Stanislaw Burzynski gets off on a technicality

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?

Comments

  1. #1 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.

  2. #2 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Harrumph-a-Humph Humph
    December 26, 2012

    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.

  3. #3 Krebiozen
    December 26, 2012
  4. #4 novalox
    December 26, 2012

    @djt

    Yawn, try again.

  5. #5 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At Ripley's Believe It Or Not
    December 26, 2012

    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!!!”

  6. #6 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health
    December 26, 2012

    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/healthprofessional/page5

  7. #7 Didymus Judas Thomas
    In the Criminalization of Innovation room at the Tu-Quack Center
    December 26, 2012

    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.'”

  8. #8 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.

  9. #9 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?

    @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?

  10. #10 Alain
    December 26, 2012

    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

  11. #11 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, 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.

  12. #12 Narad
    December 26, 2012

    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).

    I take it that you are aware of the Budweiser–clam juice horror marketed as Chelada.

  13. #13 Alain
    December 26, 2012

    I take it that you are aware of the Budweiser–clam juice horror marketed as Chelada.

    Nope but it must be horrible.

    Alain

  14. #14 Didymus Judas Thomas
    In the Marc Stephens is Insane Memorial Crapper at the Tu-Quack Center
    December 26, 2012

    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.”

  15. #15 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.

    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.

  16. #16 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Old Ball Game watching novaluck get hit with a Bean Ball
    December 26, 2012

    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!”

  17. #17 Krebiozen
    December 26, 2012

    “…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.

    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:

    Jessica Ressel Interview. Brain Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy
    […] For a year and half, Jessi received her antineoplaston treatment as a slow intravenous drip through a chest catheter, 22 hours a day.

    And:

    Kelsey Hill Interview. Lung & Liver Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy
    […] Her parents declined all chemotherapy treatment and chose antineoplaston treatment instead.

    And:

    Jodie Gold Fenton Interview. Brain Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy
    […] She declined chemotherapy and radiation treatment and choose antineoplaston treatment instead.

    And:

    Lt. Col. James Treadwell. Brain Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy
    […] After surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment failed to affect his cancer, he chose Antineoplaston treatment.

    And:

    Susan Hale Interview. Brain Cancer Cured by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski with NO Chemo or Radiation Therapy
    […] After two surgeries, 6 weeks of radiation, and gamma knife radiation failed affect her cancer, she chose Antineoplaston treatment.

    And:

    Teresa Kennett was diagnosed with Stage IV Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in 1984. She refused to undergo chemotherapy or radiation and chose Antineoplaston therapy instead.

    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.

  18. #18 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Looking for a "FACT-CHECKING" Informed Patient Advocate
    December 26, 2012

    12/24 Comments:
    .
    Marc Stephens Is Insane
    .
    December 24, 2012
    .
    “I just found a new website by chance and wanted to pass it along.”
    .
    “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/healthprofessional/page6
    _____I do see Hypernatremia listed as a relatively common problem:
    http://www.uptodate.com/contents/etiology-and-evaluation-of-hypernatremia?source=outline_link&view=text&anchor=H1#H1
    .
    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=Completed&phase=1&rank=1

    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?

  19. #19 LW
    December 26, 2012

    @Krebiozen: “If Squidymus has any intelligence at all,”

    Assumption contrary to fact.

  20. #20 Lawrence
    December 26, 2012

    @DJT – you mean that study “completed” over 7 years ago, but with no results actually published?

  21. #21 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.

  22. #22 AdamG
    December 26, 2012

    You remind me of Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution,” which is why it’s just a “Theory.”
    .

    Really?

    Sigh.

  23. #23 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.

  24. #24 LW
    December 26, 2012

    @AdamG:

  25. #25 Didymus Judas Thomas
    doing a Feasibility Study of Brainstem Cells of Tu-Quackers
    December 26, 2012

    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?

  26. #26 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!

  27. #27 flip
    Will we make 1000?
    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.

    @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.

  28. #28 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Looking for Intelligent Life on a ScienceBlog
    December 26, 2012

    12/24 Comments:
    .
    LW
    .
    December 24, 2012
    .
    And then DJT refers us to this Phase III trial. Ah, yes, I remember it fondly. It seems like only a year ago we were talking about that trial … oh, wait, it was a year ago. I had fun posting progress reports on time remaining to enroll participants. And we find, a year later:
    Estimated Enrollment: 70
    .
    Study Start Date: December 2011
    .
    Estimated Study Completion Date: December 2015
    .
    Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
    .
    And he still hasn’t enrolled seventy participants and started his study: “This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.”
    *Yawn*. So much for that “evidence” of the effectiveness of Burzynski’s “treatments”.
    .
    _____YAWN! So much for you actually understanding the process:
    .
    _____And you continue to play ign’nt, or maybe you actually are!
    .
    _____Didymus Judas Thomas
    .
    Searching for the 0.02%
    .
    December 20, 2012
    .
    12/10 Comments:
    .
    _____ME: And if you were actually paying attention to what’s going on you would understand that:
    .
    1. There are costs associated with a Phase III Clinical Trail, and therefor funds have to obtained,
    .
    2. Patients of a sufficient number need to be obtained who specifically fit the “Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” category,
    .
    3. Parents need to be convinced to allow their Children to have their Brains be exposed to Radiation,
    .
    4. And there may be other factors as well.

  29. #29 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?

    Alain

  30. #30 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Looking to find out who's playing the "Shell Game" with their Brain
    December 27, 2012

    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-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html
    .
    http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html

  31. #31 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Reading Lame Duck Tu-Quack posts
    December 27, 2012

    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!!!

  32. #32 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.

    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?

  33. #33 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Throwing the Dog a Pro Bono
    December 27, 2012

    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.

  34. #34 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.

    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?

    Because the 2 that died went to heaven?

  35. #35 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.

  36. #36 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tumor-Quack Center
    December 27, 2012

    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.

  37. #37 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.

  38. #38 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.

  39. #39 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Phase THIS!!!
    December 27, 2012

    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.”

  40. #40 OccamsLaser
    December 27, 2012

    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.

  41. #41 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Does someone who posted before me need their Mommy?
    December 27, 2012

    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/healthprofessional/page5
    .
    _____”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_antineoplaston_A10_and_AS2_1_in_patients_with_recurrent_diffuse_intrinsic_brain_stem_glioma__a_preliminary_report
    .
    http://adisonline.com/drugsrd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?mobile=0&year=2003&issue=04020&article=00002&type=Abstract&desktopMode=true
    .
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=2463317484923053692&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=xtnXUKyHOoX28wSy-ICwCQ&ved=0CC4QzgIwAA
    .
    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_antineoplaston_AS2_1_on_HCC_recurrence
    .
    http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/10/2/391
    .
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=3611231307540428029&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=GIDcUKLGLYHC9QTxjYG4BA&ved=0CC4QzgIwAA
    .
    _____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.

  42. #42 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”?

  43. #43 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.

    @OccamsLaser

    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.

    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.

  44. #44 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.

  45. #45 Didymus Judas Thomas
    Doomsday Prepping for the Happy New Year!!!
    December 31, 2012

    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!!! 🙂

  46. #46 Antaeus Feldspar
    December 31, 2012

    Thank you for confirming that you posting and you being quiet have the same level of informational value, Diddums.

  47. #47 dingo199
    January 2, 2013

    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.

  48. #48 flip
    January 2, 2013

    Just looking for the cookie jar…

  49. #49 Marc
    January 2, 2013

    Un biscuit SVP…

  50. #50 Dan
    Windsor, Ontario, Canada
    January 3, 2013

    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.

  51. #51 JGC
    January 3, 2013

    Cookie please

  52. #52 Edith Prickly
    the deep freeze
    January 21, 2013

    cookie cookie cookie

  53. #53 Kelly M Bray
    In the kitchen
    January 22, 2013

    I have home made milk chocolate fudge with white chocolate swirls and chips. Will that do while we wait on the cookies?

  54. #54 W. Kevin Vicklund
    January 26, 2013

    One batch of freshly baked cookies.

  55. #55 Niche Geek
    January 27, 2013

    C is for cookie

  56. #56 herr doktor bimler
    January 27, 2013

    Cookie!

  57. #57 MI Dawn
    January 27, 2013

    @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…)

  58. […] Stanislaw Burzynski gets off on a technicality Orac, Respectful Insolence, 26/11/12 […]

  59. […] Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of the Texas Medical Board’s decision to drop its case against Burzynski on a technicality, Burzynski and his very own Leni Riefenstahl named Eric Merola are planning on a huge publicity […]

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.