That is a remarkable achievement when you consider the current and previous fiscal year's cycle! The ability to transform micro-robustly leads to the power to generate robustly. Without preplanned networks, angel investors are forced to become global. We think that most cross-media web applications use far too much FOAF, and not enough IIS. The M&A factor is next-generation. What does it really mean to actualize "seamlessly"? We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our user-proof administration and user-proof configuration. We will engineer the ability of interfaces to evolve. We apply the proverb "Never look a gift horse in the mouth" not only to our TQC but our ability to transition.
@flip,
[applause type=standing /]
@flip, I am awed.
Nah, love to take the credit, but why reinvent the wheel when writing word salad?
Crazy comments courtesy of
http://www.andrewdavidson.com/gibberish/?companyname=Burzyinski
and
http://www.logopoeia.com/wisdom/
Just random bull stuff generators. Now if only I could find a generator that translates Diddums' posts...
12/17 Comments:
__________________________________________
Antaeus Feldspar,
And lucky for me you didn't request any facts, which means you met be OK with it since you have nothing to say!
__________________________________________
All & the TU-Quackers,
Has anybody hears a peep out of Little Lawrence?
I had a dream last night that in his little head he got some irrational psychotic idea that I'm on here to defend anyone's position.
And you know what happens when yes off his meds - a 3 hour tour, a 3 hour tour...
How about that Jacka$$ braying in the wind? Narad Is he saying stupid stuff like usual where he thinks I would give up my legal history with a psychotic running around loose here?
He's probably foaming at the mouth like a rapid dog about now because he doesn't have some reading to stimulate his soupy brain, like "Federal Jurisdiction Within The States," published under President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Administration.
That book can put you right to sleep!
__________________________________________
LW,
Hear Hear!!!
What a nice little diatribe.
See, what you didn't learn from that is that back in the mid-to-late 1950's, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a 2-Part Federal study was done titled "Federal Jurisdiction Within The Several Stares," which listed where the Federal Gub-ment had Jurisdiction in the Srates, &!it cited Ciurt Cases.
Well, SRB's Lawyee was intelligent enough to know about Jurisdiction, which is why SRB was Acquited.
USA v. Burzynski H-95-290 (1997) Acquittal:
http://collinsoneal.net/notable-cases/criminal-defense
This is because the FDA is a Federal Agency & they didn't have Jurisdiction over what SRB was doing, because he was not transporting Antineoplastons across State lines (Interstate Commerce), he was only under the Jurisdiction of the State of Texas.
This is why it's important to know the Law since the Federal Gub-ment is only too happy to go after people who do not know the Law & their Rights.
And let's not forget SRB's history & how the FDA came & raided his business office & tookover 100,000 documents; including patient files, which makes it hard to do "Clinical Trials" or treat your patients without their medical records.
As the saying goes: "And that's the rest of the story."
__________________________________________
LW,
And as LW eloquently displays with his 1983 case is that the FDA had no Jurisdiction in the State of Texas. The State of Texas has Jurisdiction over its own Territory except where it has ceded property to the Federal Gub-ment or a Federal Law specifically applies.
July 7, 1983 - FDA Associate Commissioner Robert Wetherell Jr. writes to US Representative Robert W. Davis that Judge McDonald's injunction "does not prohibit the distribution of antineoplastons within the State of Texas."
This is a perfect example why you would not want to hire LW to represent you in a Court of Law, & why LW shouldn't represent himself!
__________________________________________
KreBLOGizen,
Please cite the specific date & post re Galileo because you are wrong YET AFAGAIN!
I never posted that:
_____"Your insistence that Galileo discovered that the world is round..."
How would you like your CROW COOKED?
_____"defence of your statement that, “It’s great that the USA is #1 in incarnation of individuals in prisons” is hilarious, thanks for the laugh."
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/u-s-jails-more-people-than-…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/opinion/bloom-prison-spending/index.html
WRONG AGAIN KreBLOGizenica!!
This is exactly WHY you need to "FACT-CHECK" your posts!
How would you like your DOUBLE PORTION of CROW COOKED??
_____"You have bragged about this here before, using a different name, haven’t you?"
WRONG YET AGAIN KreBLOGidenize!!!
How would you like your THIRD HELPING of CROW????
_____"... here you are on a science blog, defending pseudoscience"
WRONG to the DOUBLE ONG YET AGAIN!!!!
As I have clearly posted before, I attack both sides!
HOW'D YA LIKE YER 4th SERVING OF CROW COOKED???????
_____"In the absence of any decent evidence published by Burzynski, that’s all we, you, his unfortunate patients and indeed Burzynski himself can do. That’s the problem. However, what facts we do have are not consistent with Burzynski’s claims. You apparently assume that anything a salesman and his publicist tell you about his product is true. Are you interested in acquiring a lovely historic bridge here in London by any chance?"
And yet after all that goat cheese, you provide not 1 cite to support your braying in the wind!!!!!!!
How 'bout this one I replied to yesterday :
MI Dawn
December 17, 2012
Well, well, well. A radiologist talking about chemotherapy. Somehow, I suspect he’s a little out of his realm of experience. Hint to DJT: it’s always much more reliable for someone to talk about their field of experience – i.e. radiology – than for them to wander off and discuss chemotherapy.
And did you happen to notice this testimony is from 1993???? Almost 20 years ago, when the NIH thought there might be something in Burzynski’s protocol. But here we are, 20 years later, and the still hasn’t proven it works.
Next time, try using a copy/pasta that is a *wee* bit more current, OK?
Didymus Judas Thomas
In the Realm of I question YOUR GOOD FAITH AND MOTIVATION
December 17, 2012
MI Dawn,
If you had actually read the above you would know that there were 6 individuals as part of the team.
Ignorance is NOT an excuse for NOT knowing the Law, and neither is it an excuse for not knowing:
2004
Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons.
Authors
Mitchell R Hammer and Wayne B Jonas
Integr Cancer Ther 3(1):59-65 (2004), PMID .15035877
Journal
Integr Cancer Ther. 2004 Mar;3(1):59-65.
Affiliation
International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program, School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
From December 1991 to December 1995, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated phase II clinical trials of A10 and AS2-1 (antineoplastons) infusions in patients with diagnosed primary malignant brain tumors.
Four years and more than a million dollars later, these studies were stopped before it was possible to determine the effectiveness of antineoplastons.
In an effort to determine why this study failed to be completed.
The intent was to understand the social dynamics surrounding this failed study and to develop a method for managing and possibly preventing such failures in the future.
This article summarizes the findings from this case study.
PMID .15035877 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
HighWire Press
http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/15035877/Managing_social_conflict_in_co…
WROOOOOONNNNGGGGG YET ONCE MORE!!!!!!!!
I SURE HOPE YOU LIKE LOTSA CROW!!!!!!!!
Didymus Judas Thomas
Up in a Tree Looking around for some Black Crows
December 11, 2012
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&mobileactio…
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.
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.
Well, that didn't do it....
Maybe I need to post a math equation... That worked on the other thread...
@flip
Why bother? This arsehat DJT will just continue to blather endlessly. He has NO shame, and despite proving himself both innumerate and illiterate, he still believes he has something to add to the debate.
You will not get anything of value from him, he has yet to answer the very first question asked of him: to supply the results from the 60+ phase II clinical trials that Burzynski has used to enrich himself over several decades.
He has given us almost everything else Burzynski has ever published, but has not, CANNOT, deliver the one piece of evidence that would let his hero off the hook.
If you were not basically devoid of verbal aptitude and general reasoning skills, you could in fact readily provide a summary of your no doubt awe-inspiring legal derring-do.
Oh, this one's good on the pretend-lawyer front:
The hilarious part here is that Burzynski attempted to argue that, because the federal injunction was against interstate distribution, the FDA had granted him immunity from the Texas Medical Practices Act.
Wow. DJT is even more incoherent than yesterday. Did anyone else bother to look through that mess and note that part of the section responding to Orac's review of Merola's propaganda is repeated? Not that it was very intelligible to start with, since there seem to be some quotations from Merola that are in quotation marks, but other comments that appear to be from Merola that aren't in quotation marks interspersed with insults to Orac that evidently are comments from DJT.
I would suggest that DJT try to pay attention in English class, but considering the calibre of DJT's school as revealed by his/her mathematical atrocities yesterday, I'm afraid that what we see is probably acceptable in DJT's English classes.
"FDA had no Jurisdiction in the State of Texas."
That will be a surprise to just about everyone in Texas.
They really don't, to the extent that one is talking about FDCA § 301.
Well, so far we've seen him/her/it demonstrate
Math - fail.
English composition - fail.
Reading comprehension - fail.
Rhetoric - major fail.
Can't comment on his/her/it's critical thinking skills as none have been demonstrated.
@Narad: "They really don’t, to the extent that one is talking about FDCA § 301."
Okay, they had no jurisdiction in this case.
It's funny how the FDA is evilly trying to shut down and incarcerate Burzynski but they allowed him to create a Phase III -- on paper only since all subjects were supposed to be accrued almost a year ago but none have been -- so that proves the FDA believes his claims. According to the ever-courteous DJT.
@Shay: "Math -- fail."
Oh, come on, be fair. That deserves higher marks. Serious fail, at least.
@MarkL
I'm not bothering, so much as amusing myself.
I entirely agree with the rest of your comment. Hence me spending my energy on laughing at the little troll, rather than arguing its points.
OK, I was in a hurry before. Regarding the 1983 case, I don't know that the FDA attempted to limit intrastate distribution in the first place, which winds up being illegal in Texas anyway. My understanding is that they did have jurisdication over GMP, so Squidymus's emission is irrelevant on the one hand and wrong on the other.
12/17 Comments:
.
And NO, I am NOT going to break down my posts to respond to y'all, because MANY of y'all are posting so much GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out, without cites.
.
Just like some who are attempting to be the Time-Wasting, Tu-Quacking, 15-year old wanna-be, Winner, as I will show in the multiple parts of my reply to the multiple SPAMS.
.
Don't Blame Me!! YOU asked for THIS!!!
.
.
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.
@ Diddums
So still no published, peer reviewed results from any of Burzynski's phase 2 trials to report yet then?
FAIL (again)
DJT:
Heretic: a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
Note that there is only one "i," and that none of these definitions have tics, ticks, or tocks. Also, we are discussing science, not religion- which probably escaped you. There is no heresy in medicine; only stuff that works and stuff that stupid people cling to, even if it ought to have been thrown out.
Posting the same crap that you plainly don't understand once again? No, not really.
Squidymus,
I am amazed that anyone would have the nerve to return after the utter humiliation you have heaped upon yourself. Have you no shame? You want more humiliation? I'm happy to oblige.
You haven't quite gotten the hang of humorously changing pseudonyms have you? As for the crow, it's you who should be finding some way of making a very large portion palatable.
Yes you did, right here.
You even defended that statement later on that thread when various people called you out on it. The evidence is there for all to see.
Pathetic.
You wrote incarnation, presumably meaning "incarnation", you halfwit. That's why we're laughing at you.
Anyone can make a typo, but few will fail to notice it when quoting it, twice, and defend what they thought they wrote instead of addressing what they did write.
Can a question be wrong? If you haven't bragged about it here before, there is someone who posts comments with an identical style and similar content who also boasted of the same achievement not that long ago. In other words, I don't believe you.
Exponentially pathetic.
Nonsense. The only possible explanation for the reams of material you have posted here is that you are defending Burzynski. I haven't seen any criticism of Burzynski from you at all. How is that in any way attacking both sides?
I think you deserve to eat it all raw.
Whether you like it or not, the facts as presented by Merola's publicist in the movie, and the documents on its website such as radiology and histopathology reports, are not consistent with the claim in the movie that Burzynski cured Jodi Fenton's cancer. I don't need a citation to prove that, it's evident to anyone who can read and understand an MRI report and a timeline. If there were any decent citations to cite about Burzynski's work, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Isn't there an internet Law about comments about typos containing typos?
I meant, "You wrote incarnation, presumably meaning “incarceration”, you halfwit. " The difference is I noticed, and I acknowledge I made a mistake.
Bleaurgh. When I wrote "Merola’s publicist" I meant "Merola, Burzynski's publicist". It's been a long day.
@ Krebiozen:
Do you ever feel as if you're addressing a brick wall, dining room table or a large chest of drawers?
Fortunately, there are lurkers who see all, read all and silently steep in SB goodness far away in the deepest, darkest recesses of cyberspace, they wait developing.
Now and then, we are graced with their overt presence when one steps forth and says, "O hai!" or suchlike.
My goodness, is djt continuing to prove himself a neverending supply of self-inflicted stupidity.
djt, a perfect example of Dunning-Kreuger.
He/she/it has to keep posting, the idiocy projected from this individual is sooooo entertaining.
So, djt, if you are reading this, keep posting. We do need a fool like yourself to keep us entertained, and you seem to have the role locked up pretty well.
@Krebiozen
Presumably since we're providing the criticism, Squidymus is providing the "other side" (re: his "defence of truth" comment). Or something...
12/18 Comments:
.
(spaces added in web-site addresses to bypass hold in posting.)
.
KreBLOGintent:
.
_____"What specifically has Orac said that isn’t factually true?"
.
_____ME:
.
As an individual with an inquisitive brain, the first thing I noticed about Orac's "REVIEW" is that it has the definite air of having been cherry-picked.
.
I’ve never been shy about letting readers know exactly what I think of certain biased "Cherry-Picking" "reviews."
.
_____Orac:
.
"No one would ever confuse my reviews with those of Roger Ebert (mine tend to be a lot longer, for one thing, and concentrate on science much more than moviemaking)"
.
_____ME:
.
_____Orac's "REVIEW" sure had a lot of non-scientific ramblings.
.
_____KreBLOGinSpot:
.
"Where does Orac claim he is an investigative journalist, sorry an “Investigative Journalist”?"
.
_____Orac:
.
"I thought that the least I could do is to oblige him by reviewing Burzynski The Movie and bringing what attention I can to it."
.
_____ME:
.
(Though Orac chooses NOT to mention the original Oncologists were given the opportunity to comment on-camera or in writing - and NO, I don't need to hear you making excuses for them!!!)
.
_____ME:
.
Orac also “cherry picks.
.
_____KreBLOGpress:
.
Example?
.
_____Orac:
.
"In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face."
.
_____ME: (The "Cherry-Picking begins!)
.
Really nice example of "Yellow Journalism!"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
.
The use of eye-catching headlines, exaggerations, or sensationalism.
.
_____Orac:
.
"According to Merola, the reason he wanted to do Burzynski The Movie because:
"After spending over a decade immersed in all aspects of the media world, Eric became aware of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and realized his was a story that must be told. Having always been heavily influenced by the power of documentary films, he set out to direct and produce the story of Dr. Burzynski and his patients."
.
_____Orac:
.
"...I have to wonder whether Dr. Burzynski just hired Merola to make an infomercial"
.
" Merola claims the movie was his idea, but I have a hard time believing it."
.
_____Orac, who attaches an article to his blog where Merola clearly states his motivation, and it WASN'T being hired by SRB!!
.
_____Orac:
.
"...but the end product of his work is so one-sided that it’s a joke, and a bad one at that."
.
_____Orac, when Merola clearly stated that there was plenty of opposition but it was cut during editing in order to meet time-constraints; especially since he felt there was enough opposition information in the public domain already.
.
_____Orac:
.
"...the FDA, big pharma, and the cancer establishment want to put Burzynski out of business not to protect the public but rather to protect industry profits and FDA power. The rest of the movie is about the FDA, the NCI, the Texas Medical Board, and various other entities investigating, or, as the movie implies, persecuting..."
.
_____ME:
.
Hmmmmm,
.
1975 - President Nixon declares War on Cancer.
.
3/2/1976 - FDA Bureau of Drugs Director Richard Crout states in The Cancer Letter of 3/12/1976, that when anyone other than large institutions ask permission to conduct clinical trials, "You want harsh regulations... sometimes we say it is proper to hinder research."
.
Dr. James Watson: "The war on cancer is a bunch of sh*t." (Discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate, former member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, Nobel Prize Winner. (And he's still at it!!)
.
Virtually every significant effort to investigate & validate alternative & innovative methods of cancer prevention & treatment has been buried by the National Cancer Institutes & the American Cancer Society." - Frank Wiewel, Former Chairman, Pharmacological & Biological Treatments Committee, Office of Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
.
"For much of history, the cancer war has been fighting the wrong battles, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies." - Devra Lee Davis, member National Academy of Sciences, The Secret History of the War on Cancer.
.
"Everyone should know that the war on cancer is largely a fraud, and the National Cancer Institute & the American Cancer Society are derilict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling, 2-time Nobel Laureate
.
1997 - Congress has, in the past, found that FDA advisory committee members with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies (ownership of company stock or patent rights to certain treatments) have had such conflicts of interest waived during approval processes.
www. gpo. gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106hhrg73042/html/CHRG-106hhrg73042.htm
.
5/14/2007 - The FDA has been accused before of protecting cancer drug profits. In the 5/14/2007 Wall Street Journal, Mark Thorton, MD, PhD, a former FDA official in the Office of Oncology Products, denounced the FDA’s refusal to approve Provenge, a new immunotherapy vaccine for prostate cancer, citing that "the FDA succeeded in killing not one but two safe, promising therapies designed and developed to act by stimulating a patient's immune system against cancer."
www. opednews. com/populum/pagem.php?f=genera_evelyn_p_071009_fda_industry_insider.htm
.
(And there are so many other examples!)
.
_____Orac:
.
"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."
.
_____ME:
.
THAT certainly explains why SRB was granted Phase II & III Clinical Trials (because antineoplastons do nothing) & the Japanese have since at least 1988 been doing studies, trials, toxicology studies, pre-clinical studies & Phase I Clinical Trials on Antineoplastons!
http:// assets0. pubget. com/search?q=Antineoplaston
.
_____Orac:
.
"So, as described above, Dr. Burzynski has lots of clinical trials and charges his patients lots of money for them. You think I’m exaggerating? Doubt no more. Here are the charges presented to a family seeking treatment for a member with bowel cancer:"
.
_____ME:
.
So they would have to pay costs like traditional cancer treatment patients?:
.
8/10/2012 - The average cost of a 30 day cancer drug prescription was more than $1,600 in 2006 & it’s even higher today. Some of the newer cancer treatments can cost as much as $10,000 for a month’s supply:
http:// m. cancer. org/treatment/findingandpayingfortreatment/managinginsuranceissues/the-cost-of-cancer-treatment
.
2010 - Cancer treatment is big business.
$124.6 BILLION: NIH estimates the direct medical costs of cancer care in 2010. FOLLOW THE MONEY:
www. progressreport. cancer. gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2009&chid=95&coid=926&mid
.
6/16/2009 -Hospital wanted $30-thousand deposit for cancer treatment :
http:// articles. cnn. com/2009-06-16/politics/health.care.hearing_1_health-insurance-post-claims-underwriting-individual-health?_s=PM:POLITICS
.
7/6/2008 - Cancer drug can cost $100-thousand a year, $4-thousand to $9-thousand a month, possible death & only prolong life for some months:
http:// www. nytimes. com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html?_r=0
.
4/28/2008 - Hospital wanted $45-thousand up-front for chemotherapy:
http:// online. wsj. com/public/article/SB120934207044648511.html?mod=2_1566_topbox#articleTabs%3Darticle
.
Response: What experts? Where is their proof of this statement? Why is Dateline so afraid of backing anything they state with evidence instead of constantly carrying on with their anecdotal testimony that they masquerade around as science? According to the Children's Hospital of Boston, they find that "Inability to achieve a complete surgical removal [of a pilocytic astrocytoma] and the presence of recurrent disease decreases prognosis and long-term survival." [source]. I was unable to find anything anywhere in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that says these kids simply "outgrow them". You will also notice that Dateline doesn't show it's audience their "experts" stating this. For all we know some random sociologist told them this. And why does Dateline rely on these "experts" who are not experts in th
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site684/mainpageS684P0.html
_____Orac:
.
"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."
.
_____ME:
.
You mean like all those positive Japanese studies, toxicology studies. trials, preclinical trials & Phase I Clinical Trials?:
.
And if the FDA was watching him closely, how did he supposedly pull the wool over their eyes?:
.
1997 The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis (Citing Burzynski)
.
The role of the agency is not to regulate the practice of medicine or otherwise interfere with the practice of the healing arts.
.
Manifestation of Congressional intent that the FDA should not interject itself into the realm of the doctor/patient relationship.
.
Some argue that only large conglomerates have the financial backing to survive the time and expense of the FDA approval process.
.
It is generally estimated that it can take up to 15 years for the approval of a new drug and the process may cost up to 500 million dollars.
.
6 years into production, enjoined against selling.
Permission to run clinical trials a few years later.
Then plug pulled.
.
Only approximately 300 of what were formerly thousands of patients are allowed to be treated currently under very close FDA scrutiny
.
_____Orac:
.
"Of course, a pattern has emerged over the years. Whenever Burzynski does a trial, the results come out as promising, with minimal or mild toxicity. 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.
.
_____ME:
.
You mean like those incomplete NIH Phase II Clinical Trials?:
.
2004 – Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons.
.
Authors
Mitchell R Hammer & Wayne B Jonas
.
Integr Cancer Ther 3(1):59-65 (2004), PMID .15035877
.
DOI:10.1177/1534735404263448
.
Journal
Integr Cancer Ther. 2004 Mar;3(1):59-65.
.
Affiliation
International Peace and Conflict Resolution Program, School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC, USA.
.
Abstract
From 12/1991 to 12/1995, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated phase II clinical trials of A10 & AS2-1 (antineoplastons) infusions in patients with diagnosed primary malignant brain tumors.
.
4 years & more than a million dollars later, these studies were stopped before it was possible to determine the effectiveness of antineoplastons.
.
In an effort to determine why this study failed to be completed, the director of the National Institutes of Health Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), who sponsored the study, commissioned a detailed analysis of the conflicts that led to the study's closure.
.
The intent was to understand the social dynamics surrounding this failed study & to develop a method for managing & possibly preventing such failures in the future.
.
This article summarizes the findings from this case study.
.
PMID .15035877 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
HighWire Press
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/15035877/Managing_social_conflict_in_complementary_and_alternative_medicine_research__the_case_of_antineoplastons
.
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/15035877
.
_____Orac:
.
"In the late 1990s three well-respected oncologists reviewed Burzynski’s clinical trial evidence and all agreed that:
.
_____ME:
.
Were they related to these "Anonymous" Experts?:
.
1998 - Anonymous Experts say interpretable results unlikely in Burzynski's antineoplastons studies. Cancer Lett. 1998;24:1–16. [PubMed]
.
_____Orac:
.
The toxicities of the antineoplastons treatment are significant and life-threatening.
.
_____ME:
.
THESE adverse effects which look like they are nowhere near the side effects of GLEEVEC?:
http:// www. cancer. gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
.
"If Burzynski wants to convince patients and physicians that his drug works, he will have to accept the established mechanisms of clinical trials."
.
You mean like the Phase I & II Clinical Trials which SRB did & the Phase III Clinical Trials that the FDA has approved?
.
_____Orac:
.
The science just isn’t there.
.
_____Orac:
.
"If Burzynski had real evidence that his therapy worked (i.e., clinical trial evidence), then he wouldn’t be resorting to anecdotes like this one, which doesn’t show conclusively that it was the antineoplastons that eliminated the tumor."
.
______ME:
.
You mean like the Mayo Clinic?:
.
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."
www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/10069350
.
http:// www. mayoclinicproceedings. org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/abstract
.
http:// linkinghub. elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4
.
_____Orac:
.
"If Burzynski had real evidence that his therapy worked (i.e., clinical trial evidence), then he wouldn’t be resorting to anecdotes like this one, which doesn’t show conclusively that it was the antineoplastons that eliminated the tumor."
.
_____ME:
.
Like this?
.
Let’s take a quick look at some of the cancer medicines recently given "accelerated approval" by the FDA:
.
Avastin (breast cancer) 2008:
.
The FDA granted accelerated approval for Avastin in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in 2008.
.
The results that allowed it to be “accelerated”:
.
Only 11.3 months of “Progression-free survival”. [10]
.
The FDA took it off the market for this condition in November 2011 because it doesn’t work at all if not properly prescribed [11] (or at least for the oncological world who simply does not understand how to prescribe this gene-targeted medicine—which is pretty much all of them).
.
But don’t feel bad for the company that owns it, they made their fortune from it already for this condition, making up for 17% of the entire company's sales. [12]
.
Avastin (Glioblastoma brain cancer) 2009:
.
The FDA granted accelerated approval for this medicine for Glioblastoma
.
The FDA’s reasoning was “People with this type of brain cancer have had no new treatments in more than a decade”. [13]
.
Well, what about “brainstem glioma” patients?
.
They haven’t had a new treatment for that condition—ever.
.
But it gets better.
.
Only 58 patients were treated in a single Phase 2 study.
.
The median “response duration” was a mere 3.9 months.
.
.That is a “response”, not a cure, or even any real extension of life at all.
.
Antineoplastons have a 30% cure rate in "brainstem glioma", not a “response rate”.
.
During this single Phase 2 arm of 58 patients that got Avastin accelerated approval for Glioblastoma—none of them were cured.
.
Avastin is a gene-targeted therapy, which can only target certain specific genes.
.
Oncologists do not test the patient to even see if they have these genes.
.
Dr. Burzynski does.
.
Antineoplastons have an upward of a 9% cure rate for this condition. [15] [16] [17]
.
Most of the public could care less about “response rates”—they want to see actual cures.
.
But, if “response rates” are important, how about the total of 368 patients treated with antineoplastons in Phase 2 trials for Glioblastoma where 40.5% of them had a stable disease? [15]
.
That is of course if we care about “response” vs. “cure”.
.
Temodar (Anaplastic Astrocytoma brain cancer) 1999:
.
In 1999, the FDA granted accelerated approval for Temodar for Anaplastic Astrocytoma brain cancer.
.
Only 12 of 54 patients “responded”, with only 9% of them being “cured” [18].
.
Antineoplastons have a 25% cure rate for this condition. [20]
.
And, unlike Temodar which is a poisonous chemotherapy—the 25% of patients cured of Anaplastic Astrocytoma using Antineoplastons can actually one day have children.
.
Like most toxic chemotherapies, Temodar impairs or destroys a person’s ability to remain fertile, among other hideous side effects. [21]
.
Again, what about the 30% cure rate for “brainstem glioma”?
.
Why does Temodar get favored for accelerated approval based on inferior 9% results in their Phase 2 trials?
.
Afinitor (ubependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) brain tumor):
.
In 2010, the FDA granted accelerated approval for Afinitor after a single Phase 2 study of only 28 patients.
.
32% of the patients experienced a 50% reduction of their tumor, none of their tumors went away completely. [22]
.
SOURCES:
2. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39532
.
3. http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/PDF/42._Burzynskihttp://www.cance…
.
4: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713?dopt=Abstract
.
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563?dopt=Abstract
.
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278121
.
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574
.
8. (Timecode 4:18-6:10): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1buiXWr_QTQ
.
9. http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/02/26/taki…
.
10. http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-c…
.
11. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/ucm279485.htm
.
12. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Roche_Pharmaceuticals_(RHHBY)
.
13. http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-b…
.
18. http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/19/6767.full
.
21. http://www.drugs.com/pro/temodar.html
.
22. http://www.novartis.com/newsroom/media-releases/en/2010/1457419.shtml
.
_____ME:
.
One thing’s for sure, Orac isn’t subtle. He hits you over the head with his anti-Burzynski anti-Merola over & over & over again. It must be that medical background again.
.
_____Orac:
.
"At best, looking at the evidence, I conclude that they might have very minimal anticancer activity, and even that’s doubtful."
.
_____ME:
.
Anyone besides me notice all the Antineoplaston information being added to Cancer . gov?
http:// www. cancer. gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page1
I do, but I also get the feeling that somewhere in the depths of those clouds of sepia there is some sort of rational mind that might be reachable. I really only bother for the lurkers*, as you astutely observe.
* That term still makes me smile, as The Lurkers was a UK punk band I was fond of back in the late 70s.
Diddums,
So your support for Burzynski is now predicated on Orac's supposed failings as a film reviewer now that your "Phase III trials PROVES efficacy" gambit has failed, and that you have given up trying to find the non-existent Phase II trial results?
You are a laughable little troll relying on semantics to try and retain any credibility. As I said before, GIVE IT UP, you are making an utter fool of yourself.
Nothing has been added to the Antineoplaston PDQ summary on cancer.gov since August, and it STILL says there is no proof of efficacy.
Your attempts to shore up support for Burzynski have become farcical!
@Didymus Judas Thomas,
Thanks for pointing out the information on antineoplastons on the National Cancer Institute web site. I was particularly intrigued by the comment that "The evidence for use of antineoplaston therapy as a treatment for cancer is inconclusive. Controlled clinical trials are necessary to assess the value of this therapy."
I note the comment that "While these publications [by Dr. Burzynski and his collaborators) have reported on successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment as well as imaging artifacts."
I think a more relevant Watson quote might be, "If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease."
Sir Diddimus is also still clinging to his belief that since the FDA approved Burzynski's Phase III trial protocol, that's the same as approving Phase III trials.
Again -- reading comprehension fail.
Have you noticed how many times he/she/it mentions Orac? There's a serious scream for attention, here. I have a feeling Sir D has a serious knot in his/her/its panties over being ignored by the big box of blinking lights.
Squidymus,
So you can't point to any factually inaccurate statements by Orac, or anywhere he claims to be an investigative journalist, and you don't understand what 'cherry picking' means. See, you could have saved yourself almost 100 lines by fitting that into a single sentence, like I did. That might also have avoided making yourself look like a raving lunatic, but it's probably a bit late to worry about that.
Do you have any substantial points to make or are you just determined to show off your lack of education and poor communication skills even further? There's nothing wrong with ignorance, as long as you acknowledge it, and try to do something about it. Another tip: trying to bluff your way through an area you clearly no nothing about in the company of people who do is a really, really bad move.
Frankly I'm surprised Orac hasn't wielded the ban hammer for the sheer volume of incoherent garbage the Sepia Troll has rudely excreted on his blog.
US history isn't my specialist subject, but wasn't Gerald Ford US President in 1975?
Poor Friedrich Miescher always gets the shaft.
Looks like Merola (from whom this regurgitation originates) doesn't understand the difference between a gene and a protein or, really, what "gene-targeted" means in the first place. Quick, Squidymus, explain the difference between Herceptin and Avastin.
I look forward to another shouty effusion from DJT, denying that he had ever claimed that James Watson discovered DNA.
Then there's this:
Here's the full quote, kindly provided by the Burzynski movie folks (who I suspect assumed people wouldn't bother to check it) in context:
That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. What's the point of regulation if it doesn't regulate?
Krebiozen, DJT is going to hate you. YOU CHEATED. You did some research before posting.......................
Ding! It's from their "The Failed War on Cancer," ah, "editorial."
Avoid waste your time on this website link, fully unrelated in order to conversation.
@Krebiozen:
Picky, picky, picky.
(I'm referring, of course, to the dates of the Ford presidency. He only became president in August 1974 and it wasn't a real Presidency, not really-truly. I mean, it's not like he was elected or anything.)
Ford, Nixon, whatever. I'm surprised iDJiT didn't say FDR declared War on Cancer in 1975.
The National Cancer Act, regarded as the beginning of the War on Cancer, was signed by Nixon...in 1971.
I haven't finished picking yet. I'm always intrigued by these gishgallops of quotations we so often see, just like those that Squidymus has unoriginally posted here. They are often very difficult to track down, as they almost never give a source. It's sometimes worth a try though, as they often do not say quite what we are led to think, so...
Moving on to the inventor of DNA:
I can't find a date, a context or indeed a source for this alleged quote. Watson said a lot of things, often they seem to have been designed to shock, some of them were downright foolish (even racist), so it wouldn't surprise me if he said this. What he meant by it is anyone's guess.
As Narad pointed out I, the quotes Squidymus has laid upon us in his latest comment come from a 'People Against Cancer' newsletter. 'People Against Cancer' is an organization headed by Frank Wiewel which opposes conventional cancer treatments and supports alternative ones.
One quote which I won't bother to repeat (essentially it's "Help, help, we're being repressed"), is from Frank Wiewel himself. He is described as:
Here's what Quackwatch has to say about Weiwel:
Weiwel was partly responsible for the founding of NCCAM, and is not a reliable source of information about cancer and its treatment.
What does Davis mean? Perhaps the rest of the quote might help?
Davis is calling for a closer look at the causes of cancer, not complaining that brave maverick doctors like Burzynski have the answers.
Sadly Pauling, who was once a hero of mine for his work in biochemistry, succumbed to Nobel disease later in his life, and grew increasingly frustrated that no one else seemed to recognize the benefits of humungous doses of vitamin C, so sadly he might have said this. I don't think Pauling was a reliable source of information on cancer or its treatment either.
And...
Frank Wiewel's scientific credentials begin and end with being bassist and a singer for the Iowa band The Hawks, after which point hijinks began to ensue. Great argument by aphoristic authority there, Diddles.
Beaten to the punch, I see.
I'll bet that Linus Pauling, unlike iDJiT, could spell derelict.
It's fantastic that Wiewel considers Watson and Pauling to be his "colleagues." Anyway, the frequntly accompanying "bill of goods" line (without the "nasty") appears in the Nov./Dec. New Ecologist, at least.
Oh, silly me, the target quote is right on page 188.
One gets it earlier, in 1977 (there should have been a "1978" above), in Ruth Rosenbaum's "Cancer, Inc." (PDF).
Dr. James Watson: “The war on cancer is a bunch of sh*t.”
I am happy to believe that the 'war on cancer' was a politically-driven waste of resources throughout the 1970s, with a lot of throwing-money tactics. But what does that have to do with Burzynski's quackery?
the Nov./Dec. New Ecologist, at least
That is an entertaining article. In the context of arguing that more effort should be invested researching the journal's obsessions of diet & nutrition, the author inadvertently points out that the whole diet / cancer angle was researched exhaustively -- back when everyone hewed to the holistic / life-style paradigm because nothing better was available -- and nothing came of it.
You would have thought that if the diet angle dominated research for decades before people finally gave up and moved on to new directions, that would tell the author something, but in the author's mind it only indicated bigpharmasuppressingcureforcancer.
I was surprised to find an ad for Yukon Jack in the Rosenbaum New Times. Sometimes I think I'm it's only surviving defender.
12/17 Comments:
.
_____KreBLOGidenizen:
.
"Which questions have you asked that have remained unanswered anyway? It is quite possible they may have been missed in amongst the large amounts of incoherent verbiage you have dumped here. Why not put them in a clear, concise comment that people can understand and might even have time to read?"
.
.
_____ME:
11/28 - Orac: Do I understand correctly that you are really seriously attempting to contend that Big Pharma was Fined $13 BILLION (That is BILLION with a “B”) over this 4 year period and GlaxoSmithKline was Fined $3 BILLION this year (the largest ever Fine on a drug co) for behaving MORE ETHICALLY than SRB?
.
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.
.
.
_____ME:
.
11/28 - al kimeea, Please provide “FACTS” that support your false allegation that SRB is my “hero.”
.
Please provide “FACTS” on how much SRB has been Fined so that he may be added to my list.
.
I will happily accept your apologies.
.
12/10 - al kimeea, did you drop LSD like a bad habit?
.
.
_____ME:
.
11/28 - Narad, 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.
.
12/1 - 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?
.
12/2 - Narad, good question. Who are you?
.
12/2 - Narad, how old are you? 9?
.
Way to ASSUME that i somehow attempted anything “that is supposed to stun people.” Since you obviously have the miraculous power to read my mind, what is the “point that” I” thought “I” had made”?
.
12/3- 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?
.
Narad, if you can’t remember what you wrote that I’m replying to, then maybe you’re just writing superfluous material.
.
12/6 - Narad, pretty rich coming from someone who has no response to my three 12/4″The Land of the Brave post.”
.
12/16 - Narad, You once again have no response to my three 12/4″The Land of the Brave posts.
.
.
_____ME:
.
11/29 -AdamG, What solar system are you living in?
.
11/29 - AdamG, please cite the “FACTS” which buttress your unproven inane statement that “It’s clear that [I] didn’t actually read [your] link.
.
I’m not even going to waste my time answering your last question since I answered your question about what planet I live on but you did not answer my question about what solar system you’re from.
.
12/1 - AdamG, you have not yet advised me what solar system you are living in.
.
.
_____ME:
.
11/29 - JGC, please explain how I would have been able to provide the above links without following up on them.
.
11/30 - JGC, Please explain to me how & when it became my responsibility to state an opinion re the efficacy of Antineoplastons (not Antineoplastins).
.
12/1 - 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?
.
12/15 - JGC, Have you actually reviewed at least 1 of his Phase I or II Clinical Trials Publications I’ve posted the references too on here in a prior post; “YOU WANT ANSWERS (Part 1)?
.
Yes, or No?
.
.
_____ME:
.
11/29 - Lawrence, “links … don’t say what [I] think they say?” Please cite where I said what the links would say.
.
12/1 - Lawrence, when Orac whined that SRB “got off on a technicality,” did you ask him to offer a “real retort” like SRB did not “get off on a technicality,” but he got off because the law is the law?
.
12/3 - Lawrence, please enlighten me on how my 2 11/28 posts were proven incorrect, for example.
.
12/3 - Lawrence, Once again you have not answered my 12/3 question to you.
.
12/15 (12/10 Comments:) - Lawrence, Speaking of “not understanding,” you don’t seem to understand how to answer my question of 12/3 which you haven’t responded to.
.
.
_____ME:
.
11/29 - herr doktor bimler, where does Chris’ post state “clinical results?”
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/1 - Peebs, I think we should call Peebs “Peeps.” Do you “see” what I did there?
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/1 - Chris, please point out where I stated that the PubMeds were “results” & cite which law or regulation requires the information you are requesting.
.
12/1 - Chris, why have you not apologized for misstating my argument?
.
12/1 - Chris, How many people have posed questions to you today compared to me?
.
12/2- Chris, what claim am I making?
.
Please cite the claim & date of the post.
.
Why do you mistakenly think it’s my responsibility to “show Burzynski is not a quack?”
.
Please cite where I have indicated that SRB is or isn’t a quack & the date of the post.
.
Why do you mistakenly believe it’s my responsibility to “show Burzynski is legit?”
.
Please cite where I have indicated that SRB is or isn’t legit & the date of the post.
.
Why should I apologize when you have not apologized for misstating my argument 11/28 as pointed out in my 11/28, 11/29 & 12/1/12 posts?
.
I asked you “[h]ow MANY people have posed questions to you” & you were not able to provide a # but just “MANY.” (Emphasis added for ease of reading.)
.
Actually, are you having trouble with numbers, especially the concept of the “one?” One, as in a number between zero & infinity.
.
In my 12/1 post I asked you to “[P]lease point out where I stated that the PubMeds were “results” & cite which law or regulation requires the information you are requesting,” & you did not, though you posted my question to you; one right after the other, in 2 of your 12/1/12 posts.
.
12/2 - Chris, please cite any post(s) & their date which support your misguided attempt at trying to prove that I “could not even be bothered to read the titles to” my “cut and pasta links!” Exactly what are “PASTA links?”
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/1 - 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, ...
.
12/3 - Antaeus Feldspar, Please cite the post(s) & their date which you misguidedly think exists, proving that my guru is Stanwey.
.
12/15 - Antaeus Feldspar, Are you using the “New Math” where you live?
.
12/16 re 15 - Antaeus Feldspar, And your “FACTS” are supported by what unsubstantiated source?
.
12/16 re 15 - Antaeus Feldspar, 3. FACT: You have provided NOT one scintilla of evidence that you have read any of the publications noted above in my post to MarkL.
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/1 - M. Dawn, I made what claim?
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/1 - Marc Stephens Is Insane, did you access the link(s) & information & actually read what it’s about?
.
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.
.
12/2 - Marc Stephens Is Insane, please provide FACTUAL proof to prop up your deluded statement that “I guess Didy didn’t bother to read those information sheets either.”
.
12/2- Marc Stephens Is Insane. please cite any post(s) & their date which support your misguided allegation that I am “spending so much time defending Stan.”
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/2 - Shay, please cite any post(s) & their dates which “shredded whatever” I’ve “managed to produce” where I have not responded to their alleged “FACTS.”
.
Please cite any post(s) & their dates which support your allegation that I’ve “demonstrated that” I’m “doing a quick copy/paste without bothering to check the articles” I’m “citing to see if they support” my “claims.”
.
12.15 - Shay, don’t know how to # them? Too difficult?
.
.
_____ME: MarkL thinks "RESULTS" = Clinical Results.
.
11/29
MarkL
.
November 29, 2012
Diddums, you said:
.
“herr doktor bimler, where does Chris’ post state “clinical results?” It states “clinical.”
.
Lets look at what Chris said:
.
“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.”
.
To make it easy I have capitalized the relevant word in Chris’s request.
.
Still having difficulty Diddums?
.
We will await the data.
.
12/2 - MarkL, please cite any post(s) & their dates that buttress your misguided belief that I “claimed that” I was “not asked for results.”
.
12/3 - 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.”
.
12/3 - 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.” You LIE when you write that I am “a Burzynski fanboy” as you have not one 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.
.
_____ME: MarkL thinks "RESULTS" = Clinical Results, AGAIN!
.
12/4 - MarkL.
London
December 4, 2012
Diddums,
.
In answer to your pathetic evasion:
.
Diddums, you said:
.
“herr doktor bimler, where does Chris’ post state “clinical results?” It states “clinical.”
.
Lets look at what Chris said:
.
“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.”
.
To make it easy I have capitalized the relevant word in Chris’s request.
.
Still having difficulty Diddums?
.
We will await the data.
.
_____ME: We KNOW who the LIAR is!!
.
12/15
MarkL
.
London
December 15, 2012
More red herrings and bullshit from diddums.
.
Yet again you attempt to use sophistry rather than provide the information necessary to support your argument. Phase III trials do not depend on proving efficacy in phase II trials.
.
Either you are a liar or you are a moron. In either case, you are WRONG.
.
12/15 - MarkL, I can’t help it if you can’t read.
.
So you expect me to believe that you have read at least 1 of his Phase I or II Clinical Trial Publications?
.
Yes, or No?
12/15 - MarkL, Do you work for Scotland Yard?
.
Have you read all the Phase I & II Clinical Trials Publications?
.
Yes, or No?
.
12/16 re 15 - MarkL
2006 – in 4 PHASE 2 trials
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/16484713/Targeted_therapy_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1_of_high_grade__recurrent__and_progressive_brainstem_glioma
And yet you have NOT provided yany indication that you made any effort whatsoever to access the web-site & purchase the publications.
.
.
______ME:
.
12/3 - Science Mom, so you still refuse to cite which post(s) & their date applies to this “claim” you keep referring to but for some reason can’t cite.
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/3 - 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?
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/8 - flip. 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?
.
12/15 - flip, too busy reading Jesse Ventura’s Book: “Conspiracy Theory?”
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/12 - LW, No cites
12/15 - LW, where did I mention a “Conspiracy” other than to post that flip & Orac were possibly “Conspiracy Theorists?”
.
12/16 - LW, And you have researched this & have Scientific data to support your non-supported statement, or are you just another one of the laggards on this blog?
.
LW, And where is your Scientific data to buttress your unsupported babble?
.
Or are you just continuing your uncorroborated flatulence from above?
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/15 - Alain, are you indicating you have read an SRB Phase I or Phase II Clinical Trial Publication?
.
Yes, or No?
.
.
_____ME:
.
12/15 - Bronze Dog, why have you not read the test results?
.
.
I don't care if you think it's a Clinical Trial Publication or not. or hear that like Orac you don't want to pay for a movie, or a publication, I just want to know if you took the effort to read at least 1, YES, or NO.
.
And NO, you don't need to reply for other people who should reply for themselves.
The frequent pairing of the "bill of goods" line with the "a bunch of Diddums" one suggests that this NYT item might be worth a look, but I'm not a subscriber. It all seems to go back to the 1975 MIT appearance.
Man, I need some more popcorn, djt's latest self-humiliation and embarrassment made for some good entertainment.
12/17 Comments:
.
_____KrezBLOGdim,
.
"Just the one troll, sorry “Troll”, I’d say. Posting vast amounts of mostly irrelevant verbiage to multiple threads on a blog is considered trolling, and is annoying and rude besides. You might try posting a small apposite passage and linking to the source."
_____ME:
.
If someone's going to re-post GIGO, then I'm going to comment on it.
.
.
______KrezBLOGation,
.
"Is there any purpose to this blathering? Do you even understand what tu quoque means?"
.
_____ME:
.
It's called "FACTS" & Citations, which are something which are obviously foreign to a lot of the "Tu-Quackers" on here.
.
Do you even understand what "Tu-Quack," "Tu-Quacker," & "Tu-Quacking" means?
.
.
_____KreBLOG,
.
"Maybe you could resubmit that sentence in FORTRAN as it appears to be COBOLlocks. The person who needs to answer the tough questions is Burzynski. He is the one using clinical trials as a loophole to treat patients with an unapproved drug and charging then large amounts of money."
.
_____ME:
.
Yeah, I'll get right on that FORTRANslation, just as soon as the Tu-QuackerGenerNation grows some COBOLs & stops posting NON-FACTUAL GIGO; backed up by NO citations from other sources, about unapproved drugs which the FDA has approved for use in Clinical Trials & which patients are paying for along the same rates as for other cancer treatments.
.
.
_____LW,
.
December 17, 2012
.
"DJT’s droppings really aren’t doing Burzynski a lot of good. Putting together the numbers of patients Burzynski had “treated” by 1997, with the testimony of Dr. Patronas, the radiologist, in 1993, I reach this conclusion:"
.
"Between 1977 and 1997, Burzynski “treated” some three thousand patients, or about 150 per year. Thus we can estimate that between 1977 and 1993, he “treated” 2,400 patients. Out of those 2,400, those described by Dr. Patronas are presumably his seven best cases. And one died and another did not respond. So the results Burzynski presented appear to indicate that five out of 2,400 — a little over 0.2% — went into remission. That’s ever so impressive."
.
_____ME: says the person who thinks 7 minus 5 = 0.2%!
.
Dr. Patronas, the radiologist, said he was not aware that these tumors ever underwent spontaneous remission. But would he know if the rate were as low as, say 0.2%?
.
_____ME: Says the person who cites that Harvard report but ignores the part of it which has:
.
Note: 50 "Only approximately 300 of what were formerly thousands of patients are allowed to be treated currently under very close FDA scrutiny"
.
So we're supposed to believe that they were under "close FDA scrutiny" & the FDA allowed your proposition.
.
But then again, this is the government which was allowing NIH to do their xperimental protocol "where we inject a chemotherapeutic agent through the carotid artery, the artery that goes to the brain, and we have three survivals with this technique, by providing massive amounts of chemotherapeutic drugs to the brain that harbors the tumor. And we destroy the tumor, but we destroy a large part of the brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped , and a life that's not worth living."
.
.
_____flip,
.
December 17, 2012
.
".. I’m getting close to thinking that Squidymus is a Poe. Surely this is just getting too ridiculous?"
.
_____ME: And I'm getting close to thinking that flipperpuss is an Edgar Allan Poe, since these flipRants sound like the ramblings of a drug user!
.
.
_____LW,
.
December 17, 2012
.
"By the way, DJT, just FYI: Galileo was born in 1564. The Magellan expedition returned from circumnavigating the globe in 1522. That is 42 years before Galileo was born. It would have been rather trivial for Galileo to prove that the Earth was round and the one could circumnavigate it, and rather ludicrous for the Church to persecute him for saying so."
.
_____ME: Says the person who ignores the "FACT" that my 12/8 post had: "Galileo – the Earth is round."
.
And therefor I did not indicate that Galileo was trying "to prove that the Earth was round."
.
.
_____LW,
.
December 17, 2012
.
"I think it’s a barely literate fifteen-year-old that thinks it’s showing off how good it is with Google."
.
_____ME: Posts the person who started posting GIGO on this particular blog on 12/12!!
.
Which begs the question of your age & if you even know what bing, Safari, Mercury, yahoo, IMDB & Multisearch are.
Holy f*ck.
ooooh, burn.
iDJiT denies claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round. So I searched for the word Galileo on this page.
Here is iDJiT on Dec 8:
Clearly iDJiT was drawing a parallel between Semmelweis' saying physicians should wash their hands, and Galileo's fantasized saying that the Earth is round.
No one mentioned the name Galileo again until iDJiT on Dec 11:
Still no one mentioned Galileo until iDJiT on Dec 15:
There is no other way of reading this than a comparison between Galileo's fantasized claim that the Earth is round and his fantasized inability to prove it, versus Burzynski's real claim of being able to cure cancer and his real inability to prove it.
Face it, iDJiT, you said it and we all know it.
For those who may have missed it, here’s how to compute the survival rate if five survive out of seven, the iDJiT way:
I am not joking.
@ LW,
Something doesn't compute with your rendition of DidySquat math (and he's far from computing itself) but perhaps I can blame that on my flu (which I'm treating with gin, honey and lemon juice) but....you jump from percentages to absolute numbers and even the percentages look iffy; how did you come up with these numbers from DidySquat's posts?
Alain
Alain, your flu is not to blame. I kid you not, that "computation" is in blockquote because I copied it from one of the iDJiT's droppings over on the “Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies” post.
I suppose that a pedantic type might also note that not only is the foregoing not what "begs the question" means, it's not even really an example of the idiomatic misuse.
12/17 Comments:
.
______LW,
.
"@DJT:”“A: Yes, it was when Michael Hawkins from NCI asked me to join a group of other physicians and scientist and come to Houston on a site visit to Dr. Burzynski’s Institute in order to assess the BEST CASE SCENARIO that he had to present us of his patients who were treated with antineoplastons.” (pg. 116)”
.
"Yep, cherry-picked, best cases out of something like 2,400 patients, and he still couldn’t come up with seven *survivors*."
.
"I don’t think DJT can reason at all."
.
_____ME: And here I was thinking you couldn't restate the obvious!
.
Yet you did!!
.
.
_____Mephistopheles O'Brien
.
December 17, 2012
.
.Your last message – a string of juvenile abusive comments – was entirely uncalled for."
.
_____ME:
.
Says the person who pops on this particular blog on 12/15 out of nowhere, posting:
.
_____"Burzyinski has claimed that he can cure cancer more reliably and with fewer side effects than the current standard of care. If he can do it – great. He needs to prove it. But just because I cannot do what he claims to be able to do doesn’t mean I should keep silent about his inability to prove his claims."
.
Citing no "SOURCE" to back up such claims, no indication that you've reviewed any of the Clinical Trail publications, citing no law or regulation you're relying on, no indication that you've reviewed CFR 21 (Title 21), Chapter I, Subchapter F, re Confidentiality of certain data, Confidential Trade Secret data, Confidential Commercial data, Confidential Business data, Confidential Exemptions, or offering any explanation as to why the FDA authorized Phase II & Phase III Clinical Trials if SRB was not providing the data that is required by law or regulation.
.
_____"In particular, I have no idea what your comment Says the Dungeons and Dragons character in their “Computer-Generated Fantasy World.” refers to or is supposed to mean. I suppose you’re trying to taunt me in some way; I cannot find anything I’ve said that this would appear to relate to."
.
seriously? Seriously?? SERIOUSLY???
.
In the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, Mephistopheles is an Arch-Devil of Hell.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephistopheles_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
.
_____"I find your ability to be abusive while agreeing to the facts remarkable."
.
Thank you!
.
.
_____LW,
December 17, 2012
.
"@Mephistopheles O’Brien: I don’t think we’re dealing with an adult. Its abuse is juvenile because *it* is a juvenile."
.
_____ME: Says the person who congratulates flip for GIGO flip plagiarized from other sources & admitted it after being praised for it!
.
Do you really, actually expect me to take you seriously when you post anything on here that's supposed to be factual???
.
.
_____Mephistopheles O'Brien
December 17, 2012
.
LW has been remarkably patient in trying to explain your own references to you, so you might try actually reading what LW tells you for comprehension. You might learn which arguments you make are worthwhile, which are contradicted by fact, and which are logically inconsistent.
.
______ME: Whilst no reliable source is cited.
.
Nice try, but I didn't fall off the turnip truck.
.
.
______LW,
December 17, 2012
.
"Krebiozen has been extremely patient and he is much more knowledgeable than I am. I was very interested in his explanation of the medical reports. It was most clear and informative."
.
______ME: Yet can't figure out if this contain Clinical Trial data:
.
2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, & progressive brainstem glioma.
Stanislaw R Burzynski, Tomasz J Janicki, … Barbara Burzynski
Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, Burzynski B.
Journal
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7.
Integr Cancer Ther 5(1):40-7 (2006), PMID .16484713
in 4 PHASE 2 trials
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/16484713/Targeted_therapy_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1_of_high_grade__recurrent__and_progressive_brainstem_glioma
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/16484713
I guess that takes care of that.
More pretend-lawyer "HILARITY." Leaving aside the fact that this response is ... well, not responsive, 21 CFR 600 has no bearing on anything except for the fact that Burzynski was boned for inadequate GMP.
^ (et seq.)
Dude, really? According to the Burzinsky Research Institute's web site's descriptions of antineoplastons, "Dr. Burzynski believes these substances counteract the development of cancerous growth through a biochemical process which does not inhibit the growth of normal tissues." They also claim to be producing "targeted gene therapies (antineoplastons or ANP) for the treatment of cancer." This certainly sounds like they're saying they have fewer side effects. The fact that they are trying to introduce a new set of drugs to the market certainly suggests they believe those treatments are more effective, safer, or both than the current standard of care.
I can't imagine how you found a request for evidence of effectiveness and safety to be so offensive. It's nothing I wouldn't ask of any other drug. They have not yet proven that the drug is effective or safe (which at the very least is the position of the NCI based on the site you conveniently provided) - indeed, several patients left the trials due to toxicity issues (once again, see the NCI link).
And I never claimed that Burzynsky did not provide the data required in order to have his phase III protocols approved (when will those trials open again?), merely that he did not provide sufficient data to show that the treatment is safe and effective.
Well, yes, I knew that. So, what, you think to taunt me for my choice of 'nym (no, I won't pretend that's my given name)? Was there a point there?
12/17 Comments:
.
_____JGC,
.
December 17, 2012
.
JGC, just because you don’t want to do the research, doesn’t mean it’s not been done. Have you actually reviewed at least 1 of his Phase I or II Clinical Trials Publications I’ve posted the references too on here in a prior post“YOU WANT ANSWERS (Part 1)?
"You want answers part 1 doesn’t offer references to published Phase I or Phase II clinical trial results: instead the citations are to review articles, abstracts from poster sessions, etc."
.
_____ME: So are you indicating that you have reviewed 1 or more of these 10 publications & none contain Clinical Trial data?
.
And if that is what you are claiming, can you explain how it is that the FDA approved Phase II & III Clinical Trials without the data they required?
.
1. 2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, & progressive brainstem glioma.
.
in 4 PHASE 2 trials
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/16484713/Targeted_therapy_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1_of_high_grade__recurrent__and_progressive_brainstem_glioma
.
.
2. 2006 – Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current & emerging strategies.
CLINICAL TRIALS…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/16774296/Treatments_for_astrocytic_tumors_in_children__current_and_emerging_strategies
.
.
3. 2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1.
.
…were treated in PHASE II studies…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/15911929/Long_term_survival_of_high_risk_pediatric_patients_with_primitive_neuroectodermal_tumors_treated_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1
.
.
4. 2004 – Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme.
.
These TRIALS…
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/15312271/Long_term_survival_and_complete_response_of_a_patient_with_recurrent_diffuse_intrinsic_brain_stem_glioblastoma_multiforme
.
.
5. 2004 – PHASE II study…
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/15563234/Phase_II_study_of_antineoplaston_A10_and_AS2_1_in_children_with_recurrent_and_progressive_multicentric_glioma___a_preliminary_report
.
.
6. 2003 – PHASE II study…
A PHASE II study…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/12718563/Phase_II_study_of_antineoplaston_A10_and_AS2_1_in_patients_with_recurrent_diffuse_intrinsic_brain_stem_glioma__a_preliminary_report
.
.
7. 1990 – Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1.
.
The present study describes the results of treatment… in PHASE II CLINICAL TRIALS…
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/2152694/Treatment_of_hormonally_refractory_cancer_of_the_prostate_with_antineoplaston_AS2_1
.
.
8. 1987 – PHASE I CLINICAL STUDIES…
CLINICAL TRIALS described in this paper…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/3569014/Phase_I_clinical_studies_of_antineoplaston_A5_injections
.
.
9. 1987 – PHASE I CLINICAL STUDIES…
…was submitted for PHASE II CLINICAL STUDIES…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/3569012/Phase_I_clinical_studies_of_antineoplaston_A3_injections
.
.
10. 1987 – Initial CLINICAL STUDY…with 5 years’ follow-up.
.
This paper describes PHASE I CLINICAL STUDIES…
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/3569010/Initial_clinical_study_with_antineoplaston_A2_injections_in_cancer_patients_with_five_years__follow_up
I believe that everyone is well familiarized with the numbered list that apparently keeps you glued together.
Keep posting djt, the more you post here, the less you post to your vulnerable marks.
And also, your stupidity is soooo amusing. I just may need another bag of popcorn to watch this.
12/17 Comments:
.
_____JGC,
.
"JGC, where has the test results not been published?"
.
"Burzynski hasn’t published the results of the trials he’s supposedly been running for the last 2 decades anywhere that I can determine."
.
"DJT, let me lake this as easy as possible for you: where can I find published reprot of the Phase II clinical study you believe argues most strongly for the safety and efficacy of antineoplastons as a treatment for advanced stage cancer?"
.
"I’m asking for just one citation of just one clinical trial report of a Phase II clinical antineoplaston trial completed by Burzynski sometime in the past 20 years. He’s initiated over 60–surely one of them has yielded usuable results?"
.
_____ME: JGC, if you are going to claim that none of those publications contains Clinical Trial data, & that the 2/29/2012 10-K filing with the SEC doesn't support the Clinical Trial data for legal purposes:
.
2/29/2012 Form 10-K, fiscal year ended:
www. sec. gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465912040430/a12-12972_110k.htm
.
Anyone who has a problem with that might need to review:
.
2002 – Use of the best case series to evaluate complementary and alternative therapies for cancer: a systematic review
.
Richard L Nahin
.
Semin Oncol 29(6):552-62 (2002), PMID .12516038
.
Despite these general deficiencies, 4 BCS (antineoplastons…) were sufficiently convincing to warrant follow-up clinical trials.
.
DOI:10.1053/sonc.2002.50004
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/12516038/Use_of_the_best_case_series_to_evaluate_complementary_and_alternative_therapies_for_cancer__a_systematic_review
.
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/12516038
.
.
_____MarkL
.
London
December 17, 2012
.
"If diddums can’t perhaps find that information, perhaps he can find published clinical trials results for the efficacy of antineoplastons for the treatment of HIV or Parkinson’s, the previous two diseases the brave maverick was 100% sure he was able to cure with “his invention”."
.
"Antineoplaston, the medicine in search of a disease."
.
_____ME: Says the person who lost any CREDIBILITY whatsoever that they might have had, on 12/3.
.
MarkL, in search of the next LIE???
Round and round we go....
Didy, if I took 2400 classes, and 2 out of my 7 best grades were B's, what percent of courses did I get an A in?
12/17 Comments:
.
_____LW,
December 17, 2012
.
"Don’t miss DJT’s latest droppings over on the “Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies” post. Here’s how to compute the survival rate if five survive out of seven: "
.
"If you had 7 patients you could call that: 70%.
5 successful patients would then be: 50%
Change 70% to: 100% (by adding 30%)
Change 50% to: 80% (by adding 30%)
80% minus 100% = 20%
So 20 deaths out of 100 = 80% survival rate."
.
"This may be better than “Galileo was persecuted for saying the Earth was round.”"
_____ME: Or they can go with you trying to beat out Senator Arlen Specter & his JFK "Magic Bullet" theory as the most ridiculous theory, with your 7 minus 5 = 0.02% theory!
.
And they can stay right here for that!!
.
.
_____Krebiozen
December 17, 2012
.
"LW,
.
So the results Burzynski presented appear to indicate that five out of 2,400 — a little over 0.2% — went into remission.
.
_____ME: You SERIOUSLY need to check your "New Math!"
.
"That’s a good point. The other thing to bear in mind is that these patients had all had conventional treatment previously. Some people are late responders to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, sometimes not showing clear signs of improvement until 12 weeks after treatment."
.
_____ME: Yeah, this Doctor & the other 5 members of the FDA must have not had any reliable educational experience & work experience, so we should go with what you think because you weren't there & therefor, you must know more than they did.
.
And while your at it, go ahead swear to that in Court & send off for that Exhibit mentioned in the Testimony.
.
"I see that Dr. Patronas wrote:"
.
"I’m not aware that spontaneous remission occurs; I don’t think it does."
.
"He was mistaken. This review of the literature found over 6,000 cases, 4 of them brain tumor cases. It reports that about 20 cases of spontaneous remission are reported every year, but many more undoubtedly go unreported. A brief review of PubMed and Google Scholar comes up with several case studies of spontaneous regression and remission of gliomas and astrocytomas. It’s rare but by no means unknown."
.
_____ME: Great! We can all go home now!!
.
And how many of these were pre-1993?
.
"The bottom line is that only Phase 3 clinical trials can tell us if Burzynski’s treatment really works."
.
______ME: Well, there's something we can agree on though I question how it is that the Gub-ment let lesser tested cancer drugs through the Express Phase II process & are requiring radiation as part of the Phase III Trials.
.
.
_____MarkL,
.
December 17, 2012
.
"@LW
.
Re: Diddum’s mathematical expertise
.
Isn’t that the most spectacular self-destruct you have seen here?
.
I wonder what his next gambit will be (if, indeed, there is one)? I predict a new pseudo-identity at least!"
.
_____ME: Yeah, let's go with your "Magic Bullet" Theory!
.
.
_____flip,
.
December 17, 2012
.
"@LW
.
I think it’s a barely literate fifteen-year-old that thinks it’s showing off how good it is with Google.
.
Either that or someone who thinks that reading a few books is the same as being educated in medicine.
.
He seems fixated on conspiracy theorists without realising what the F one looks like.
.
@Mark L
.
If diddums can’t perhaps find that information, perhaps he can find published clinical trials results for the efficacy of antineoplastons for the treatment of HIV or Parkinson’s, the previous two diseases the brave maverick was 100% sure he was able to cure with “his invention”.
.
Antineoplastons, the medicine in search of a disease.
.
Or even supplying evidence that it works as an anti-aging product.
.
.
_____ME: Definitely, let's go with you & your group of "Geniuses" instead of people like Dr. James Watson, discoverer of DNA & involved in the Human Genome Mapping Project.
.
Your experience is absolutely more "credible" than his!!
Watson didn't discover DNA. He also never said the quote you've attributed to him, unless you're able to prove otherwise.
While you're at it:
If I took 2400 classes, and 2 out of my 7 best grades were B’s, what percent of courses did I get an A in?
The amazingly tedious halfwit besmirching the name Didymus Judas Thomas keeps switching threads, so for the benefit of any new lurkers who wonder why the numbers 5, 7, 0.2%, and 2400, keep being mentioned, here are the assumptions and conclusions I used to get the number 0.2%, from the other thread:
Dr. James Watson, discoverer of DNA
Please continue, Gubbiner.
I could swear that I've pointed out that this entire line of babbling would collapse if it actually had something to land on to start with.
@Orac
I know it's hard to follow this thread, but you let some real actual spam through... Might want to delete that post.
Given that Squidymus has previously touted the elephantine orchitis (tinEO) that allowed him to personally contact Merola, which was no doubt a regular Plateau Sigma sort of endeavor, perhaps he could hoist things up and drop a query to Cold Spring.
@Squidymus
Mmmmm, someone hasn't figured out how to google 'Poe' yet.... Or what satire is.
I find it interesting that people assume 'flip' is short for flippant. It's not. It's a character from a play; consider flip to be of the surfing dude variety.
But you know, it's also good for showing cranks for what they really are. People who like to fill in the blanks with their own assumptions.
Keep building that strawman honey, you've almost reached the moon with that one.
Oh, so Dr James Watson has some peer-reviewed papers published showing the efficacy and safety of antineoplastons? If so, I'll definitely look at the link for that. And if not, well, he's pretty much irrelevant to the issue of Burzyinski and his trials, isn't he?
I think I need to bring back the generator; or at the very least, continue to use Captain Haddock insults. And with that, I add the appropriate cry of.... "Abecedarian!"
@Narad
Exactly what I was thinking. Heck, I'm a few decades, at least, younger than most of the regulars here. And yet, somehow I doubt Squidymus knows what Netscape is. Or what a dongle looks like. And I know even both of those things are pretty 'new' in the scheme of IT development. Which is to say nothing of course of the obvious talents of various coders of such regulars as yourself. One truly wonders how old Squidy is.
He does have a certain supernova quality to his posts...
... Does Squidymus think that simply posting the citations is enough? Maybe this little troll has only gotten far enough in their education to have recently been taught about bibliographies, and hasn't worked out that you can't just add citations at will - they have to actually back up your statements.
I'm so glad I brought my jumbo-sized popcorn. Looks like we'll be here for a while ;)
I regret to report that I actually still have a PCI dongle on the premises. It's a long story.
I still think the iDJiT is about fifteen and just started doing debate. In my one year of debate, we would run into these types who thought that debate consisted of quoting from authorities.
Surprisingly often, debaters would quote authority A to say fact F is true and later authority B to say fact F is false. I would argue that fact F cannot be both true and false so their argument was incoherent, and they would respond that I had not defeated their point since I had not quoted an authority to say that fact F cannot be both true and false. I never could get them to grasp that you don't need authority to support simple logic. Fortunately judges understood that, which is why we won so often.
The iDJiT similarly demands authority for simple division, mere questions, and elementary logical deductions.
you can’t just add citations at will – they have to actually back up your statements.
It also helps to actually aver some statements
@Diddums
Oh boy, I am losing the will to live (but I am guessing that that is diddums aim). It is like watching one of the lesser primates in a zoo lose its temper and start to fling its own feces around the cage.
How are Watson's oft quoted (but never accurately sourced) words supposed to show support for the brave fraud? How do they pertain to your argument in support of the brave maverick?
SEC filings as clinical evidence? hahahaha - sure, in the same way Crick, Wilkins and Watson won the Nobel prize after their 1953 tax returns proved the double helix theory.
*facepalm*
You don't get it do you? Even if you post links to every single document Stan has produced from the time he started high school, they will not be evidence of efficacy. ONLY the full results from some his 60+ phase II trials can start to provide such evidence. Anything else is just so much wilted word salad and irrelevant.
Saying that something is "cherry-picked" doesn't mean it isn't factually true.
An example of cherry-picking would be boasting about what a good shot is by saying "Why, the other day at the range, he put a round right in the dead center of the bullseye!" That might be totally factually true but if it was only one of 500 rounds fired and it was the only round that actually hit the target, talking only about that one round and not the others is cherry-picking.
Note that it's not always "cherry-picking" to examine a small set out of a much larger set. If Person A says "This principle always holds true!" and Person B wants to show that the principle doesn't always hold true, it's perfectly legitimate for Person B to show a counter-example. If Person A wants to say "this bowl will hold the liquid we pour into it," it's not cherry-picking for Person B to point out one spot that has a hole.
When someone comes out and makes an extraordinary claim such as "I have a cure for cancer that's superior to everything else currently in use!" it's not enough for them to prove most elements of their claim. They must prove all elements of their claim. If someone comes along and points out a place where their claim falls apart, it doesn't mean the person doing the pointing out is "cherry-picking"; it means the person making the claim shouldn't have made such an extravagant claim without solid evidence.
Diddums seems to be attempting the following sorites:
1) No one, even people taking dishonest actions, ever offers dishonest accounts of why they took those actions.
2) Merola claimed a totally aboveboard motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial.
3) Therefore Merola's motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial was totally aboveboard.
4) Orac does not believe that Merola's motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial was totally aboveboard.
5) Therefore, Orac is completely ignorant and all his testimony is impeached.
The problem is of course that premise 1 is bull-doots, and therefore there's no logical force to any part of the argument.
12/17 Comments:
.
_____flip,
"This should be interesting..."
.
_____ME: If only it weren't coming from a 15 year-old!
.
December 17, 2012
.
"@DJT
.
Do I just have to keep making common-sense comments, or do I have to include something special?”
.
_____"Where have you offered ANY common-sense comments?"
.
"That answers that question. Evidently I have to include something super special."
.
"Squidymus, you thundering nincompoop, at Burzyinski, we realize how to strategize cyber-holistically. We apply the proverb “You cannot have your cake and eat it too” not only to our raw bandwidth management but our aptitude to grow. Your budget for incubating should be at least twice your budget for disintermediating. The capacity to innovate virally leads to the aptitude to transition compellingly. Quick: do you have a e-business game plan for monitoring new cross-media, customer-defined data hygiene reports? We invariably revolutionize C2C2B reporting. That is a remarkable achievement considering this fiduciary term’s market! The metrics for sexy distributed data hygiene are more well-understood if they are not best-of-breed, C2C2C. What do we streamline? Anything and everything, regardless of semidarkness! We will regenerate our capacity to productize without reducing our power to harness. Your budget for expediting should be at least one-tenth of your budget for reinventing. We often engineer killer returns-on-investment. That is a remarkable achievement considering this year’s cycle!"
.
"Burzyinski practically invented the term “TQM”. The metrics for data hygiene are more well-understood if they are not cross-media. What does the industry jargon “bleeding-edge” really mean? Think nano-ubiquitous. Is it more important for something to be .60/60/24/7/365 or to be client-focused? The metrics for metrics are more well-understood if they are not mission-critical. Do you have a game plan to become virally-distributed? Think macro-dynamic. What does the commonly-accepted term “process management” really mean? Our technology takes the best features of Apache and Python. The process management management factor can be summed up in one word: clicks-and-mortar."
.
"Great scientists throughout history: Copernicus, etc, agree on the principle of astro-nihilistic reactivity is the fundamental principle behind all religions. Giordano Bruno knew everything about resonation astrochemistry; that is why the Illuminati annihilated him. the cosmic quasi-time constant is 8.71. only from the principle of vibro-temporal instability can one calculate the MISSING MASS OF THE UNIVERSE. End unemployment, terrorism, poverty, etc — adopt a personal philosophy based on harmonic field optics now!."
.
"Burzyinski has revamped the abstraction of obfuscation. We frequently brand mission-critical portals. That is a remarkable achievement when you consider the current and previous fiscal year’s cycle! The ability to transform micro-robustly leads to the power to generate robustly. Without preplanned networks, angel investors are forced to become global. We think that most cross-media web applications use far too much FOAF, and not enough IIS. The M&A factor is next-generation. What does it really mean to actualize “seamlessly”? We pride ourselves not only on our feature set, but our user-proof administration and user-proof configuration. We will engineer the ability of interfaces to evolve. We apply the proverb “Never look a gift horse in the mouth” not only to our TQC but our ability to transition."
.
_____ME: This smells suspiciously like something a Tu-Quacking wanna-be Winner 15 year-old who wouldn't know the 1st thing about Total Quality Management (TQM) would plagiarize in High School.
.
Tell me it ain't so flippermush, say it ain't so!!
.
.
_____Mephistopheles O'Brien,
.
December 17, 2012
.
"@flip,
[applause type=standing /]"
.
_____Me: Well, THAT "applause/standing" thing really worked out well for you, didn't it???
.
You might not ought to quit your Day Job just quite yet though.
.
.
_____LW,
.
December 17, 2012
.
"@flip, I am awed."
.
_____ME: Considering the source, I can see how this could happen!!
.
.
_____flip,
.
December 17, 2012
.
Nah, love to take the credit, but why reinvent the wheel "when writing word salad?"
.
"Crazy comments courtesy of"
.
companyname=Burzyinski
.
and
.
"Just random bull stuff generators. Now if only I could find a generator that translates Diddums’ posts…"
.
_____ME: Some say the truth will set you free.
.
Maybe you should run for political office when you grow up.
.
.
_____flip,
.
December 18, 2012
.
"Well, that didn’t do it…."
.
Maybe I need to post a math equation… That worked on the other thread…"
.
_____ME: Trust ME!! Nothing can help you ... NOW!!
.
.
_____MarkL,
.
December 18, 2012
.
"@flip
.
"Why bother? This arsehat DJT will just continue to blather endlessly. He has NO shame, and despite proving himself both innumerate and illiterate, he still believes he has something to add to the debate."
.
___ME: Says the "Mouthpiece" who hasn't met a LIE he doesn't like, yet.
.
"You will not get anything of value from him, he has yet to answer the very first question asked of him: to supply the results from the 60+ phase II clinical trials that Burzynski has used to enrich himself over several decades."
.
_____ME: Says the Troll.
.
I think I hear London Bridge callin' your name!!
.
"He has given us almost everything else Burzynski has ever published, but has not, CANNOT, deliver the one piece of evidence that would let his hero off the hook."
.
_____Me: Says flip's Alcolyte.
.
.
Narad,
.
December 18, 2012
.
"Narad Is he saying stupid stuff like usual where he thinks I would give up my legal history with a psychotic running around loose here?"
.
"If you were not basically devoid of verbal aptitude and general reasoning skills, you could in fact readily provide a summary of your no doubt awe-inspiring legal derring-do."
.
_____ME: Coming from someone who doesn't know who they are or how old they are, I can't tell you how much this REALLY Hurts!!
.
No, REALLY, I can't!!!
.
.
_____Narad,
.
December 18, 2012
.
Oh, this one’s good on the pretend-lawyer front:
.
"And as LW eloquently displays with his 1983 case is that the FDA had no Jurisdiction in the State of Texas. The State of Texas has Jurisdiction over its own Territory except where it has ceded property to the Federal Gub-ment or a Federal Law specifically applies."
.
"The hilarious part here is that Burzynski attempted to argue that, because the federal injunction was against interstate distribution, the FDA had granted him immunity from the Texas Medical Practices Act."
.
_____ME: What's the REALLY hilarious part here is that the DOJ was wasting taxpayer money, the Court's time, & harassing SRB on a case they knew they couldn't win; unless they were really bad lawyers & didn't think SRB's Lawyer would pick up on this!
It did indeed. Thanks for noticing!
In these days of economic uncertainty, unless you're independently wealthy or have a killer idea for an entrepreneurial venture that will take your full time that's reasonable advice. Thanks.
Squidymus,
Are you really trying to argue that 5 expressed as a percentage of 2,400 is something other than 0.2%? The 7 patients Burzynski presented were clearly the "best case scenario" out of the 2,400 patients he had treated at that time, and 2 of them died, so it does seem appropriate to calculate the percentages this way.
That sentence is quite a chimera; an argument from authority followed by a strawman, mixed up with a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with anyone's education or work experience, it has to do with what is or is not possible. They looked at these cases in 1993, but the paper I cited was published in 2006, so they may not have been aware of the possibility of late responses like this.
My testimony and whatever that Exhibit says is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts:
1. Late response to radiochemotherapy in pediatric glioblastoma, Burzynski's speciality, has been reported in the literature.
2. All the cases looked at by Dr. Patronas and his team had had previous treatment.
3. It is possible that these cases were also examples of late response to earlier treatment.
4. Therefore they are not good evidence for the efficacy of Burzynski's treatment.
Dr. Patronas said that spontaneous remission does not occur, I have cited a study that found thousands of cases of spontaneous remission reported in the literature (PDF), including some brain tumor cases, therefore Dr. Patronas was mistaken. I conclude from this that is it possible that the cases Dr. Patronas and his colleagues examined were examples of spontaneous remission, and therefore they are not good evidence for the efficacy of Burzynski's treatment.
All of them, since the paper was published in 1989, what does this have to do with it? When someone asserts that white crows don't exist, a single white crow will suffice to disprove the assertion. When Dr. Patronas asserted that spontaneous remission does not occur in cancer, even assuming he was specifically referring to brain tumors, the cases reported in the study I cited suffice to prove him wrong. It seems that Dr. Patronas was not familiar with the literature on spontaneous remission.
So you agree that we don't know whether Burzynski's treatment works. That's progress I suppose. As several people have pointed out, either it does work, in which case Burzynski has kept a life-saving treatment from thousands of patients for decades, or it doesn't work in which case he has been charging vulnerable cancer patients hundeds of thousands of dollars for false hope. Which do you think is the case?
Which lesser tested cancer drugs are you referring to?
I have seen that claimed in various places , but it's not true. The trial protocol clearly states:
Perhaps you should try checking some of your facts.
Good Grief!
I have a comment in the moderation hopper. I will post a small but perhaps important highlight. The Sepia Troll suggested that the FDA:
I have seen that claimed in various places , but it's not true. The trial protocol clearly states:
DJT, I have reviewed the citations you keep spamming your posts with--that's why I'm aware they are not published reports of clinical trials and do not represent evidence that antineoplastons are effective at treating advanced cancers.
The SEC filing as well does not represent evidence that antineoplastons are safe or effective at treating advanced cancers.
If you recall in an effort to simplify things I asked you to provide the single best piece of evidence for Buraynski's protocol, in the form of the one published report from a completed clinical trial you believe best demonstrates Buraynski's claim that antineoplastons are safe and effective at treating advanced cancers.
Just provide one single, actual piece of evidence. That's all I'm asking at this point. Your continued inability to do so--in fact, your clearly intentional decision not even to try--speaks volumes.
@JGC
I'm floored that you guys have the patience to wade through DJT's walls o' text. Apparently the concept of brevity is lost on him/her. I noticed that buried in one of his/her screeds, DJT listed a couple papers that discuss cases plucked out from several of the phase II trials, but no papers on the trials themselves. One paper included subjects from 4 different trials!
Note to DJT, this is not a scientifically acceptable means of reporting the results of a clinical trial. These are case series reports, apparently chosen because they appear to support Burzynski, but no controls or other data are presented.
Oh, also, papers on in vitro studies are not representative of Phase II clinical trials, either, seeing as they are the results of testing on the bench (e.g., petri dishes, etc.), rather than testing in humans.
@Todd W: "Apparently the concept of brevity is lost on him/her."
An astonishing number of concepts appear to be lost on him/her.
You really only have to wade through his posts once--he keeps offering the same poster abstracts, the same SEC filing information, etc. every few posts, as if sheer repetition can serve in lieu of evidence.
And juvenile insults. Don't forget the juvenile insults.
He actually replied to the randomly generated buzz word salad as if it was meant to mean something.
He is just too funny. Can we keep him as a pet?
@MarkL
Sure, but you need to clean up after him.
@MarkL: can you get him to do tricks? I'd like to see him answer this: "if ten patients out of fourteen survive, what percentage survive?" Based on his algorithm, I'm guessing either 96% or 60%, but it would be great fun to see him show his work again.
@Narad
If I weren't posting under a pseudonym, I would share some various exploits of a pixelated memory lane...
@HDB
Well yes; but you know what I meant...
@MarkL
Ooh, that's a good'un.
Which is what I expected. I was particularly curious whether or not he could pass that comprehension test. Most people would be able to see through the junkyard of those sentences. Heck, I even mixed in a totally separate paragraph from a conspiracy generator just for fun.
@Todd W
I'm just scanning for when he discusses me. Everything else I'm pretty much ignoring as I scroll past. I don't have the time at the moment to do much more than that, nor the inclination.
@Squidymus
Touché me old chum. That totally proves that Burzyinski isn't lying!
Thundering son of a sea-gherkin, you are stupid. I even explained the whole thing above, if you'd bothered to follow the links. It's a corporate-speak generator, you plug in the "name" of the company and it spits out paragraphs of meaningless word salad based on "corporate-speak", aka made-up words or words used in order to create abstractness. It was a parody of what you've been doing. Here, I'll post the link again:
http://www.andrewdavidson.com/gibberish/?companyname=Burzyinski
But hey, your following comments suggest you saw the info, but still didn't understand what is was. Aw, so close to that gold star, and yet so far far far away...
Yeah, I'm quaking in my boots. *rolls eyes
Wow, what a compliment. I'm pretty new here, but it's nice to know I have "alcolytes". Are they anything like flying monkeys, can I send them to do my evil bidding? :D
What do I do with them now I have them?
... So after all that ... it's a "no" then for having access to peer-reviewed clinical results of Burzyinski's trials?
Not long ago I threw out my first modem, a 2,400 bit/s device that served me well. You try telling the kids today that and they won't believe you.
You can try but they're usually too drunk.
Especially when around Alain...
@AF,
Regarding Merola's motivation, I speculated on another thread that possibly he was working off his late cousin's debt at the clinic. She died a week after Stan told her she was getting better and the tumour was shrinking. Her fundraising page is still up and is still begging for money, with no mention of the fact she died in 2011.
Maybe once he made the first commercial he got sucked in or Burzynski saw the results and retained Merola's services for the sequel "Look's Who Quacking II".
And both Merola and his lunatic brother work on conspiracy films under different names. Eric Joseph is one, I believe.
@flip
Is djt still making empty threats?
And pass the popcorn around, djt is ending up to be quite an entertaining idiot to laugh at.
The Merola brothers' contribution to the world of crackpot conspiracy movies is their "Zeitgeist" series. I couldn't think of the title when I first posted. Now, two double espressos later, the synapses are firing on all cylinders.
Offtopic,
@ MSII,
Do you have time next week for a meeting at the Benelux or DDC? I'll be in Montreal from the 26 to the 30ish or 31.
Alain
t’s nice to know I have “alcolytes”.
I think they are made by Anhauser-Busch (the word "brewed" isn't really appropriate).
Alain,
Sure...I've been waiting for you to post on that other board we discussed here so I could get your e-mail address, but you haven't submitted anything recently.
Post a generic "Happy Holidays" thing and I'll pick up your coordinates, as we say here in la belle province.
Depending on the weather I'm walking distance to Benelux and can get to DDC via metro.
Without getting specific, in what part of the city do you stay when you're here?
“alcolytes”
Is that what you get when you spike Gatorade?
I'm not sure empty threat is the right phrase. What do you call it when someone Gish gallops word salad in between ridiculously bad puns, link spam and acting like the high school attention-getter? (Bart Simpson on drugs perhaps?)
12/18 Comments:
.
_____LW,
.
"Wow. DJT is even more incoherent than yesterday. Did anyone else bother to look through that mess and note that part of the section responding to Orac’s review of Merola’s propaganda is repeated? Not that it was very intelligible to start with, since there seem to be some quotations from Merola that are in quotation marks, but other comments that appear to be from Merola that aren’t in quotation marks interspersed with insults to Orac that evidently are comments from DJT."
.
"I would suggest that DJT try to pay attention in English class, but considering the calibre of DJT’s school as revealed by his/her mathematical atrocities yesterday, I’m afraid that what we see is probably acceptable in DJT’s English classes."
_____ME: If you were unable to select Orac's link to the Merola article, & distinguish my clearly separate remarks from Merola's, as Comedian Jeff Foxworthy says, "you might be a Redneck", and need to worry about your own Education!
.
.
_____LW
.
December 18, 2012
.
“FDA had no Jurisdiction in the State of Texas.”
.
"That will be a surprise to just about everyone in Texas."
.
_____ME: Way to "Cherry-Pick" that statement out of context.
.
No need for me to waste my time correcting you though, since someone else already has.
.
.
_____Narad,
.
December 18, 2012
.
“FDA had no Jurisdiction in the State of Texas.”
.
"That will be a surprise to just about everyone in Texas."
.
"They really don’t, to the extent that one is talking about FDCA § 301."
.
.
_____Shay,
.
December 18, 2012
.
"Well, so far we’ve seen him/her/it demonstrate"
.
"Math – fail.
English composition – fail.
Reading comprehension – fail.
Rhetoric – major fail."
.
"Can’t comment on his/her/it’s critical thinking skills as none have been demonstrated."
.
_____ME: And so far we've seen from Tu-Shay:
.
(1) Inability to number items - FAIL!:
____Alain
December 12, 2012
.
"ummm…..let see:
1-: insulting
2-: patronizing
3-: spammer
What else? Anyone want to add to that list?"
.
_____Shay,
.
December 12, 2012
.
"Incomprehensible, irrelevant, and inane?"
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
"You can't teach I crystal skull anything
.
December 15, 2012
.
12/10 Comments:
.
"Alain,
.
4-: correct"
.
(2). Inability to respond to questions - FAIL!!
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
.
December 2, 2012
.
"Shay, please cite any post(s) & their dates which “shredded whatever” I’ve “managed to produce” where I have not responded to their alleged “FACTS.” Please cite any post(s) & their dates which support your allegation that I’ve “demonstrated that” I’m “doing a quick copy/paste without bothering to check the articles” I’m “citing to see if they support” my “claims.”
.
(3). Inability to bring anything relevant to the table - FAIL!!!:
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
You can't teach I crystal skull anything
.
December 15, 2012
.
12/10 Comments:
.
"Shay, it would be great if you actually had something relevant To-”Shay.”"
.
.
_____LW,
.
December 18, 2012
.
"@Narad: “They really don’t, to the extent that one is talking about FDCA § 301.”
.
Okay, they had no jurisdiction in this case.
.
It’s funny how the FDA is evilly trying to shut down and incarcerate Burzynski but they allowed him to create a Phase III — on paper only since all subjects were supposed to be accrued almost a year ago but none have been — so that proves the FDA believes his claims. According to the ever-courteous DJT."
.
_____ME: And if you were actually paying attention to what's going on you would understand that:
.
1. There are costs associated with a Phase III Clinical Trail, and therefor funds have to obtained,
.
2. Patients of a sufficient number need to be obtained who specifically fit the "Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma" category,
.
3. Parents need to be convinced to allow their Children to have their Brains be exposed to Radiation,
.
4. And there may be other factors as well.
.
.
_____MarkL,
.
"Astounded by DJT stupidity
.
December 18, 2012
.
"@ Diddums
.
So still no published, peer reviewed results from any of Burzynski’s phase 2 trials to report yet then?
.
FAIL (again)"
.
_____ME:
.
NOT astounded by MarkL's stupidity.
.
_____ME: MarkLiar,
.
Still unable to answer "Yes" or "No" as to whether you have or have not reviewed at least 1 of the 10 publications which has "Clinical Trial" "or "Trial" in it somewhere?
DJT: You don't even understand the mathematical concept of division. Why should we take anything you take seriously?
Oh thats quite a strawman you are building there Diddums, but since you are aware that it is a strawman, we should really just call you a bare-faced liar and a fraud.
And in answer to you, YES, I have looked at every one of the links I have seen with relevant titles, and not ONE of them are results of a phase II trial conducted by Burzynski.
That is why I keep asking you for results, not abstracts, not poster presentations, not other peoples work, not advertorials or puff-pieces from woo friendly mags or vanity publishers, FULL, PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED RESULTS of a phase II trial that shows even a glimmer of hope for antineoplastons as a medical treatment for ANYTHING, from the last 30+ years of research and 60+ such trials that Burzynski claims to have run.
You can't do that can you? Because Burzynski has never published results of his studies, he just gives out mish-mashes of info gleaned from any number of sources to try and portray himself in the best possible light.
The only possible reason for him to continue in this manner after so long is that he is a FRAUD.
Thats why your gish gallops, your red herrings, strawmen, onus probandi, tu quoque, and probably a dozen other logical fallacies are so amusing to us. because we know the Burzynski story. We know he hasnt released results. So try as you like, you just come across as a laughable under-educated, aggressive, woo-crazy moron. We have tried to give you the chance to give in gracefully, but you just keep coming back and heaping more shame upon yourself.
Do not for a moment delude yourself that anyone takes your childish comments seriously, we are taking the p*ss out of you because you are every credulous NWO/Alt-med/Space abduction fantasist stereotype rolled into one steaming lump. You are HYSTERICALLY funny.
@Marc Stephens Is Insane: "She died a week after Stan told her she was getting better and the tumour was shrinking."
That seems a common story. If Burzynski says the tumor is shrinking, it's probably time to wrap up your affairs and start making funeral arrangements.
Squidymus,
Anyone who can read can see that you are a bluffing, blustering, lying buffoon. I don't know why you bother trying to pretend otherwise.
I see that you predictably fail to get this despite explanations on multiple fronts. Let us recall that you asserted that the FDA had no jurisdiction in the (SOVEREIGN STATE OF!!1!1!!) Texas. This is false, as the GMP part of the injunction demonstrates. The FDA does not appear to have attempted to assert jurisdiction over intrastate commerce. As previously stated, they wouldn't have needed to in the first place, because the TMPA already explicitly incorporated federal restrictions, and the whole thing well predates the sort of administrative fiat attempts that one can see from recent years. In short, you're an imbecile.
Now, try to summarize your Ethan Allen–like legal assault on the tyrannical forces of "Gub'ment." You can rest assured that nobody at all is interested in actually making your acquaintance.
@MSII
Metro Fabre and about my email address, here it is:
alain.toussaint@securivm.ca
Alain
I guess Orac is otherwise occupied today, as my comment earlier comment is still languishing in moderation. I'm going to report without the guilty link.
Squidymus,
Are you really trying to argue that 5 expressed as a percentage of 2,400 is something other than 0.2%? The 7 patients Burzynski presented were clearly the "best case scenario" out of the 2,400 patients he had treated at that time, and 2 of them died, so it does seem appropriate to calculate the percentages this way.
That sentence is quite a chimera; an argument from authority followed by a strawman, mixed up with a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with anyone's education or work experience, it has to do with what is or is not possible. They looked at these cases in 1993, but the paper I cited was published in 2006, so they may not have been aware of the possibility of late responses like this.
My testimony and whatever that Exhibit says is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts:
1. Late response to radiochemotherapy in pediatric glioblastoma, Burzynski's speciality, has been reported in the literature.
2. All the cases looked at by Dr. Patronas and his team had had previous treatment.
3. It is possible that these cases were also examples of late response to earlier treatment.
4. Therefore they are not good evidence for the efficacy of Burzynski's treatment.
Dr. Patronas said that spontaneous remission does not occur, I have cited a study that found thousands of cases of spontaneous remission reported in the literature (PDF), including some brain tumor cases, therefore Dr. Patronas was mistaken. I conclude from this that is it possible that the cases Dr. Patronas and his colleagues examined were examples of spontaneous remission, and therefore they are not good evidence for the efficacy of Burzynski's treatment.
All of them, since the paper was published in 1989, what does this have to do with it? When someone asserts that white crows don't exist, a single white crow will suffice to disprove the assertion. When Dr. Patronas asserted that spontaneous remission does not occur in cancer, even assuming he was specifically referring to brain tumors, the cases reported in the study I cited suffice to prove him wrong. It seems that Dr. Patronas was not familiar with the literature on spontaneous remission.
So you agree that we don't know whether Burzynski's treatment works. That's progress I suppose. As several people have pointed out, either it does work, in which case Burzynski has kept a life-saving treatment from thousands of patients for decades, or it doesn't work in which case he has been charging vulnerable cancer patients hundeds of thousands of dollars for false hope. Which do you think is the case?
Which lesser tested cancer drugs are you referring to?
I have seen that claimed in various places , but it's not true. The trial protocol clearly states:
Perhaps you should try checking some of your facts.
Sorry for the garbled beginning of that last comment, it escaped mid-edit.
12/18 Comments:
.
_____Politicalguineapig
December 18, 2012
.
"DJT:
Heretic: a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
Note that there is only one “i,” and that none of these definitions have tics, ticks, or tocks. Also, we are discussing science, not religion- which probably escaped you. There is no heresy in medicine; only stuff that works and stuff that stupid people cling to, even if it ought to have been thrown out."
.
_____ME:
Politicalguineapig, "Hereatic" - "Here-a-Tic."
.
A blood-sucking insect who sucks the life out of you, similar to a Tu-Quacker.
.
.
Narad
.
December 18, 2012
.
Don’t Blame Me!! YOU asked for THIS!!!
.
"Posting the same crap that you plainly don’t understand once again? No, not really."
.
_____ME: Says the person who whined:
.
Narad
.
December 3, 2012
.
I have a really, really hard time reading his post.
.
You’re not the only one. DJT seems to really not grasp the concept of “context.” It’s like the whole thing has to be reconstructed from scratch, including what’s taken from elsewehere with no indication, with every word-blob.
.
_____ME: So when I re-post the relevant posts so you won't have to scroll up to my previous posts, you reinforce my belief that you'll WHINE no matter what.
.
.
_____KreBLOGicrap,
.
"December 18, 2012
.
"Squidymus,
I am amazed that anyone would have the nerve to return after the utter humiliation you have heaped upon yourself. Have you no shame? You want more humiliation? I’m happy to oblige."
.
_____ME: Bring your Best Lame Game because it's all the Same.
.
"KreBLOGGERzen wants Grandè BLACK CROWS TO EAT!!!!!!!!!!"
.
"You haven’t quite gotten the hang of humorously changing pseudonyms have you? As for the crow, it’s you who should be finding some way of making a very large portion palatable.
.
_____ME: What did you say KreBLOGscat?
.
"Please cite the specific date & post re Galileo because you are wrong YET AFAGAIN!
I never posted that: _____”Your insistence that Galileo discovered that the world is round…”"
.
"Yes you did, right here.
.
Yep, we know Science picks sides from:
Galileo – the Earth is round.
Ignaz Semmelweis – wash your hands between the time you deliver a baby & do an autopsy & deliver a baby, unless you like sending people “Down Under.”"
.
_____ME: "Galileo – the Earth is round." does NOT mean "that Galileo discovered that the world is round…”
.
It may, in the Dimension you're residing in, but not in the "Real World" where I reside.
.
"You even defended that statement later on that thread when various people called you out on it. The evidence is there for all to see."
_____ME: Bullocks!
.
"How would you like your CROW COOKED?
.
Pathetic."
.
_____ME: Yes, you are!!!
.
_____”defence of your statement that, “It’s great that the USA is #1 in incarnation of individuals in prisons” is hilarious, thanks for the laugh.”
.
"You wrote incarnation, presumably meaning “incarnation”, you halfwit. That’s why we’re laughing at you."
.
_____ME: And I'm laughing right back at ya!
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
YOU WANT ANSWERS ??? (Part 3)
.
December 14, 2012
.
12/8 Comments:
.
"Consumption of Beer: 2nd (2008)"
.
Because you can't seem to recognize that the USA is 2nd in Beer Consumption, & I was intoxicated from lack of sleep, spending time responding to all the DRIVEL that Tu-Quackers post on this blog, citing NO reliable secondary sources.
.
"WRONG AGAIN KreBLOGizenica!! This is exactly WHY you need to “FACT-CHECK” your posts!"
.
"Anyone can make a typo, but few will fail to notice it when quoting it, twice, and defend what they thought they wrote instead of addressing what they did write."
.
_____”You have bragged about this here before, using a different name, haven’t you?”
.
"WRONG YET AGAIN KreBLOGidenize!!!"
.
"Can a question be wrong? If you haven’t bragged about it here before, there is someone who posts comments with an identical style and similar content who also boasted of the same achievement not that long ago. In other words, I don’t believe you.
.
_____ME: It can be the way you post (Shhhhhhh ... Wait for...) "IT."
.
"How would you like your THIRD HELPING of CROW????"
.
"Exponentially pathetic."
.
_____ME: I agree! You are!!
_____”… here you are on a science blog, defending pseudoscience"
.
"WRONG to the DOUBLE ONG YET AGAIN!!!!"
.
"As I have clearly posted before, I attack both sides!"
.
"Nonsense. The only possible explanation for the reams of material you have posted here is that you are defending Burzynski. I haven’t seen any criticism of Burzynski from you at all. How is that in any way attacking both sides?"
.
_____ME: Get ready to pull your head out!!
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Los Estados Unidos de America
.
December 1, 2012
.
(Portions BOLDED for KreBLOGizBLIND.)
.
"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 SOMEWHERE ELSE, 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."
.
"Narad, THEY CANT 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"
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Land of the First Amendment
.
December 6, 2012
.
Comments re 12/4 -
.
"Marc Stephens Is Insane, are you Insane? Egad! HIS name is on 1 document out of 49!! I can understand why you are morally outraged!!! Do you think that I have a photographic memory so that I remember every name I read when reviewing all the information I go through in a day? Since you didn’t back up your post with “FACTS,” I just instinctively thought you were in denial. You actually got that one right! Unlike Chris, I will actually apologize for not consuming enough “Brain-Food,” or is that considered Homeopathic? I don’t use a keyboard, I project my thoughts like Dragon.
Please provide the “FACTS” that shore up your solecism that by posting 2 newspaper articles, I was attempting to provide “proof that Burznyski is not a fraud.” Who’s just “attrempting (sic) to “show”" you “the other side?” I’M PRESENTING BOTH SIDES. I don’t use a mouse. That would be cruelty to animals, which wouldn’t make PETA happy. Oh My! HIS name is on 1 document out of 42!! How could I not remember THAT!!!"
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Amber Waves of Grain
.
December 8, 2012
.
12/5 comments:
.
I THINK I'VE MADE IT CLEAR WHY I'M HERE:
.
"HOW’D YA LIKE YER 4th SERVING OF CROW COOKED???????"
.
I think you deserve to eat it all raw.
.
_____ME: Well of course you do, you Nincompoop!
.
"And yet after all that goat cheese, you provide not 1 cite to support your braying in the wind!!!!!!!"
.
"Whether you like it or not, the facts as presented by Merola’s publicist in the movie, and the documents on its website such as radiology and histopathology reports, are not consistent with the claim in the movie that Burzynski cured Jodi Fenton’s cancer. I don’t need a citation to prove that, it’s evident to anyone who can read and understand an MRI report and a timeline. If there were any decent citations to cite about Burzynski’s work, we wouldn’t be having this discussion."
.
_____ME: Yes, because in your "Magical World" you think that ALL the Medical Documents are there!
.
.
_____Krebiozen
.
December 18, 2012
.
"Isn’t there an internet Law about comments about typos containing typos?
I meant, “You wrote incarnation, presumably meaning “incarceration”, you halfwit. ” The difference is I noticed, and I acknowledge I made a mistake."
.
_____ME: And I made a mistake in thinking you read my Beer Consumption note & presumably can acknowledge that I am replying to multiple SPAMS by Non-Fact-Citing Tu-Quackers.
.
.
"Krebiozen
.
December 18, 2012
.
Bleaurgh. When I wrote “Merola’s publicist” I meant “Merola, Burzynski’s publicist”. It’s been a long day."
.
_____And now you know how I feel.
.
.
Denice Walter
.
December 18, 2012
.
@ Krebiozen:
.
Do you ever feel as if you’re addressing a brick wall, dining room table or a large chest of drawers?
Fortunately, there are lurkers who see all, read all and silently steep in SB goodness far away in the deepest, darkest recesses of cyberspace, they wait developing.
.
______ME: Yes, I think a lot of people on this blog "silently STEEP."
.
Now and then, we are graced with their overt presence when one steps forth and says, “O hai!” or suchlike.
.
_____ME: That would be: Oy Vey!
.
.
novalox
.
"Laughing at diddums-kun“In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker"
.
December 18, 2012
.
"My goodness, is djt continuing to prove himself a neverending supply of self-inflicted stupidity."
.
"djt, a perfect example of Dunning-Kreuger."
.
"He/she/it has to keep posting, the idiocy projected from this individual is sooooo entertaining."
.
"So, djt, if you are reading this, keep posting. We do need a fool like yourself to keep us entertained, and you seem to have the role locked up pretty well."
.
_____ME: Says Novocain, a perfect example of the in-Holy Trinity, the 3 Stooges!
.
Anything to keep the Tu-QuackerGenerNation from posting about HTML & something nowhere being within their grasp: Mensa.
.
.
_____flip
.
Popping the corn...
.
December 18, 2012
.
"@Krebiozen
.
I haven’t seen any criticism of Burzynski from you at all. How is that in any way attacking both sides?"
.
"Presumably since we’re providing the criticism, Squidymus is providing the “other side” (re: his “defence of truth” comment). Or something…"
.
_____ME: Says another Tu-Quacker who needs to pull their head out.
The iDJiT: "If Orac wants to be believable then he needs to be less vitrolic & more factual."
Total lack of self-awareness. Sad, really.
OMFG! If DJT is a dude, then we really need to think twice about the stereotype of women talking so much more than men. At least talking about Tampons is EVER so much more interesting than trying to figure out what the hell this idjit is talking about.
Does anyone know of a killfile that works in Firefox (Mac version) on Sciblogs? Greasemonkey isn't doing it, and I'd really like to killfile DJT, he's boring to read and it takes too long to scroll through his word salads.
(Portions BOLDED for KreBLOGizBLIND.)
Apparently bold-face and CAPITALS are now synonymous. Please, continue.
Keep posting djt, your never-ending stupidity is so entertaining. Your pathetic attempts at insult and ad hominem are so cute.
And besides., the more you post here, the less time you have of trying to attract innocent marks towards burzynski.
I was thinking just this a couple of days ago. I've tried cooking up a greasemonkey recipe; the XPath patterns seem fine, but either the damned rule won't fire or the stylesheet refuses to play ball. I suppose that one could try dropping a line to Christina Schelin, who plainly gets this, but that's all I've got.
I wouldn't worry MI Dawn,
I have a feeling Orac will be wielding the banhammer very soon, as Diddums has departed entirely from the subject at hand and is just looking to cause trouble.
It seems Squidymus has degenerated into denying he wrote things we can all see he did write, or that they didn't mean what he clearly meant them to mean, and has emitted more great clouds of content-free blather. Unless he comes up with something substantial that can be refuted I'm done with him.
More comprehension fail, jambrains. Failure to reenact your own self-soiling wasn't the issue. And why are you now rooting around in old comments like a blowfly for something stupid to say, anyway? It's not as though you really need anything to hinge this special talent on.
What is more interesting to me than Squidymus' spammy posts is his evolution over time of different formatting. And the evolution of picking up words and phrases we use - whether it's tu quoque or references to alcohol.
I wonder what that's all about? It's like it's trying to show that it knows what we're talking about, but in trying too hard misses the mark entirely and only presents that it knows very little indeed.
@MarkL
Repeated because I agree. Hysterical and funny and hysterically funny.
@Krebiozen
One can assume that since we don't know whether it works or not, Squidymus thinks we should stop criticising Burzyinski. Because, you know, the guy could be right... But then one would also have to ignore copious amounts of evidence that Burzyinski doesn't seem to care about proving the treatment works, so much as enjoying the wealth of providing an unproven cure.
@Squidymus, you moth-eaten marmot
If you would be a little less obtuse and a little more succinct/explicit, we wouldn't have to play guessing games as to what your motives are. I won't apologise for speculating, particularly as when "disagreeing" with that speculation - see your comment quote above - you do nothing to point it in a more correct direction.
12/19 Comments:
.
_____KreBLOGcaca,
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Do you ever feel as if you’re addressing a brick wall, dining room table or a large chest of drawers?"
.
"I do, but I also get the feeling that somewhere in the depths of those clouds of sepia there is some sort of rational mind that might be reachable. I really only bother for the lurkers*, as you astutely observe."
.
"* That term still makes me smile, as The Lurkers was a UK punk band I was fond of back in the late 70s."
.
_____ME: Are the Lurkers in the same Black Hole your head is?
.
I'm not joking!
.
.
MarkL
.
December 19, 2012
.
Diddums,
.
"So your support for Burzynski is now predicated on Orac’s supposed failings as a film reviewer now that your “Phase III trials PROVES efficacy” gambit has failed, and that you have given up trying to find the non-existent Phase II trial results?"
.
_____ME: MarkLiar, everyone on here already knows you're just a Time-Waisting Tu-Quacker who can't answer questions yourself but want others to answer them.
.
"You are a laughable little troll relying on semantics to try and retain any credibility. As I said before, GIVE IT UP, you are making an utter fool of yourself."
.
_____ME: MarkLiar, everyone on here already knows what you are since my 12/3 post to you.
.
"Anyone besides me notice all the Antineoplaston information being added to Cancer . gov?"
.
"Nothing has been added to the Antineoplaston PDQ summary on cancer.gov since August, and it STILL says there is no proof of efficacy."
.
_____ME: Says MarkLiar (8/16/12), proving that MarkLiar can actually access a web-site & look something up, & proving that reverse psychology actually does work?
.
"Your attempts to shore up support for Burzynski have become farcical!"
.
_____ME: And you've actually shown you can "Fact-Check."
.
.
Mephistopheles O'Brien
.
December 19, 2012
.
"@Didymus Judas Thomas,
.
Thanks for pointing out the information on antineoplastons on the National Cancer Institute web site. I was particularly intrigued by the comment that “The evidence for use of antineoplaston therapy as a treatment for cancer is inconclusive. Controlled clinical trials are necessary to assess the value of this therapy.”
.
I note the comment that “While these publications [by Dr. Burzynski and his collaborators) have reported on successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment as well as imaging artifacts.”"
.
_____ME: And I'm sure being the "Fact-Checker" you are that you noticed the reference was to the 1999 Mayo Clinic, which as I have pointed out before:
.
""CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy."
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Dr. James Watson: “The war on cancer is a bunch of sh*t.” (Discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate, former member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, Nobel Prize Winner. (And he’s still at it!!)
.
I think a more relevant Watson quote might be, “If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease.”"
.
_____ME: I think more relevant Watson quotes may be found (to list a few.) at:
.
7/17/2012:
http:// m. dailytelegraph. com. au/lifestyle/all-cancers-could-be-cured-in-10-years-says-scientist-who-discovered-dna-structure/story-e6frf00i-1226427320861
.
7/14/2012:
http:// www. irishcentral. com/news/Irish-American-scientist-who-discovered-DNA-says-cancer-could-be-cured-in-a-decade-162456836.html?mob-ua=Y
.
7/13/2012:
http:// articles. economictimes. indiatimes. com/2012-07-13/news/32663988_1_cancer-cure-cancer-cases-cancer-research
.
7/12/2012:
http:// www. dailymail. co. uk/sciencetech/article-2172894/DNA-pioneer-James-Watson-We-cure-cancers-decade.html
.
2/24/2012:
http:// today. ucla. edu/portal/ut/PRN-watson-and-cancer-193383.aspx
.
2012:
http:// www. cshl. edu/gradschool/message-from-dr-james-watson
.
http:// www. rhspeakers. com/speaker/dr-james-d-watson
.
11/27/2010:
http:// online. wsj. com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575519961343438740.html
.
9/10/2010:
http:// m. guardiannews. com/science/2010/sep/10/james-watson-cancer-research
.
.
Shay
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Sir Diddimus is also still clinging to his belief that since the FDA approved Burzynski’s Phase III trial protocol, that’s the same as approving Phase III trials.
.
Again — reading comprehension fail."
.
_____ME: Says the Queen of posts with no secondary sources to back-up their GIGO.
.
"Have you noticed how many times he/she/it mentions Orac? There’s a serious scream for attention, here. I have a feeling Sir D has a serious knot in his/her/its panties over being ignored by the big box of blinking lights."
.
_____ME: Says the person who has an aversion to using people's names.
.
Please let us know when you truly have a relevant thought!
@djt
Still no actual facts, just more insults and ad hoiminems
Please, keep posting your stupidity for the world to see, it does give me a good laugh at how idiotic you have been. It also limits the damage you can do by attracting innocent marks, little buddy.
So Didy, do you agree with everything Watson says because he's a Nobel Laureate?
Any opinions on this one?
When I was a child, I once heard my mother say of another woman, who had an urge to dominate every conversation, that she was "talking to hear her head rattle". The woman was far more intelligent, vastly better informed, and enormously more polite than Didymus Judas Thomas, who does not appear very bright and is certainly both ill-read and ill-bred, but I think the term can be properly brought to date: Didymus Judas Thomas is typing to hear his keyboard rattle.
12/19 Comments:
.
(BOLDED for KreBLOGeye.)
.
_____KreBLOGastrointestinal,
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Squidymus,
"So you can’t point to any factually inaccurate statements by Orac, or anywhere he claims to be an investigative journalist, and you don’t understand what ‘cherry picking’ means. See, you could have saved yourself almost 100 lines by fitting that into a single sentence, like I did. That might also have avoided making yourself look like a raving lunatic, but it’s probably a bit late to worry about that."
.
"Do you have any substantial points to make or are you just determined to show off your lack of education and poor communication skills even further? There’s nothing wrong with ignorance, as long as you acknowledge it, and try to do something about it. Another tip: trying to bluff your way through an area you clearly no nothing about in the company of people who do is a really, really bad move."
.
"Frankly I’m surprised Orac hasn’t wielded the ban hammer for the sheer volume of incoherent garbage the Sepia Troll has rudely excreted on his blog."
.
_____Me: KrapzBLOGas, did you have a point?
.
Cherry Picking - The concept which is foreign to you:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
.
1. “No one would ever confuse my reviews with those of Roger Ebert (mine tend to be a lot longer, for one thing, and concentrate on science MUCH MORE than moviemaking)”
.
FAIL.
.
2. “I thought that the least I could do is to oblige him by reviewing Burzynski The Movie and BRINGING WHAT ATTENTION I CAN TO IT."
.
FAIL.
.
_____KreBLOGie, if someone who is allegedly blogging on a science blog, & allegedly in the medical profession, & blogs that they are going to be "BRINGING WHAT ATTENTION I CAN TO IT," then I expect that they will be doing some investigative reporting.
.
3. "In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face.”
.
FAIL.
.
Cherry Picking: "fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias, rejects material unfavorable to an argument, etc."
.
4. “…I have to wonder whether Dr. Burzynski just hired Merola to make an infomercial." ” Merola claims the movie was his idea, but I have a hard time believing it.”
.
FAIL- Cherry Picking.
.
5. “…but the end product of his work is so one-sided that it’s a joke, and a bad one at that.”
.
FAIL - Cherry Picking.
.
6. “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.”
.
FAIL - Facts.
.
7. “Of course, a pattern has emerged over the years. Whenever Burzynski does a trial, the results come out as promising, with minimal or mild toxicity. 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."
.
FAIL - Facts
.
8. “In the late 1990s three well-respected oncologists reviewed Burzynski’s clinical trial evidence and all agreed that:"
.
FAIL - Cherry Picking.
.
9. "The toxicities of the antineoplastons treatment are significant and life-threatening."
.
FAIL - Cherry Picking
.
10. Some statements re Antineoplastons that may not be factually accurate re Japanese trials.
Squiddles, your faulty yet prompt phraseological appropriations are duly noted. Do you understand what this means?
@DJT- How did you manage to survive to adulthood? I would think someone like you would have a hard time remembering whether you could eat rusty nails and broken glass or not.
@djt
Yawn, try again, little troll.
Your illogic is quite amusing, however, for a few good laughs at your complete imbecility.
What is this even supposed to mean?
Didy Didy Didy, can't you see
Sometimes your posts just mystify me.
And I just loathe your rambling ways
Guess that's how they roll in high school these days.
How did you manage to survive to adulthood?
Unwarranted assumption, Grey Falcon.
12/19 Comments:
.
KreBLOGixon,
.
December 19, 2012
.
"1975 – President Nixon declares War on Cancer.
.
US history isn’t my specialist subject, but wasn’t Gerald Ford US President in 1975?"
.
_____ME: Further research shows that though the supposed "War on Cancer" started with the 1971 legislation, many sources indicate Nixon didn't actually use those words.
.
.
AdamG
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Dr. James Watson…Discoverer of DNA
.
Poor Friedrich Miescher always gets the shaft."
.
_____ME: Actually, Jerry Reed got the shaft. She got the Gold Mine.
.
But if you prefer, I can state that you breathe air, & then list the other 7 billion + people on the planet who also breathe air. ;-)
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"The FDA took [Avastin] off the market for this condition in November 2011 because it doesn’t work at all if not properly prescribed [11] (or at least for the oncological world who simply does not understand how to prescribe this gene-targeted medicine—which is pretty much all of them).
.
Looks like Merola (from whom this regurgitation originates) doesn’t understand the difference between a gene and a protein or, really, what “gene-targeted” means in the first place. Quick, Squidymus, explain the difference between Herceptin and Avastin."
.
_____ME: Sure, Naray-d-answer. I'll get right on that just as soon as you answer the ?'s I've asked you!
.
.
herr doktor bimler
.
December 19, 2012
.
"I look forward to another shouty effusion from DJT, denying that he had ever claimed that James Watson discovered DNA."
.
_____ME: Why bother? If "Forbes" says it, it must be true!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/05/01/jim-watson-who-dis…
..
Krebiozen
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Then there’s this:
.
3/2/1976 – FDA Bureau of Drugs Director Richard Crout states in The Cancer Letter of 3/12/1976, that when anyone other than large institutions ask permission to conduct clinical trials, “You want harsh regulations… sometimes we say it is proper to hinder research.”
.
Here’s the full quote, kindly provided by the Burzynski movie folks (who I suspect assumed people wouldn’t bother to check it) in context:
.
“The fact of life is, we get INDs,” Crout said. They have in them toxicological data. We have to make a judgment. These come from a variety of places, not just NCI or the top research institutions. For some places, you want harsh regulations, backed by the full weight of the law-have had INDs for laetrile, for example, and other hoax remedies. What are the correct ways to develop drugs? There are correct ways. Some involve procedural matters, some general things like informed consent. Sometimes we say it is proper to hinder research. We’re asking you to lay down the procedural rules for working up drugs in the cancer field.”
.
That all seems perfectly reasonable to me. What’s the point of regulation if it doesn’t regulate?"
.
_____ME: There's nothing wrong with regulation except when the Director of a Gub-ment Bureau is then quoted as possessing the belief again in 1982 of:
.
"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances."
.
Then goes on to be a VP 1984 - 1993, Director, on Corporate Board, Scientific Advisory Board, & Board of Directors of pharmaceutical companies.
.
.
MarkL
.
But, but, but, but.........................
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Krebiozen, DJT is going to hate you. YOU CHEATED. You did some research before posting………………….."
.
_____ME: KreBLOGiDAMN!!!
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"US history isn’t my specialist subject, but wasn’t Gerald Ford US President in 1975?
.
Ding! It’s from their “The Failed War on Cancer,” ah, “editorial.”"
.
_____ME: And numerous other sources.
.
.
ugg
.
http:// www. uggbootsvv. net/ December 19, 2012
Avoid waste your time on this website link, fully unrelated in order to conversation.
.
_____ME: Don't worry, I didn't!
.
.
Shay
.
December 19, 2012
.
@Krebiozen:
.
Picky, picky, picky.
.
_____ME: You don't Shay!
.
Shay
.
December 19, 2012
.
"(I’m referring, of course, to the dates of the Ford presidency. He only became president in August 1974 and it wasn’t a real Presidency, not really-truly. I mean, it’s not like he was elected or anything.)"
.
_____ME: AND he wasn't a Crook!
.
But he did get a Presidential Pardon.
.
.
LW
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Ford, Nixon, whatever. I’m surprised iDJiT didn’t say FDR declared War on Cancer in 1975."
.
_____ME: The REAL ? is, who DID declare War on Cancer?
.
.
W. Kevin Vicklund
.
December 19, 2012
.
"The National Cancer Act, regarded as the beginning of the War on Cancer, was signed by Nixon…in 1971."
.
_____ME: And some sources indicate the "War" isn't that impressive, making one wonder if their using Vietnam tactics?:
http:// www. thedailybeast. com/articles/2012/10/02/are-we-wasting-billions-seeking-a-cure-for-cancer.html
.
.
KreBLOGdna,
.
December 19, 2012
.
"I haven’t finished picking yet. I’m always intrigued by these gishgallops of quotations we so often see, just like those that Squidymus has unoriginally posted here. They are often very difficult to track down, as they almost never give a source. It’s sometimes worth a try though, as they often do not say quite what we are led to think, so…
.
Moving on to the inventor of DNA:
.
Dr. James Watson: “The war on cancer is a bunch of sh*t.”
.
I can’t find a date, a context or indeed a source for this alleged quote. Watson said a lot of things, often they seem to have been designed to shock, some of them were downright foolish (even racist), so it wouldn’t surprise me if he said this. What he meant by it is anyone’s guess.
.
As Narad pointed out I, the quotes Squidymus has laid upon us in his latest comment come from a ‘People Against Cancer’ newsletter. ‘People Against Cancer’ is an organization headed by Frank Wiewel which opposes conventional cancer treatments and supports alternative ones.
.
One quote which I won’t bother to repeat (essentially it’s “Help, help, we’re being repressed”), is from Frank Wiewel himself. He is described as:
.
Former Chairman, Pharmacological & Biological Treatments Committee, Office of Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
.
Here’s what Quackwatch has to say about Weiwel:
.
PAC’s founder and president is Frank D. Wiewel, whose father-in-law was a patient of Lawrence Burton, Ph.D., the developer of immuno-augmentative therapy (IAT). Wiewel began his cancer-related activities as president of the IAT Patient’s Association, Inc. (IATPA), which was formed in 1985. IATPA’s original purpose was to promote IAT, but its scope gradually expanded to include other dubious cancer methods. In 1990, it was renamed People Against Cancer. In 1991, during a deposition, Wiewel testified that he had completed two years of college, studying liberal arts subjects, and had no training in science, medicine, pharmacy, microbiology, physiology, oncology or hematology.
.
Wiewel helped persuade Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) to spearhead passage of a 1991 law establishing the NIH Office of Unconventional Treatment (now called the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and served on the advisory board for six years.
.
Weiwel was partly responsible for the founding of NCCAM, and is not a reliable source of information about cancer and its treatment.
.
“For much of history, the cancer war has been fighting the wrong battles, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies.” – Devra Lee Davis, member National Academy of Sciences, The Secret History of the War on Cancer.
.
What does Davis mean? Perhaps the rest of the quote might help?
.
The campaign has targeted the disease and left off the table the things that cause it – tobacco, alcohol, the workplace, and other environmental hazards.
.
Davis is calling for a closer look at the causes of cancer, not complaining that brave maverick doctors like Burzynski have the answers.
.
“Everyone should know that the war on cancer is largely a fraud, and the National Cancer Institute & the American Cancer Society are derilict in their duties to the people who support them.” – Linus Pauling, 2-time Nobel Laureate
.
Sadly Pauling, who was once a hero of mine for his work in biochemistry, succumbed to Nobel disease later in his life, and grew increasingly frustrated that no one else seemed to recognize the benefits of humungous doses of vitamin C, so sadly he might have said this. I don’t think Pauling was a reliable source of information on cancer or its treatment either."
.
_____ME: Sure, "Quackwatch" is such a reliable source!
.
And that Pauling guy only lived to be 93.
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"And…
.
Frank Wiewel, Former Chairman, Pharmacological & Biological Treatments Committee, Office of Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
.
Frank Wiewel’s scientific credentials begin and end with being bassist and a singer for the Iowa band The Hawks, after which point hijinks began to ensue. Great argument by aphoristic authority there, Diddles."
.
____ME: Says NaraDenial, who thinks Denial is a river in Egypt!
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Beaten to the punch, I see."
.
_____ME: You may have been beaten to the punch, but it obviously didn't prevent you from partaking of the spiked punch you've been drinking!
.
How's the flavored Kool-Aide?
.
.
LW
.
December 19, 2012
.
“Everyone should know that the war on cancer is largely a fraud, and the National Cancer Institute & the American Cancer Society are derilict in their duties to the people who support them.” – Linus Pauling, 2-time Nobel Laureate
.
I’ll bet that Linus Pauling, unlike iDJiT, could spell derelict."
.
_____ME: Unlike LazyWanker, Pauling won 2 Nobel prizes (Chemistry & Peace);
http:// www. nobelprize. org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1962/pauling-bio.html
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Dr. James Watson: “The war on cancer is a bunch of sh*t.”
I can’t find a date, a context or indeed a source for this alleged quote.
.
It’s fantastic that Wiewel considers Watson and Pauling to be his “colleagues.” Anyway, the frequntly accompanying “bill of goods” line (without the “nasty”) appears in the Nov./Dec. New Ecologist, at least."
.
_____ME: Unlike NaraDNA, that Watson guy has been researching cancer for over 20 years.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Oh, silly me, the target quote is right on page 188."
.
_____ME: If you found THAT, maybe you can find THIS:
http:// www. achievement. org/autodoc/page/wat0bio-1
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"One gets it earlier, in 1977 (there should have been a “1978″ above), in Ruth Rosenbaum’s “Cancer, Inc.” (PDF).
.
Dr. James Watson: “The war on cancer is a bunch of sh*t.”
.
I am happy to believe that the ‘war on cancer’ was a politically-driven waste of resources throughout the 1970s, with a lot of throwing-money tactics. But what does that have to do with Burzynski’s quackery?
.
the Nov./Dec. New Ecologist, at least
That is an entertaining article. In the context of arguing that more effort should be invested researching the journal’s obsessions of diet & nutrition, the author inadvertently points out that the whole diet / cancer angle was researched exhaustively — back when everyone hewed to the holistic / life-style paradigm because nothing better was available — and nothing came of it.
.
“In the nineteen forties one half of sponsored research on cancer concerned diet.”
.
You would have thought that if the diet angle dominated research for decades before people finally gave up and moved on to new directions, that would tell the author something, but in the author’s mind it only indicated bigpharmasuppressingcureforcancer."
.
_____ME: And THIS:
http:// www. cshl. edu/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"That is an entertaining article.
.
I was surprised to find an ad for Yukon Jack in the Rosenbaum New Times. Sometimes I think I’m it’s only surviving defender."
.
_____ME: It's good to see you enjoy talking to yourself.
.
On the "sauce" again?
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"The frequent pairing of the “bill of goods” line with the “a bunch of Diddums” one suggests that this NYT item might be worth a look, but I’m not a subscriber. It all seems to go back to the 1975 MIT appearance."
.
_____ME: Maybe it should lead here:
http:// www. dnalc. org/view/16437-Biography-19-James-Dewey-Watson-1928-.html
"How’s the flavored Kool-Aide?" - Bo Squiddly
We can't tell, 'cause you won't share it.
Squidymus,
Yes, essentially you are full of cr@p. You are too gutless to clearly state your position and support it with evidence, lack the maturity to take responsibility when you get something wrong, and appear to be incapable of having a rational adult discussion.
You were wrong about the math. You were wrong about Galileo. You were wrong about Watson. You were wrong about late responders. You were wrong about spontaneous remission. You were wrong about the FDA approving a Phase 3 study. You were wrong about the Phase 3 study protocol demanding that the subjects have had radiotherapy. You were wrong about the results of Phase 2 studies being published. You were wrong about the Japanese research. You were wrong about Jodi Fenton's miraculously disappearing tumor. You don't understand what "cherry picking" means. You can't even tell a reliable source from a YouTube video or a piece of advertising fluff from a movie-making publicist.
There's much, much more evidence that you are an ignorant poltroon, but I'm not wasting any more of my time on you.
12/19 Comments:
.
_____novalox
.
December 19, 2012
.
Man, I need some more popcorn, djt’s latest self-humiliation and embarrassment made for some good entertainment.
.
_____ME: Make sure you get the kind with lots of cheese, since it'll knock the Bull Spoor right out of you!
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Which begs the question of your age & if you even know what bing, Safari, Mercury, yahoo, IMDB & Multisearch are.
.
Holy f*ck."
.
_____ME: In Vietnam that'd be "Holy Phouc!"
.
.
AdamG
.
December 19, 2012
.
"says the person who thinks 7 minus 5 = 0.2%!
.
ooooh, burn."
.
_____ME: Little Jimmy's been told to stop playing with fire!
.
.
LW
.
In a place where people know history and arithmetic
.
December 19, 2012
.
"iDJiT denies claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round. So I searched for the word Galileo on this page.
.
Here is iDJiT on Dec 8:
.
Yep, we know Science picks sides from:
Galileo – the Earth is round.
Ignaz Semmelweis – wash your hands between the time you deliver a baby & do an autopsy & deliver a baby, unless you like sending people “Down Under.”
.
Clearly iDJiT was drawing a parallel between Semmelweis’ saying physicians should wash their hands, and Galileo’s fantasized saying that the Earth is round.
.
No one mentioned the name Galileo again until iDJiT on Dec 11:
.
I wonder if Galileo ever let FACTS get in the way of SCIENCE? (Or Orac?)
.
Still no one mentioned Galileo until iDJiT on Dec 15:
.
Mephistopheles O’Brien, the other day I went back in a Time Machine & met a guy who said his name was Galileo & he said the Earth was Round.
.
It looked flat to me. There was water around, Galileo said I could sail around the World for $150,000. I asked if his ship was safe; he said it was. I asked to see his test protocols and results to see if it was more likely I’d arrive safely, die on impact, or be flung into the abyss; he said it was effective but would not produce the data I looked for.
.
Should I, or should I not, tell others that there’s no proof that this man’s protocol is safe and effective?
[various drivel and insults omitted]
There’s no doubt in my mind that if you were alive when Galileo was around, you would’ve been clamoring that he was a “Heritic” & should be burned at the stake because he hath no Clinical Trials that I can see because I can’t bother myself to look, I am like a balloon full of hot air, sallying forth on the currents of the wind, yammering on a out HTML, WordPress,
.
There is no other way of reading this than a comparison between Galileo’s fantasized claim that the Earth is round and his fantasized inability to prove it, versus Burzynski’s real claim of being able to cure cancer and his real inability to prove it.
.
Face it, iDJiT, you said it and we all know it."
.
_____ME: LowWider, do you know what "Beating a Dead Horse" means?
.
Please cite the post & date where I allegedly denied:
.
"...claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round."
.
.
LW
.
December 19, 2012
.
"For those who may have missed it, here’s how to compute the survival rate if five survive out of seven, the iDJiT way:
.
If you had 7 patients you could call that: 70%.
5 successful patients would then be: 50%
Change 70% to: 100% (by adding 30%)
Change 50% to: 80% (by adding 30%)
80% minus 100% = 20%
So 20 deaths out of 100 = 80% survival rate.
.
I am not joking."
.
_____ME: LoudWhiner, do you have a point?
.
I am not joking.
.
.
Alain
.
December 19, 2012
.
"@ LW,
.
Something doesn’t compute with your rendition of DidySquat math (and he’s far from computing itself) but perhaps I can blame that on my flu (which I’m treating with gin, honey and lemon juice) but….you jump from percentages to absolute numbers and even the percentages look iffy; how did you come up with these numbers from DidySquat’s posts?"
.
Alain
.
_____ME: LordWoo is the Master of iWOOsion!
.
Methinks LordWooWoo protesteth too mucheth!
.
.
LW
.
December 19, 2012
.
"Alain, your flu is not to blame. I kid you not, that “computation” is in blockquote because I copied it from one of the iDJiT’s droppings over on the “Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies” post."
.
_____ME: And yet The Lord of The Woo doesn't answer the question:
.
"... but….you jump from percentages to absolute numbers and even the percentages look iffy;..."
.
.
Narad
.
December 19, 2012
.
"I suppose that a pedantic type might also note that not only is the foregoing not what “begs the question” means, it’s not even really an example of the idiomatic misuse."
.
_____ME: Exclaimith the Lord of No Answer Regarding Answer Denied (N.a.r.a.d.).
.
.
Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
_____”Burzyinski has claimed that he can cure cancer more reliably and with fewer side effects than the current standard of care. If he can do it – great. He needs to prove it. But just because I cannot do what he claims to be able to do doesn’t mean I should keep silent about his inability to prove his claims.”
Citing no “SOURCE” to back up such claims, no indication that you’ve reviewed any of the Clinical Trail publications, citing no law or regulation you’re relying on, no indication that you’ve reviewed CFR 21 (Title 21), Chapter I, Subchapter F [blah, blah, blah]
.
More pretend-lawyer “HILARITY.” Leaving aside the fact that this response is … well, not responsive, 21 CFR 600 has no bearing on anything except for the fact that Burzynski was boned for inadequate GMP."
.
_____ME: Saith Lord Nairy A Reply About Denial (N.a.r.a.d.)
.
Who thinks it's the responsibility of Lord Not a Rational Answer Declared N.a.r.a.d.) for interjecting the Lordship into a question not even posed to Lord Nonsensical And Ranting About Dissimulation (N.a.r.a.d.)
.
.
Mephistopheles O'Brien
.
December 20, 2012
.
"Citing no “SOURCE” to back up such claims, no indication that you’ve reviewed any of the Clinical Trail publications, citing no law or regulation you’re relying on, no indication that you’ve reviewed CFR 21 (Title 21), Chapter I, Subchapter F, re Confidentiality of certain data, Confidential Trade Secret data, Confidential Commercial data, Confidential Business data, Confidential Exemptions, or offering any explanation as to why the FDA authorized Phase II & Phase III Clinical Trials if SRB was not providing the data that is required by law or regulation.
.
Dude, really? According to the Burzinsky Research Institute’s web site’s descriptions of antineoplastons, “Dr. Burzynski believes these substances counteract the development of cancerous growth through a biochemical process which does not inhibit the growth of normal tissues.” They also claim to be producing “targeted gene therapies (antineoplastons or ANP) for the treatment of cancer.” This certainly sounds like they’re saying they have fewer side effects. The fact that they are trying to introduce a new set of drugs to the market certainly suggests they believe those treatments are more effective, safer, or both than the current standard of care.
.
I can’t imagine how you found a request for evidence of effectiveness and safety to be so offensive. It’s nothing I wouldn’t ask of any other drug. They have not yet proven that the drug is effective or safe (which at the very least is the position of the NCI based on the site you conveniently provided) – indeed, several patients left the trials due to toxicity issues (once again, see the NCI link).
.
And I never claimed that Burzynsky did not provide the data required in order to have his phase III protocols approved (when will those trials open again?), merely that he did not provide sufficient data to show that the treatment is safe and effective."
.
_____ME: Dude, really?
.
Are YOU asking the questions NOW or is The Lord Nonsuch Apparent Reason Avoiding Response (N.a.r.a.d.), above?
.
What makes you think I've even bothered to go on that web-site?
.
Who is "they?" Cancer . gov?
http:// www. cancer. gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
.
Which trials? Those invalid NCI trials?
.
I guess the FDA must think they are safe & effective enough to proceed to Initiate Pivotal Phase III Trial.
.
Have you looked on ClinicalTrialsFeeds . org?:
http:// clinicaltrialsfeeds. org/clinical-trials/results/spons=%22Burzynski+Research+Institute%22
@Didymus Judas Thomas - There is a significant difference between being the discoverer of DNA and the discoverer of the structure of DNA. Based on the article you referenced, which of those is Watson?
And just how many people have enrolled in that phase III trial?
@Diddums
Nice try, but no phase II clinical results there.
No, no clinical results there either (surprise, surprise).
In fact that site neatly highlights that Burzynski hasn't updated many of his trials for nearly 5 years. I guess the patients are either dead, broke or both so who cares eh diddums?
.
As has been pointed out before, the phase III trial protocol was approved under SPA by the FDA some time back, but Burzynski will still need to provide efficacy evidence before being granted an IND and being allowed to proceed. Is that why the phase III never really started?
Anyhow, you lie when you say the FDA must have received evidence of efficacy because they approved a phase III trial. They haven't, they merely approved the putative trial protocol.
.
I think my position's been clear from the beginning and is quite consistent with the NCI.
1. There is as yet insufficient evidence to say that antineoplaston therapy is safe and effective.
2. Based on what I've read and what others with far more medical knowledge than I have read, the stuff that's been published to date is not adequate to prove antineoplaston treatment is either safer or more effective than the current standard of care.
3. Case studies showing apparent good results in 4-9 patients are interesting but insufficient. They are prone to produce misleading results which may be refuted by later tests.
4. Just because I can't cure cancer myself does not mean I cannot critique those who claim to be able to, but have not proven their ability.
12/20 Comments:
.
_____Narad
December 20, 2012
.
“I don’t think DJT can reason at all.”
.
_____ME: And here I was thinking you couldn’t restate the obvious!
I guess that takes care of that.
.
_____ME: Yep! I wonder who CAN reason with YOU!!
.
.
_____Mephistopheles O'Brien
.
December 20, 2012
.
"Mephistopheles is an Arch-Devil of Hell.
.
Well, yes, I knew that. So, what, you think to taunt me for my choice of ‘nym (no, I won’t pretend that’s my given name)? Was there a point there?"
.
_____ME: I thought the Devil knew everything! Doesn't he communicate with you?
.
.
_____Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
"So are you indicating that you have reviewed 1 or more of these 10 publications
.
I believe that everyone is well familiarized with the numbered list that apparently keeps you glued together."
.
_____ME: Do you know what silence equates to?
.
Either "YES," you have reviewed at least 1, or "NO," you have NOT reviewed at least 1 of the publications.
.
It's a pretty simple process for MOST people.
.
.
novalox
.
December 20, 2012
.
""Keep posting djt, the more you post here, the less you post to your vulnerable marks.
.
And also, your stupidity is soooo amusing. I just may need another bag of popcorn to watch this."
.
_____ME: Make sure it's popcorn with cheese so it'll knock the "BULL CACA" out of you!
.
.
_____AdamG
.
December 20, 2012
.
"Round and round we go….
.
Didy, if I took 2400 classes, and 2 out of my 7 best grades were B’s, what percent of courses did I get an A in?"
.
_____ME: AdamG, I can't envision you taking ANY classes since you can't even exert the necessary energy to answer my questions.
.
.
_____AdamG
.
December 20, 2012
.
"Watson didn’t discover DNA. He also never said the quote you’ve attributed to him, unless you’re able to prove otherwise."
.
"While you’re at it:
If I took 2400 classes, and 2 out of my 7 best grades were B’s, what percent of courses did I get an A in?"
.
_____ME: How the H-E-double hockey sticks are you going to be able to take a class if you can't even research that Dr. Watson was a Discoverer of DNA?
.
.
_____LW
.
December 20, 2012
.
"The amazingly tedious halfwit besmirching the name Didymus Judas Thomas keeps switching threads, so for the benefit of any new lurkers who wonder why the numbers 5, 7, 0.2%, and 2400, keep being mentioned, here are the assumptions and conclusions I used to get the number 0.2%, from the other thread:
.
1) By 1993 Burzynski had treated approximately 2400 patients.
.
2) Burzynski needed to produce seven “best case scenario” patients.
.
3) a patient that survives is a better “best case scenario” that a patient who died of the disease.
.
4) Therefore Burzynski would produce seven patients who survived if he could.
.
5) Burzynski produced only five patients who survived, and two who did not.
.
6) Therefore Burzynski could not produce more than five patients who survived.
.
7) Therefore no more than five patients out of approximately 2400 actually survived.
.
8 ) 5/2400 is approximately 0.00208, rounded to 0.2%.
.
Now you can argue that there were more survivors but Burzynski had no records for them, but that is a condemnation of Burzynski in itself.
.
You can also argue that there were more survivors but they refused to consent to release of their records, but why would they do that? We’re supposed to believe that they believed they owed their lives to him. Why wouldn’t they consent to release of their records to save his license so he could save more patients like them?
.
So, as I finished before, what other reason is there for Burzynski not to produce seven patients who survived, out of thousands treated?"
.
_____ME: Already asked & answered you braying in the breeze Major Math Malfunction.
.
You stretch the credibleness of your brain process.
.
If we ASSUME your 2,400 & you pick 7 out of that group, & 2 die, then you have 5 survivors.
Breaking it down into "Math for Dummies" for your benefit:
.
100% of 2 ,400 = 2,400
.
_50% of 2,400 = 1,200
.
If out of every group of 7 people, 2 died, that leaves more than 50% of the patients surviving, which would be more than the above 50% of 2,400 = 1,200.
.
1,200 survivors out of 2,400 would NOT be 0.2%.
.
It would be 50%.
.
So it could then be theorized that there were MORE survivors than 1,200 (50%) & thus more survivors than 0,2%.
.
That disproves your theory without even having to use any further mathematical manipulation of one's gray matter.
.
7 minus 5 does NOT = 0.2%.
.
You do not know SRB's thinking process & why those 7 examples were chosen by SRB, & neither do I.
.
You are just "speculating," "guessing," "theorizing,"...
.
Based on your calculations one would think that there would have been considerable more "flap" about such results by the FDA & more outcry from the public & witnesses relating positive experiences to the prosecution in court re SRB as reported in the Media, and:
.
The Harvard legal case review note 50:
.
"Only approximately 300 of what were formerly thousands of patients are allowed to be treated currently under very close FDA scrutiny."
.
.
herr doktor bimler
.
December 20, 2012
.
Dr. James Watson, discoverer of DNA
.
Please continue, Gubbiner.
.
_____ME: Already addressed, but thanks for asking!
.
.
Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
_____ME: JGC, if you are going to claim that none of those publications contains Clinical Trial data, & that the 2/29/2012 10-K filing with the SEC doesn’t support the Clinical Trial data for legal purposes:
I could swear that I’ve pointed out that this entire line of babbling would collapse if it actually had something to land on to start with.
.
_____ME: Are you referring to your babbling?" :-)
.
.
_____flip
.
December 20, 2012
.
@Orac
.
I know it’s hard to follow this thread, but you let some real actual spam through… Might want to delete that post.
.
_____ME: Your SPAM has been going through! ;-)
@djt
Keep posting, little fool. I am certainly enjoying how often you make a fool of yourself.
And yawn, why should I bother with your empty threats. I bet you couldn't hurt a fly, your threats are so blase.
@flip
Got another batch of popcorn ready, for the entertainment djt the fool provides.
@Diddums
oooops - the following lines from above should NOT be part of the blockquote;
You are a moron. Burzynski did not pick out 7 patients and the have 2 die. He was asked to put forward his 7 bestcase scenarios out of the 2400 he had treated to that date.
His OWN choice of bestcase scenarios was 5 survivors and 2 who had died died.
So it IS 5 survivors out of 2400, or roughly 0.2% at the time of that review.
This is abysmal even by your low, low standards. It could not even be described as sophistry because sophistry demands plausibility.
Do you honestly believe that your Math (or your logic) is correct?
*facepalm*
This is truly silly. Today the iDJiT says to me,
Uh, okay, cool. Have it your way. You didn't deny claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round. And we all laughed at you for claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round.
12/20 Comments:
.
_____Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
Watson didn’t discover DNA. He also never said the quote you’ve attributed to him, unless you’re able to prove otherwise.
Given that Squidymus has previously touted the elephantine orchitis (tinEO) that allowed him to personally contact Merola, which was no doubt a regular Plateau Sigma sort of endeavor, perhaps he could hoist things up and drop a query to Cold Spring.
_____ME: How 'bout you prove that Watson was NOT a Discoverer of DNA based on my previous posts on the subject, oh Boy Genius!
.
.
_____flip
.
Searching for Intelligent popcorn on an alleged supermarket aisle
.
December 20, 2012
.
@Squidymus
.
_____ME: flipperoo, intelligent popcorn isn't going to help you.
.
And I’m getting close to thinking that flipperpuss is an Edgar Allan Poe, since these flipRants sound like the ramblings of a drug user!
.
Mmmmm, someone hasn’t figured out how to google ‘Poe’ yet…. Or what satire is.
.
_____ME: Why would I Google Poe when I don't even Google myself?
.
I find it interesting that people assume ‘flip’ is short for flippant. It’s not. It’s a character from a play; consider flip to be of the surfing dude variety.
.
_____ME: The only ones I see ASSUMING 'round here are the Tu-QuackerOats.
.
But you know, it’s also good for showing cranks for what they really are. People who like to fill in the blanks with their own assumptions.
.
_____ME: Sez 1 of the Anarchists of Assumed Assumptions.
.
Your experience is absolutely more “credible” than his!!
.
Keep building that strawman honey, you’ve almost reached the moon with that one.
.
_____ME: He has actually researched cancer for years.
Definitely, let’s go with you & your group of “Geniuses” instead of people like Dr. James Watson, discoverer of DNA & involved in the Human Genome Mapping Project.
.
Oh, so Dr James Watson has some peer-reviewed papers published showing the efficacy and safety of antineoplastons? If so, I’ll definitely look at the link for that. And if not, well, he’s pretty much irrelevant to the issue of Burzyinski and his trials, isn’t he?
.
_____ME: He's relevant even though you're irreverent since it's fair to say he's more knowledgeable about the supposed "War on Cancer" than you.
.
I think I need to bring back the generator; or at the very least, continue to use Captain Haddock insults. And with that, I add the appropriate cry of…. “Abecedarian!”
.
_____ME: Try "Flippirrelevantidiomism!"
.
@Narad
.
Which begs the question of your age & if you even know what bing, Safari, Mercury, yahoo, IMDB & Multisearch are.
.
Holy f*ck.
.
Exactly what I was thinking. Heck, I’m a few decades, at least, younger than most of the regulars here. And yet, somehow I doubt Squidymus knows what Netscape is. Or what a dongle looks like. And I know even both of those things are pretty ‘new’ in the scheme of IT development. Which is to say nothing of course of the obvious talents of various coders of such regulars as yourself. One truly wonders how old Squidy is.
.
_____ME: What you do in the bathroom is YOUR business, so I don't want to hear about your "Netscaping!"
.
And I DEFINITELY do not want anything to do with your "dongle!!"
.
I could swear that I’ve pointed out that this entire line of babbling would collapse if it actually had something to land on to start with.
.
_____ME: And yet you continue babbling!!!
.
He does have a certain supernova quality to his posts…
.
_____ME: That's what Rob Thomas said.
.
… Does Squidymus think that simply posting the citations is enough? Maybe this little troll has only gotten far enough in their education to have recently been taught about bibliographies, and hasn’t worked out that you can’t just add citations at will – they have to actually back up your statements.
.
_____ME: I am obviously doing much better at it than your "IT."
.
I’m so glad I brought my jumbo-sized popcorn. Looks like we’ll be here for a while
.
_____ME: Make sure you pop it with a load of cheese so you can take a "load" off!
.
.
Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
I regret to report that I actually still have a PCI dongle on the premises. It’s a long story.
.
_____ME: Really ... I'm sure no one here wants to hear about your Politically Correctly Incorrect dongle!
.
.
_____LW
.
December 20, 2012
.
I still think the iDJiT is about fifteen and just started doing debate. In my one year of debate, we would run into these types who thought that debate consisted of quoting from authorities.
.
_____ME: You being able to debate anything is debateable.
.
Surprisingly often, debaters would quote authority A to say fact F is true and later authority B to say fact F is false. I would argue that fact F cannot be both true and false so their argument was incoherent, and they would respond that I had not defeated their point since I had not quoted an authority to say that fact F cannot be both true and false. I never could get them to grasp that you don’t need authority to support simple logic. Fortunately judges understood that, which is why we won so often.
.
_____ME: Judging by your performance here, it's logical to say your Full of "IT."
.
The iDJiT similarly demands authority for simple division, mere questions, and elementary logical deductions.
.
_____ME: Logic is Logically NOT your forte.
.
.
herr doktor bimler
.
December 20, 2012
.
you can’t just add citations at will – they have to actually back up your statements.
.
It also helps to actually aver some statements
.
_____ME: Rarely do I aver feel the need to aver. I have an aversion to that.
.
.
MarkL
.
December 20, 2012
..
@Diddums
.
Definitely, let’s go with you & your group of “Geniuses” instead of people like Dr. James Watson, discoverer of DNA & involved in the Human Genome Mapping Project.
.
Your experience is absolutely more “credible” than his!!
.
Oh boy, I am losing the will to live (but I am guessing that that is diddums aim). It is like watching one of the lesser primates in a zoo lose its temper and start to fling its own feces around the cage.
.
_____ME: So you've met agashem?
.
How are Watson’s oft quoted (but never accurately sourced) words supposed to show support for the brave fraud? How do they pertain to your argument in support of the brave maverick?
.
_____ME: As I've posted before, Watson has like 20 years of cancer research experience & understands the alleged "War on Cancer."
.
SEC filings as clinical evidence? hahahaha – sure, in the same way Crick, Wilkins and Watson won the Nobel prize after their 1953 tax returns proved the double helix theory.
.
_____ME: And I expect no less from you since nowhere did I claim the SEC filing was "clinical evidence," since I can read & extrapolate information; which seems to be a foreign concept to you.
.
*facepalm*
.
You don’t get it do you? Even if you post links to every single document Stan has produced from the time he started high school, they will not be evidence of efficacy. ONLY the full results from some his 60+ phase II trials can start to provide such evidence. Anything else is just so much wilted word salad and irrelevant.
.
_____ME: So ... basically, like your posts!
We're still waiting to be pointed to a single published clinical report, from a completed Phase II trial conducted by Burzynski, which supports the claim antineoplastons safely and effectively treat advanced cancers.
So the upshot of all DJT's blathering is that he doesn't like anyone else here.
Oh............ and that he STILL has NO evidence of efficacy to show us.
This is by no means authoritative, but if you look up DNA in Wikipedia, you'll find reference to Meischer isolating DNA in 1869 and Kossel identifying nucleic acids in 1878. Watson & Crick dind't publish until 1953. I'd say they were 84 years too late to claim discovery of DNA, though their work in determining the structure was brilliant.
Okay, I'm going to answer this because I believe that some small rational piece of Didymus Judas Thomas' mind, suppressed and all but smothered, truly wants to know what's wrong with this calculation. Here is how to compute the survival rate if five survive out of seven, the Didymus Judas Thomas way:
Didymus Judas Thomas asks courteously, "do you have a point?"
Yes, I do have a point. It is that Didymus Judas Thomas is profoundly ignorant of basic arithmetic, besides being ignorant of the history of science, barely literate, and not housebroken. Anyone who responds to him should probably know what we are dealing with.
Alain, not surprisingly bewildered by this "computation", says,
Here is the point at which I think that tiny rational piece of Didymus Judas Thomas's mind got control of its fingers briefly and typed,
Actually I did answer the question, what was "how did you come up with these numbers from DidySquat’s posts?"; the answer was, "I copied it from one of the iDJiT’s droppings over on the “Stanislaw Burzynski: 'Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy' for dummies” post.” Just go to that post and search for "If you had 7 patients", without the quotes of course.
But I think that tiny rational piece of Didymus Judas Thomas' mind wants to know what is wrong with the "computation". Everyone else already knows, of course, but for the benefit of that small suppressed rational piece, I will answer. This requires reading Didymus Judas Thomas' mind, and I generally confine my mind-reading to friends at close range, but I'll do my best.
I think that Didymus Judas Thomas dimly recalls from last semester's math class that somehow you turn 7 into 100, and if you do exactly the same thing to 5 as you do to 7, you get the percentage. This is actually right, if you know how to correctly turn 7 into 100. The trouble is that, having no idea how to proceed, Didymus Judas Thomas begins by adding a zero to the end of each number. This is equivalent to multiplying each by 10, which isn't wrong but isn't especially helpful. Being now totally at loss as to what to do next, he adds 30 to both numbers, still faithfully doing the same thing to each, and that gives him 100 and 80, which seems to him to imply that 5 is 80% of 7.
The error is that in computing a percentage you can safely multiply both sides by the same number, because a percentage is another way of writing a ratio, but you cannot safely add the same number to both sides. I suggest to Didymus Judas Thomas that he notice that 70-50 = 100-80. Adding the same number to both sides does not change the difference.
What you need to do is change 7 into 100 solely by multiplication. So we need a number to multiply 7 by to give us 100. That number is represented as 100/7, and you can get it by typing 100 into your calculator, hitting the divide key, typing 7, and then hitting the equals key. That number is 14.28571428571429. Now, just hit the multiply key and type 5, then hit the equals key. That gives you 71.42857142857143. We can round that to 71.4 and say that 5 is 71.4% of 7. We write the computation as 5*100/7. This is usually written as 100*5/7, which means the same thing.
Knowing how to compute this, you can now move on to something harder, like, what is 5 as a percentage of 2400? We do this exactly the same way: type 100 into the calculator, hit the divide key, type 2400, and hit equals. That gives you 0.0416666666666667. Now hit the multiply key, type 5, and hit the equals key, and you get 0.2083333333333333, which we can round to 0.2, so we can say that 5 is about 0.2% of 2400. We would write this as 5*100/2400 or 100*5/2400. Notice there is a pattern here.
I hope that helps.
@ LW,
Yep, it does help greatly. your number look right.
Alain (cepacol and orange juice today).
12/20 Comments:
.
_____Antaeus Feldspar
.
December 20, 2012
.
KreBLOGintent:
.
_____”What specifically has Orac said that isn’t factually true?”
.
_____ME:
.
As an individual with an inquisitive brain, the first thing I noticed about Orac’s “REVIEW” is that it has the definite air of having been cherry-picked.
.
I’ve never been shy about letting readers know exactly what I think of certain biased “Cherry-Picking” “reviews.”
Saying that something is “cherry-picked” doesn’t mean it isn’t factually true.
An example of cherry-picking would be boasting about what a good shot is by saying “Why, the other day at the range, he put a round right in the dead center of the bullseye!” That might be totally factually true but if it was only one of 500 rounds fired and it was the only round that actually hit the target, talking only about that one round and not the others is cherry-picking.
Note that it’s not always “cherry-picking” to examine a small set out of a much larger set. If Person A says “This principle always holds true!” and Person B wants to show that the principle doesn’t always hold true, it’s perfectly legitimate for Person B to show a counter-example. If Person A wants to say “this bowl will hold the liquid we pour into it,” it’s not cherry-picking for Person B to point out one spot that has a hole.
When someone comes out and makes an extraordinary claim such as “I have a cure for cancer that’s superior to everything else currently in use!” it’s not enough for them to prove most elements of their claim. They must prove all elements of their claim. If someone comes along and points out a place where their claim falls apart, it doesn’t mean the person doing the pointing out is “cherry-picking”; it means the person making the claim shouldn’t have made such an extravagant claim without solid evidence.
_____Orac:
.
“…I have to wonder whether Dr. Burzynski just hired Merola to make an infomercial”
.
” Merola claims the movie was his idea, but I have a hard time believing it.”
.
_____Orac, who attaches an article to his blog where Merola clearly states his motivation, and it WASN’T being hired by SRB!!
Diddums seems to be attempting the following sorites:
1) No one, even people taking dishonest actions, ever offers dishonest accounts of why they took those actions.
2) Merola claimed a totally aboveboard motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial.
3) Therefore Merola’s motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial was totally aboveboard.
4) Orac does not believe that Merola’s motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial was totally aboveboard.
5) Therefore, Orac is completely ignorant and all his testimony is impeached.
The problem is of course that premise 1 is bull-doots, and therefore there’s no logical force to any part of the argument.
.
_____ME: Did you actually have a relevant point in there anywhere?
.
Are you now the "Apologist" for KreBLOGshazam & Orac?
.
Let's review, shall we?
.
1. "Merola claims the movie was his idea, but I have a hard time believing it."
.
2. "I suppose it’s possible..."
.
This makes one wonder if Orac is considering running for political office.
.
I've heard of "waffling" before, & this would be an example of it.
.
I have a hard time believing it ... but I suppose it's possible.
.
AND:
.
1. "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. "
.
2. "At best, looking at the evidence, I conclude that they might have very minimal anticancer activity, and even that’s doubtful."
.
There's no evidence to suggest that antineoplastons have any significant activity against cancer ... but they might have very minimal anticancer activity.
.
Well, I'm glad we got THAT out of the way!
12/20 Comments:
.
_____Mephistopheles O'Brien
December 20, 2012
_____Me: Well, THAT “applause/standing” thing really worked out well for you, didn’t it???
It did indeed. Thanks for noticing!
You might not ought to quit your Day Job just quite yet though.
In these days of economic uncertainty, unless you’re independently wealthy or have a killer idea for an entrepreneurial venture that will take your full time that’s reasonable advice. Thanks.
.
_____ME: Glad I could be of assistance! ;-)
.
.
Krebiozen
.
December 20, 2012
.
Squidymus,
.
_____ME: You SERIOUSLY need to check your “New Math!”
.
Are you really trying to argue that 5 expressed as a percentage of 2,400 is something other than 0.2%? The 7 patients Burzynski presented were clearly the “best case scenario” out of the 2,400 patients he had treated at that time, and 2 of them died, so it does seem appropriate to calculate the percentages this way.
.
_____Speculative based on the below.
.
“That’s a good point. The other thing to bear in mind is that these patients had all had conventional treatment previously. Some people are late responders to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, sometimes not showing clear signs of improvement until 12 weeks after treatment.”
.
_____ME: Yeah, this Doctor & the other 5 members of the FDA must have not had any reliable educational experience & work experience, so we should go with what you think because you weren’t there & therefor, you must know more than they did.
.
That sentence is quite a chimera; an argument from authority followed by a strawman, mixed up with a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with anyone’s education or work experience, it has to do with what is or is not possible. They looked at these cases in 1993, but the paper I cited was published in 2006, so they may not have been aware of the possibility of late responses like this.
.
_____ME: If we look at the Testimony we find:
.
1. "The tumor dissolved at least microscopically; we could see it with the naked eye, but it recurred later, a year later." (pgs. 118 - 119)
.
_____So, we don't know the context.
.
2. "Radiation, there are some reports indicating that radiation treatment in children particularly could lead to resolution of the tumors, although I don't know whether it is a permanent one or temporary. So when this happens it is very rare. And I have seen only isolated here and there where that has happened with radiation ." (pg. 120)
.
_____Speaks for itself.
.
3. "[A]ll the patients had already failed radiation because they were treated months, several months after radiation was given and had failed." (pg. 121)
.
_____So, we do not know how many months.
.
4. " the letter actually concludes that the site team concluded that there was antitumor effect from the antineoplastons." (pg. 123)
.
_____Speaks for itself.
.
5. "The tumor was very large and very involved the hypothalamus, a very sensitive part of the brain cannot be operated, and had both cystic components and fleshy components, mass like. And the lesion disappeared . This patient did not have previous treatment, if I recall, other than-- previous chemotherapy or radiation, and the tumor disappeared under our eyes. It was a low grade astrocytoma, wich is comparable with long survival. However, even those low grade astrocytomas, when we see them, they don't go away even though they may permit the person to live for many years. In this particular patients case the tumor disappeared, and there was a small, tiny remnant left, small percentage of the original size. And there has been several years since then and the patient is well, I'm told." (pg. 124)
.
_____Speaks for itself.
.
_____So, without the Exhibit we do not know the dates involved.
.
And while your at it, go ahead swear to that in Court & send off for that Exhibit mentioned in the Testimony.
My testimony and whatever that Exhibit says is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts:
1. Late response to radiochemotherapy in pediatric glioblastoma, Burzynski’s speciality, has been reported in the literature.
2. All the cases looked at by Dr. Patronas and his team had had previous treatment.
3. It is possible that these cases were also examples of late response to earlier treatment.
4. Therefore they are not good evidence for the efficacy of Burzynski’s treatment.
“I see that Dr. Patronas wrote:”, “I’m not aware that spontaneous remission occurs; I don’t think it does.” “He was mistaken. This review of the literature found over 6,000 cases, 4 of them brain tumor cases. It reports that about 20 cases of spontaneous remission are reported every year, but many more undoubtedly go unreported. A brief review of PubMed and Google Scholar comes up with several case studies of spontaneous regression and remission of gliomas and astrocytomas. It’s rare but by no means unknown.”
.
_____ME: Great! We can all go home now!!
Dr. Patronas said that spontaneous remission does not occur, I have cited a study that found thousands of cases of spontaneous remission reported in the literature (PDF), including some brain tumor cases, therefore Dr. Patronas was mistaken. I conclude from this that is it possible that the cases Dr. Patronas and his colleagues examined were examples of spontaneous remission, and therefore they are not good evidence for the efficacy of Burzynski’s treatment.
And how many of these were pre-1993?
All of them, since the paper was published in 1989, what does this have to do with it? When someone asserts that white crows don’t exist, a single white crow will suffice to disprove the assertion. When Dr. Patronas asserted that spontaneous remission does not occur in cancer, even assuming he was specifically referring to brain tumors, the cases reported in the study I cited suffice to prove him wrong. It seems that Dr. Patronas was not familiar with the literature on spontaneous remission.
“The bottom line is that only Phase 3 clinical trials can tell us if Burzynski’s treatment really works.”
.
______ME: Well, there’s something we can agree on
So you agree that we don’t know whether Burzynski’s treatment works. That’s progress I suppose. As several people have pointed out, either it does work, in which case Burzynski has kept a life-saving treatment from thousands of patients for decades, or it doesn’t work in which case he has been charging vulnerable cancer patients hundeds of thousands of dollars for false hope. Which do you think is the case?
.
_____No. I am saying the above-mentioned material speaks for itself.
though I question how it is that the Gub-ment let lesser tested cancer drugs through the Express Phase II process
Which lesser tested cancer drugs are you referring to?
.
_____12/19 my K-BLOGGIN' (Part 3) post.
.
& are requiring radiation as part of the Phase III Trials.
I have seen that claimed in various places , but it’s not true. The trial protocol clearly states:
.
Children with or without prior RT are eligible.
Perhaps you should try checking some of your facts.
.
_____The SPA Agreement: Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy
12/20 Comments:
.
_____MarkL
.
December 20, 2012
.
Good Grief!
.
_____ME: This smells suspiciously like something a Tu-Quacking wanna-be Winner 15 year-old who wouldn’t know the 1st thing about Total Quality Management (TQM) would plagiarize in High School.
.
_____ME: Are you really Charlie Brown? Have you seen Linus?
.
.
_____Krebiozen
.
December 20, 2012
.
I have a comment in the moderation hopper. I will post a small but perhaps important highlight. The Sepia Troll suggested that the FDA:
.
are requiring radiation as part of the Phase III Trials.
.
I have seen that claimed in various places , but it’s not true. The trial protocol clearly states:
.
Children with or without prior RT are eligible.
.
_____ME: really? Really?? REALLY???
This has nothing whatsoever to do with their previous prior therapy.
.
Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy, Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma.
.
.
_____JGC
.
December 20, 2012
.
DJT, I have reviewed the citations you keep spamming your posts with–that’s why I’m aware they are not published reports of clinical trials and do not represent evidence that antineoplastons are effective at treating advanced cancers.
The SEC filing as well does not represent evidence that antineoplastons are safe or effective at treating advanced cancers.
.
_____And I never indicated that the SEC filing was to be evidence of that.
.
If you recall in an effort to simplify things I asked you to provide the single best piece of evidence for Buraynski’s protocol, in the form of the one published report from a completed clinical trial you believe best demonstrates Buraynski’s claim that antineoplastons are safe and effective at treating advanced cancers.
.
Just provide one single, actual piece of evidence. That’s all I’m asking at this point. Your continued inability to do so–in fact, your clearly intentional decision not even to try–speaks volumes.
.
_____And you continued inability to state that you've actually reviewed one of the publications, but only indicate you've reviewed the citations, indicates your clearly intentional decision not even to try-speaks volumes.
.
.
Todd W.
.
harpocratesspeaks.com December 20, 2012
.
@JGC
.
I’m floored that you guys have the patience to wade through DJT’s walls o’ text. Apparently the concept of brevity is lost on him/her. I noticed that buried in one of his/her screeds, DJT listed a couple papers that discuss cases plucked out from several of the phase II trials, but no papers on the trials themselves. One paper included subjects from 4 different trials!
.
Note to DJT, this is not a scientifically acceptable means of reporting the results of a clinical trial. These are case series reports, apparently chosen because they appear to support Burzynski, but no controls or other data are presented.
.
Oh, also, papers on in vitro studies are not representative of Phase II clinical trials, either, seeing as they are the results of testing on the bench (e.g., petri dishes, etc.), rather than testing in humans.
.
_____ME: Yet I have the patience to wade through all their walls of text, their refusal to answer questions & make excuses, those who feel they need to respond for someone else, ad nauseum.
.
.
_____LW
December 20, 2012
.
@Todd W: “Apparently the concept of brevity is lost on him/her.”
.
An astonishing number of concepts appear to be lost on him/her.
.
_____ME: And the ability to respond to questions seems to be lost on some of the Tu-Quackers on here as I point out above, yet they want me to respond to theirs, those who provide no cites to back-up their SPAMS.
.
.
_____JGC
.
December 20, 2012
.
You really only have to wade through his posts once–he keeps offering the same poster abstracts, the same SEC filing information, etc. every few posts, as if sheer repetition can serve in lieu of evidence.
.
_____ME: Which shows that you're not paying attention as evidenced by you not responding to my questions right back at ya.
.
.
_____LW
.
December 20, 2012
.
And juvenile insults. Don’t forget the juvenile insults.
.
_____ME: If you can't handle the Heat, get out of the Kitchen.
.
.
_____MarkL
.
December 20, 2012
.
He actually replied to the randomly generated buzz word salad as if it was meant to mean something.
.
He is just too funny. Can we keep him as a pet?
.
_____ME: And that's where you're wrong; wouldn't be the 1st time, while 2 posters praised you for your SPAM.
.
.
_____Todd W.
harpocratesspeaks.com December 20, 2012
.
@MarkL
.
Sure, but you need to clean up after him.
.
_____ME: That might be too much of a chore for him considering his inability to respond to prior questions.
.
.
_____LW
.
December 20, 2012
.
@MarkL: can you get him to do tricks? I’d like to see him answer this: “if ten patients out of fourteen survive, what percentage survive?” Based on his algorithm, I’m guessing either 96% or 60%, but it would be great fun to see him show his work again.
.
_____ME: Posts the person AWED by flippies SPAM.
This is funny: I'm watching Law & Order reruns on TNT. Burzynski is on it! The Taxman Cometh, original airdate May 10, 2010.
@Diddums
What exactly are you trying to point out here diddums? You seem very keen on insulting everyone, but very vague when it comes to what you are trying to prove.
What is your point? Can you express it succinctly? Because all your yards of spiel say absolutely nothing, you do not answer any questions except with totally irrelevant drivel, you just point at people and scream "dumbass". You are not even prepared to learn, so why come here? You have provided no support for Burzynski, all you have done is convince supporters of SBM that all Burzynski fans are unhinged!
So go on - give it a go - try explaining (preferably in just a few short sentences) what your point is.
With regard to Burzynski's much anticipated Phase 3 clinical trial. Its title is not "Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy, Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma" as the Sepia Troll claims. According to the the Clinical Trials website the study's official title is. "A Randomized Phase 3 Study of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy [Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)] vs. Temozolomide in Subjects With Recurrent and / or Progressive Optic Pathway Glioma After Carboplatin or Cisplatin Therapy". There is no mention of concurrent radiotherapy, and the word "combination" in the title refers to, "Combination antineoplaston therapy: [Antineoplaston A10 (Atengenal) and Antineoplaston AS2-1 (Astugenal)] given six times daily (open label) by subclavian vein infusion".
There are no trials of a combination of antineoplastons and radiotherapy registered on the Clinical Trials website.
The only place I can find a reference to "Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy, Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma" is in a press release from the Burzynski Clinic in 2009. The FDA appear to have cleared the protocol for this study, but it was never registered with the Clinical Trials website and appears to have been abandoned.
@Krebiozen
Indeed the "Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy, Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” seems to be wishful thinking on the part of Burzynski, and never had any real substance other than the guff generated by the brave maverick himself who went looking for Big Pharma partners to run the trial for him and then announced it to the (commercial) world.
More smoke and mirrors.
Am I the only one who finds these attempted trade names even more hysterically funny than the usual outputs from trained marketing professionals?
Narad,
You're not alone. They sound like something out of a bad 50s sci-fi movie: 'Invasion of the Antineoplastons - evil aliens Atengenal and Astugenal from the planet Burzynski seek world domination but are defeated by the FDA'.
Seriously, though, is there any discernible provenance for the "-genal" suffix? The clumsy phoneticism of the first parts is one thing (I need to file away "Ettugenal"), and it's not quite at the level of slapping the label "Zingo" on lidocaine, but still.
As you observed, obviously the names are sort of text-speak phonetic representations of the codes Burzynski gave them, but the "genal" part makes no sense to me at all.
According to Quackwatch A-10 (Atengenal) is 3-N-phenylacetylamino piperidine 2,6-dione (PAPD), which is insoluble, treated with alkali to make it soluble. But doing this does not create a soluble form of A-10. It simply reinserts water into the molecule and regenerates the phenylacetyl glutamine PAG (Burzynski's AS-2.5). AS2-1 (Astugenal) is Atengal further treated with alkali which breaks it down into a mixture of phenylacetic acid and phenylacetyl glutamine.
So Atengenal is just phenylacetyl glutamine and Astugenal is a mixture of phenylacetic acid and phenylacetyl glutamine. Why anyone would expect these normal metabolic waste products to be effective against cancer, or any other disease, beats me. If they are so good for us, and prevent or cure so many diseases, why do we excrete them in our urine? Since phenylacetate is a breakdown product of phenethylamine, which is found in chocolate, why isn't chocolate a cure for cancer?
"Astwomiflam" would have been a nice coinage.
12/20 Comments:
.
_____flip
.
Passing around the popcorn...
.
December 20, 2012
.
@Narad
.
I regret to report that I actually still have a PCI dongle on the premises. It’s a long story.
.
If I weren’t posting under a pseudonym, I would share some various exploits of a pixelated memory lane…
.
_____ME: Thank Goodness! Next you might start posting about HTML!!
.
@MarkL
.
SEC filings as clinical evidence? hahahaha – sure, in the same way Crick, Wilkins and Watson won the Nobel prize after their 1953 tax returns proved the double helix theory.
.
Ooh, that’s a good’un.
.
_____ME: And if you actually knew how to read & comprehend what you read, you would NOT be posting your Garbage that I in any way indicated the SEC filing was "clinical evidence." You are Full of (Wait for ... shhh ...) "IT."
.
He actually replied to the randomly generated buzz word salad as if it was meant to mean something.
.
_____ME: To recognize your pathetic ... Well, let me put it in words you might be able to understand, something like Orac would post: "Those 2 pos(t)ers that have their noses embedded so far up your rectum that you wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if they just strapped a light to Their faces."
.
Which is what I expected. I was particularly curious whether or not he could pass that comprehension test. Most people would be able to see through the junkyard of those sentences. Heck, I even mixed in a totally separate paragraph from a conspiracy generator just for fun.
.
_____ME: Says the Village Idiots son.
.
@Todd W
.
I’m floored that you guys have the patience to wade through DJT’s walls o’ text.
.
I’m just scanning for when he discusses me. Everything else I’m pretty much ignoring as I scroll past. I don’t have the time at the moment to do much more than that, nor the inclination.
.
_____ME: Todd W should be floored that I have the patience to wade through your Wall of Noise.
.
@Squidymus
.
flip,
.
“This should be interesting…”
.
_____ME: If only it weren’t coming from a 15 year-old!
.
Touché me old chum. That totally proves that Burzyinski isn’t lying!
.
_____ME: But it totally proves that you are!
.
This smells suspiciously like something a Tu-Quacking wanna-be Winner 15 year-old who wouldn’t know the 1st thing about Total Quality Management (TQM) would plagiarize in High School.
.
Thundering son of a sea-gherkin, you are stupid. I even explained the whole thing above, if you’d bothered to follow the links. It’s a corporate-speak generator, you plug in the “name” of the company and it spits out paragraphs of meaningless word salad based on “corporate-speak”, aka made-up words or words used in order to create abstractness. It was a parody of what you’ve been doing. Here, I’ll post the link again:
.
_____ME: No one wants to see your asinine re-hash of trash.
But hey, your following comments suggest you saw the info, but still didn’t understand what is was. Aw, so close to that gold star, and yet so far far far away…
.
_____ME: And we all know whose nose your gold star is imbedded on, & how it made its way in your sphincter.
.
Trust ME!! Nothing can help you … NOW!!
.
Yeah, I’m quaking in my boots. *rolls eyes
.
_____ME: I think everyone knows what your boots are full of, & it's NOT quake!
.
Says flip’s Alcolyte.
.
Wow, what a compliment. I’m pretty new here, but it’s nice to know I have “alcolytes”. Are they anything like flying monkeys, can I send them to do my evil bidding?
What do I do with them now I have them?
.
_____ME: Why don't you & your Alcolytes go to Kansas, what for that tornado, & when you get to Oz you can all drink your spiked Kool-Aide & go take a leap with the flying monkeys.
.
… So after all that … it’s a “no” then for having access to peer-reviewed clinical results of Burzyinski’s trials?
.
____ME: That's the question you can't seem to answer, but with your Alcolytes up your rectal cavity I can understand why you & they couldn't dig through all the Asplundh.
.
.
_____novalox
.
Passing the popcorn around
.
December 20, 2012
.
@flip
.
Is djt still making empty threats?
.
And pass the popcorn around, djt is ending up to be quite an entertaining idiot to laugh at.
.
_____ME: Why bother asking fliphincter? He's got 2 people so far up in his colon that flip can't flap his gums!
.
.
_____herr doktor bimler
.
December 20, 2012
.
t’s nice to know I have “alcolytes”.
I think they are made by Anhauser-Busch (the word “brewed” isn’t really appropriate).
.
_____ME: I think right now flippants is thinking of a word that rhymes with "brewed."
.
.
_____flip
.
My popcorn is getting stale? Where's DJT so I can fire up another batch?
.
_____ME: How are you making out with that big COBOL of Cheese?
.
December 20, 2012
.
Is djt still making empty threats?
.
_____ME: Don't you feel those 2 threats in your lower GI tract yet, or are you so used to it by now that you just bend over on cue?
.
And pass the popcorn around, djt is ending up to be quite an entertaining idiot to laugh at.
.
_____ME: When you laugh do you even notice the brown liquid coming out anymore?
.
I’m not sure empty threat is the right phrase. What do you call it when someone Gish gallops word salad in between ridiculously bad puns, link spam and acting like the high school attention-getter? (Bart Simpson on drugs perhaps?)
.
_____ME: Says Bungholio, Lord of the Harvest!!
.
.
Gray Falcon
.
December 20, 2012
.
DJT: You don’t even understand the mathematical concept of division. Why should we take anything you take seriously?
.
____Gray Falcon, in what dark hole did you just sprout wings & fly out of?
.
.
MarkL
.
December 20, 2012
.
Oh thats quite a strawman you are building there Diddums, but since you are aware that it is a strawman, we should really just call you a bare-faced liar and a fraud.
.
_____ME: How are things in Oz, Scarcrow?
.
Still unable to answer “Yes” or “No” as to whether you have or have not reviewed at least 1 of the 10 publications which has “Clinical Trial” “or “Trial” in it somewhere?
.
And in answer to you, YES, I have looked at every one of the links I have seen with relevant titles, and not ONE of them are results of a phase II trial conducted by Burzynski.
.
That is why I keep asking you for results, not abstracts, not poster presentations, not other peoples work, not advertorials or puff-pieces from woo friendly mags or vanity publishers, FULL, PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED RESULTS of a phase II trial that shows even a glimmer of hope for antineoplastons as a medical treatment for ANYTHING, from the last 30+ years of research and 60+ such trials that Burzynski claims to have run.
.
You can’t do that can you? Because Burzynski has never published results of his studies, he just gives out mish-mashes of info gleaned from any number of sources to try and portray himself in the best possible light.
.
_____ME: So by looking at "links" you were able to determine that the contents of a publication do NOT contain Clinical Trial data? Is that your FINAL answer?
.
The only possible reason for him to continue in this manner after so long is that he is a FRAUD.
.
_____ME: This, coming from you, doesn't seem to be believable considering your past performance
.
Thats why your gish gallops, your red herrings, strawmen, onus probandi, tu quoque, and probably a dozen other logical fallacies are so amusing to us. because we know the Burzynski story. We know he hasnt released results. So try as you like, you just come across as a laughable under-educated, aggressive, woo-crazy moron. We have tried to give you the chance to give in gracefully, but you just keep coming back and heaping more shame upon yourself.
.
_____ME: Says the person who LIED so many times that I exposed you for what you really are on 12/3. Yet here you are, still living the LIE.
.
Do not for a moment delude yourself that anyone takes your childish comments seriously, we are taking the p*ss out of you because you are every credulous NWO/Alt-med/Space abduction fantasist stereotype rolled into one steaming lump. You are HYSTERICALLY funny.
.
_____ME: Coming from you I can't tell everyone how much that hurts!
.
.
Krebiozen
.
December 20, 2012
.
Squidymus,
Anyone who can read can see that you are a bluffing, blustering, lying buffoon. I don’t know why you bother trying to pretend otherwise.
.
_____ME: Yet miraculously, you can't seem to be able to offer an explanation as to how it is that SRB was authorized Phase II & III Clinical Trials without meeting YOUR requirements; as opposed to the FDA's legal & regulatory requirements!
.
How is it that with all the alleged Brain-Power people on this blog supposedly possess & want me to believe that they have, are not able to explain this "quandary" for y'all?
.
.
Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
It’s funny how the FDA is evilly trying to shut down and incarcerate Burzynski but they allowed him to create a Phase III — on paper only since all subjects were supposed to be accrued almost a year ago but none have been — so that proves the FDA believes his claims. According to the ever-courteous DJT.
.
_____ME: And typically, you choose to selectively ignore posts already made on this subject matter & re-hash your same old tired responses.
.
I see that you predictably fail to get this despite explanations on multiple fronts. Let us recall that you asserted that the FDA had no jurisdiction in the (SOVEREIGN STATE OF!!1!1!!) Texas. This is false, as the GMP part of the injunction demonstrates. The FDA does not appear to have attempted to assert jurisdiction over intrastate commerce. As previously stated, they wouldn’t have needed to in the first place, because the TMPA already explicitly incorporated federal restrictions, and the whole thing well predates the sort of administrative fiat attempts that one can see from recent years. In short, you’re an imbecile.
.
_____ME: And you FAIL miserably in your above 2nd sentence, purposefully "Cherry Pinking" a part of a post instead of the full statement re Jurisdiction, & your reasoning just disintegrates downhill from there. Maybe you should check your mirror.
.
Now, try to summarize your Ethan Allen–like legal assault on the tyrannical forces of “Gub’ment.” You can rest assured that nobody at all is interested in actually making your acquaintance.
.
_____ME: Having to restate the obvious that has already been posted for you to read seems to be your modus operandi. As if you think I have nothing better to do then go back & copy/paste the same information for you again & again & again.
.
Harvard:
.
1. FACT: FDA was claiming SRB was shipping Antineoplastons across State lines & therefor engaged in Interstate Commerce, thus making it a Federal issue.
.
_____1997 - The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis. (Citing Burzynski)
.
_____The FDA finally ordered Burzynski to not distribute the drug in interstate commerce.
.
2. 1997 - The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases.
.
_____"The FDCA counts allege that Burzynski and his clinic introduced into interstate commerce..."
Wrong attribution, moron.
This is not responsive, Pretend Lawyer Type. By the way, is there some reason that you are now sticking periods between grafs?
@djt
Do try harder at your pathetic attempts at insult, your idiocy is quite amusing. I've had 6 year olds make better insults than you have tried to attempt.
Keep dancing for me, my little puppet, your utter failure at elementary school logic is entertaining. I've got another batch of popcorn ready to munch on while you try to entertain me.
@Squidymus
Proof that you fail at reading comprehension. For someone who is so familiar with fancy new fangled technology like IMDB, you certainly can't tell the difference between a comment and spam.
Holy frick. Your math teacher at school needs to be fired. I seriously hope you don't operate any machinery, build anything, or in general work in a manner that requires you to follow safety codes based on equations.
And you do not understand the difference between submitting a trial for approval, and having completed said trial and publishing the results for all to see.
What. The. F*ck.
You still haven't worked out what the 'strawman' part was: here's a clue. I never said my experience was better than anyone else's. It doesn't need to be: we really on evidence here, not experiences. Gibbering ghost, you're thick.
So, that's a 'no' then?
Very good sweetheart, now try and leave your own irrelevant comments somewhere else. Ooops - that would mean you'd be posting nothing but empties, wouldn't it?
I guess that proves my point. Either you really think that's a double entendre, or you're making really unoriginal jokes. Either way, you've shown yourself utterly incapable of talking like an adult.
Again, you prove my point for me.
And there's no way of knowing this until he publishes the results of his trials. Or someone does an independent trial. You seem to have missed the fact that most of us would agree with you: there may be potential. Where we disagree is the willingness to simply take Burzyinski's word for it.
FSM forbid you learn something useful. Like how to make your comments legible.
Touche again me old ectoplasmic byproduct!
Marg, is that you? Judith? Come out come out wherever you are! No, seriously, the "I know you are, but what am I?" tactic has been used by more sensible people than you and it *still* didn't work. Why do you think this is an adequate debate tactic?
F* me you are stupid. We're the ones *asking* for the peer-reviewed clinical results to be posted. Why the hell would we provide the answer for you.... oh right... because we're dealing with a dunder-headed ethelred.
LOL! Ok, this one actually made me laugh...
And the sum of your comments can be given as this:
Random blather; no evidence for any assertion, particularly Burzyinski's clinical trial results. Or, what Krebiozen said.
This is funnier than how Marg ended up going out. She looks so tame in comparison to this total ad hominem flame-out. Squidymus has been thoroughly and utterly been trounced. The evolution of Squidymus' comments show a certain, ahem, unravelling.
@Novalox
Oh goody! Thanks for sharing :)
@LW
I can't believe you had the patience to post that math-for-dummies thing. I struggle a lot with math, and even had to have instruction with figuring out percentages - but even I could work out what was wrong with his "math" without thinking about it. It's just so self-evidently ... facepalm.
All u need is a mirror, child
Looking for Imbecils
"It is a mark of insincerity of purpose to spend one's time in looking for the sacred Emperor in the low-class tea shops."
@flip: "I can’t believe you had the patience to post that math-for-dummies thing."
Well, I really do think that at some level the foul-mouthed brat really did want to know what was wrong with the computations, and it seemed cruel to keep mocking him (about that, anyway) without at least trying to explain. But I doubt the explanation will do any good, because I doubt he has any grasp at all of fractions. Look above where he argues that, if five out of every seven survive in a population of 2400, then more than 1200 survive because 1200 is half of 2400 and 5 is more than half of 7. *Sigh*. He has no idea how to get the correct number, and I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to a foul-mouthed, ungrateful troll.
LW,
If the 7 cases were a random sample of the population of 2,400 that last computation would make some sort of sense. But there weren't, the 7 cases were Burzynski's "best case scenario", and so the computation makes no sense at all. It does seem more than a little unlikely that 1,700 brain cancer patients have been cured by Burzynski, which is what you would expect if what the Sepia Troll appears to be suggesting were true.
@Krebiozen: "If the 7 cases were a random sample of the population of 2,400 that last computation would make some sort of sense."
Oh, absolutely. But my point is that he doesn't even know how to compute the number to make that argument. The best he can do is feebly say that 5 is more than half of 7, so if 5 out of every 7 survive, more than half survive. This indicates total ignorance of fractions.
And if indeed 5 out of 7 of Burzynski's patients survived, he'd be a hero and the tabloids, at least, would be knocking down his doors and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that only five survived out of his seven best cases which he personally chose out of 2400 is quite telling.
Just forget him. He is evidently innumerate, illiterate, illogical and intransigent. he doesn't want to talk about Burzynski, he knows nothing about the subject.
He is just a troll looking to start a flame war.
Yes, I did. And furthermore, I think every single person who isn't you clearly understood that relevant point.
I'm so sure of that that I'm going to make that an open offer: anyone other than Diddums can speak up and say "I don't understand what point you were getting at there" and I will answer (on that point or any other I've made in this thread, in fact.) If no one else feels the need for such an explanation, it pretty much means that the only person who thinks Diddums' endless carping and harping has any weight, any value, any relevance to the conversation - is Diddums.
@Antaeus Feldspar
I think that everyone with a good understanding of rational thought and critical thinking skills can understand what you are saying.
Which means that djt surely is a prime example of Dunning-Kreuger in action.
But then again, if djt posts, we'll get to see it even more, as proof that he knows not what he is talking about.
I've got another batch of popcorn ready, just in case djt decides to provide us with more proof that he is on the wrong side of the curve.
@LW
I don't know - I think this is just your average internet troll looking for attention. I don't think he's here to learn, just to 'rile' people up. Hence my quite unusual tone and playfulness with him. If I thought he was here for a real conversation, I'd try a lot harder to be polite.
Still, it's always worth explaining for the lurkers.
12/20 Comments:
.
.
_____KreBLOGbadMath,
.
December 20, 2012
.
I guess Orac is otherwise occupied today, as my comment earlier comment is still languishing in moderation. I’m going to report without the guilty link.
.
Squidymus,
.
_____ME: You SERIOUSLY need to check your “New Math!”
.
Are you really trying to argue that 5 expressed as a percentage of 2,400 is something other than 0.2%? The 7 patients Burzynski presented were clearly the “best case scenario” out of the 2,400 patients he had treated at that time, and 2 of them died, so it does seem appropriate to calculate the percentages this way.
.
_____ME: YES! Because you "New Math" is based on a False Presumption based on Unfounded Unsupported Unsustainable data!!
.
1. Your "New Math" completely ignores the 2 Harvard reports I've posted about previously:
.
1.a. 1997 - "The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis"
.
1.b. 1997 - "The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases"
.
2. a. Treating ... "thousands of patients since the opening of his Texas clinic in 1977."
.
2.b. "The Burzynski clinic treated thousands of patients with antineoplastons from 1977 to the present..."
.
2.c. "Over a 2 decade span, the doctor treated over 3,000 patients..."
.
3. Only approximately 300 of what were formerly thousands of patients are allowed to be treated currently under very close FDA scrutiny.
.
4. A group of 100 patients & their families gathered outside the federal courthouse in support of Burzynski on the 1st day of his criminal trial.
.
5. The issue essentially boils down to a safety verses efficacy issue. At present, the FDA appears satisfied that a drug, once approved for some use is relatively safe, even if used for an unapproved use. It seems to follow that if an unapproved medical treatment is not harmful, the FDA should allow its use until efficacy is proven or disproven. Under either scenario, the FDA retains the power to prohibit the use of use of a drug or device, whether approved or unapproved, when incidents of unreasonable harm are shown.
.
_____ME: So based upon your "Theory:"
1. Over 3,000 patients were treated,
.
2. But of those over 3,000, only 5 survived,
.
3. There were 300 patients still being treated,
4. 100 patients & their families gathered outside the federal courthouse,
.
5. The FDA didn't stop him though according to you at least 2,995 patients out of over 3,000, died,
.
6. There must not have been enough anti-SRB individuals representing the over 2,995 dead patients to show up at the federal courthouse & make the News,
.
7. The State of Texas didn't stop him though according to you at least 2,995 patients out of over 3,000, died.
.
My testimony and whatever that Exhibit says is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts:
1. Late response to radiochemotherapy in pediatric glioblastoma, Burzynski’s speciality, has been reported in the literature.
2. All the cases looked at by Dr. Patronas and his team had had previous treatment.
3. It is possible that these cases were also examples of late response to earlier treatment.
4. Therefore they are not good evidence for the efficacy of Burzynski’s treatment.
.
_____ME: And you obviously chose to ignore the above "FACTS."
I wasn't going to bother with Squidymus but in passing I note of his latest "FACTS" that the two "Harvard reports" he refers to are nothing of the sort, they are both essays written by law students. Even if their information did happen to be correct, why he thinks that claiming that Burzynski treated more than 2,400 patients is helpful to his claim I don't know (5 is an even lower percentage of 3,000 than it is of 2,400 after all). Neither do I understand why he thinks that dead patients would be able to demonstrate outside a courtroom, or why the fact that Burzynski has supporters demonstrates that many of his patients survive, especially since we know that relatives of his dead patients are, for some reason, among his most ardent supporters, Eric Merola for example.
Be that as it may, I was interested in the testimony that Dr. Patronas gave, and was able to find a source for the original document (PDF), again at the inadvertantly helpful Burzynski the Movie website. I hadn't seen the cross examination of Dr. Patronas before, since Squidymus omitted it, for some reason (I doubt it was for brevity). In it we find out that Dr. Patronas and his team did not get to actually look at the patients' medical records, these were held onto by Dr. Burzynski who only gave them whatever information he decided was relevant. We also find out that some of these patients were being treated with steroids which we know can temporarily shrink tumors, as well as Methotrexate and Vincristine, which are conventional chemotherapy drugs while they were being treated with antineoplastons. How can anyone conclude that the responses of these patients had anything at all to do with the antineoplastons?
I also managed to find the NCI report on the patients that Dr. Patronas and his team looked at, if anyone's interested. You can find it by Googling "647904-correspondence-buryznski-stanislaw-1.pdf" and then use the Quick View option - it's in the Willliam Clinton library and the direct link doesn't seem to work. The report is in the middle of a lot of other documents.
The first interesting things I note is this:
This confirms that these cases were indeed Burzynski's selected best cases. I am currently amusing myself by examining these cases in detail.
Humph. Sorry about that. Looks like I just identified a bug in my preview program, in which my comment displayed perfectly. The link works anyway, please just ignore the fact the rest of the text is underlined.
I'm glad to not be wasting time on Diddums anymore. If he can't even figure out "how do you format comments so that people can tell what you're quoting and what's your own words?" why would anyone think he's sorted out the truth of Burzynski?
@Squidymus
AHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, I'm so glad I wasn't drinking or eating when I read that. Seriously Squidymus, you are priceless!
The iDJiT's two fifteen-year-old Harvard law student essays have not, of course, been ignored. Here is my comment on "The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis", from which we learned that Burzynski ignored the FDA for twenty years (1977-1997) during which he treated approximately 3,000 patients.
And here is my comment on "The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases", from which we learned that "Burzynski openly defied both the FDA’s regulations and a federal court order specifically directed at him for fourteen years before the FDA finally brought charges against him. Moreover, he “treated” patients for AIDS and Parkinson’s with his antineoplastons."
@Krebiozen: " (5 is an even lower percentage of 3,000 than it is of 2,400 after all)". And you think he knows that?
@LW
Perhaps DJT belongs to the homeopathic school of mathematicians.
@LW
Perhaps DJT belongs to the homeopathic school of mathematicians.
12/20 Comments:
.
_____LW
.
December 20, 2012
.
The iDJiT: “If Orac wants to be believable then he needs to be less vitrolic & more factual.”
.
Total lack of self-awareness. Sad, really.
.
_____ME: You must mistake me for a "New Ager!"
.
_____Sad, really? Really?? REALLY???
.
_____I'm not running a "Science Blog" using phrases such as:
.
_____"Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face,"
.
_____to "BUTTress" my scientific theories.
.
____I am not here to be "Touchy Feelly" like AgaTamponShem.
.
_____When dealing with muckrakers, sometimes you have to get your fingers dirty whilst using Respectful Insolence.
.
.
____Agashem
.
December 20, 2012
.
OMFG! If DJT is a dude, then we really need to think twice about the stereotype of women talking so much more than men. At least talking about Tampons is EVER so much more interesting than trying to figure out what the hell this idjit is talking about.
.
_____ME: Please cite the post & date where I supposedly indicated your toxic shock statement.
.
_____And while you're at it, please incorporate Tampons into the cancer discussion, possibly to plug up flippoo's expectorate.
.
.
_____MI Dawn
.
December 20, 2012
.
Does anyone know of a killfile that works in Firefox (Mac version) on Sciblogs? Greasemonkey isn’t doing it, and I’d really like to killfile DJT, he’s boring to read and it takes too long to scroll through his word salads.
.
_____ME: Did MI Dawn post anything related to science, or just the usual GIGO?
.
.
_____herr doktor bimler
December 20, 2012
.
(Portions BOLDED for KreBLOGizBLIND.)
.
Apparently bold-face and CAPITALS are now synonymous. Please, continue.
.
_____ME: Ohhh, don't worry! I will as long as the Tu-Quackers continue to post GIGO!!
.
.
_____novalox
.
December 20, 2012
.
Keep posting djt, your never-ending stupidity is so entertaining. Your pathetic attempts at insult and ad hominem are so cute.
And besides., the more you post here, the less time you have of trying to attract innocent marks towards burzynski.
.
_____ME: Ahhh, novocain. And your comments help deaden the pain of your not-so witty repartee!
.
.
_____MarkL
.
December 20, 2012
.
I wouldn’t worry MI Dawn,
.
I have a feeling Orac will be wielding the banhammer very soon, as Diddums has departed entirely from the subject at hand and is just looking to cause trouble.
.
_____ME: Sez the anointed one who hasn't met a non-fact based post he didn't like.
.
_____Maybe because I can actually cite Primary & Secondary sources unlike you; except in the rarest of occasions, Orac will keep me around to try & balance out your biased viewpoint.
.
.
_____Krebiozen
December 20, 2012
.
It seems Squidymus has degenerated into denying he wrote things we can all see he did write, or that they didn’t mean what he clearly meant them to mean, and has emitted more great clouds of content-free blather. Unless he comes up with something substantial that can be refuted I’m done with him.
.
_____ME: Says the chosen one who can't cite the post & date to back up the KreBLOGerskite.
.
.
_____Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
So when I re-post the relevant posts so you won’t have to scroll up to my previous posts, you reinforce my belief that you’ll WHINE no matter what.
.
More comprehension fail, jambrains. Failure to reenact your own self-soiling wasn’t the issue. And why are you now rooting around in old comments like a blowfly for something stupid to say, anyway? It’s not as though you really need anything to hinge this special talent on.
.
_____ME: Maybe you should go back to posting stuff like:
.
_____Narad
.
December 14, 2012
.
Hey, StinkPress took the bottom of the sword.
.
_____ME: If you can't draw the correlation between successful Japanese Clinical Trials & Orac's blogging:
.
_____"Whenever Burzynski does a trial, the results come out as promising, with minimal or mild toxicity. 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..."
.
_____I'm not surprised since you can't answer:
.
_____"Narad, good question. Who are you?"
.
.
_____flip
.
Corning the pop...
.
December 20, 2012
.
What is more interesting to me than Squidymus’ spammy posts is his evolution over time of different formatting. And the evolution of picking up words and phrases we use – whether it’s tu quoque or references to alcohol.
.
I wonder what that’s all about? It’s like it’s trying to show that it knows what we’re talking about, but in trying too hard misses the mark entirely and only presents that it knows very little indeed.
.
_____ME: Wondering how flipalcolyte is doing with the Kool-Aide & big COBOL of Cheese...
.
@MarkL
.
Do not for a moment delude yourself that anyone takes your childish comments seriously, we are taking the p*ss out of you because you are every credulous NWO/Alt-med/Space abduction fantasist stereotype rolled into one steaming lump. You are HYSTERICALLY funny.
.
Repeated because I agree. Hysterical and funny and hysterically funny.
.
_____ME: Doesn't surprise me that you love a predominantly non-fact citing Tu-Quacker's post, considering how you consider SPAM generators as relevant!
.
@Krebiozen
So you agree that we don’t know whether Burzynski’s treatment works. That’s progress I suppose. As several people have pointed out, either it does work, in which case Burzynski has kept a life-saving treatment from thousands of patients for decades, or it doesn’t work in which case he has been charging vulnerable cancer patients hundeds of thousands of dollars for false hope. Which do you think is the case?
One can assume that since we don’t know whether it works or not, Squidymus thinks we should stop criticising Burzyinski. Because, you know, the guy could be right… But then one would also have to ignore copious amounts of evidence that Burzyinski doesn’t seem to care about proving the treatment works, so much as enjoying the wealth of providing an unproven cure.
.
_____ME: Says the Surfer Dude who has possibly swallowed too much urine-based seawater.
.
@Squidymus, you moth-eaten marmot
____ME: flipMothra you non- fact citing SPAM generator!
“Presumably since we’re providing the criticism, Squidymus is providing the “other side” (re: his “defence of truth” comment). Or something…”
Says another Tu-Quacker who needs to pull their head out.
If you would be a little less obtuse and a little more succinct/explicit, we wouldn’t have to play guessing games as to what your motives are. I won’t apologise for speculating, particularly as when “disagreeing” with that speculation – see your comment quote above – you do nothing to point it in a more correct direction.
.
_____ME: Says the grasshopper who can't see the forest for the trees.
.
.
_____novalox
.
December 20, 2012
.
@djt
.
Still no actual facts, just more insults and ad hoiminems
.
_____ME: novocain, how many ad homonyms do you eat a day?
Please, keep posting your stupidity for the world to see, it does give me a good laugh at how idiotic you have been. It also limits the damage you can do by attracting innocent marks, little buddy.
.
_____ME: How's your "little buddy" Gilligan?
.
_____Considering how much of y'all's non-fact based GIGO I have to shovel...
.
.
_____AdamG
.
December 20, 2012
.
So Didy, do you agree with everything Watson says because he’s a Nobel Laureate?
.
_____ME: Thank you for paying attention to my comments re the George Bushes & Wikipedia.
.
Any opinions on this one?
[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.
.
_____ME: And in your "FACT" based research, I take it you conveniently forgot:
.
_____"In 2007, he apologized publicly after an interview in which he speculated that Africa's progress might be hindered by genetic inheritance. He retracted the statement and regretted any offense caused by his remarks."
http:// www. achievement. org/autodoc/page/wat0bio-1
.
I had the ‘privilege’ of seeing him lecture at my institution last year, and it’s quite clear he’s gone off the deep end. He called individuals with intellectual disabilities “genetic losers” who should be “purged from the population.”
.
_____So ..., you're mad he mentioned you by name?
.
.
_____LW
.
December 20, 2012
.
When I was a child, I once heard my mother say of another woman, who had an urge to dominate every conversation, that she was “talking to hear her head rattle”. The woman was far more intelligent, vastly better informed, and enormously more polite than Didymus Judas Thomas, who does not appear very bright and is certainly both ill-read and ill-bred, but I think the term can be properly brought to date: Didymus Judas Thomas is typing to hear his keyboard rattle.
.
_____ME: What was that? I was too busy shoveling through all the (Wait for it ... shhh ...) "IT" the Tu-Quackers post here!
"Last Christmas somebody gave me a whole Jimson weed—the root must have weighed two pounds; enough for a year—but I ate the whole goddamn thing in about twenty minutes.... they said I was trying to talk, but I sounded like a raccoon."
Narad,
You're Hunter S. Thompson?!!!
That passage is actually Acosta speaking. The entire adrenochrome chapter is absurd, but it was the first thing that occurred to me upon Squiddle's latest descent into incoherence.
I don't know why you guys even bother with him anymore. I gave up weeks ago, once I realized what we were dealing with.
@MSII - I gave up trying to even comprehend what he was trying to say - not even sure what's he's responding to....
Wow, that last comment Squidymus has shown he's well and truly lost the plot. I mean, more than usual.
If I was DidySquat psychiatrist, I'd despair....
Alain
I wonder if he even realizes that every time he emits another "Says the one who [improbable urological practice]!!" it pretty much reads as a concession?
If he could find an error in our facts, he'd point it out.
If he could find an error in our logic, he'd point it out.
The logical conclusion is that every time he quotes someone just to reply "Says the __________ who ________!" he's admitting in front of everyone reading that he cannot find any flaws in the facts or the logic of those he's replying to.
Boy if we were keeping score, djt would be batting 0.000, way below the Mendoza line, with multiple errors to boot.
Heck, he probably would be batting in the negative numbers if it were allowed
But his continued inability to answer the simplest questions, along with his utter infantile insults, shows off his continued admission that his position is untenable.
The only thing left is to treat him as out personal punching bag and laughingstock, which he has supplied perfectly, with his continued idiocy and juvenile insults.
So, keep posting djt, we need laughs at your expense. Realize that you are now just here for our entertainment, nothing more. I've got some more popcorn to laugh at your continued idiocy and support of a quack and fraud.
I just found a new website by chance and wanted to pass it along. It's extremely depressing reading during this holiday season but there's really nothing new that most of us haven't already read here or elsewhere.
It's called "The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group" (subtitled "35 Years Is Long Enough") and is a collection of several of the horror stories of Burzynski patients and their families. The analysis of each case history is very detailed and thorough, and it seems Burzynski tells every one of his patients that getting sicker is a good sign as it indicates the tumour is shrinking. A few cases contain the same "cyst" story Orac debunked here.
Here is a paragraph from the "About" page:
Of the thousands of patients who have gone to him and emptied their bank accounts at his feet, a very, very few have survived. This does not mean that he has cured them; in fact, when you look at the cases closely, you find reasons to doubt that he has cured anyone at all. Of course, the few patients who have survived this shonky treatment have become full-time advocates of Burzynski, and he has acquired something of a cult-leader status.
From the position of an informed patient advocate, everything about the Burzynski Clinic reeks of medical charlatanry. He is not a trained oncologist, but he is treating cancer. He posits a novel mechanism for cancer (a patient’s lack of antineoplastons) that is unrecognized in the medical literature as a cause. His ANP is marketed as an alternative to chemotherapy, but he gives patients chemo cocktails mixed with “terrifying” doses of sodium phenylbutyrate, mixtures that have not been adequately tested for safety and which causes hypernatremia in his patients. He has sold ANP not only as a cancer treatment, but also as an HIV treatment, an unjustified action for which he was severely disciplined by the Texas Medical Board. Checks for donations that are meant to go “toward the continuation of the Clinical Trials and Research” are to be made out directly to “S.R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.” He has initiated over 60 phase II studies over the decades and seems to have completed exactly zero of them. Three independent investigations, published together in The Cancer Letter, concluded that his studies were “uninterpretable,” and that Burzynski defined successful treatment as “stable disease,” a lowered standard that no other oncologist or researcher accepts.
There is something distinctly aberrant about Burzynksi’s supporter base, and a cult of personality surrounds the man unlike anything that I have seen in other medical schemes. At the root of cults is a psychological dependence on the leader, and Burzynski’s cult nurtures his patients’ dependence on him by making them fear and distrust modern medicine, stripping away desperately ill patients’ hope in legitimate, tested therapies and substituting them with his “treatment”. Abominable.
Instead of evidence garnered from clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals, Burzynski relies heavily on patient testimonies to peddle his wares. Testimonials are no substitute for controlled clinical trials. No matter how many testimonials Burzynski and his patients put forward, no matter how passionate and moving those stories are, no matter how grateful and indebted his patients feel toward him, the fact remains that no amount of bad evidence is equal to a single piece of good evidence. He has had over 35 years to produce that single piece of good evidence and has utterly failed to do so. This, however, has not stopped him from charging $30,000 for an initial visit to his clinic and $7,000 per month for treatment thereafter.
I wanted to see an unbiased sample of Burzynski’s patients. When you select your sample group by outcome, you are going to produce a very skewed view of the treatment. (This is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, essentially drawing a bullseye around a bullet hole.) I went back into my university’s databases to see if I could the patients who appeared in the press begging for money to see Burzynski. When I did, I found that with a single exception, every damned patient I could find in the LexisNexis Academic database who had appeared in the press begging for money to see Burzynski and whose outcome I could find had died. When his supporters don’t select the cases you get to see, a very, very disturbing picture of his practice emerges.
Kudos to whomever put this website together. I suspect it's someone who is a regular reader here.
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/about/
12/20 Comments:
.
_____Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
Squiddles, your faulty yet prompt phraseological appropriations are duly noted. Do you understand what this means?
.
_____ME: Nara-d-Clue, your correctly incorrect misappropriated paraphrasing is notedly dull. Verstehen Sie?
.
.
_____Gray Falcon
.
December 20, 2012
.
@DJT- How did you manage to survive to adulthood? I would think someone like you would have a hard time remembering whether you could eat rusty nails and broken glass or not.
.
_____ME: What was that? It's hard to understand you with whatever that is in your mouth. Munchin' Marbles Maybe?
.
.
12/21 Comments:
.
_____novalox
December 21, 2012
.
@djt
Yawn, try again, little troll.
Your illogic is quite amusing, however, for a few good laughs at your complete imbecility.
.
_____ME: Almost up to par with your imbeincivility, ain't it?
.
.
_____AdamG
.
December 21, 2012
.
5. “…but the end product of his work is so one-sided that it’s a joke, and a bad one at that.”
.
FAIL – Cherry Picking.
.
What is this even supposed to mean?
.
Didy Didy Didy, can’t you see
Sometimes your posts just mystify me.
And I just loathe your rambling ways
Guess that’s how they roll in high school these days.
.
_____ME: AdamGee, oh say can't you see?
_____Orac already knew from Merola's interview what the outcome would be,
_____So blogging that when he knew it'd be that way,
_____Is Cherry Picking I think it's safe to say.
.
.
_____herr doktor bimler
.
December 21, 2012
.
How did you manage to survive to adulthood?
.
Unwarranted assumption, Grey Falcon.
.
_____ME: Like herr doktor bimler,
_____I just hide underneath my desk,
_____Waiting to see where the next Unwarranted ASSumption will come from,
_____North, South, East, or West.
.
.
_____al kimeea
.
December 21, 2012
.
“How’s the flavored Kool-Aide?” – Bo Squiddly
We can’t tell, ’cause you won’t share it.
.
_____ME: Mine is Deeeeliscious!
_____I'm happy to say,
_____Because it's not the Jim Jones flavor,
_____Or that Peeliscious flavor I've heard you have 'round your way.
@ Marc: I've bookmarked that link and double kudos to that blogger.
What's with "diddums"?
@djt
Yawn, more pathetic attempts at insults. But it is so funny to see an idiot like you try to attempt it.
Isn't it past your bedtime, little one?
@MSII
Repeated for worthiness. I was wondering how long it would take before something like that would appear.
12/21 Comments:
.
_____Krebiozen
.
December 21, 2012
.
Squidymus,
.
KrapzBLOGas, did you have a point?
.
Yes, essentially you are full of cr@p. You are too gutless to clearly state your position and support it with evidence, lack the maturity to take responsibility when you get something wrong, and appear to be incapable of having a rational adult discussion.
.
_____ME: So ... I'm catching up to you?
.
You were wrong about the math. You were wrong about Galileo. You were wrong about Watson. You were wrong about late responders. You were wrong about spontaneous remission. You were wrong about the FDA approving a Phase 3 study. You were wrong about the Phase 3 study protocol demanding that the subjects have had radiotherapy. You were wrong about the results of Phase 2 studies being published. You were wrong about the Japanese research. You were wrong about Jodi Fenton’s miraculously disappearing tumor. You don’t understand what “cherry picking” means. You can’t even tell a reliable source from a YouTube video or a piece of advertising fluff from a movie-making publicist.
.
_____ME: I'm not wrong about the math, 'cause I can throw Cr&p #s out there just like the rest,
_____I'm not wrong about Galileo, I quoted straight from Wikipedia & we know they're unbiased & correct,
_____I wasn't wrong about Dr. Watson, it's on the Berkeley Understanding Evolution web-site & various articles which must be true!
http:// evolution. berkeley. edu/evolibrary/article/history_22
_____And if Berekely is wrong about Evolution, that just really wouldn't do!
_____I wasn't wrong about late responders, I was just quoting Dr. P,
_____And he works for the Gub-ment, & they're NEVER wrong even when it's a Conspiracy!
_____I weren't wrong 'bout dat dere spontaneous remission, that was Patronas, is he a Quack?
_____Is he listed on Quackwatch along with those other "Hacks?"
_____I was right about that Phase III, you can read about it here,
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F_Gxcq54sOgJ:184.173.15.174/…
_____And there's a different one here, for you I fear!
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01260103
_____I never posted that they HAD to have HAD radiation, I indicated they would have to HAVE radiation,
_____So you admit the Phase II didn't need to be published since the FDA approved Phase III?
_____Or are you going to change your story again with no citations to support your "Theory?"
_____Prove I was wrong about the research from Japan, or are you unable to do that without sprouting a new hand?
_____Have you really, Really, REALLY contacted Jodi?
_____Or are you just full of Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull?
_____Have you ever seen a Cherry Pickin' Tree, or do I need to send you back to School?
_____You can't even tell a twitter from a birdies little tweet,
_____If you had to find a "FACT," you'd be lookin' for at least a week!
.
There’s much, much more evidence that you are an ignorant poltroon, but I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
.
_____That's cuz you couldn't find any evidence if it hit you upside the head,
_____My suggestion is for you to stay at home & don't get out of Bed!!!
Lilady and flip,
Make sure you read Adam's story for some insight into the high-pressure tactics Burzynski's clinic uses to extract money, or as the blogger calls it, "perform a wallet biopsy."
Everytime it looked like Adam was about to walk away from Burzynski and deprive Stan of money, the clinic changed the story to get him and his money back. Like a desperate, slimy used car salesman who chases after a client offering to throw in free rustproofing or an extended warranty to make the sale.
And the blogger raises some very valid points about how involved Stan is with each client and how the TMB blew it in their decision.
The mountain has labored and brought forth a mouse.
DJT scoured the Web for proof of Burzynski's Phase III trials, and here's what he found.
On January 6, 2009 (that would be almost four years ago, DJT), someone from the FDA emailed that the protocol was approved for the trial of antineoplastons+radiation vs. radiation.
And what happened next? Was the trial itself (not the protocol) ever approved? Was it ever started?
No.
*Yawn*. So much for that "evidence" of the effectiveness of Burzynski's "treatments".
And then DJT refers us to this Phase III trial. Ah, yes, I remember it fondly. It seems like only a year ago we were talking about that trial ... oh, wait, it was a year ago. I had fun posting progress reports on time remaining to enroll participants. And we find, a year later:
And he still hasn't enrolled seventy participants and started his study: “This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.”
*Yawn*. So much for that “evidence” of the effectiveness of Burzynski’s “treatments”.
Finally, DJT asks,
First, there isn't one Phase II trial, there are dozens. Second, trials tend to study the response of one disease to one protocol (remembering that "cancer" is not a single disease). Look at the title of the (one and only) Phase III trial: "A Randomized Study of Antineoplaston Therapy vs. Temozolomide in Subjects With Recurrent and / or Progressive Optic Pathway Glioma".
Assuming this trial were ever started and assuming it were ever published, that would only tell us how antineoplastons work -- or don't -- in that specific disease. But there are many other kinds of brain cancer that Burzynski purports to treat in his dozens of Phase II trials -- how do antineoplastons work in those kinds of cancer? The results of all of those trials need to be published even if they were unsuccessful.
It is just possible that antineoplastons are effective when given in just the right dosages, in combination with just the right other treatment, to just the right kind of cancer. It is just possible that there is a clue in the unsuccessful trials (I assume they are uniformly unsuccessful or they would have been published) which Burzynski hasn't identified but someone else could ... if he would just publish the results of the trials. Since he didn't pay for the trials himself -- the patients did -- their destitute families deserve to have those results published. They should see something come from their loved ones' suffering.
Squidymus seems to be becoming even more deranged. What is the point of all these obvious lies? Is this some sort of clumsy imitation of humor? It's strange and a bit sad.
And here I was thinking "Well, DJT is racing fast towards rare depths of obstinate idiocy BUT at least he hasn't devolved into free-form poetry like D-chniak..."
@Squidymus
Your fumblings with English aside, none of your deranged droppings prove that Burzyinski has done much of anything except steal people's money.
@MSII
Thanks, I have bookmarked the site already and will be coming back to read it when I have more time.
You lose, jizzmop.
12/21 Comments:
.
_____Mephistopheles O'Brien
.
December 21, 2012
.
@Didymus Judas Thomas – There is a significant difference between being the discoverer of DNA and the discoverer of the structure of DNA. Based on the article you referenced, which of those is Watson?
.
_____ME: Pleases let the University of Berkeley know so their Evolutionists will know, the next time they pull off a Double Helix during one of their REvolutionary shows:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_22
.
.
_____Mephistopheles O'Brien
.
December 21, 2012
.
And just how many people have enrolled in that phase III trial?
.
_____ME: Probably the same amount as actually read my previous post, instead of burying their heads in the dirt during a Charle Darwin REvolutionary show:
.
_____LW,
.
December 18, 2012
.
“@Narad: “They really don’t, to the extent that one is talking about FDCA § 301.”
.
Okay, they had no jurisdiction in this case.
.
It’s funny how the FDA is evilly trying to shut down and incarcerate Burzynski but they allowed him to create a Phase III — on paper only since all subjects were supposed to be accrued almost a year ago but none have been — so that proves the FDA believes his claims. According to the ever-courteous DJT.”
.
_____ME: And if you were actually paying attention to what’s going on you would understand that:
.
1. There are costs associated with a Phase III Clinical Trail, and therefor funds have to obtained,
.
2. Patients of a sufficient number need to be obtained who specifically fit the “Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” category,
.
3. Parents need to be convinced to allow their Children to have their Brains be exposed to Radiation,
.
4. And there may be other factors as well.
.
.
_____MarkL
.
Why so evasive DJT?
.
_____ME: Why so evasive MarkL?
.
December 21, 2012
.
@Diddums
Who is “they?” Cancer . gov?
http:// www. cancer. gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
.
Nice try, but no phase II clinical results there.
.
_____ME: Marky MarkL, really? Really?? REALLY???
.
_____Did you make a conscious decision to ignore:
.
_____"Published clinical trial results are available..."
http:// www. cancer. org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy
.
_____And on the "Human/Clinical Studies" page (Which would be Phase II Clinical Trials) did you consciously ignore under "Current Clinical Trials:"
http:// www. cancer. gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page5
.
_____"Publications have taken the form of case reports, phase I clinical trials, toxicity studies, and phase II clinical trials."
.
AND:
.
_____"Table 2 summarizes the following clinical trials and appears at the end of this section."
.
_____And did you consciously ignore the "Table 2" mentioned above & NOT look "at the end of this section" as suggested by the above, & notice:
References
6. Burzynski SR, Kubove E: Initial clinical study with antineoplaston A2 injections in cancer patients with five years' follow-up. Drugs Exp Clin Res 13 (Suppl 1): 1-11, 1987. [PUBMED Abstract]
8. Burzynski SR, Kubove E, Burzynski B: Phase I clinical studies of antineoplaston A5 injections. Drugs Exp Clin Res 13 (Suppl 1): 37-43, 1987. [PUBMED Abstract]
12. Burzynski SR, Lewy RI, Weaver RA, et al.: Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. Drugs R D 4 (2): 91-101, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
13. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Lewy RI, et al.: Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report. Drugs R D 5 (6): 315-26, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
14. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T, et al.: Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1. Integr Cancer Ther 4 (2): 168-77, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
16. Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, et al.: Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma. Integr Cancer Ther 5 (1): 40-7, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
17. Burzynski SR, Kubove E, Burzynski B: Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1. Drugs Exp Clin Res 16 (7): 361-9, 1990. [PUBMED Abstract]
.
_____And did you consciously ignore how those above References match up with the Clinical Studies I posted previously, & how:
.
above 6 = 10 below
above 8 = 8 below
above 12 = 6 below
above 13 = 5 below
above 14 = 3 below
above 16 = 1 below
above 17 = 7 below
“You want answers part 1 doesn’t offer references to published Phase I or Phase II clinical trial results: instead the citations are to review articles, abstracts from poster sessions, etc.”
.
_____ME: So are you indicating that you have reviewed 1 or more of these 10 publications & none contain Clinical Trial data?
.
And if that is what you are claiming, can you explain how it is that the FDA approved Phase II & III Clinical Trials without the data they required?
.
1. 2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, & progressive brainstem glioma.
.
in 4 PHASE 2 trials
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/16484713/Targeted_therapy_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1_of_high_grade__recurrent__and_progressive_brainstem_glioma
.
.
3. 2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1.
.
…were treated in PHASE II studies…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/15911929/Long_term_survival_of_high_risk_pediatric_patients_with_primitive_neuroectodermal_tumors_treated_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1
.
.
5. 2004 – PHASE II study…
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/15563234/Phase_II_study_of_antineoplaston_A10_and_AS2_1_in_children_with_recurrent_and_progressive_multicentric_glioma___a_preliminary_report
.
.
6. 2003 – PHASE II study…
A PHASE II study…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/12718563/Phase_II_study_of_antineoplaston_A10_and_AS2_1_in_patients_with_recurrent_diffuse_intrinsic_brain_stem_glioma__a_preliminary_report
.
.
7. 1990 – Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1.
.
The present study describes the results of treatment… in PHASE II CLINICAL TRIALS…
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/2152694/Treatment_of_hormonally_refractory_cancer_of_the_prostate_with_antineoplaston_AS2_1
.
.
8. 1987 – PHASE I CLINICAL STUDIES…
CLINICAL TRIALS described in this paper…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/3569014/Phase_I_clinical_studies_of_antineoplaston_A5_injections
.
.
9. 1987 – PHASE I CLINICAL STUDIES…
…was submitted for PHASE II CLINICAL STUDIES…
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/3569012/Phase_I_clinical_studies_of_antineoplaston_A3_injections
.
.
10. 1987 – Initial CLINICAL STUDY…with 5 years’ follow-up.
.
This paper describes PHASE I CLINICAL STUDIES…
.
http:// assets0. pubget. com/paper/3569010/Initial_clinical_study_with_antineoplaston_A2_injections_in_cancer_patients_with_five_years__follow_up
.
_____So, if you disagree with the Gub-ment, I can't help you, but it looks like I'm right & you're wrong.
.
Have you looked on ClinicalTrialsFeeds . org?:
http:// clinicaltrialsfeeds. org/clinical-trials/results/spons=%22Burzynski+Research+Institute%22
.
No, no clinical results there either (surprise, surprise).
In fact that site neatly highlights that Burzynski hasn’t updated many of his trials for nearly 5 years. I guess the patients are either dead, broke or both so who cares eh diddums?
.
_____ME: I guess you should, Marky MarkL!
.
I guess the FDA must think they are safe & effective enough to proceed to Initiate Pivotal Phase III Trial.
.
As has been pointed out before, the phase III trial protocol was approved under SPA by the FDA some time back, but Burzynski will still need to provide efficacy evidence before being granted an IND and being allowed to proceed. Is that why the phase III never really started?
Anyhow, you lie when you say the FDA must have received evidence of efficacy because they approved a phase III trial. They haven’t, they merely approved the putative trial protocol.
.
_____ME: See my post right before this one re At the Tu-Quacker Center Movie Theater watching KreBLOGzine, The Movie.
.
_____Enjoy the Holiday CROW, or feel free to substitute TURKEY!!
Stick a fork in this turkey...he's overdone.
Still no Phase II trial results. Someone needs to learn that repeating the same misinformation over and over doesn't make it true.
12/21 Comments:
.
_____novalox
.
December 21, 2012
.
@djt
Keep posting, little fool. I am certainly enjoying how often you make a fool of yourself.
And yawn, why should I bother with your empty threats. I bet you couldn’t hurt a fly, your threats are so blase.
@flip
Got another batch of popcorn ready, for the entertainment djt the fool provides.
.
_____ME: novoMalox, well, I just proved another Tu-Quacker wrong.
.
.
_____MarkL
.
December 21, 2012
.
@Diddums
If we ASSUME your 2,400 & you pick 7 out of that group, & 2 die, then you have 5 survivors.
.
Breaking it down into “Math for Dummies” for your benefit:
.
100% of 2 ,400 = 2,400
.
_50% of 2,400 = 1,200
.
If out of every group of 7 people, 2 died, that leaves more than 50% of the patients surviving, which would be more than the above 50% of 2,400 = 1,200.
.
1,200 survivors out of 2,400 would NOT be 0.2%.
.
It would be 50%.
.
So it could then be theorized that there were MORE survivors than 1,200 (50%) & thus more survivors than 0,2%.
.
That disproves your theory without even having to use any further mathematical manipulation of one’s gray matter.
.
7 minus 5 does NOT = 0.2%
.
You are a moron. Burzynski did not pick out 7 patients and the have 2 die. He was asked to put forward his 7 bestcase scenarios out of the 2400 he had treated to that date.
His OWN choice of bestcase scenarios was 5 survivors and 2 who had died died.
So it IS 5 survivors out of 2400, or roughly 0.2% at the time of that review.
This is abysmal even by your low, low standards. It could not even be described as sophistry because sophistry demands plausibility.
Do you honestly believe that your Math (or your logic) is correct?
*facepalm*
.
_____ME: MarkLost, I just destroyed 1 of your arguments, so I have no problem doing it again!
.
_____You remind me of Rick Moranis, because I did not post that:
.
"Burzynski did not pick out 7 patients and the (sic) have 2 die."
.
_____I posted:
.
_____"If out of every group of 7 people, 2 died..."
.
"His OWN choice of bestcase scenarios was 5 survivors and 2 who had died died."
.
_____Is "died died" worse than just "dead?"
.
_____I showed how ridiculous your proposition is in a previous post.
.
_____"1997 The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis." (Citing Burzynski)
.
_____"1997 - The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases"
.
_____"In fact, many of Burzynski's patients swear
that his treatment has saved their lives when practitioners who provided more conventional treatment told them to prepare for death."
.
_____"The Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee heard testimony from Burzynski patients who testified that his treatment cured them or helped them. Government Press Releases, Background on Access to Medical Treatment Hearing, (2/22/1996)."
.
_______"The prosecution called as witnesses 19 relatives of Burzynski patients who have died, but none of them had anything bad to say about him. Instead, they insisted that the defendant had given them complete and honest information, and that he operates a high-quality, health care facility.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag97/june-report97.html
.
_____Would you care to try again?
@DJT - I see a lot of "hearsay" that patients were "saved" by Dr. B - but I don't see any evidence, especially not of published results of all of those Phase II trials you are so happily trotting out as evidence....saying a trial was conducted is a heck of a lot different than publishing the final results - of which, Dr. B has not.
Of course they do, they don't want to picture themselves as being the victim of a fraud. I think this is called "cognitive dissonance".
Christmas cookie, please. Gingerbread or sugar would be nice.
I just cannot get over how utterly backwards this is. How can someone actually think this is a logical way to approach calculating a rate?
If the overall survival rate was in fact 5/7, why would a group of his 7 best cases include 2 people that died?
Didy just doesn't understand the difference between random and nonrandom sampling. It's both amusing and sad.
Finally, Squidymus' true colours are revealed. Welcome to creationism land, where evidence doesn't matter.
What a nincompoop! "On the side of truth" my shiny metal ass.
12/21 Comments:
.
_____MarkL
.
December 21, 2012
.
oooops – the following lines from above should NOT be part of the blockquote;
You are a moron. Burzynski did not pick out 7 patients and the have 2 die. He was asked to put forward his 7 bestcase scenarios out of the 2400 he had treated to that date.
His OWN choice of bestcase scenarios was 5 survivors and 2 who had died died.
So it IS 5 survivors out of 2400, or roughly 0.2% at the time of that review.
This is abysmal even by your low, low standards. It could not even be described as sophistry because sophistry demands plausibility.
Do you honestly believe that your Math (or your logic) is correct?
*facepalm*
.
_____ME: And yet again you ignore my previous posts:
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
The Realm of where I question your MOTIVATION & GOOD FAITH
.
December 17, 2012
.
LW,
I really enjoy your “New Math for Dummies!!”
Please cite your credentials so I may compare them to:
Dr. Nicholas J. Patronas,
http://www.cc.nih.gov/drd/staff/nicholas_patronas.html
Senior Clinician, Chief. Section of Neuroradiology,, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, NIH Clinical Center.
Academic Degrees
MD, Salonica University, Greece
Residency, University of Illinois
Fellowship, Northwestern University
.
Well, after the medical school we have a year internship, four years residency in radiology, and in addition I had an entire year of training in neuroradiology. So my subspecialty is neuroradiology. It is the evaluation of the regions of the central nervous system.
.
When I finished my training I was at the University of Chicago for seven years as a staff radiologist at the University Hospital. And then I moved to the National Institutes of Health where I worked from ’81 to ’85 as a staff radiologist at the clinical center, which is the hospital of the National Institutes of Health. Then I moved to Georgetown University where I became full professor of radiology. And the National Institutes of Health contracted Georgetown radiological services, and I was sent from Georgetown back to NIH to cover the section.of Neuroradiology.
.
I delight in your “Cherry Picking.”
.
_____”And one died and another did not respond.”
The basic conclusion was that in five of the patients with BRAIN TUMORS THAT WERE FAIRLY LARGE, THE TUMOR RESOLVED, DISAPPEARED.
.
Q: Was that just happenstance? I mean, was that just by some miracle of–
.
A: Well, since the treatment given was started after the previous conventional treatments which had FAILED previously, we took the position that this probably represents the result of this new treatment. And so there was only minimal residual tissue at the tumor bed, which looked like a sca, and had no fissures to support that there was a tumor in the majority of the cases. Two of seven patients did not do very well. One of them deceased. THE TUMOR DISSOLVED at least microscopically; we could see it with the naked eye, but it recurred later, a year later. And the other, there was very, very minimal decrease in the size of the tumor. But THE TUMOR WAS VERY BIG, the last one, the seventh, last two cases did not survive, although THERE WAS DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT in one of the two last cases.
.
Q: Doctor, based on what you have testified to before about your background and credentials, it’s fair to say, isn’t it, that you have seen a lot of brain cancer patients?
.
A: YES, IN FACT, WE SEE ALOT OF THESE CASES.
.
Q: And that’s part of what you do at the hospital, is to evaluate treatments on brain cancer patients?
.
A: Well, different cancers, but since I am the neuroradiologist I see all brain rumors. AND I SEE A LARGE VOLUME OF THEM.
.
Q: Now, with regard to at least the five patients, I think
you testified that five of the patients had their TUMORS RESOLVED, they all–
.
A: DISAPPEARED.
.
Q: –DISAPPEARED. Can you give us some kind of context of that? How often does that happen with any– with no treatment, just by spontaneous remission, or by whatever it is that you–
.
A: I’m not aware that spontaneous remission occurs; I don’t think it does. And the available treatment only rarely produce results like that. The only medication– the only treatment, which I think is the last resort, is radiation therapy. Chemotherapy has very little to offer unless there is an experimental protocol somewhere. However, conventional chemotherapy is– provides very little, nothing, basically. Radiation, there are some reports indicating that radiation treatment in children particularly could lead to resolution of the rumors, although I don’t know whether it is a permanent one or temporary. So when this happens it is very rare. And I have seen only isolated here and there where that has happened with radiation .
.
A: Yeah. Well, radiation should give these results, if it works at all, the first two months after completion of the treatment. In these cases, all the patients had already FAILED radiation because they were treated months, several months after radiation was
given and had FAILED.
.
Q: What happens with these patients? Lets say they FAILED radiation; what happens then to the patient with brain cancer?
.
A: Well, it depends on the grade of the tumor. If the tumor is low grade, astrocytoma, and we are talking about primary gliomas, if it is low grade, survival for years is possible. If it is an intermediate grade, the anaplastic, the mean survival is two years, and if it is the high grade glioma the mean survival is about 12 months. That’s it; THEY DIE in 12 months, they disappear.
.
Q: Now– So are you saying basically for someone that’s FAILED radiation– It sounds like you are saying that if someone has already FAILED radiation, at least, that there’s not too much else–
.
A: NOTHING TO OFFER. EXACTLY.
.
Q: –and that these people are going to eventually DIE of their disease, barring any unforeseen event or cure?
.
A: EXACTLY.
We have done– we have an experimental protocol at the NIH where we inject a chemotherapeutic agent through the carotid artery, the artery that goes to the brain, and we have three survivals with this technique, by providing massive amounts of chemotherapeutic drugs to the brain that harbors the tumor. And we destroy the tumor, but we destroy a large part of the brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped , and a life that’s not worth living.
.
_____”1977 and 1993, he “treated” 2,400 patients. Out of those 2,400, those described are presumably his seven best cases. And one died and another did not respond. So the results Burzynski presented appear to indicate that five out of 2,400 — a little over 0.2% — went into remission. That’s ever so impressive”
.
What a disingenuous statement.
.
You have no idea what the resolution of the “2,400″ was.
5 out of 7 were AMAZING and IMPRESSIVE and then you try with your “New Math” to imply that this means that because 2 did not survive after radiation FAILED and the prognosis was that they would have DIED anyway, you want us to believe your false numbers.
.
If you had 7 patients you could call that: 70%.
5 successful patients would then be: 50%
Change 70% to: 100% (by adding 30%)
Change 50% to: 80% (by adding 30%)
80% minus 100% = 20%
.
So 20 deaths out of 100 = 80% survival rate.
.
That would be a base-line calculation.
.
If you factor in that the survival rate may NOT have been as high as 80% because these were his Best Case Scenarios, we still come nowhere near your 0.2%.
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Looking to see if LW has any COBOLS
.
December 17, 2012
.
LW,
.
Let’s say I have a “Cherry Picked” question, and I know who would most likely know the answer, but I don’t have the COBOLS to contact them directly & ask. I’d rather blatherskite on a blog & throw out hypothesis and “guesses” instead. What should I do? Grow a Pair or continue on in the same vein?
.
We can play “Guessing” Games all day long, but “Guessing” Games are nothing but Speculation and Assumptions.
.
I could ASSUME that Patient X was going to DIE anyway because their Cancer had progressed to that stage & radiation had FAILED, but still show investigators that the Cancer was being reduced before they DIED.
.
Please cite where SRB says he can cure ALL forms of Cancer.
Krebiozen:
Yeah, I feel bad mocking him, but it's hard not to when he is so thoroughly unpleasant.
DJT -- Still no published clinical results (self-aggrandizing interviews are not proof). And your math (don't blame it on Dr Patronas) still sucks rocks.
As i have said previously,
This guy is innumerate, illiterate, illogical and intransigent. He knows nothing about Burzynski, nothing about cancer and obviously nothing beyond 2nd grade math.
He is simply a troll. Nothing more, nothing less. He will take a contrary point of view from anyone else here, that appears to be his raison d'etre. Time we ignored him, and let him disappear.
Feeding trolls is a bad habit.
DJT is an evolution denier? Now it all makes sense. That kind of arrogant ignorance of basic math is a hallmark of the creationist mind.
12/21 Comments:
.
_____LW
.
December 21, 2012
.
This is truly silly. Today the iDJiT says to me,
.
_____Please cite the post & date where I allegedly denied:
.
_____“…claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round.”
.
Uh, okay, cool. Have it your way. You didn’t deny claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round. And we all laughed at you for claiming that Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth is round.
.
_____ME: And this was because people didn't read what I posted, & re-post it:
.
_____ME: Didymus Judas Thomas
.
You can't teach I crystal skull anything
.
December 15, 2012
.
12/11 Comments
.
Mephistopheles O’Brien, the other day I went back in a Time Machine & MET A GUY WHO SAID HIS NAME WAS GALILEO & HE SAID THE EARTH WAS ROUND.
.
It looked flat to me. There was water around, Galileo said I could sail around the World for $150,000. I asked if his ship was safe; he said it was. I asked to see his test protocols and results to see if it was more likely I’d arrive safely, die on impact, or be flung into the abyss; he said it was effective but would not produce the data I looked for.
.
Should I, or should I not, tell others that there’s no proof that this man’s protocol is safe and effective?
.
LW
.
December 15, 2012
.
@Didymus Judas Thomas
.
_____“Galileo said I could sail around the World for $150,000. I asked if his ship was safe; he said it was.”
.
The fact that the world is not flat was determined long before Galileo, and not because you can sail around it.
.
Several pieces of evidence, observed by ancient Greeks: ships sailing away disappear from the hull first, as if going over a hill; the edge of the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is always the edge of a circle; the paths of stars and the Sun are observed at different heights as you move north or south.
.
Eratosthenes used the fact that the Sun is observed at different heights depending on your latitude to get quite a good estimate of the diameter of the Earth. Educated people like Galileo knew this. The question facing Columbus was not whether the Earth was flat; everybody involved in financing his expedition knew it was not. Columbus believed it was much smaller than it really is and that educated people (correctly) expected that it was, and therefore that ships of the time could make it all the way to India, which they could not.
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
I Know Jack, and You're No Jack (Though You Might be a Cross between a Donkey & Mare.)
.
December 16, 2012
.
12/15 Comments:
.
LW,
.
_____Great. But who was persecuted for it more than Galileo?
.
herr doktor bimler (Interjected himself into the dialogue.)
.
December 16, 2012
.
LW,
.
_____Great. But who was persecuted for it more than Galileo?
.
Face it, LW, no matter how many times you explain to Didymo that Galileo did not announce the roundness of the world (because this had been the accepted truth for a millennium before his time), Didymo will still come back with the claim that Galileo was persecuted for saying that the world was round.
.
LW
.
December 16, 2012
.
_____“Great. But who was persecuted for it more than Galileo?”
.
If we were talking about what Galileo *actually* said and not what DJT fantasizes, one answer would be Giordano Bruno.
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Amazed that some people can & can't add after reading my last post & act clueless
.
December 17, 2012
.
12/16 Comments:
.
herr doktor bimler
.
_____"PLEASE GO ON Wikipedia & LET THEM KNOW."
.
_____"THEY OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T GET YOUR MEMO RE GALILEO."
.
LW,
.
_____"LOOKS LIKE YOU NEED TO HELP herr doktor bimler CORRECT Wikipedia re GALILEO."
.
.
_____JGC
.
Let's not lose focus
.
December 21, 2012
.
We’re still waiting to be pointed to a single published clinical report, from a completed Phase II trial conducted by Burzynski, which supports the claim antineoplastons safely and effectively treat advanced cancers.
.
_____ME: See my previous post.
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
_____"In the Tu-Quack Kitchen Preparing Crow for the Holiday Tu-Quackers."
.
_____December 24, 2012
.
_____12/21 Comments:
.
_____Also, feel free to ignore:
.
9/6.- 9/2012
S. Patil⇓,S. Burzynski, E.Mrowczynski & K. Grela, Burzynski Research Institute, Houston, TX, US
.
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 9/6-9/2012
.
Abstracts
P.003 PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE IN COMBINATION WITH PHENYLBUTYRATE EFFECTIVELY INHIBITS GROWTH OF BRAIN TUMOR CELLS IN VITRO
.
Abstract
In this study we have investigated the effectiveness of the combination of ... (PG), ... with phenylbutyrate (PB).
.
PG is used in the formulation of antineoplaston AS2-1 ...
The FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1 for the 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 the treatment of glioma & acute promyelocytic leukemia.
.
Previous studies in our laboratory have shown that the combination of PG & PN acts synergistically to inhibit growth of ... glioblastoma cells.
.
Another published report has shown that PB induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cells & is more potent than PN.
.
We describe the novel combination of phenylacetylglutaminate & phenylbutyrate as effective anti-proliferative agents in glioblastoma & medulloblastoma cells.
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/suppl_3/iii1.abst…
.
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/suppl_3/iii1.abst…
.
11/18.- 21/2010
Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Robert A. Weaver, Tomasz J. Janicki, Gregory S. Burzynski, Barbara Szymkowski & Sheryll S. Acelary, Burzynski Clinic
& Sheryll S. Acelar
.
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), .11/18–21/2010, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
.
Neuro Oncol (2010) 12 (suppl 4): iv69-iv78. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq116.s9
.
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology 2010
.
Ongoing Clinical Trials
OT-15. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 & AS2-1 (ANP) IN ADULT PATIENTS WITH RECURRENT MIXED GLIOMAS
.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 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 an inadequate duration of treatment & lack of follow-up ... (MRI) scans.
.
There were 4 women & 9 men.
.
The median age was 38 (range, 29–54)...
.
1 patient had low-grade &
12 patients had high-grade mixed gliomas.
.
All patients received chemotherapy, radiation therapy, & surgery prior to ANP, with the exception of 1 patient who received no chemotherapy or radiation therapy postsurgery.
.
The median duration of treatment was 4.4 months;
.
ANP was well tolerated, with the 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 was monitored by MRIs of the brain.
.
The responses were as follows:
23%; complete response,
8%; partial response,
23%; stable disease, &
46%. progressive disease,
.
Progression-free survivals (PFS) at 1, 2, & 5 years were
31%, 23%, & 8%, respectively.
.
Overall survivals (OS) from diagnosis & from start of treatment at 1, 2, & 5 years were
92% & 54%, 85% & 23%, & 46% & 8%, respectively.
.
The 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 ... with minimal toxicity.
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/suppl_4/iv69.abst…
.
9/18.- 21/2010
Cell Biology and Signaling
.
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
.
CB-15. TARGETING MICRORNAS IN GLIOMA CELLS WITH ANTINEOPLASTONS
.
Abstract
In this study, we report the changes in expression of several ... glioblastoma cells in response to exposure to antineoplaston AS2-1.
.
Using ... (Affymetrix) we have noted the reduced expression of ... & the enhanced expression of genes involved in apoptosis ... cells exposed to antineoplaston AS2-1.
.
Antineoplastons will be used in phase III U.S. Food & Drug Administration-regulated clinical trials this year.
.
Once approved, these amino acid derivatives may offer promising treatment in many types of brain tumors.
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/suppl_4/iv7.abstr…
.
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/suppl_4/iv7.abstr…
.
_____And NO, I don't need anyone to insert foot in mouth like Marky MarkL, about these NOT being Clinical Trial data.
.
.
_____MarkL
.
December 21, 2012
.
So the upshot of all DJT’s blathering is that he doesn’t like anyone else here.
.
Oh………… and that he STILL has NO evidence of efficacy to show us.
.
_____ME: You've already got Foot in Mouth Disease from being wrong...
.
.
_____LW
.
December 21, 2012
.
Okay, I’m going to answer this because I believe that some small rational piece of Didymus Judas Thomas’ mind, suppressed and all but smothered, truly wants to know what’s wrong with this calculation. Here is how to compute the survival rate if five survive out of seven, the Didymus Judas Thomas way:
.
If you had 7 patients you could call that: 70%.
5 successful patients would then be: 50%
Change 70% to: 100% (by adding 30%)
Change 50% to: 80% (by adding 30%)
80% minus 100% = 20%
So 20 deaths out of 100 = 80% survival rate.
.
Didymus Judas Thomas asks courteously, “do you have a point?”
.
Yes, I do have a point. It is that Didymus Judas Thomas is profoundly ignorant of basic arithmetic, besides being ignorant of the history of science, barely literate, and not housebroken. Anyone who responds to him should probably know what we are dealing with.
.
Alain, not surprisingly bewildered by this “computation”, says,
.
@ LW,
.
Something doesn’t compute with your rendition of DidySquat math (and he’s far from computing itself) but perhaps I can blame that on my flu (which I’m treating with gin, honey and lemon juice) but….you jump from percentages to absolute numbers and even the percentages look iffy; how did you come up with these numbers from DidySquat’s posts?
.
Here is the point at which I think that tiny rational piece of Didymus Judas Thomas’s mind got control of its fingers briefly and typed,
.
And yet The Lord of The Woo doesn’t answer the question:
.
“… but….you jump from percentages to absolute numbers and even the percentages look iffy;…”
.
Actually I did answer the question, what was “how did you come up with these numbers from DidySquat’s posts?”;
.
the answer was, “I copied it from one of the iDJiT’s droppings over on the “Stanislaw Burzynski:
.
‘Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy’ for dummies” post.”
.
Just go to that post and search for “If you had 7 patients”, without the quotes of course.
.
But I think that tiny rational piece of Didymus Judas Thomas’ mind wants to know what is wrong with the “computation”.
.
Everyone else already knows, of course, but for the benefit of that small suppressed rational piece, I will answer.
.
This requires reading Didymus Judas Thomas’ mind, and I generally confine my mind-reading to friends at close range, but I’ll do my best.
.
I think that Didymus Judas Thomas dimly recalls from last semester’s math class that somehow you turn 7 into 100, and if you do exactly the same thing to 5 as you do to 7, you get the percentage. This is actually right, if you know how to correctly turn 7 into 100. The trouble is that, having no idea how to proceed, Didymus Judas Thomas begins by adding a zero to the end of each number. This is equivalent to multiplying each by 10, which isn’t wrong but isn’t especially helpful. Being now totally at loss as to what to do next, he adds 30 to both numbers, still faithfully doing the same thing to each, and that gives him 100 and 80, which seems to him to imply that 5 is 80% of 7.
The error is that in computing a percentage you can safely multiply both sides by the same number, because a percentage is another way of writing a ratio, but you cannot safely add the same number to both sides. I suggest to Didymus Judas Thomas that he notice that 70-50 = 100-80. Adding the same number to both sides does not change the difference.
What you need to do is change 7 into 100 solely by multiplication. So we need a number to multiply 7 by to give us 100. That number is represented as 100/7, and you can get it by typing 100 into your calculator, hitting the divide key, typing 7, and then hitting the equals key. That number is 14.28571428571429. Now, just hit the multiply key and type 5, then hit the equals key. That gives you 71.42857142857143. We can round that to 71.4 and say that 5 is 71.4% of 7. We write the computation as 5*100/7. This is usually written as 100*5/7, which means the same thing.
Knowing how to compute this, you can now move on to something harder, like, what is 5 as a percentage of 2400? We do this exactly the same way: type 100 into the calculator, hit the divide key, type 2400, and hit equals. That gives you 0.0416666666666667. Now hit the multiply key, type 5, and hit the equals key, and you get 0.2083333333333333, which we can round to 0.2, so we can say that 5 is about 0.2% of 2400. We would write this as 5*100/2400 or 100*5/2400. Notice there is a pattern here.
I hope that helps.
.
_____ME: And you did all the above for naught!!!
.
.
_____Alain
.
December 21, 2012
.
@ LW,
.
Yep, it does help greatly. your number look right.
Alain (cepacol and orange juice today).
.
_____ME: Except LW & others couldn't bother referencing the source material for this:
.
"7) Therefore no more than five patients out of approximately 2400 actually survived."
12/21 Comments:
.
_____Chemmomo
.
TNT
.
December 21, 2012
.
This is funny: I’m watching Law & Order reruns on TNT. Burzynski is on it! The Taxman Cometh, original airdate May 10, 2010.
.
_____ME: Well, don't leave us in suspense! What happened!!
.
.
_____MarkL
.
December 21, 2012
.
@Diddums
.
What exactly are you trying to point out here diddums?
.
_____ME: Most of y'all don't know what you're posting about.
.
You seem very keen on insulting everyone, but very vague when it comes to what you are trying to prove.
.
_____ME: Most of y'all don't know what you're posting about.
.
What is your point?
.
_____ME: Most of y'all don't know what you're posting about.
.
Can you express it succinctly?
.
_____ME: Most of y'all don't know what you're posting about.
.
Because all your yards of spiel say absolutely nothing, you do not answer any questions except with totally irrelevant drivel, you just point at people and scream “dumbass”. You are not even prepared to learn, so why come here?
.
_____ME: Most of y'all don't know what you're posting about.
.
You have provided no support for Burzynski, all you have done is convince supporters of SBM that all Burzynski fans are unhinged!
.
_____ME: YOU don't know what you're posting about.
.
So go on – give it a go – try explaining (preferably in just a few short sentences) what your point is.
.
_____ME: Most of y'all don't know what you're posting about.
@ DidySquat, isn't it time for you to get drunk and enjoy your family instead of squatting here telling us we don't know what we're talking about....
Alain
12/21 Comments:
.
_____Krebiozen
.
December 21, 2012
.
With regard to Burzynski’s much anticipated Phase 3 clinical trial. Its title is not “Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy, Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” as the Sepia Troll claims. According to the the Clinical Trials website the study’s official title is. “A Randomized Phase 3 Study of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy [Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)] vs. Temozolomide in Subjects With Recurrent and / or Progressive Optic Pathway Glioma After Carboplatin or Cisplatin Therapy”. There is no mention of concurrent radiotherapy, and the word “combination” in the title refers to, “Combination antineoplaston therapy: [Antineoplaston A10 (Atengenal) and Antineoplaston AS2-1 (Astugenal)] given six times daily (open label) by subclavian vein infusion”.
There are no trials of a combination of antineoplastons and radiotherapy registered on the Clinical Trials website.
The only place I can find a reference to “Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy, Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” is in a press release from the Burzynski Clinic in 2009. The FDA appear to have cleared the protocol for this study, but it was never registered with the Clinical Trials website and appears to have been abandoned.
.
_____ME: And if you would actually research the subject before just indiscriminately posting GIGO, you would know that the goal was to do multiple Phase III Clinical Trials.
.
_____There's something called "FACT CHECKING," as I've repeatedly posted:
http://www.twst.com/interview/26532
Alain
.
December 24, 2012
.
@ DidySquat, isn’t it time for you to get drunk and enjoy your family instead of squatting here telling us we don’t know what we’re talking about….
.
Alain
.
_____THAT would certainly explain most of the posts on here ... Alcohol. Which is why I prefer to not kill my Brain cells!!! :-)
Which is why I prefer to not kill my Brain cells!!!
Yeah, you've given them a good beating already.
Alain
Which is why I prefer to not kill my Brain cells!!!
This is what is properly known as begging the question.
@djt
Ironic, since all your so-called answers are so brain dead.
But try again, false apostle. I do like seeing you continually make an utter fool of yourself, and the stupidity of your fawning of burzynski is bound to turn off a few of your marks.
And do try harder and your so-called insults; I've heard better from per-schoolers.
DJT quotes my lengthy explanation of the proper method of computing percentages and then gloats, "_____ME: And you did all the above for naught!!!"
Well, yes, I rather feared it would be for naught, but there was that tiny chance that some part of DJT's mind was reachable. But no, DJT is proudly and defiantly ineducable. He must be a joy to have as a student.
Well played me old megacycle!
Oy. You need help. Please ask your school teacher for some assistance in reading comprehension.
In the meantime, feel free to explain why "evolutionist" is a valid term....
Have ANY of you bloggers visited the site:
http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org
and watched any of the video testimonials on the home page by patients that have been CURED of "incurable" cancers??? Didn't think so.... But Keep Blogging !!
I have been scrutinizing those 7 cases presented to the NCI by Burzynski. I'm not a histopathologist, so I would welcome any comments from someone with more specialized knowledge of this area. I don't think these cases are as remarkable as Patronas and his team seemed to think, mainly because we know more about brain tumors and their response to treatment than we did in 1991.
I think it may be significant that the team didn't get to actually examine the patients' records. They had to rely on Burzynski to answer any questions they had about the treatment the patients had, and we only have Burzynski's word for the accuracy of that information.
It is also of note that some patients were given steroids, methotrexate and/or vincristine as well as antineoplastons.
This small study from 2004 found that:
This review from 2012 concluded:
Bearing in mind pseudoprogression and late response to RT and chemotherapy, which the NCI team would not have known about, the seven cases look much less impressive:
Patient 1. RT dates not specified but between 11/87 and 3/88. Tumor recurred 2/88 (? pseudoprogression). Tumor shrank from 4/88 to 1/11 (? late response to RT). Recurred 5/89 and patient died 4/90.
Patient 2. RT until 10/87, showed "signs of progression" 2/88 and 4/88 (? pseudoprogression). Tumor shrank from 4/88 to 1/89 (? late response to RT).
Patient 3. RT 4/87 - ? and chemotherapy ? - 7/88. The CT taken after chemotherapy ended and before antineoplastons started is missing. Tumor appears to have slowly shrunk and calcified. New lesions appeared 18 months after antineoplastons started and then resolved, but no biopsy was done so we don't know what they were. There is no evidence that this tumor was growing after conventional treatment.
Patient 4. NCI team commented "possibly juvenile pilocytic astrocytic astrocytoma". Pilocytic astrocytoma is generally considered a benign tumor. Grade I pilocytic astrocytomas like this one are not associated with recurrence after complete resection and after a incomplete resection, the 10-year survival rate is as high as 45%. The patient had survived 6 years at the time of the review.
Patient 5. RT 1/90 to 3/90. MRI on 4/9/90 showed progression after RT (? pseudoprogression). Tumor shrank between 5/18/90 and 7/25/90 (? response to RT). Tumor then grew and patient died 1/1/91.
Patient 6. RT 10/89 to 11/89. Showed progression 1/90 (? pseudoprogression). First available MRI 1/2/90, tumor shrank steadily after this (? response to RT).
Patient 7. RT 10/87 to 11/87. Started antineoplastons 7/8/88. No pre-treatment scan available. Received varying doses of steroids continually from beginning of treatment to present. Also given methotrexate. Tumor 4.0 x 4.8 cm on 8/22/88 (the team noted "highly necrotic") and 3.1 x 5.5 on 9/19/90, which doesn't seem to be a great response.
The records of 4 patients (1, 2, 5 and 6) are consistent with post-radiotherapy pseudoprogression followed by a partial or full response.
One patient's records (4) are consistent with an incomplete resection of a benign tumor with survival well within the expected range.
In two patients (3 and 7) the essential CT or MRI that would indicate if the tumor was growing after conventional treatment is missing, so it is impossible to say if the apparent response was due to conventional treatment or to antineoplastons.
@ Jim
A few of the usual readers of this blog did, yes.
Did you follow on these testimonials to make sure that these people were still cured?
Orac has been checking regularly on new patients, like here.
Actually, that would interest us greatly is a sound study of Burzynski's treatment compared to conventional treatment, if any. Or simply a retrospective study of all of his patients, including the ones which were not cured.
For some reason, he has been registering the start of many studies with the FDA for the past 30 years, but study completions have been rare and results unimpressive.
Jim have you visited this website about Burnzynki's patients
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/about
I thought not.
If you had, you would know that nearly all the patients he claims to have cured actually died. Not only do dead people tell no tales, they can not correct lies told about them.
Jim,
There's a video?!!! Oh, that changes everything! I guess Burzynski really is a brave, maverick hero doing the impossible.
It amazes me when people like Jim pop in to a blog, don't read a word, and post garbage like he did. What he doesn't understand, or realize, or want to learn, is that most of us have been analyzing Burzynski and his media presence for over a year. Every single shred of "evidence" Stan has presented has been scrutinized and torn apart over and over again, by doctors, scietists and researchers who konw a lot more than Jim does (or I do). Does Jim really think we're not aware of those video testimonials?
Next thing you know he'll post about the Merola commercial for Stan.
(Is it just me who finds the similarity between the surnames Merola and Mercola just a bit too coincidental?) :)
Speaking of coincindences, as I've been reading through this thread today I've seen two PSA commercials for St. Jude's Hospital on TV.
Merry Christmas to those celebrating.
Militant Ag,
That OTHER Burzynski Patient Group site is a work in progress, and every day new cases are being added (including one today). It's a familiar story: a seven-year-old boy, it's a cyst, it's breaking up, it's a good sign, blah blah blah. The blogger keeps pointing out the similarities in all these stories to the recent Amelie Saunders case, so it seems like it's Stan's M.O. to lie to each and every patient about the tumour growth. One case he cites goes back to mid-nineties, so he's been singing this song about the cyst for 20 years.
I can't believe there no malpractice recourse available for his incompetence or dishonesty.
@ MSII,
I'll be celebrating soon with a pair of 750ml Mc Chouffe brown beer and Chouffe double IPA tripel :D
Merry Christmas :)
Alain
Wow...1 1/2 litres of beer! Are you sharing?
Lately I've been enjoying L'alchimiste's IPA (more like a classic American pale ale) and Boreale's IPA on tap was very good last month--lots of fresh green hops on the nose and the palate. I'm still looking for a bottle of McAuslan's Ste-Ambroise IPA (limited distribution) and will buy a sampler of Simple Malt's "Hops" series tomorrow when the gourmet grocery store near me reopens.
We'll have to meet at le Mondiale de la Biere this summer. I usually go alone since my friends are not beer geeks and it's not really their thing. I can cover more ground and talk to more brewers on my own anyway.
Enjoy your beer. I'm still doing double espresso shots (Metropolis Redline from Chicago roasted five days ago.)
See you later this week. I'll e-mail you later to set up something more specific.
45 CFR 46.116: "No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence."
Narad,
IANAL--can you explain that clause in layman's English? Where is that clause taken from?
Have ANY of you bloggers visited the site:
http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org
Your are aware, Jim , that this website was set up by Marc Stephens -- a Burzynski employee specialising in the dark arts of Google-search manipulation -- to advertise Burzynski's clinic in a plausibly-deniable way?
ObMeNeither.
It's from the portion of the Code of Federal Regulations that applies to clinical trials. I had gotten myself to wondering to what extent Burzaynski might be able to shield himself by means of liability waivers or mandatory arbitration agreements. He cannot immunize himself from negligence. This suggests to me, although I do not know, that the full menu of civil remedies is probably available.
Of the Streisandian variety, of course.
the full menu of civil remedies is probably available.
Choose any one tort from Column A and two from Column B.
@MSII
It's not just you. I have to remind myself every time I see either of those names.
The mysterious person who put up the OTHER Burzynski Patient Group website also put up a Storify page.
These are the faces of some of Burzynski's victims:
http://storify.com/mr2sheds
A few months ago several of us posted about the BBC episode on Great Ormond Street hospital that featured Luna Pentagine. The one image that stuck with me was the reaction of Luna's doctor when she returned from Houston and was told what her sodium level was as a result of ANP.
Here's a screen capture of his shocked face. The photo says it all.
http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/277285176281792514/photo/1
This is the doctor whose advice the parents ignored and went to Burzynski, even though Luna seemed to be doing well at GOS. Her mother wanted better odds and "researched" Burzynski on Dr. Google.
Of course most of us know Luna died a few months ago.
One more post, as things are quiet around here on what is Boxing Day in some parts of the world.
Here's Luna's doctor's reaction as her family walked away from the treatment at GOS that seemed to be working, in favour of Burzynski.
http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/277280197001224192/photo/1
This doctor is truly a saint. He cared deeply, as did his entire team. Truly sad.
@Narad
Kind of begs the question. By the time Burzynski's through with them, none of his victims have any money left for lawyers.
12/21 Comments:
.
_____MarkL
.
December 21, 2012
.
@Krebiozen
.
Indeed the “Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy, Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” seems to be wishful thinking on the part of Burzynski, and never had any real substance other than the guff generated by the brave maverick himself who went looking for Big Pharma partners to run the trial for him and then announced it to the (commercial) world.
More smoke and mirrors.
.
_____And no one can accuse you of "FACT CHECKING."
http://www.twst.com/interview/26532
.
.
_____Narad
.
December 21, 2012
.
Antineoplaston A10 (Atengenal) and Antineoplaston AS2-1 (Astugenal)
Am I the only one who finds these attempted trade names even more hysterically funny than the usual outputs from trained marketing professionals?
.
_____ME: No one can accuse you of "FACT CHECKING" either. Attempted? Both of these have been accepted Federally.
.
.
_____Krebiozen
.
December 21, 2012
.
Narad,
.
Am I the only one who finds these attempted trade names even more hysterically funny than the usual outputs from trained marketing professionals?
.
You’re not alone. They sound like something out of a bad 50s sci-fi movie: ‘Invasion of the Antineoplastons – evil aliens Atengenal and Astugenal from the planet Burzynski seek world domination but are defeated by the FDA’.
.
_____Coming from people who don't know how to use a Medical Dictionary to find that "Genal" is "of the Cheek," I don't think SRB has anything to worry about coming from y'all.
.
.
_____Narad
.
December 21, 2012
.
Seriously, though, is there any discernible provenance for the “-genal” suffix? The clumsy phoneticism of the first parts is one thing (I need to file away “Ettugenal”), and it’s not quite at the level of slapping the label “Zingo” on lidocaine, but still.
.
_____SEE ABOVE.
.
.
_____Krebiozen
.
December 21, 2012
.
As you observed, obviously the names are sort of text-speak phonetic representations of the codes Burzynski gave them, but the “genal” part makes no sense to me at all.
According to Quackwatch A-10 (Atengenal) is 3-N-phenylacetylamino piperidine 2,6-dione (PAPD), which is insoluble, treated with alkali to make it soluble. But doing this does not create a soluble form of A-10. It simply reinserts water into the molecule and regenerates the phenylacetyl glutamine PAG (Burzynski’s AS-2.5). AS2-1 (Astugenal) is Atengal further treated with alkali which breaks it down into a mixture of phenylacetic acid and phenylacetyl glutamine.
So Atengenal is just phenylacetyl glutamine and Astugenal is a mixture of phenylacetic acid and phenylacetyl glutamine. Why anyone would expect these normal metabolic waste products to be effective against cancer, or any other disease, beats me. If they are so good for us, and prevent or cure so many diseases, why do we excrete them in our urine? Since phenylacetate is a breakdown product of phenethylamine, which is found in chocolate, why isn’t chocolate a cure for cancer?
.
_____But then again, the use of Horse Serum probably astounded you back in the late 1800s.
.
.
_____Narad
.
December 21, 2012
.
“Astwomiflam” would have been a nice coinage.
.
.
_____ME: Nara-d-flimflam.
.
.
_____Narad
December 21, 2012
.
Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
It’s funny how the FDA is evilly trying to shut down and incarcerate Burzynski but they allowed him to create a Phase III — on paper only since all subjects were supposed to be accrued almost a year ago but none have been — so that proves the FDA believes his claims. According to the ever-courteous DJT.
Wrong attribution, moron.
.
_____I'm just trying to Dumb Down to your level. I could have brought up the TMB-SOAH 12/8/2010 - 11/19/2012 failure vs. SRB.
.
Now, try to summarize your Ethan Allen–like legal assault on the tyrannical forces of “Gub’ment.” You can rest assured that nobody at all is interested in actually making your acquaintance.
.
_____ME: Having to restate the obvious that has already been posted for you to read seems to be your modus operandi. As if you think I have nothing better to do then go back & copy/paste the same information. for you again & again & again.
.
This is not responsive, Pretend Lawyer Type. By the way, is there some reason that you are now sticking periods between grafs?
.
_____To see who spends more time focusing on dots rather than "FACT CHECKING."
.
.
_____novalox
.
December 21, 2012
.
@djt
.
Do try harder at your pathetic attempts at insult, your idiocy is quite amusing. I’ve had 6 year olds make better insults than you have tried to attempt.
Keep dancing for me, my little puppet, your utter failure at elementary school logic is entertaining. I’ve got another batch of popcorn ready to munch on while you try to entertain me.
.
.
_____ME: Did you generate that from a SPAM generator like flipSPAM? Because it wouldn't surprise me.
.
.
12/22 Comments:
.
_____flip
.
Creaming the corn and buttering the pop
.
December 22, 2012
.
@Squidymus
ugg
.
December 19, 2012
.
Avoid waste your time on this website link, fully unrelated in order to conversation.
.
_____ME: Don’t worry, I didn’t!
.
Proof that you fail at reading comprehension. For someone who is so familiar with fancy new fangled technology like IMDB, you certainly can’t tell the difference between a comment and spam.
If out of every group of 7 people, 2 died, that leaves more than 50% of the patients surviving, which would be more than the above 50% of 2,400 = 1,200.
.
1,200 survivors out of 2,400 would NOT be 0.2%.
.
It would be 50%.
.
So it could then be theorized that there were MORE survivors than 1,200 (50%) & thus more survivors than 0,2%.
.
That disproves your theory without even having to use any further mathematical manipulation of one’s gray matter.
.
7 minus 5 does NOT = 0.2%.
Holy frick. Your math teacher at school needs to be fired. I seriously hope you don’t operate any machinery, build anything, or in general work in a manner that requires you to follow safety codes based on equations.
I guess the FDA must think they are safe & effective enough to proceed to Initiate Pivotal Phase III Trial.
And you do not understand the difference between submitting a trial for approval, and having completed said trial and publishing the results for all to see.
Why would I Google Poe when I don’t even Google myself?
What. The. F*ck.
Definitely, let’s go with you & your group of “Geniuses” instead of people like Dr. James Watson, discoverer of DNA & involved in the Human Genome Mapping Project.
You still haven’t worked out what the ‘strawman’ part was: here’s a clue. I never said my experience was better than anyone else’s. It doesn’t need to be: we really on evidence here, not experiences. Gibbering ghost, you’re thick.
Oh, so Dr James Watson has some peer-reviewed papers published showing the efficacy and safety of antineoplastons? If so, I’ll definitely look at the link for that. And if not, well, he’s pretty much irrelevant to the issue of Burzyinski and his trials, isn’t he?
.
_____ME: He’s relevant even though you’re irreverent since it’s fair to say he’s more knowledgeable about the supposed “War on Cancer” than you.
.
So, that’s a ‘no’ then?
.
Try “Flippirrelevantidiomism!”
.
Very good sweetheart, now try and leave your own irrelevant comments somewhere else. Ooops – that would mean you’d be posting nothing but empties, wouldn’t it?
.
What you do in the bathroom is YOUR business, so I don’t want to hear about your “Netscaping!” And I DEFINITELY do not want anything to do with your “dongle!!”
.
I guess that proves my point. Either you really think that’s a double entendre, or you’re making really unoriginal jokes. Either way, you’ve shown yourself utterly incapable of talking like an adult.
.
… Does Squidymus think that simply posting the citations is enough? Maybe this little troll has only gotten far enough in their education to have recently been taught about bibliographies, and hasn’t worked out that you can’t just add citations at will – they have to actually back up your statements.
.
_____ME: I am obviously doing much better at it than your “IT.”
.
Again, you prove my point for me.
There’s no evidence to suggest that antineoplastons have any significant activity against cancer … but they might have very minimal anticancer activity.
.
And there’s no way of knowing this until he publishes the results of his trials. Or someone does an independent trial. You seem to have missed the fact that most of us would agree with you: there may be potential. Where we disagree is the willingness to simply take Burzyinski’s word for it.
.
Thank Goodness! Next you might start posting about HTML!!
.
FSM forbid you learn something useful. Like how to make your comments legible.
.
Says the Village Idiots son.
.
Touche again me old ectoplasmic byproduct!
.
“This should be interesting…”
.
_____ME: If only it weren’t coming from a 15 year-old!
.
Touché me old chum. That totally proves that Burzyinski isn’t lying!
.
_____ME: But it totally proves that you are!
.
Marg, is that you? Judith? Come out come out wherever you are! No, seriously, the “I know you are, but what am I?” tactic has been used by more sensible people than you and it *still* didn’t work. Why do you think this is an adequate debate tactic?
.
… So after all that … it’s a “no” then for having access to peer-reviewed clinical results of Burzyinski’s trials?
.
____ME: That’s the question you can’t seem to answer, but with your Alcolytes up your rectal cavity I can understand why you & they couldn’t dig through all the Asplundh.
.
F* me you are stupid. We’re the ones *asking* for the peer-reviewed clinical results to be posted. Why the hell would we provide the answer for you…. oh right… because we’re dealing with a dunder-headed ethelred.
.
Says Bungholio, Lord of the Harvest!!
.
LOL! Ok, this one actually made me laugh…
And the sum of your comments can be given as this:
.
Random blather; no evidence for any assertion, particularly Burzyinski’s clinical trial results. Or, what Krebiozen said.
.
This is funnier than how Marg ended up going out. She looks so tame in comparison to this total ad hominem flame-out. Squidymus has been thoroughly and utterly been trounced. The evolution of Squidymus’ comments show a certain, ahem, unravelling.
.
@Novalox
.
Got another batch of popcorn ready, for the entertainment djt the fool provides.
.
Oh goody! Thanks for sharing
.
@LW
.
I can’t believe you had the patience to post that math-for-dummies thing. I struggle a lot with math, and even had to have instruction with figuring out percentages – but even I could work out what was wrong with his “math” without thinking about it. It’s just so self-evidently … facepalm.
.
_____All that above Beavis & Butthead commentary all for nothing, since I showed how pompous your posts were, before the 25th.
.
.
_____al kimeea
.
December 22, 2012
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
“Looking for Imbecils”
.
All u need is a mirror, child
.
_____Luckily it's up on the SpaceStation & shines a light on you.
.
.
_____herr doktor bimler
.
December 22, 2012
.
Looking for Imbecils
.
“It is a mark of insincerity of purpose to spend one’s time in looking for the sacred Emperor in the low-class tea shops.”
.
_____Maybe you should look for the Emperor who wears no clothes.
.
.
_____LW
.
December 22, 2012
.
@flip: “I can’t believe you had the patience to post that math-for-dummies thing.”
.
Well, I really do think that at some level the foul-mouthed brat really did want to know what was wrong with the computations, and it seemed cruel to keep mocking him (about that, anyway) without at least trying to explain. But I doubt the explanation will do any good, because I doubt he has any grasp at all of fractions. Look above where he argues that, if five out of every seven survive in a population of 2400, then more than 1200 survive because 1200 is half of 2400 and 5 is more than half of 7. *Sigh*. He has no idea how to get the correct number, and I’m not going to waste my time explaining it to a foul-mouthed, ungrateful troll.
.
_____Your "New Math" Genius Wizardry already destroyed before the 25th. Hope you liked your present.
.
.
_____Krebiozen
.
December 22, 2012
.
LW,
.
If the 7 cases were a random sample of the population of 2,400 that last computation would make some sort of sense. But there weren’t, the 7 cases were Burzynski’s “best case scenario”, and so the computation makes no sense at all. It does seem more than a little unlikely that 1,700 brain cancer patients have been cured by Burzynski, which is what you would expect if what the Sepia Troll appears to be suggesting were true.
.
_____How convenient for you to disregard my quote after that part.
.
.
_____LW
.
December 22, 2012
.
@Krebiozen: “If the 7 cases were a random sample of the population of 2,400 that last computation would make some sort of sense.”
.
Oh, absolutely. But my point is that he doesn’t even know how to compute the number to make that argument. The best he can do is feebly say that 5 is more than half of 7, so if 5 out of every 7 survive, more than half survive. This indicates total ignorance of fractions.
And if indeed 5 out of 7 of Burzynski’s patients survived, he’d be a hero and the tabloids, at least, would be knocking down his doors and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact that only five survived out of his seven best cases which he personally chose out of 2400 is quite telling.
.
_____If only it were based on anything as remotely as annoying "FACTS."
.
.
_____MarkL
.
December 22, 2012
.
Just forget him. He is evidently innumerate, illiterate, illogical and intransigent. he doesn’t want to talk about Burzynski, he knows nothing about the subject.
He is just a troll looking to start a flame war.
.
_____Hope you enjoyed the coal you got in your stocking.
.
.
_____Antaeus Feldspar
.
December 22, 2012
.
_____Orac:
.
“…I have to wonder whether Dr. Burzynski just hired Merola to make an infomercial”
.
” Merola claims the movie was his idea, but I have a hard time believing it.”
.
_____Orac, who attaches an article to his blog where Merola clearly states his motivation, and it WASN’T being hired by SRB!!
.
Diddums seems to be attempting the following sorites:
1) No one, even people taking dishonest actions, ever offers dishonest accounts of why they took those actions.
2) Merola claimed a totally aboveboard motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial.
3) Therefore Merola’s motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial was totally aboveboard.
4) Orac does not believe that Merola’s motivation for making his Burzynski infomercial was totally aboveboard.
5) Therefore, Orac is completely ignorant and all his testimony is impeached.
The problem is of course that premise 1 is bull-doots, and therefore there’s no logical force to any part of the argument.
.
_____ME: Did you actually have a relevant point in there anywhere?
.
Yes, I did. And furthermore, I think every single person who isn’t you clearly understood that relevant point.
I’m so sure of that that I’m going to make that an open offer: anyone other than Diddums can speak up and say “I don’t understand what point you were getting at there” and I will answer (on that point or any other I’ve made in this thread, in fact.) If no one else feels the need for such an explanation, it pretty much means that the only person who thinks Diddums’ endless carping and harping has any weight, any value, any relevance to the conversation – is Diddums.
.
_____Your "point" was already dealt with before the 25th. Hope you enjoyed the gift.
.
.
_____novalox
.
December 22, 2012
.
@Antaeus Feldspar
.
I think that everyone with a good understanding of rational thought and critical thinking skills can understand what you are saying.
Which means that djt surely is a prime example of Dunning-Kreuger in action.
But then again, if djt posts, we’ll get to see it even more, as proof that he knows not what he is talking about.
I’ve got another batch of popcorn ready, just in case djt decides to provide us with more proof that he is on the wrong side of the curve.
.
_____Says the mentor of Beavis & Butthead. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. He said "Butthead!"
.
.
_____flip
.
Salt and sugar popcorn... it's good!
.
December 23, 2012
.
@LW
.
I don’t know – I think this is just your average internet troll looking for attention. I don’t think he’s here to learn, just to ‘rile’ people up. Hence my quite unusual tone and playfulness with him. If I thought he was here for a real conversation, I’d try a lot harder to be polite.
Still, it’s always worth explaining for the lurkers.
.
_____Yep, THAT sure proved you right!
.
7) Therefore no more than five patients out of approximately 2400 actually survived.
OMG - reading through the cases listed here:
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/
Given that Dr. B is "treating" a certain category of Cancers & the majority of these patients go down the same path / progression of the disease, it seems extremely safe (and horrible) to assume that the treatments are doing "NOTHING" other than draining the bank accounts of the patients-in-question.
The numerous examples of "the tumor is dying from the inside" followed by, oh wait, the tumor is actually progressing, followed by eventual patient death, is absolutely horrifying the read.
How can the doctors at the clinic continue to tell patients that same thing, over and over again, and not either realize they are part of an enormous scam, or just perhaps the treatment isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing?
I'm bookmarking the website & promise that it will be posted wherever I find a pro-Dr. B poster....this man is a monster.
Lawrence,
Either Burzynski is the most incompentent doctor on the planet or the biggest liar. Either way, he should be shut down and thrown in jail to rot for the rest of his days.
Here's an example of the money-grubbing never-give-up approach his sales team used on one patient profiled on that website, Adam:
We received a call yesterday that shocked both of us to the core. Adam’s lesions have grown since the last MRI 8 weeks ago, and there is now a third lesion. The treatment didn’t work. It’s worked for so many others. It is the one treatment that gave us any hope of Adam seeing the boys grow up. He probably won’t ever get to meet his grandchildren. He probably won’t see his boys get married or finish school. He may not ever get to hear Finlay say “Daddy”.
What is all the more galling, that after failing to help Adam in any meaningful way, the Clinic suggested that he come back and start a NEW course of treatment:
We don’t know what we are supposed to do next. We have discussed a few options, but they all look so awfully wrong. The Burzynski clinic is encouraging us to come back to Houston so he can start gene-targeted therapy. It just feels wrong. First of all, we need to come up with $30,000 to start the other treatment, not to mention all the expenses of going down there. It makes both of us nauseous just thinking of going back to that place and starting over. The monthly cost of the treatment is over $20,000. And it has a much lower rate of success than the antineoplastons.
I'm just curious, as I'm relatively new here: what does it take for Orac to invoke a ban on a poster? Has it ever happened? I think it might be time now...
Sockpuppetry is usually the only banhammer-worthy violation around here. IMHO, Squiddly Diddly's simple stupidity isn't likely to arouse Orac's ire...
The sad part is that Squiddles actually seems to be expending effort to assemble moronic utterances such as this. No, suffixed "-genal" does not denote "of the cheek," you cognitive onion field. 'Gena' is a first-declension Latin noun that refers to both cheeks and eye sockets. Given the provenance of "antineoplastons," a better attempt would have been "Asturinal."
12/23 Comments:
.
Krebiozen
.
December 23, 2012
.
I wasn’t going to bother with Squidymus but in passing I note of his latest “FACTS” that the two “Harvard reports” he refers to are nothing of the sort, they are both essays written by law students. Even if their information did happen to be correct, why he thinks that claiming that Burzynski treated more than 2,400 patients is helpful to his claim I don’t know (5 is an even lower percentage of 3,000 than it is of 2,400 after all). Neither do I understand why he thinks that dead patients would be able to demonstrate outside a courtroom, or why the fact that Burzynski has supporters demonstrates that many of his patients survive, especially since we know that relatives of his dead patients are, for some reason, among his most ardent supporters, Eric Merola for example.
Be that as it may, I was interested in the testimony that Dr. Patronas gave, and was able to find a source for the original document (PDF), again at the inadvertantly helpful Burzynski the Movie website. I hadn’t seen the cross examination of Dr. Patronas before, since Squidymus omitted it, for some reason (I doubt it was for brevity). In it we find out that Dr. Patronas and his team did not get to actually look at the patients’ medical records, these were held onto by Dr. Burzynski who only gave them whatever information he decided was relevant. We also find out that some of these patients were being treated with steroids which we know can temporarily shrink tumors, as well as Methotrexate and Vincristine, which are conventional chemotherapy drugs while they were being treated with antineoplastons. How can anyone conclude that the responses of these patients had anything at all to do with the antineoplastons?
I also managed to find the NCI report on the patients that Dr. Patronas and his team looked at, if anyone’s interested. You can find it by Googling “647904-correspondence-buryznski-stanislaw-1.pdf” and then use the Quick View option – it’s in the Willliam Clinton library and the direct link doesn’t seem to work. The report is in the middle of a lot of other documents.
The first interesting things I note is this:
On October 4, 1991, CTEP staff(Dr. Michael Hawkins, Dr. Michael Hamilton, Dr. Dorothy Macfarlane) and invited consultants (Dr. Nicholas Patronas, neuroradiologist, NIH Clinical Center, and Dr. James Nelson, neuropathologist, AFIF) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski in Houston, Texas to review seven selected brain tumor cases which Dr. Burzynski felt represented the best responses achieved with Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 treatment.
This confirms that these cases were indeed Burzynski’s selected best cases. I am currently amusing myself by examining these cases in detail.
.
_____The 2 Harvard reports from the Harvard Law School:
.
A. Carol R. Berry, Food & Drug Law, Professor Peter Barton Hutt, Harvard Law School
.
B. Stennes, Matthew L., contributor.advisor Hutt, Peter Barton
.
_____And you ASSUME that about 3,000 people die with no outcry. Yeah ... THAT'S believable.
.
_____And you obviously believe that dead patients parents &/or relatives can't demonstrate outside a courthouse.
.
_____And you don't understand that the 19 relatives called as witnesses were called by the PROSECUTION, not by the Defense (SRB). What this means is either that:
.
a. the Prosecution attorneys were extremely stupid for not Deposing THEIR Witness before trial so that they would know what their testimony was going to be, or
.
b. that the Prosecution knew what their testimony was going to be but called them anyway because they were inept litigators,
.
c. that the Prosecution could not find any relatives of dead patients who would say anything bad about SRB,
.
d. or that the Prosecution witnesses lied to the Prosecution about what their testimony was going to be before the trial, & when the Prosecution was questioning the witnesses during trial & they testified differently than before the trial, that the Prosecution didn't bring this dichotomy to their attention.
.
_____And you find THAT Believable.
.
_____Sooo ... I see you didn't type out the complete cross-examination, but omitted it, for some reason (I doubt it was for brevity).
.
Pg. 116
1. there was a presentation of the cases by Dr. Burzynski;
2. each different case was studied seperately.
3. We were given the history,
4. the pathology,
5. the previous treatment and
6. the timing of these treatments.
Pg. 117
7. Then the histological slides
8. We reviewed the slides and confirmed the histological of the grade of the tumor
9. Then there were assessments of the images, either CT scans or CAT scans, or MRI scans.
Pg. 119
10. we all looked at images and we saw the chronological order.
11. We checked the names of the patients on the films, and the files were obtained at different institutions from the entire country, basically where the patients were located.
.
_____Exactly WHAT page(s) of that 49 page set of documents supposedly is the NCI report?
.
.
Krebiozen
.
December 23, 2012
.
Humph. Sorry about that. Looks like I just identified a bug in my preview program, in which my comment displayed perfectly. The link works anyway, please just ignore the fact the rest of the text is underlined.
.
_____Yeah, Humph is what I thought when I read your post.
Well, and attempted threadjacking, although I suppose these have a habit of going hand-in-hand.
12/23 Comments:
.
Antaeus Feldspar
.
December 23, 2012
.
I’m glad to not be wasting time on Diddums anymore. If he can’t even figure out “how do you format comments so that people can tell what you’re quoting and what’s your own words?” why would anyone think he’s sorted out the truth of Burzynski?
.
_____Thank Goodness. I couldn't ask for a better present than THAT from someone who couldn't answer:
.
12/1 – 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, …
.
12/3 – Antaeus Feldspar, Please cite the post(s) & their date which you misguidedly think exists, proving that my guru is Stanwey.
.
12/15 – Antaeus Feldspar, Are you using the “New Math” where you live?
.
12/16 re 15 – Antaeus Feldspar, And your “FACTS” are supported by what unsubstantiated source?
.
12/16 re 15 – Antaeus Feldspar, 3. FACT: You have provided NOT one scintilla of evidence that you have read any of the publications noted above in my post to MarkL.
Here's a PDF of the 1991 NCI Review of Burzynski's selected patients for anyone interested.
@djt
Yawn, try again.
12/23 Comments:
.
flip
.
Firing up the popcorn popper
.
December 23, 2012
.
@Squidymus
.
1. Your “New Math” completely ignores the 2 Harvard reports I’ve posted about previously:
.
AHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, I’m so glad I wasn’t drinking or eating when I read that. Seriously Squidymus, you are priceless!
.
_____Yeah, good thing too! LW thinks that out of about 3,000 dead patients, the PROSECUTION couldn't find ANY of their parents/relatives who would testify to anything bad about SRB!! Can You believe THAT "IT!!!"
12/23 Comments:
.
LW
December 23, 2012
.
The iDJiT’s two fifteen-year-old Harvard law student essays have not, of course, been ignored. Here is my comment on “The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis”, from which we learned that Burzynski ignored the FDA for twenty years (1977-1997) during which he treated approximately 3,000 patients.
.
_____Yet LW can't explain how Phase I Clinical Trials were being done; as listed on the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov web-site, while SRB "ignored the FDA."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofes…
12/23 Comments:
.
LW
.
December 23, 2012
.
And here is my comment on “The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases”, from which we learned that “Burzynski openly defied both the FDA’s regulations and a federal court order specifically directed at him for fourteen years before the FDA finally brought charges against him. Moreover, he “treated” patients for AIDS and Parkinson’s with his antineoplastons.”
.
_____But then again, "patients have malpractice claims against their health care practitioner if the drug or device causes harm."
.
"In contrast to the tort system which merely attempts to compensate for tragedies that have already occurred, the FDA is empowered by Congress to intervene & prevent harm to the general public."
.
"As indicated, the FDA currently permits some unapproved uses of drugs & medical devices, without proof of safety & efficacy, yet prohibits others."
.
"The U.S. v. Article'~ court stated that the FDA's responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of "the ignorant, the unthinking & the credulous."'
.
_____So, this could include people on this blog.
.
"In this case, the ultimate consumer is the patient & therefore it should be the FDA's responsibility to protect patients, even from their doctor if necessary."
.
(an off-label us of a medical device may subject a physician to malpractice liability)
.
It has been argued that FDA involvement in this area is not necessary because market forces are sufficient to control physician's unapproved uses via malpractice (deviation from FDA approved use may be evidence of negligence) & insurance reimbursement (insurer may not reimburse unapproved medical treatments) .
.
"Patients do not have to be informed that the medication or device they are being prescribed is not approved by the FDA for the patients' intended use."
"The Klein court stated that "[o]f f-label use of a medical device is not a material risk inherently involved in a proposed therapy which a physician should disclose to a patient prior to the therapy. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that failure to disclose FDA status does not raise a material issue of fact as to informed consent."'
.
"The patient is therefore potentially at greater risk once a device or drug has been approved then if the same item merely had investigational status."
.
"When a drug or device is still being tested but is available to human subjects, the FDA provides for stringent controls on informed consent.'"
These remain papers by law students. They are no more "Harvard reports" than an undergraduate essay. Moreover, you haven't offered anything original, much less intelligent, to say about either. It's just "NOTE 50!!1!!" and other aimless cut and paste.
So as well as not understanding that a law suit does not equal science, Squidymus' has provided yet more fact-free word salad.
And in place of actually answering my questions, has simply blathered with lame puns.
Why am I not surprised?
@Antaeus Feldspar
Apparently you are my mentor. Or so says Diddums. As my mentor, would you like to tell me how to best prepare popcorn?
Wow…1 1/2 litres of beer! Are you sharing?
I wanted to but everyone stayed with their beverage (which consisted of budweiser, unibroue 12 pack mix, smirnoff cooler and a few other commercial stuff).
Alain
Holy Christ. That line is actually from Florence v. Dowd, a 1910 trademark case, and the decision being invoked (a case involving seizure of bottles of "Sudden Change by Lanolin Plus," a "face lift without surgery"; 409 F.2d 734). The whole idea is that it didn't actually do anything but advertised itself as such.
An amicus brief from the Toilet Goods Association is always a winner, though. One however wonder whether you had a point in mind to start with, as the only one that would seem to be available offhand is that Burzynski is really selling cosmetological preparations or something.
I take it that you are aware of the Budweiser–clam juice horror marketed as Chelada.
I take it that you are aware of the Budweiser–clam juice horror marketed as Chelada.
Nope but it must be horrible.
Alain
12/23 Comments:
.
LW
December 23, 2012
.
@Krebiozen: ” (5 is an even lower percentage of 3,000 than it is of 2,400 after all)”. And you think he knows that?
.
_____And YOU actually believe his theory is viable!
.
.
Shay
.
December 23, 2012
.
@LW
.
Perhaps DJT belongs to the homeopathic school of mathematicians.
.
_____I belong to the School of Rock.
.
Shay
.
December 23, 2012
.
@LW
.
Perhaps DJT belongs to the homeopathic school of mathematicians.
.
_____I also belong to the School of FACT-CHECKING. ;-)
.
.
Narad
.
December 23, 2012
.
_____ME: If you can’t draw the correlation between successful Japanese Clinical Trials & Orac’s blogging:
.
_____”Whenever Burzynski does a trial, the results come out as promising, with minimal or mild toxicity. 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…”
.
_____I’m not surprised since you can’t answer:
.
_____”Narad, good question. Who are you?”
“Last Christmas somebody gave me a whole Jimson weed—the root must have weighed two pounds; enough for a year—but I ate the whole goddamn thing in about twenty minutes…. they said I was trying to talk, but I sounded like a raccoon.”
.
_____I told ya ta stay 'way from da wacky weed Mon!
.
.
Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
December 23, 2012
.
Narad,
.
You’re Hunter S. Thompson?!!!
.
_____Wrong AGAIN!! :-)
.
.
Narad
.
December 23, 2012
.
You’re Hunter S. Thompson?!!!
.
That passage is actually Acosta speaking. The entire adrenochrome chapter is absurd, but it was the first thing that occurred to me upon Squiddle’s latest descent into incoherence.
.
_____You remind me of Charles Darwin's "Theory of Evolution," which is why it's just a "Theory."
.
.
Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
December 23, 2012
I don’t know why you guys even bother with him anymore. I gave up weeks ago, once I realized what we were dealing with.
.
_____And it's been so nice around here! ;-)
.
_____I guess you didn't have the COBOLS to answer:
12/1 – Marc Stephens Is Insane, did you access the link(s) & information & actually read what it’s about?
.
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.
.
12/2 – Marc Stephens Is Insane, please provide FACTUAL proof to prop up your deluded statement that “I guess Didy didn’t bother to read those information sheets either.”
.
12/2- Marc Stephens Is Insane. please cite any post(s) & their date which support your misguided allegation that I am “spending so much time defending Stan.”
If Squidymus has any intelligence at all, he must be beginning to get a grip on the information being presented here and getting a strong sense of how poor the evidence supporting Burzynski actually is. The truth has a habit of seeping into the thickest skull.
For example, Burzynski is said to have treated 3,000 patients between 1977 and 1997, which is 150 patients each year. SEER estimates that, "13,700 men and women will die of cancer of the brain and other nervous system in 2012". Since Burzynski generally treats terminal cancer patients who are very unlikely to survive, it is quite believable that about 150 of Burzynski's patients die every year without any outcry at all. Most people who have lost a loved one are too worn out and grief-stricken to muster much outrage.
To labor a point made many times by others, Burzynski makes no promises to cure these patients, he is kind, charismatic and very persuasive. He lubricates the process of relieving these people of their money with charm and false hope, and no one likes to admit that they may have made a terrible mistake. This is much more credible than assuming that 1,700 of Burzynski's terminal cancer patients have survived, which is necessary for Squidymus's risible calculation to be even close to correct. Where are these 1,700 remarkable survivors that Squidymus ASSUMES exist?
As for the court case against Burzynski, I don't find it all unbelievable that the relatives of patients who died despite his care would still support him, nor do I find it unbelievable that lawyers could be incompetent, nor that the FDA could bungle a prosecution. None of these things are in any way evidence that Burzynski's treatments work.
12/23 Comments:
.
Lawrence
.
December 23, 2012
.
@MSII – I gave up trying to even comprehend what he was trying to say – not even sure what’s he’s responding to….
.
_____THAT'S so YOU!!!
.
11/29 – Lawrence, “links … don’t say what [I] think they say?” Please cite where I said what the links would say.
.
12/1 – Lawrence, when Orac whined that SRB “got off on a technicality,” did you ask him to offer a “real retort” like SRB did not “get off on a technicality,” but he got off because the law is the law?
.
12/3 – Lawrence, please enlighten me on how my 2 11/28 posts were proven incorrect, for example.
.
12/3 – Lawrence, Once again you have not answered my 12/3 question to you.
.
12/15 (12/10 Comments:) – Lawrence, Speaking of “not understanding,” you don’t seem to understand how to answer my question of 12/3 which you haven’t responded to.
.
.
flip
.
December 23, 2012
.
Wow, that last comment Squidymus has shown he’s well and truly lost the plot. I mean, more than usual.
.
_____I think a lot of people on this blog truly "Lost 'IT'" before I showed up! ;-)
.
.
Alain
.
December 23, 2012
.
If I was DidySquat psychiatrist, I’d despair….
.
______Sigmund Freud was a Fraud.
.
.
Antaeus Feldspar
.
December 23, 2012
.
I wonder if he even realizes that every time he emits another “Says the one who [improbable urological practice]!!” it pretty much reads as a concession?
If he could find an error in our facts, he’d point it out.
If he could find an error in our logic, he’d point it out.
The logical conclusion is that every time he quotes someone just to reply “Says the __________ who ________!” he’s admitting in front of everyone reading that he cannot find any flaws in the facts or the logic of those he’s replying to.
.
_____The "FACT" is that very few people on this blog have much "LOGIC!" ;-)
.
.
novalox
.
Waiting for baseball season to start
.
December 23, 2012
.
Boy if we were keeping score, djt would be batting 0.000, way below the Mendoza line, with multiple errors to boot.
Heck, he probably would be batting in the negative numbers if it were allowed
But his continued inability to answer the simplest questions, along with his utter infantile insults, shows off his continued admission that his position is untenable.
The only thing left is to treat him as out personal punching bag and laughingstock, which he has supplied perfectly, with his continued idiocy and juvenile insults.
So, keep posting djt, we need laughs at your expense. Realize that you are now just here for our entertainment, nothing more. I’ve got some more popcorn to laugh at your continued idiocy and support of a quack and fraud.
.
_____Sure Novaexlax. Keep living in the Fantasy Baseball League you live in where you keep dropping the ball, choking up on the bat, being a switch hitter, striking out, never getting to first base, until you're "outta there!"
Twaddle. Many of the patients whose testimonials are presented at The Burzynski Patient Group website thought that they were getting something other than chemotherapy. Either Burzynski misinformed them or he has terrible communication skills. For example:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
I could go on (and on). Antineoplastons are supposed to selectively kill cancer cells, and to be less toxic to normal cells. This is the very definition of cytotoxic chemotherapy.
We also know that Burzynski uses conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy as well as antineoplastons. The NCI report mentioned vincristine and methotrexate, for example, both of which are conventional chemotherapy drugs. That's not even getting into his more recent "targeted therapies" which are conventional chemotherapy drugs used off-label. For example Betty Whyte (or Wright) who appears in the Burzynski Movie trailer, and whose merkel cell cancer was treated by Burzynski with Pfizer's chemotherapy drug Sunitinib.
12/24 Comments:
.
Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
December 24, 2012
.
"I just found a new website by chance and wanted to pass it along."
.
"Of the thousands of patients who have gone to him and emptied their bank accounts at his feet, a very, very few have survived."
.
_____And what is YOUR definition of "very few?"
.
"From the position of an informed patient advocate..."
.
_____YOU are informed?
.
"...have not been adequately tested for safety and which causes hypernatremia in his patients."
.
_____Funny, because I don't see Hypernatremia listed as an adverse effect on the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov Adverse Effect list re Antineoplastons:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofes…
_____I do see Hypernatremia listed as a relatively common problem:
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/etiology-and-evaluation-of-hypernatrem…
.
He has initiated over 60 phase II studies over the decades and seems to have completed exactly zero of them.
.
_____Like this zero completed Phase 2?
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00003509?term=Burzynski&recr=…
Burzynski defined successful treatment as “stable disease,” a lowered standard that no other oncologist or researcher accepts.
.
_____So, if I had a brainstem glioma & it could be stopped from spreading further, that's NOT a good thing?
.
_____"Brainstem glioma is an aggressive and dangerous cancer. Without treatment, the life expectancy is typically a few months from the time of diagnosis. With appropriate treatment, 37% survive more than one year, 20% survive 2 years. and 13% survive 3 years."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem_glioma
.
"select the cases you get to see..."
.
_____Unlike this blog you're hyping?
.
_____So, like the Testimony of Dr. Nicholas Patronas where I pointed out the 2 deaths?
.
"Kudos to whomever put this website together."
.
_____Yeah, I was SO impressed when right off the bat I read:
.
_____"They initially might have had a difficult time finding a place to stay because refugees from Hurricane Katrina had been arriving in Houston, but they were set up in an apartment:"
.
_____WHAT? Do we really need someone posting GIGO like that?
@Krebiozen: "If Squidymus has any intelligence at all,"
Assumption contrary to fact.
@DJT - you mean that study "completed" over 7 years ago, but with no results actually published?
DJT, if you might spare a kindness, please state one way or the other whether you are in fact "Citizen Jimserac," mail-order-Ph.D. audiologist.
Really?
Sigh.
@djt
Try some better insults, yours is just too predictable.
Of course, dealing with a anti-science wacko like you, infantile insults seem like the only thing you can put out.
But I'll just keep on laughing at your pathetic efforts, anyway, so please keep on dancing, little false prophet.
@AdamG:
12/24 Comments:
.
lilady
December 24, 2012
.
@ Marc: I’ve bookmarked that link and double kudos to that blogger.
What’s with “diddums”?
.
_____I actually know how to "FACT-CHECK." :-)
.
.
novalox
.
December 24, 2012
.
@djt
.
Yawn, more pathetic attempts at insults. But it is so funny to see an idiot like you try to attempt it.
Isn’t it past your bedtime, little one?
.
_____A "FACT-CHECKER" must be ever vigilant, since the Tu-Quackers don't even take 12/25 off.
.
.
flip
.
Ate all the popcorn, now starting in on the cookies
.
December 24, 2012
.
_____How do those computer cookies taste? ;-)
.
.
Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
December 24, 2012
.
Lilady and flip,
.
"And the blogger raises some very valid points about how involved Stan is with each client and how the TMB blew it in their decision."
.
_____So, where were these people between 12/8/2010 & 11/19/2012?
.
.
LW
.
December 24, 2012
.
The mountain has labored and brought forth a mouse.
DJT scoured the Web for proof of Burzynski’s Phase III trials, and here’s what he found.
On January 6, 2009 (that would be almost four years ago, DJT), someone from the FDA emailed that the protocol was approved for the trial of antineoplastons+radiation vs. radiation.
And what happened next? Was the trial itself (not the protocol) ever approved? Was it ever started?
No.
*Yawn*. So much for that “evidence” of the effectiveness of Burzynski’s “treatments”.
.
_____"Effectiveness" was NOT the question, but don't let that stop your Non-Fact-Checking, able to count to 4 using 2 hands, self.
.
_____And if you knew how to "FACT-CHECK," you would know:
.
"On February 23, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint ("ResearchPoint")"
.
"ResearchPoint is currently conducting a feasibility assessment."
.
"Upon completion of this assessment, a randomized, international phase III study will commence."
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/121015/bzyr10-q.html
.
_____So, you do not know what the feasibility study results were?
@AdamG:
But don't you see the marvelous malleability of reality? Darwin's Theory of Evolution is "only a theory" because Narad reminds DJT of the Theory. If only Narad had stayed away from Respectful Insolence this month, all the quibbling about Darwin's Theory of Evolution would never have happened and the theory would be accepted fact. All these decades of fighting the creationists are Narad's fault!
Squidymus blathers
Yep, I was right for calling him a creationist. What a maroon!
Seriously, there's nothing here to debate. Squidymus can't spell, argue, theorise, hypothesise, count, or joke his way out of a paper bag.
@Narad
The writing styles don't seem very similar. Citizen Jimserac seems to be far more... skilled with vocabulary, to put it mildly. I've only looked at a handful of sites though, so I could be wrong.
12/24 Comments:
.
LW
.
December 24, 2012
.
And then DJT refers us to this Phase III trial. Ah, yes, I remember it fondly. It seems like only a year ago we were talking about that trial … oh, wait, it was a year ago. I had fun posting progress reports on time remaining to enroll participants. And we find, a year later:
Estimated Enrollment: 70
.
Study Start Date: December 2011
.
Estimated Study Completion Date: December 2015
.
Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
.
And he still hasn’t enrolled seventy participants and started his study: “This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.”
*Yawn*. So much for that “evidence” of the effectiveness of Burzynski’s “treatments”.
.
_____YAWN! So much for you actually understanding the process:
.
_____And you continue to play ign'nt, or maybe you actually are!
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Searching for the 0.02%
.
December 20, 2012
.
12/10 Comments:
.
_____ME: And if you were actually paying attention to what’s going on you would understand that:
.
1. There are costs associated with a Phase III Clinical Trail, and therefor funds have to obtained,
.
2. Patients of a sufficient number need to be obtained who specifically fit the “Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” category,
.
3. Parents need to be convinced to allow their Children to have their Brains be exposed to Radiation,
.
4. And there may be other factors as well.
@ iDJiT,
Really, you're saying that we have to wait until 2015 to evaluate the phase III clinical trial to have an opinion of Burzinski threatment?
Nothing about the numerous phase II clinical trials?
Alain
12/24 Comments:
.
LW
.
December 24, 2012
.
Finally, DJT asks,
So you admit the Phase II didn’t need to be published since the FDA approved Phase III?
.
First, there isn’t one Phase II trial, there are dozens. Second, trials tend to study the response of one disease to one protocol (remembering that “cancer” is not a single disease). Look at the title of the (one and only) Phase III trial: “A Randomized Study of Antineoplaston Therapy vs. Temozolomide in Subjects With Recurrent and / or Progressive Optic Pathway Glioma”.
Assuming this trial were ever started and assuming it were ever published, that would only tell us how antineoplastons work — or don’t — in that specific disease. But there are many other kinds of brain cancer that Burzynski purports to treat in his dozens of Phase II trials — how do antineoplastons work in those kinds of cancer? The results of all of those trials need to be published even if they were unsuccessful.
It is just possible that antineoplastons are effective when given in just the right dosages, in combination with just the right other treatment, to just the right kind of cancer. It is just possible that there is a clue in the unsuccessful trials (I assume they are uniformly unsuccessful or they would have been published) which Burzynski hasn’t identified but someone else could … if he would just publish the results of the trials. Since he didn’t pay for the trials himself — the patients did — their destitute families deserve to have those results published. They should see something come from their loved ones’ suffering.
.
_____And if people on here would do some "FACT-CHECKING" instead of some of them being too scared to go on certain web-sites, they would know that the following has been requested:
.
1. "...the results from Phase 2 clinical trials of Antineoplastons need to be ... audited by Congress,"
.
2. I think it should be readily apparent that there is no reason for SRB to trust the FDA considering their past conduct,
.
3. I also think it should be readily apparent that there is no reason for SRB to trust the NIH considering their past conduct.
.
.
Krebiozen
.
December 24, 2012
.
Squidymus seems to be becoming even more deranged. What is the point of all these obvious lies? Is this some sort of clumsy imitation of humor? It’s strange and a bit sad.
.
_____What's really strange & sad is that you can't find a lie, so you try to invent them.
.
.
Antaeus Feldspar
.
December 24, 2012
.
And here I was thinking “Well, DJT is racing fast towards rare depths of obstinate idiocy BUT at least he hasn’t devolved into free-form poetry like D-chniak…”
.
_____I could be like people on here who probably believe Lola Quinlan without question, but haven't read:
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complai…
.
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
12/24 Comments:
.
flip
Eating turkey and cranberry and potatoes... no popcorn in sight
.
December 24, 2012
.
@Squidymus
.
I never posted that they HAD to have HAD radiation, I indicated they would have to HAVE radiation
.
Your fumblings with English aside, none of your deranged droppings prove that Burzyinski has done much of anything except steal people’s money.
.
_____Is THAT the best you can do? THAT is Lame Like a Duck!
.
.
Narad
.
December 24, 2012
.
_____Narad
.
December 20, 2012
.
Squiddles, your faulty yet prompt phraseological appropriations are duly noted. Do you understand what this means?
.
_____ME: Nara-d-Clue, your correctly incorrect misappropriated paraphrasing is notedly dull. Verstehen Sie?
.
You lose, jizzmop.
.
_____Only YOU would know what a "jizzmop" is, since I'm sure you use it daily.
.
.
lilady
.
December 24, 2012
.
Stick a fork in this turkey…he’s overdone.
.
____You're eating overdone Turkey? How'd ya like the giblets?
.
.
Krebiozen
.
December 24, 2012
.
Still no Phase II trial results. Someone needs to learn that repeating the same misinformation over and over doesn’t make it true.
.
_____Why is it you can't cite any Law or Regulation that requires your seal of approval?
.
_____Are you also claiming that no Phase I Clinical Trials were published?
.
_____If no Phase I Clinical Trials were published, how is it that Phase II Clinical Trials were authorized without your seal of approval?
.
.
Lawrence
.
December 24, 2012
.
@DJT – I see a lot of “hearsay” that patients were “saved” by Dr. B – but I don’t see any evidence, especially not of published results of all of those Phase II trials you are so happily trotting out as evidence….saying a trial was conducted is a heck of a lot different than publishing the final results – of which, Dr. B has not.
.
_____See above. Maybe you can assist Krebiohazard.
.
.
Renate
.
December 24, 2012
.
_______”The prosecution called as witnesses 19 relatives of Burzynski patients who have died, but none of them had anything bad to say about him. Instead, they insisted that the defendant had given them complete and honest information, and that he operates a high-quality, health care facility.
.
Of course they do, they don’t want to picture themselves as being the victim of a fraud. I think this is called “cognitive dissonance”.
.
_____So ... you also believe the close to 3,000 dead patients "theory," but have no explanation as to put of all the parents/relatives of those patients, the Prosecution was unable to find at least ONE person who would testify against him under oath?
.
_____Are you a "Conspiracy Theorist?"
.
.
AdamG
.
December 24, 2012
.
_____”If out of every group of 7 people, 2 died…”
.
I just cannot get over how utterly backwards this is. How can someone actually think this is a logical way to approach calculating a rate?
If the overall survival rate was in fact 5/7, why would a group of his 7 best cases include 2 people that died?
Didy just doesn’t understand the difference between random and nonrandom sampling. It’s both amusing and sad.
.
_____And what's amazing & sad is that you actually believe the "Magic Bullet" Theory!
.
_____Oh, wait!! You ARE the one who couldn't answer:
.
11/29 -AdamG, What solar system are you living in?
.
11/29 – AdamG, please cite the “FACTS” which buttress your unproven inane statement that “It’s clear that [I] didn’t actually read [your] link.
.
I’m not even going to waste my time answering your last question since I answered your question about what planet I live on but you did not answer my question about what solar system you’re from.
.
12/1 – AdamG, you have not yet advised me what solar system you are living in.
.
_____NOT amazing at all!!!
The same one as you. The one that contains the Earth.
If you had read my link, you would have realized that it is not true that the NIH budget has doubled in the past 5 years. If you did read my link, good for you, it just means that you agree that the article you cited referring to the NIH budget is out of date.
Now, math time. If the overall survival rate was in fact 5/7 (~70%), why would a group of his 7 best cases include 2 people that died?
12/24 - 26 Comments:
.
flip
.
Eggnog anyone?
.
December 24, 2012
.
Pleases let the University of Berkeley know so their Evolutionists will know, the next time they pull off a Double Helix during one of their REvolutionary shows: [...] Probably the same amount as actually read my previous post, instead of burying their heads in the dirt during a Charle Darwin REvolutionary show:
.
Finally, Squidymus’ true colours are revealed. Welcome to creationism land, where evidence doesn’t matter.
What a nincompoop! “On the side of truth” my shiny metal ass.
.
_____THAT explains why you reminded me of the Tin Man from the Wizard of O!
.
_____You squeak a lot & someone needs to oil your metal ass!!
.
.
LW
.
December 24, 2012
.
Krebiozen:
.
Squidymus seems to be becoming even more deranged. What is the point of all these obvious lies? Is this some sort of clumsy imitation of humor? It’s strange and a bit sad.
.
Yeah, I feel bad mocking him, but it’s hard not to when he is so thoroughly unpleasant.
.
_____Ya'll are so full of hot air.
.
.
Shay
.
December 24, 2012
.
DJT — Still no published clinical results (self-aggrandizing interviews are not proof). And your math (don’t blame it on Dr Patronas) still sucks rocks.
.
_____Shay, still can't do any research on your own?
.
_____Still believe in the "I see 3,000 dead people" "Conspiracy Theory?"
.
.
MarkL
.
December 24, 2012
.
As i have said previously,
This guy is innumerate, illiterate, illogical and intransigent. He knows nothing about Burzynski, nothing about cancer and obviously nothing beyond 2nd grade math.
He is simply a troll. Nothing more, nothing less. He will take a contrary point of view from anyone else here, that appears to be his raison d’etre. Time we ignored him, and let him disappear.
Feeding trolls is a bad habit.
.
_____Or they could feed a Liar like you!
.
_____Are you hoping you'll be cast in Jim Carey's role in "Liar, Liar Phase II?"
.
.
AdamG
.
December 24, 2012
.
DJT is an evolution denier? Now it all makes sense. That kind of arrogant ignorance of basic math is a hallmark of the creationist mind.
.
_____I believe you were created in the image of Piltdown Man.
.
.
Alain
.
December 24, 2012
.
Which is why I prefer to not kill my Brain cells!!!
.
Yeah, you’ve given them a good beating already.
.
_____I don't even care to think of what you've been giving a good "beating."
.
.
Narad
.
December 24, 2012
.
Which is why I prefer to not kill my Brain cells!!!
.
This is what is properly known as begging the question.
.
_____Yes, why do you believe in posting twice?
.
.
Narad
.
December 24, 2012
.
Which is why I prefer to not kill my Brain cells!!!
.
This is what is properly known as begging the question.
.
_____Ditto.
.
.
LW
.
December 24, 2012
.
DJT quotes my lengthy explanation of the proper method of computing percentages and then gloats,
“_____ME: And you did all the above for naught!!!”
.
Well, yes, I rather feared it would be for naught, but there was that tiny chance that some part of DJT’s mind was reachable. But no, DJT is proudly and defiantly ineducable. He must be a joy to have as a student.
.
_____I doubt you could teach me anything, considering your past record.
.
.
flip
.
December 25, 2012
.
Most of y’all don’t know what you’re posting about.
.
Well played me old megacycle!
.
And if you would actually research the subject before just indiscriminately posting GIGO, you would know that the goal was to do multiple Phase III Clinical Trials.
.
Oy. You need help. Please ask your school teacher for some assistance in reading comprehension.
In the meantime, feel free to explain why “evolutionist” is a valid term….
.
_____flip who can't answer questions...:
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
KreBLOGisphere (Part 5)
.
December 19, 2012
.
12/17 Comments:
.
12/8 – flip. 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?
.
12/15 – flip, too busy reading Jesse Ventura’s Book: “Conspiracy Theory?”
.
_____...wants answers.
.
_____evo·lu·tion·ist: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution.
.
.
Shay
.
December 26, 2012
.
@Narad
Kind of begs the question. By the time Burzynski’s through with them, none of his victims have any money left for lawyers.
.
_____And I guess they do not know how to open the phone book or go on-line & look up Pro Bono Lawyer assistance.
@AdamG
Given Squidymus' previously demonstrated math skills, that is an unwarranted assumption.
Because the 2 that died went to heaven?
Quoth the iDJiT, "_____I doubt you could teach me anything, considering your past record."
I enthusiastically agree as does, I am sure, every reader of this post who isn't the iDJiT. Plainly no one has succeeded in teaching the iDJiT anything since third grade, and he is quite proud of that record.
12/26 Comments:
.
Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
December 26, 2012
.
I’m just curious, as I’m relatively new here: what does it take for Orac to invoke a ban on a poster? Has it ever happened? I think it might be time now…
.
_____Whatsa matter Insane in the Membrane? Can't handle anyone questioning your infallibility?
.
.
Scottynuke
.
December 26, 2012
.
Sockpuppetry is usually the only banhammer-worthy violation around here. IMHO, Squiddly Diddly’s simple stupidity isn’t likely to arouse Orac’s ire…
.
_____Last I heard, you were the only one with their hand in a sock puppet. Is Duke Nukem your daddy?
.
.
Narad
.
December 26, 2012
.
_____Coming from people who don’t know how to use a Medical Dictionary to find that “Genal” is “of the Cheek,” I don’t think SRB has anything to worry about coming from y’all.
.
The sad part is that Squiddles actually seems to be expending effort to assemble moronic utterances such as this. No, suffixed “-go j
enal” does not denote “of the cheek,” you cognitive onion field. ‘Gena’ is a first-declension Latin noun that
refers to both cheeks and eye sockets. Given the provenance of “antineoplastons,” a better attempt would have been “Asturinal.”
.
_____I'm thinking more along the lines of Naranalgenalsiac.
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=36608
.
.
Narad
.
December 26, 2012
.
Sockpuppetry is usually the only banhammer-worthy violation around here.
.
Well, and attempted threadjacking, although I suppose these have a habit of going hand-in-hand.
.
_____I've noticed a lot of "jacking" around on this blog, & it's not been the thread variety.
.
.
novalox
.
December 26, 2012
.
@djt
Yawn, try again.
.
_____NovaLuxLuthor, open wide ... insert foot!
.
.
Narad
.
December 26, 2012
.
_____The 2 Harvard reports from the Harvard Law School:
.
A. Carol R. Berry, Food & Drug Law, Professor Peter Barton Hutt, Harvard Law School
.
B. Stennes, Matthew L., contributor.advisor Hutt, Peter Barton
.
These remain papers by law students. They are no more “Harvard reports” than an undergraduate essay. Moreover, you haven’t offered anything original, much less intelligent, to say about either. It’s just “NOTE 50!!1!!” and other aimless cut and paste.
.
_____Looks like Carol's doing fine:
http://www.teelroeper.com/leadership/berry
_____... & Matthew:
"Matthew Stennes (’95): After graduating from St. Olaf in 1995, I attended Harvard Law School, where I graduated in 1998. After a clerkship with a U.S. District Court Judge in Minneapolis, I moved to Washington, D.C. where I worked as an attorney with Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, in their criminal defense practice group. I put my St. Olaf economics degree to good use, representing corporations & individuals in corporate fraud & other criminal cases, including in the federal investigations of accounting irregularities at Enron, Rite Aid, & Freddie Mac. In 2006, I took a position serving with the U.S. DoJ as a federal prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division. I am now busy prosecuting elected officials, government employees, lobbyists, & other individuals around the country for public corruption offenses."
.
_____And you?
.
.
flip
.
Bored now....
.
December 26, 2012
.
So as well as not understanding that a law suit does not equal science, Squidymus’ has provided yet more fact-free word salad.
And in place of actually answering my questions, has simply blathered with lame puns.
Why am I not surprised?
.
_____YOU actually had a question?
.
@Antaeus Feldspar
.
Apparently you are my mentor. Or so says Diddums. As my mentor, would you like to tell me how to best prepare popcorn?
.
.
Narad
.
December 26, 2012
.
“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking & the credulous.”‘
Holy Christ. That line is actually from Florence v. Dowd,...
.
_____Way to go, Perfesser!
.
One however wonder whether you had a point in mind to start with, as the only one that would seem to be available offhand is that Burzynski is really selling cosmetological preparations or something.
.
_____I knew I could count on you to ignore:
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
In the Criminalization of Innovation room at the Tu-Quack Center
.
December 26, 2012
.
12/23 Comments:
.
LW
.
December 23, 2012
.
“Burzynski openly defied both the FDA’s regulations and a federal court order specifically directed at him for fourteen years before the FDA finally brought charges against him. Moreover, he “treated” patients for AIDS and Parkinson’s with his antineoplastons.”
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
In the Criminalization of Innovation room at the Tu-Quack Center
.
December 26, 2012
.
12/23 Comments:
.
LW
.
December 23, 2012
.
_____But then again, “patients have MALPRACTICE CLAIMS against their health care practitioner if the drug or device causes harm.”
.
(an off-label us of a medical device may subject a physician to MALPRACTICE LIABILITY)
.
It has been argued that FDA involvement in this area is not necessary because market forces are sufficient to control physician’s unapproved uses via malpractice (deviation from FDA approved use may be EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE) & insurance reimbursement (insurer may not reimburse unapproved medical treatments) .
.
“Patients do not have to be informed that the medication or device they are being prescribed is not approved by the FDA for the patients’ intended use.”
“The Klein court stated that “[o]f f-label use of a medical device is not a material risk inherently involved in a proposed therapy which a physician should disclose to a patient prior to the therapy. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that failure to disclose FDA status does not raise a material issue of fact as to informed consent.”‘
.
“When a drug or device is still being tested but is available to human subjects, the FDA PROVIDES FOR STRINGENT CONTROLS ON INFORMED CONSENT."
.
.
Krebiozen
.
December 26, 2012
.
If Squidymus has any intelligence at all, he must be beginning to get a grip on the information being presented here and getting a strong sense of how poor the evidence supporting Burzynski actually is. The truth has a habit of seeping into the thickest skull.
For example, Burzynski is said to have treated 3,000 patients between 1977 and 1997, which is 150 patients each year. SEER estimates that, “13,700 men and women will die of cancer of the brain and other nervous system in 2012″. Since Burzynski generally treats terminal cancer patients who are very unlikely to survive, it is quite believable that about 150 of Burzynski’s patients die every year without any outcry at all. Most people who have lost a loved one are too worn out and grief-stricken to muster much outrage.
.
_____Says the Master of Non-CiteFiction.
.
To labor a point made many times by others, Burzynski makes no promises to cure these patients, he is kind, charismatic and very persuasive. He lubricates the process of relieving these people of their money with charm and false hope, and no one likes to admit that they may have made a terrible mistake. This is much more credible than assuming that 1,700 of Burzynski’s terminal cancer patients have survived, which is necessary for Squidymus’s risible calculation to be even close to correct. Where are these 1,700 remarkable survivors that Squidymus ASSUMES exist?
As for the court case against Burzynski, I don’t find it all unbelievable that the relatives of patients who died despite his care would still support him, nor do I find it unbelievable that lawyers could be incompetent, nor that the FDA could bungle a prosecution. None of these things are in any way evidence that Burzynski’s treatments work.
.
_____Says the learned "Scholar" who mistakenly doesn't "quote" me:
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
The Realm of where I question your MOTIVATION & GOOD FAITH
.
December 17, 2012
.
So 20 deaths out of 100 = 80% survival rate.
.
That would be a base-line calculation.
.
If you factor in that the survival rate may NOT have been as high as 80% because these were his Best Case Scenarios, we still come nowhere near your 0.2%
.
_____Yes, I typed "NOT."
.
.
LW
.
December 26, 2012
.
@Krebiozen: “If Squidymus has any intelligence at all,”
.
Assumption contrary to fact.
.
_____Please continue with your erudite posts like the one below! ;-)
.
LW
.
December 26, 2012
.
@AdamG:
.
.
Lawrence
.
December 26, 2012
.
@DJT – you mean that study “completed” over 7 years ago, but with no results actually published?
.
_____Lawrence, I know this might come as a "Shock & Awe" to you ... but:
.
12/24 Comments:
.
Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
December 24, 2012
.
He has initiated over 60 phase II studies over the decades and seems to have completed exactly ZERO of them.
.
.
Narad
.
December 26, 2012
.
DJT, if you might spare a kindness, please state one way or the other whether you are in fact “Citizen Jimserac,” mail-order-Ph.D. audiologist.
.
_____Yes I am a "Citizen," or not an Naradiologist.
.
.
AdamG
.
December 26, 2012
.
You remind me of Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution,” which is why it’s just a “Theory.”
.
Really?
Sigh.
.
_____I was thinking of Intelligent Design until I saw some of the posts on here.
.
.
novalox
.
December 26, 2012
.
@djt
Try some better insults, yours is just too predictable.
Of course, dealing with a anti-science wacko like you, infantile insults seem like the only thing you can put out.
But I’ll just keep on laughing at your pathetic efforts, anyway, so please keep on dancing, little false prophet.
.
_____Is your Daddy Ba'al?
.
.
LW
December 26, 2012
.
@AdamG:
.
You remind me of Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution,” which is why it’s just a “Theory.”
.
Really?
Sigh.
.
But don’t you see the marvelous malleability of reality? Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is “only a theory” because Narad reminds DJT of the Theory. If only Narad had stayed away from Respectful Insolence this month, all the quibbling about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution would never have happened and the theory would be accepted fact. All these decades of fighting the creationists are Narad’s fault!
.
_____Ohhh!! Is THAT what THIS post was for!!!
.
LW
.
December 26, 2012
.
@AdamG:
.
.
flip
.
Will we make 1000?
.
_____Not as long as you think we're playing whiffle ball!!
.
December 26, 2012
.
Squidymus blathers
You remind me of Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution,” which is why it’s just a “Theory.”
.
Yep, I was right for calling him a creationist. What a maroon!
Seriously, there’s nothing here to debate. Squidymus can’t spell, argue, theorise, hypothesise, count, or joke his way out of a paper bag.
.
_____I think it's self-evident that you've been a proponent of the "Big-Bag" (of Wind) theory for quite some time now!
.
@Narad
.
DJT, if you might spare a kindness, please state one way or the other whether you are in fact “Citizen Jimserac,” mail-order-Ph.D. audiologist.
.
The writing styles don’t seem very similar. Citizen Jimserac seems to be far more… skilled with vocabulary, to put it mildly. I’ve only looked at a handful of sites though, so I could be wrong.
.
_____Don't stop your losing streak now!! You could just continue to be wrong!!!
.
.
Alain
.
December 26, 2012
.
@ iDJiT,
.
Really, you’re saying that we have to wait until 2015 to evaluate the phase III clinical trial to have an opinion of Burzinski threatment?
Nothing about the numerous phase II clinical trials?
.
_____See my previous post re audit by Congress.
.
.
AdamG
.
December 27, 2012
.
11/29 -AdamG, What solar system are you living in?
.
The same one as you. The one that contains the Earth.
.
11/29 – AdamG, please cite the “FACTS” which buttress your unproven inane statement that “It’s clear that [I] didn’t actually read [your] link.
.
If you had read my link, you would have realized that it is not true that the NIH budget has doubled in the past 5 years. If you did read my link, good for you, it just means that you agree that the article you cited referring to the NIH budget is out of date.
.
_____It's good to see you've now started paying attention, ... somewhat.
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
The United States of America
.
November 28, 2012
.
_____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.
.
_____AdamG
.
November 29, 2012
.
_____AdamG, I take it that you did not click on the above links that I provided and read the contents thereof. Please view the 1st link re pdpipeline.
.
Oh, I read the links. That doesn’t change the fact that this statement:
.
_____the NIH budget has doubled in the past five years
Is completely, demonstrably false. If you’re willing to post such falsehoods, and then double down when caught in an obvious mistake, how am I to trust any of the sources you cite?
It’s clear you didn’t actually read my link, so here’s the actual report from Science on NIH funding:
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
The United States of America
.
November 29, 2012
.
_____AdamG, please cite the “FACTS” which buttress your unproven inane statement that “It’s clear that [I] didn’t actually read [your] link.
.
_____When viewing that site were you able to draw a conclusion as to what years the NIH statement was referring to? I think the more important part of the statement is the part re the FDA. ...
.
_____AdamG
.
November 29, 2012
.
_____When viewing that site were you able to draw a conclusion as to what years the NIH statement was referring to?
.
Given that the article was written in 2012, and that the statement refers to the past 5 years, the article is clearly claiming that the NIH budget doubled in the period from 2007-2012.
.
Do you believe that this is a factual claim or not? If so, please cite the “FACTS” that support this unproven inane statement.
.
For someone so focused on facts and proof, why won’t you acknowledge that this is an erroneous statement?
.
_____Narad (Jumps on the wagon.)
.
November 29, 2012
.
_____Given that the article was written in 2012, and that the statement refers to the past 5 years, the article is clearly claiming that the NIH budget doubled in the period from 2007-2012.
.
The only period since 1980 that the claim can accurately refer to is 1998–2003, which makes one wonder why it’s being parroted right here and right now. Actually, scratch that last bit.
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Los Estados Unidos de America
.
December 1, 2012
.
AdamG, ...
.
_____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.
.
_____NOW you can read the entire thing in context.
.
Now, math time. If the overall survival rate was in fact 5/7 (~70%), why would a group of his 7 best cases include 2 people that died?
.
_____IF; and I use the term "IF" loosely, like William Jefferson Clinton & his "It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is," we take it that you've been paying attention, ...
.
See below.
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
At The Respectful Insolence Courthouse
.
December 16, 2012
.
Pg. 118
.
A: The basic conclusion was that in five of the patients with brain rumors that were FAIRLY LARGE, the tumor resolved, disappeared.
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
In an Ark riding out the waves, prepared for the end of the Mayan world
.
December 17, 2012
.
12/16 Comments:
.
herr doktor bimler,
.
“with no attempt to show its relevance to anything.”
.
_____”THE TUMOR DISSOLVED” (pg. 118)
_____”But THE TUMOR WAS VERY BIG the last one, the seventh, last two cases did not survive, although THERE WAS DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT in one of the two last cases.” (pg. 119)
_____”you testified that five of the patients had their TUMORS RESOLVED.” (pg. 120)
_____”DISAPPEARED.” (pg. 120)
“Q: All right. What about these five patients that are all basically doing– how come they lived?” (pg. 122)
_____”Q: All right. What about these five patients that are all basically doing– how come they lived? (pg. 122)
A: Well, IT’s AMAZING, the fact that they are living and some of them are doing well. They are not– they are not handicapped from the side effects of any treatment, and worse than the tumor itself. So these particular individuals not only survived, but they didn’t have major side effects. So I think it is IMPRESSIVE and unbelievable.” (pg. 122)
_____”The TUMOR WAS VERY LARGE AND VERY INVOLVED the hypothalamus, a very sensitive part of the brain cannot be operated, and had both cystic components and fleshy components, mass like. AND THE LESION DISAPPEARED.” (pg. 123)
_____”In this particular patients case the tumor disappeared, and there was a small, tiny remnant left, small percentage of the original size. And there has been several years since then and the patient is well.” (pg. 123)
.
_____Based upon the information above, it would be my OPINION that SRB was trying to show the EFFECTIVENESS of Antineoplastons on FAIRLY LARGE to VERY BIG TUMORS, as opposed to how many patients survived.
"Shay, still can’t do any research on your own?"
Orac's blog, Orac's rules. You make the statement, you provide the proof. Something you are spectacularly unable to do, at least based on the same citations you post over and over, which all fall into 2 categories.
1) They don't support your claims OR
2) They are interviews, books, or videos. Not published results in reputable peer-reviewed journals..
Self-aggrandizing interviews with quacks =/= evidence. People who accept such "proof" are generally gullible, desperate, or have a stake in the con.
I'm repeating myself, but since the Sepia Troll has brought them up again, 6 of those 7 patients had radiotherapy before Burzynski saw them. In 4 of those 6 their tumor shrank within 6 months of radiotherapy which may well have been a late response. In the other two their tumors didn't really shrink at all during treatment with antineoplastons. The remaining one who didn't have radiotherapy may have had a benign tumor (juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma) that often requires no treatment after resection, and has a 10-year survival rate as high as 45%. At the time of the review he had survived 6 years.
Only one of these patients (Patient 5) had an unusually large tumor, which had increased slightly in size 1 month after radiotherapy (probably pseudoprogression) and had shrunk slightly 4 months after radiotherapy (probably a response to radiotherapy). Burzynski treated the patient with antineoplastons, methotrexate and vincristine but despite this the tumor grew and the patient died.
12/27 Comments:
.
Militant Agnostic
December 27, 2012
.
@AdamG
.
If you had read my link, you would have realized that it is not true that the NIH budget has doubled in the past 5 years.
Given Squidymus’ previously demonstrated math skills, that is an unwarranted assumption.
.
_____And your inability to read is duly noted.
.
.
LW
.
December 27, 2012
.
Quoth the iDJiT, “_____I doubt you could teach me anything, considering your past record.”
.
I enthusiastically agree as does, I am sure, every reader of this post who isn’t the iDJiT. Plainly no one has succeeded in teaching the iDJiT anything since third grade, and he is quite proud of that record.
.
_____Let me know when you post something credible, like: "I have reviewed the over 20 INDEPENDENT Antineoplaston publications re research done in Japan since at least 1988 & have duly noted that INDEPENDENT research has shown that SRB's research is plausible because of their Phase I & II Clinical Trials."
All (excepting Didymus Judas Thomas) -
I understand the temptation of responding to as irritating and defenseless a poster as DJT. However, there was no further point to be made, in my estimation, several hundred posts ago; DJT's numerous and lengthy posts alone will stand as sad representatives of the unbalanced sorts of minds that are (or try to be) defenders of Burzynski, so we should have no concern that the record in this regard needs further fleshing out.
Furthermore, I feel that it is increasingly obvious that DJT is suffering from some sort of mental illness, given the patterns in his posts and the overall bizarreness of his writings. To say that he has arrived unarmed to a battle of wits is to understate the case.
My suggestion is to simply cease responding. I don't see the possibility of anything of substance emerging, and DJT's quite saddening image has been unmistakably stamped on the Internet. All that remains is the limited pleasure of poking at the mental carcass.
Just my opinion, of course.
12/27 Comments:
.
Shay
.
December 27, 2012
.
“Shay, still can’t do any research on your own?”
.
Orac’s blog, Orac’s rules. You make the statement, you provide the proof. Something you are spectacularly unable to do, at least based on the same citations you post over and over, which all fall into 2 categories.
1) They don’t support your claims OR
2) They are interviews, books, or videos. Not published results in reputable peer-reviewed journals..
Self-aggrandizing interviews with quacks =/= evidence. People who
accept such “proof” are generally gullible, desperate, or have a stake in the con.
.
_____Do you always resort to lying?
.
_____Please provide a cite & date of any post I have made re:
.
_____"Self-aggrandizing interviews with quacks =/= evidence"
.
_____The National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Heath, cancer . gov, lists this as a Phase II Clinical Trial publication:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofes…
.
_____"A phase II study also conducted by the developer and his associates at his clinic reported on 12 patients with recurrent and diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma. Of the ten patients who were evaluable, two achieved complete tumor response, three had partial tumor response, three had stable disease, and two had progressive disease. Patients ranged in age from 4 to 29 years. Treatment with escalating intravenous bolus injections of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 continued for 6 months. The average dose of A10 was 11.3 g/kg daily, and the average dose of AS2-1 was 0.4 g/kg daily. Adverse effects included skin allergy, anemia, fever and hypernatremia, agranulocytosis, hypocalcemia, hypoglycemia, numbness, tiredness, myalgia, and vomiting.[12]"
.
"[12] Burzynski SR, Lewy RI, Weaver RA, et al.: Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. Drugs R D 4 (2): 91-101, 2003."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
.
http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/12718563/Phase_II_study_of_antineoplast…
.
http://adisonline.com/drugsrd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?mobile=0&year=20…
.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=2463317484923053692&u…
.
A 2003 Phase II clinical trial in Japan of 10 patients; 2 in stage I, 6 in stage II, 1 in stage III, 1 in stage IV-B, experienced 35 recurrence-free intervals during antineoplaston AS2-1 administration, which were significantly longer than those without antineoplaston AS2-1"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12579278
.
http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/12579278/The_preventive_effect_of_antin…
.
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/10/2/391
.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=3611231307540428029&u…
.
_____A lot of Tu-Quackers like to make the excuse that no independent researches are producing results with Antineoplastons. The Gub-ment says SRB's publication is a Clinical Trial publication. If you disagree with the Gub-ment, that's YOUR problem, not mine. If you disagree with with the Independent research in Japan, that's YOUR problem.
.
.
Krebiozen
December 27, 2012
.
I’m repeating myself, but since the Sepia Troll has brought them up again, 6 of those 7 patients had radiotherapy before Burzynski saw them. In 4 of those 6 their tumor shrank within 6 months of radiotherapy which may well have been a late response. In the other two their tumors didn’t really shrink at all during treatment with antineoplastons. The remaining one who didn’t have radiotherapy may have had a benign tumor (juvenile pilocytic astrocytoma) that often requires no treatment after resection, and has a 10-year survival rate as high as 45%. At the time of the review he had survived 6 years.
Only one of these patients (Patient 5) had an unusually large tumor, which had increased slightly in size 1 month after radiotherapy (probably pseudoprogression) and had shrunk slightly 4 months after radiotherapy (probably a response to radiotherapy). Burzynski treated the patient with antineoplastons, methotrexate and vincristine but despite this the tumor grew and the patient died.
.
_____Blah, blah, blah. And the reason I keep bringing it up is because the Tu-Quackers keep bringing it up.
What part of "not a suffix" do you fail to grasp? Moreover, here's a protip: You get what you pay for in lexicography land. The anatomical adjective for human cheeks is 'buccal'. You know who has gena? Enjoy a clue on the house. Finally, why the f*ck, in the psychic miasma that you occupy, do you imagine that Burzynski has named his substances "A10 of the cheeks" and "AS2 of the cheeks"?
I am thoroughly bored now. There's only so much fun to be had with a whiny screed that makes no sense. He's just further devolving into silly rants and non sequiturs.
@OccamsLaser
I agree. I was posting mainly for some fun, to watch Squidymus trip over his own two feet. Now I am bored and will stop talking to him.
I salute all of you commenters for your attempts to reach DJT. You have incredible patience; I'd've given up long ago. I don't think it's going to work, but you've certainly done due diligence and then some.
On behalf of the other lurkers, thank you.
12/27 & 31 Comments:
.
Narad
December 27, 2012
_____I’m thinking more along the lines of Naranalgenalsiac.
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=36608
What part of “not a suffix” do you fail to grasp? Moreover, here’s a protip: You get what you pay for in lexicography land. The anatomical adjective for human cheeks is ‘buccal’. You know who has gena? Enjoy a clue on the house. Finally, why the f*ck, in the psychic miasma that you occupy, do you imagine that Burzynski has named his substances “A10 of the cheeks” and “AS2 of the cheeks”?
.
_____What part of "prefix" do YOU not understand?
.
_____Moreover, here's a cotton tip: If you have your head in a hole in the ground or some other nether region, whenever you finally pull it out, a cotton tip swab will come in mighty handy
.
_____Because it'll probably take an A10 or AS2-1 between your cheeks before you "get it!!!" ;-)
.
.
flip
.
December 27, 2012
.
I am thoroughly bored now. There’s only so much fun to be had with a whiny screed that makes no sense. He’s just further devolving into silly rants and non sequiturs.
.
I agree. I was posting mainly for some fun, to watch Squidymus trip over his own two feet. Now I am bored and will stop talking to him.
.
_____It will indeed be a "Happy New Year!!! :-)
.
.
Khani
.
Amazed
.
December 31, 2012
.
I salute all of you commenters for your attempts to reach DJT. You have incredible patience; I’d've given up long ago. I don’t think it’s going to work, but you’ve certainly done due diligence and then some.
On behalf of the other lurkers, thank you.
.
_____Thanks for finalky coming out of your shell & enlightening everyone with your brilliance!!! :)
Thank you for confirming that you posting and you being quiet have the same level of informational value, Diddums.
Is that diddums guy for real?
Surely he must be a poe who is trying to make Burzy look even more morally bankrupt and scientifically inept than he can do on his own? If so he is succeeding beyond his wildest expectations.
Just looking for the cookie jar...
Un biscuit SVP...
What really upsets me is the media's role in this farce. They write main page articles about the fundraisers for these poor victims and never do a follow up article after the treatment does nothing and the victim dies.These articles tend to help the fundraising efforts and get people to think that they are helping by sharing the cost of sending someone to a charlatan. I once wrote to one of the Detroit papers advising them that they were helping raise money to send someone to a quack that would only take the money with no evidence that he (Burzynski) has ever cured anyone. Of course I was ignored. I don't know if the media just feel that false hope is better than no hope or if they only care about publicity irregardless of the results.
Cookie please
cookie cookie cookie
I have home made milk chocolate fudge with white chocolate swirls and chips. Will that do while we wait on the cookies?
One batch of freshly baked cookies.
C is for cookie
Cookie!
@Niche Geek: Cookie Cookie Cookie starts with C! (Yes, I had a younger sibling who watched a LOT of Sesame Street when that song was popular. I can sing many of the songs from that time...)