As I contemplated how I wanted to start the blogging week, I thought that I should probably again plug Bob Blaskiewicz’s campaign to provide Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, the Houston doctor who for the last 35 years has been treating patients diagnosed with advanced stage and terminal cancers with something he calls antineoplastons (ANPs), with a most excellent “gift” for his 70th birthday. This he does despite the astounding lack of compelling evidence that ANPs are actually effective against cancer, none of which stops him from charging patients exorbitant amounts of money, sometimes upwards of $100,000, for his “treatments,” which he claims to be part of being on a clinical trial. Never mind that, as I’ve pointed out time and time again, Burzynski has had dozens of phase II clinical trials since the 1990s and has published on precious few of them, and when he has claimed remissions others have not been able to replicate his results. In particular, a multicenter phase II trial carried out by investigators at the Mayo Clinic was a big failure, with a median survival of 5.2 months in patients with anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, or glioblastoma multiforme that had recurred after radiation therapy. Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.

In any case, what Bob’s trying to do is, as I’ve pointed out before, to shame Dr. Burzynski into doing something good for cancer patients for a change. He’s doing this by challenging skeptics to raise money that will do cancer patients real good, namely to be given as a donation to the St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital. On Burzynski’s birthday (January 23), he’ll challenge Dr. Burzynski to match it. If Burzynski actually does match it (highly unlikely given that he has no shame), it will be the first good thing Burzynski has ever done for cancer patients. If he doesn’t, at least it will shine the light of publicity on what Burzynski has been getting away with doing for over 30 years. The link to donate is here. So what are you waiting for?

In the meantime, I can’t help but wonder about a recent post I saw at a particularly wretched hive of scum and quackery, Mercola.com, entitled Case Dismissed! Texas Ends 15-Year Fight Against Cancer Doctor Burzynski. It’s basically one big gloat over how the Texas Medical Board dropped its case against Burzynski in November, shortly before Thanksgiving. It’s two months late, but I suppose if you’re a quack it’s better late than never. It also ignores the way that Burzynski got off, basically on a technicality and by throwing the doctors who work for him under the bus. His slithering away from justice yet again is not in any way an indication that he has been vindicated. It is rather amusing in its timing, such that one can’t help but wonder whether Bob’s campaign is having an effect to the point where Stanislaw Burzynski and his own personal (but talentless) Leni Riefenstahl by the name of Eric Merola were feeling enough pressure that they felt that they had to respond (and to pimp his upcoming Burzynski sequel). If that’s the case, all I can say to Bob is: Good job!

About this sequel, entitled Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Chapter 2 | A Modern Story (and which I like to call Burzynski II: Antineoplaston Boogaloo or Burzynski II: The Color of Money), Mercola exults:

Dr. Burzynski received much-needed publicity two years ago with the release of Burzynski — The Movie, a documentary about Dr. Burzynski’s remarkable cancer discovery, and how he won the largest and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in American history.

This year, a second film detailing his continued struggles, and victories, is scheduled to be released. As announced in the trailer (see above), Dr. Burzynski is now doing the unthinkable… He is “the first and only scientist in United States history to enter the federal drug approval process for a proprietary cancer therapy without any financial support from the American government, the pharmaceutical industry, or the cancer establishment.”

Uh, not quite. Biotech startups go into the FDA drug approval process all the time without support from the American government. I suppose that you could say that they are par of the “pharmaceutical industry.” They are not, however, “big pharma,” which is what Mercola is clearly trying to imply. Mercola also parrots the Burzynski line that “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is the wave of the future. Actually, that’s not a “line.” I do believe that personalized therapy is the wave of the future. The line of BS is that Burzynski is at the forefront of surfing that wave, as Mercola claims:

In recent years, the focus for cancer therapy has increasingly shifted toward individualized gene-targeted cancer treatment — such as that provided by Dr. Burzynski for the past 10 years. A description of how the patient’s individualized treatment plan is devised is given in the second video above, starting three minutes into the video. So, is it any wonder the industry wants to get rid of him in order to protect their own profits and access to research funds?

As an example, in January 2011, the Khalifa Foundation gave a $150 million grant to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center8 “to support genetic-analysis based research, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.” In short, personalized cancer treatment is the future of oncology, and the US government has spared no expense in trying to make eliminate Dr. Burzynski from the race — including patent theft…

Because Burzynski’s rinky-dink operation is just like M. D. Anderson and Burzynski thinks himself on par with the most brilliant cancer researchers in the world who are pioneering personalized therapy, be it at M.D. Anderson, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, or any of the several NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers working on developing personalized targeted therapy. No, Burzynski does not understand personalized therapy or genomics, which is why I’ve referred to his methods as “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy for dummies,” and is full of the arrogance of ignorance to the point of laying down some major howlers about gene0-targeted therapy. Apparently, he thinks he invented the concept, which is truly risible. The odds that any useful new method to use genomics and protein expression profiles to guide personalized cancer therapy will come out of the Burzynski Clinic are about the same as the odds that a new scientific breakthrough in anything will be discovered by a homeopathy—slim and none.

In any case, as much as Mercola is kissing Burzynski’s posterior, the whole trailer is one big, fat load of conspiracy-mongering propaganda, not unlike the press release:

For most patients being treated by the Burzynski Clinic today—their advanced cancer itself runs secondary to the constant barrage of skepticism coming not only from their local oncologists—who simply do not understand Burzynski’s therapy—but also from their own friends and family who feel their loved ones are not making the correct treatment decisions—even though mainstream oncology has already left many of them for dead.

As this story unfolds, the audience will witness a real-time change of hearts and minds from many doctors and families.

Unlike the first documentary, we have interviewed board-certified oncologists, surgeons, and neurosurgeons for this film who witnessed their patients leave their care to return in great health, after opting for the Burzynski Clinic.

Since the mapping of the Cancer Genome, Burzynski has pioneered an expansion of his therapy that he calls, “Personalized Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy”, where each patient’s Genomic Cancer Atlas is mapped, and a treatment regimen is personally tailored for each individual patient—vs. the conveyor belt, “one size fits all” approach that current oncology adheres to. This part of the film will likely be the first time most of the audience will become aware of this new direction.

Due to the slow-moving bureaucratic obstacles of Antineoplastons by the FDA, this new expanded “personalized gene-targeted” direction has allowed more patients who are denied access to Antineoplastons by the FDA to benefit from Burzynski’s practice in ways never before thought possible.

Note the framing. There are those nasty skeptics, oncologists, and promoters of science-based medicine who, out of concern for patients going to the Burzynski Clinic, try to warn patients that Burzynski doesn’t have the goods. Obviously, according to Merola, they’re too stupid, ignorant, or deluded to understand the genius that is The Great Stanislaw Burzynski! Especially those Houston oncologists and Houston ER docs, who are the ones on the front lines who actually have to try to pick up the human wreckage that Burzynski leaves behind with his treatments. Never mind that! Merola will show them! He’ll do it using what are, in essence, religious conversion stories, in which the metaphorical St. Paul is knocked off his horse by the sheer awesomeness that is Burzynski, recants his previous skepticism as the “miracle” of antineoplastons and Burzynski’s “personalized” therapy is revealed, and becomes a believer. Notice, however, no mention of—oh, you know—anything resembling actual scientific evidence.

It also looks as though Merola is going to amp up the conspiracy theory angle again even more than the first movie. I’m not sure how he will achieve this, given that the first installment in Burzynski The Movie was one-third anecdotes, two-thirds broadsides against the FDA and the Texas Medical Board chock full of conspiracy theories. In any case, I’d love to see what Burzynski and his propagandist have to say about his “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy for dummies”-approach to personalized cancer therapy, because from what I can tell on his website and publicly available sources, not only does Burzynski completely misunderstand targeted therapy, thinking that working on more genes must be better (here’s a hint: chemotherapy works on a lot of genes), but he misapplies very basic knowledge of genomics by using a “one from column A, two from column B”-style mixing and matching of targeted agents devoid of any deep understanding of the consequences.

Let’s take a look at the trailer:

The clip starts off with what is very old news, a press conference by the director of the FDA through much of the 1990s David Kessler, being asked at a press conference whether the process of expedited review introduced then for anticancer therapies would speed up the approval of antineoplastons. Clearly, the two reporters asking questions are believers, as they keep badgering Kessler after he says that he doesn’t want to focus on any single anticancer agent. We’re then told ominously that less than one year after this press conference America’s federal and state agencies lost a “fourteen year campaign attempting to permanently revoke Burzynski’s medical license” and declares that “Burzynski’s victory” resulted in the government abandoning its attempt to “hijack” these medicines. Merola also accuses the government of colluding with one of Burzynski’s own scientists to file patents on Burzynski’s therapies, listed as patent numbers 6037376, 5635532, 5852056, 5654333, 5661179, 5635533, 5843994, 5710178 (which is the same as 5843994), 5877213 (listed as a continuation of 779744, which was abandoned), and 5881124. Several of these appear to be redundant, being continuations or combinations of other patents. Be that as it may, the researcher to which Merola refers is Dvorit Samid, who is currently Vice President of Medical Affairs at Synta Pharmaceutical and was Section Chief Differentiation Control, National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health Division of Cancer Treatment from 1990 to 1995. These patents have mainly to do with phenylacetic acid, which was one compound that Burzynski referred to as AS-2.1, and derivatives mostly as anticancer or differentiation compounds in in vitro systems. One of these patents (5881124) has nothing to do with antineoplastons and is in fact an imaging patent. Maybe it’s a typo that Merola will fix before he releases his movie.

Be that as it may, the claim that Dvorit Samid “stole” Burzynski’s antineoplaston patents strikes me as rather questionable (at best), given that, first, Samid was not “one of Burynski’s scientists” but a section chief at the NCI. Also, using Merola’s counting methods, Burzynski himself has four patents on antineoplastons, issued in the 1980s. These include 4,470,970, 4,558,057, 4,559,325, and 4,444,890 and since the 1990s has filed numerous patent applications for antineoplastons for everything from treating cancer using liposomal delivery systems, to treating hypercholesterolemia and Parkinson’s disease. What exactly happened between Burzynski and the NCI is difficult to discover, as it is documented objectively in few places but trumpeted around the web by Burzynski-friendly sources. Even a paper analyzing the incident from a sociological standpoint isn’t particularly revealing, given that it, too, slants towards Burzynski and was published in a highly dubious journal.

Next up in the trailer is a mention of Burzynski’s infamous phase III clinical trial, A Randomized Study of Antineoplaston Therapy vs. Temozolomide in Subjects With Recurrent and / or Progressive Optic Pathway Glioma. What has always been puzzling to me, ever since I became interested in Burzynski and his antineoplastons, is why Food and Drug Administration (FDA) not only continues to let Burzynski set up phase II clinical trial after phase II clinical trial, nearly all of which never accrue enough patients to publish. Indeed, if you search ClinicalTrials.gov for “Burzynski” or “antineoplaston,” exclude all the trials with “unknown” status, you’ll find the aforementioned phase III trial, a whole lot of trials with “unknown” status, and a trial unrelated to antineoplastons for which a man named Joseph Burzynski appears to be an investigator at one of the sites. If you peruse the NCI website, you can find a very nice summary of the existing clinical trial data on antineoplastons. Of those sixty or so phase II studies, there are only a couple of them published, as is summarized nicely by the NCI:

Antineoplaston therapy has been studied as a complementary and alternative therapy for cancer. Case reports, phase I toxicity studies, and some phase II clinical studies examining the effectiveness of antineoplaston therapy have been published. For the most part, these publications have been authored by the developer of the therapy, Dr. Burzynski, in conjunction with his associates at the Burzynski Clinic. Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results.

A more detailed listing of the clinical evidence by the NCI is singularly unconvincing.

One notes that Burzynski’s phase III trial, although approved in December 2010, is not yet open to accrual, even though it was scheduled to begin accruing patients in December 2011. In any case, the reason that this is an issue is that Burzynski apologists have been pointing to this study as “evidence” that there must be something to antineoplastons, the rationale being that otherwise the FDA would not have given the trial the go-ahead. Given that there is no good clinical data published by Burzynski that I’ve been able to find to support a phase II clinical trial, this has puzzled me and other skeptics, at least one of whom suspects that, however he persuaded the FDA to approve this trial, it suits Dr. Burzynski just fine that it has not opened yet. It is a suspicion that I share. Think about it. This phase III trial is the biggest and most effective club that Burzynski apologists have to beat skeptics over the head with. If Burzynski actually started accruing to the trial, its results would, by law, have to be posted to ClinicalTrials.gov. An approved but not yet accruing trial is an infinitely better weapon than a trial that accrues and produces no results. It’s also interesting to note that this clinical trial includes chemotherapy. In fact, Burzynski uses a lot of chemotherapy.

As for the phase II trials, there are lots of trials listed as having “unknown” status (meaning that their status has not been verified in over two years) but still listed as being “open” as well. There are also several studies listed as “withdrawn.” It’s a total of 62 trials over the last 20 years or so, and not a single one of them, as far as I and others who have looked at them have ever been able to tell, has produced any useful evidence for the efficacy of antineoplaston therapy. Is it any wonder that many of us suspect that these “clinical trials” are shams designed to get around the orders of the Texas Medical Board back in the 1990s that prohibited Burzynski from using antineoplastons except within the context of being tested in clinical trials?

The rest of the trailer consists of nothing more than the usual Burzynski blather, anecdotes, this time bolstered with two conversion stories involving credulous oncologists who are now apparently Burzynski believers.

One wonders how much they would believe if they read some cases, the stories of several Burzynski patients. For example, there’s Wayne Merritt, who spent a lot of money at the Burzynski Clinic before figuring out that he was wasting his money. Mr. Merritt was threatened by a representative of the Burzynski Clinic, apparently because Burzynski didn’t like the Merritts’ Burzynski Scam site. Or maybe they should look at Denise D., a woman who was working as a temp without health insurance when she developed what sounds like inflammatory breast cancer. She went to the Burzynski Clinic, where she was charged large sums of money. When she managed to get some of the drugs she was being prescribed from the pharmaceutical companies through a compassionate use program, saving her thousands of dollars, the Burzynski Clinic turned around and started charging her a $1,500 per month “case management fee” just to submit refills of her submit refills for the Tarceva, Xeloda, Zolinza, and Zometa. These are all very expensive targeted drugs and chemotherapeutics.

When looking at the human cost of Burzynski’s activities, words fail me. Sadly, Wayne Merritt and Denise D. are not alone.

Comments

  1. #1 JGC
    February 5, 2013

    I’m not having trouble with the meaning of the word ‘publicly’ DJT. I’m asking you to explain what exactly is being asked –what action on the part of the FDA–as public acknowledgment.

    Again: you can’t possibly mean an FDA admission that they’re an effective treatments for advanced cancer, can you?

  2. #2 JGC
    February 5, 2013

    One more question–what exactly do you expect congress to audit? Burzynski hasn’t published results from any of the 60-plus clinical trials he’s supposedly been conducting for the past few decades–what’s to review?

  3. #3 Narad
    February 5, 2013

    One more question–what exactly do you expect congress to audit?

    Something something JaG-Coff random Wikipedia link something.

  4. #4 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu- Quack Center Patent Nonsense Nook
    February 6, 2013

    #97 – 98 LoW on “fact-checking”
    .
    “This seems to have expired seven years ago. I guess Burzynski missed his chance and Big Pharma jumped in to steal his discovery … oh, wait.”
    .
    You were saying???
    .
    ” … Burzynski was more concerned with protecting his patents …”
    .
    “I did not consider at all the problem of patent protection versus filing of an IND
    .
    1st of all, the patent application was filed already, &, on the other hand, I did not have any reservation in sharing the details of production & treatment with Antineoplastons with any researcher all over the world
    .
    For instance, I gave the procedure on how to synthesize Antineoplaston A10 to the People’s Republic of China, where I do not have any patent protection
    .
    In the future, the People’s Republic of China could be a huge market for pharmaceuticals, …
    .
    As a result of such sharing of technology, the doctors in China were able to synthesize Antineoplaston A10 a few years ago & are using their product successfully in their research”
    http://www.commonweal.org/pubs/choices/21.html

  5. #5 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu- Quack Center Reading for Dummies Room
    February 6, 2013

    #199 Lawrench
    .
    “Wait, did Didums just demand that Dr. B should release all of his results for scrutiny?”
    .
    NO. I actually did something called “fact-checking” & research. & posted the results & provided the link.
    .
    Maybe YOU should try accessing the link & read the information!
    .
    #173
    http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128&Itemid=101

  6. #6 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center At the keyboard, hoping that the braindead lack of preview doesn't bite me - IT DIDN'T WORK!!!
    February 6, 2013

    #200 Bill Price
    .
    “DJT played some (pretend arithmetic) number games and claimed that 5 survivors out of 3500 cases yielded a survival rate of 80%. That’s why nobody pays attention to DJT, and why he’s reduced himself to preschool-style name-calling and random, repetitive copy-pasta.”
    .
    #130 Didymus Judas Thomas
    .
    #124. LW
    .
    “For those who may have missed it,”
    .
    Is THAT the best you can do???
    .http://www.unlimitedchoice.org/blog/humour/a-guide-to-truth-and-bullshit
    You don’t seem to be able to comprehend the concept of “turn-about is fair play.”
    .
    You post BS, I call BS & post it back in return.
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
    See post #205 above.

  7. #7 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center English as a Second Language School
    February 6, 2013

    #201 JGC
    .
    “Again: you can’t possibly mean an FDA admission that they’re an effective treatments for advanced cancer, can you?”
    .
    JGC, please let me know what part of the English language you do NOT understand.
    .
    #128
    .
    10/15/2012
    .
    “Since 1995, all cancer patients who received Antineoplaston treatment in the USA, did so under the approval &
    .
    SUPERVISION OF THE FDA.”
    .
    “The patients were treated within
    .
    PHASE 2 FDA CLINICAL TRIALS,
    .
    without the aid of the National Cancer Institute, or any other cancer research entity.”
    .
    “Antineoplastons are responsible for the 1st recorded cures in medical history within any
    .
    FDA-approved CLINICAL TRIAL …”
    .
    “A “cure” is defined as 5-year survival.”
    .
    BZYR SEC Filings for BZYR Form 10-Q on 10/15/2012
    .
    If patients were treated with Antineoplaston treatment in the USA, underthe
    .
    SUPERVISION OF THE FDA
    .
    within
    .
    PHASE 2 FDA-APPROVED CLINICAL TRIALS,
    .
    where
    .
    “A “CURE” is defined as 5-YEAR SURVIVAL,”
    .
    then the FDA should PUBLICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE it,
    .
    unless they are going to use some “whine & cheese” excuse like:
    .
    1. It wasn’t under SUPERVISION OF THE FDA, or
    .
    2. It wasn’t a PHASE 2 FDA-APPROVED CLINICAL TRIAL, or
    .
    3. We’ve changed the definition of “A “CURE” defined as 5-YEAR SURVIVAL.

  8. #8 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Ain't "Skeered" Studio
    February 6, 2013

    #202 JGC
    .
    “One more question–what exactly do you expect congress to audit?”
    .
    JGC, for all the “whining & cheesing on this blogsplat, I still haven’t seen any blatherskiter cite any law or regulation that says SRB has to release any information to you.
    .
    Maybe you should send a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FDA for any data provided to them by SRB.
    .
    In the meantime, you might actually attempt accessing the link I provided unless you’re “skeered.”
    .
    #173
    http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128&Itemid=101

  9. #9 flip
    February 6, 2013

    @Squidymus

    #186. FlipCan’tRead

    I can read, I just can’t comprehend what you’re saying. That and I don’t have time to fully trawl your screeds (where do I send the bill for my scroll button?) The problem is with you and your language issues, not mine.

    You’ve shown you can write normal sentences and respond in a normal way, why do you refuse to do it at all times? Stop resorting to childish wordplay and start acting like a grown up. Maybe then we’d take you seriously and stop laughing at your inanities; we might even agree with you if you’d just state what it is you’re on about.

    Also, one does not need citations when pointing out logical errors or basic primary-school math. Maybe you should figure out what a citation actually means. And try reading the ones you do cite.

    @Narad

    The report actually says “we,” which I find somewhat interesting in that skimming the 10-K led me to the impression that Scamley has something of an arm’s-length arrangement with BRI.

    All the better to throw doctors under buses one would think.

    @Lawrence

    Wait, did Didums just demand that Dr. B should release all of his results for scrutiny?

    I do believe somewhere in there is a thought process that we’re not allowed to criticise Burzyinski without first giving false balance and waiting until after B publishes. Not that he’d admit it outright, as I’ve tried to corner him on it a couple of times (see my comments about defending B ) and he refuses to answer legibly.

  10. #10 Didymus Judas Thomas
    February 6, 2013

    #203. Narad
    .
    “Something something JaG-Coff random Wikipedia link something.”
    .
    I see you couldn’t even provide a citation or reference for THAT!!! 😉

  11. #11 Lawrence
    February 6, 2013

    @flip – the endless word salad is quite droll at this point & Didums has yet to articulate a well-thought out position (you know, a couple of normal paragraphs).

  12. #12 LW
    February 6, 2013

    “Antineoplastons are responsible for the 1st recorded cures in medical history within any FDA-approved clinical trial …”

    How fascinating. So there was never in all of recorded history a cure (of what? anything?) before the FDA was established and started approving clinical trials.

    That certainly puts paid to the claims of all those naturopaths who claim that herbs have been used to cure diseases since time immemorial.

    Oh, and all you researchers outside the US? Might as well pack it in. Without FDA approval you’re pretty much out of luck.

  13. #13 LW
    February 6, 2013

    I shouldn’t comment early in the morning. I read “within” as “without”. Apologies to all, even DJT. I’ll shut up and get some coffee onw.

  14. #14 flip
    February 6, 2013

    @Lawrence

    Actually I have caught a couple of sentences that were properly structured and made sense. They are rare and so one can easily miss them amongst his scroll-of-posts and regular idiocy. Which isn’t to say my guesses on what he is trying to say are valid.

    I really shouldn’t engage with the twat, but I’m sick of seeing the endless tracts on every thread about Burzyinski.

  15. #15 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu- Quack Center Flipping Pancakes
    February 6, 2013

    #209 flip
    .
    @Squidymus
    .
    #186. FlipCan’tRead
    .
    ” I just can’t comprehend what you’re saying.”
    .
    Yet I as supposed to comprehend what you’re saying!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
    “That and I don’t have time to fully trawl your screeds (where do I send the bill for my scroll button?)”
    .
    Yet I make time to fully read all of y’all’s manifestos (where do I send the bill for my corrective LASIK surgery?)
    .
    “The problem is with you and your language issues, not mine.”
    .
    The problem is with y’all’s excuses & “whine & cheese” issues, not mine.
    .
    “You’ve shown you can write normal sentences and respond in a normal way, why do you refuse to do it at all times?”
    .
    Because y’all make excuses for not accessing links & reading the content & making me re-post what has already been posted before.
    .
    “Stop resorting to childish wordplay and start acting like a grown up.”
    .
    Stop resorting to childish excuses unless you’re going to be like Bill Price & admit you didn’t read everything.
    .
    #200 Bill Price
    “At the keyboard, hoping that the braindead lack of preview doesn’t bite me”
    .
    “Maybe then we’d take you seriously and stop laughing at your inanities; we might even agree with you if you’d just state what it is you’re on about.
    .
    Maybe then I’d take y’all seriously & stop laughing at your blatherskites; I might even agree with y’all if y’all would just state what it is you’re on about; because who can understand this?
    .
    #28
    ” … I’ve clearly posted items not exactly complimentary to SRB on here, but I find it more fun to question the tu-quacking tu quoque quoting posters.”
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
    “Also, one does not need citations when pointing out logical errors or basic primary-school math.”
    .
    Posting BS & calling it BaSic logic & claiming basic primary school math when y’all didn’t read the citations; so y’all’s “basic primary school math” is based on “logical errors,” doesn’t cut the cheese, it just smells like the cheese whiz.
    .
    “Maybe you should figure out what a citation actually means.”
    .
    Maybe y’all should figure out how to actually access a citation & read it until you comprehend it.
    .
    “And try reading the ones you do cite.”
    .
    And try reading the ones I do cite.

  16. #16 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 6, 2013

    #211 Lawrence
    .
    “[T]he endless word salad is quite droll at this point & Didums has yet to articulate a well-thought out position (you know, a couple of normal paragraphs).”
    .
    really? Really?? REALLY???
    .
    excuses! Excuses!! EXCUSES!!!
    .
    whine & cheese. Whine & Cheese. WHINE & CHEESE.
    .
    I like how my post #204 & after we’re “awaiting moderation,” but y’all’s #209 & after comments were already posted.

  17. #17 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "TWATTING" on "TWITTER"
    February 6, 2013

    #214 flip
    .
    “I really shouldn’t engage with the twat, but I’m sick of seeing the endless tracts on every thread about Burzyinski.”
    .
    I KNOW!! Because its NOT like y’all actually know what you’re posting about because you’ve researched & “fact-checked” it, now is it???
    .
    Post #204
    .
    Maybe you SHOULD stick to TWATTING!!! 😉

  18. #18 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Glioma on to THIS Respectful Insolence
    February 6, 2013

    #212 LW
    .
    “Antineoplastons are responsible for the 1st recorded cures in medical history within any FDA-approved clinical trial …”
    “How fascinating. So there was never in all of recorded history a cure (of what? anything?) before the FDA was established and started approving clinical trials.”
    .

    Oh might Grand Wizard & Lord of the Wrings
    .
    I take it that because of your pride in “attention to detail” & self-respect for yourself, that you noted the reference to above post #128:
    .
    “Antineoplastons are responsible for the 1st recorded cures in medical history within any FDA-approved clinical trial …
    .
    for INOPERABLE BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS IN CHILDREN-WITH 30%-50% CURE RATE.

  19. #19 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    I just read some exciting, breaking news on the Josephine Jones website. No details yet, but she’s reporting that the FDA has forced Slimy Stan to stop accepting new patients for ANPs!!!

    More news later Thursday. I’m sure Orac and JJ will be all over this as more details come in.

  20. #20 Lawrence
    February 7, 2013

    @MSII – if that’s the case, that is great news! It would explain why ANPs had disappeared from his website…..looks like the gravy train might be coming to an end for old Stan, hopefully.

  21. #21 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    Nah, he’ll just move to Mexico and set up between Hulda Clark’s operation and the laetrile crooks.

    Keep your eyes on Josephine Jones’s and medtek’s twitter feeds. They seem to be on top of this.

  22. #22 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    Yup, it seems like it’s happening!! Keir Liddle is a guest columnist on Josephine Jones’s site and has a post today about an FDA audit at Scummy Stan’s clinic that’s been in progress for the past month. He has excerpts from a Burzynski patient’s blog which has some details,

    http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/

  23. #23 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013
  24. #24 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    From a patient’s own blog (it’s on CaringBridge but is private):

    The FDA stopped new pediatric patients because a child had went (sic) into a tumor related coma and did not get enough water during treatment, thus spiking the sodium level to a fatal level..

    No bloody side effects, huh?

  25. #25 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    And the FDA audit has permission to be extended another month, so BS-SB will definitely be taking a hit in the pocketbook if he can’t enroll new customers for another four weeks!

  26. #26 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    medtek is saying the ANP ban also applies to new adult patients. Speculation the FDA waited for the audit to see what the TMB outcome would be. (I guess if the TMB shut him down the FDA wouldn’t need to step in).

  27. #27 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    Might be fun to monitor man-whore Merola’s twitter feed to see how he flips out over this. Might scuttle the release of his second commercial.

  28. #28 flip
    February 7, 2013

    Fantastic news – thanks MSII for the info!

    A certain troll (or Burzyinski defenders) in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…

    Oh geez, I can imagine the new movie now: Burzyinski under fire as he takes on yet more harassment from the evil bad gubberment – cue shots of his lawyers – “it wasn’t me your honour, it was the nurse who didn’t let the patient get the water” – cue shot of B with a halo around his head. Like Wakefield, I expect this will be the time to double-down on the marketing/bulldust.

  29. #29 Krebiozen
    February 7, 2013

    DJT,

    Antineoplastons are responsible for the first recorded cures in medical history within any FDA-approved clinical trial for inoperable brainstem gliomas in children — with a 30%-50% cure rate. A “cure” is defined as a 5-year survival.

    That’s a quote from Burzynski’s movie, not from any peer-reviewed paper, and it isn’t true. No properly controlled trials of antineoplastons for gliomas have ever been published, so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty that antineoplastons are responsible for anything of the sort.

    Can you name a single Burzynski patient with a biopsy-diagnosed inoperable brainstem glioma who has survived for more than 5 years without any conventional treatment? Every case I have looked at closely either had a doubtful diagnosis, or was treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy and could be a case of artifactual tumor progression or regression after conventional treatment leading to the appearance of a response to antineoplastons.

    That’s why Burzynski needs to complete a Phase III study if he is going to demonstrate any real efficacy of antineoplastons. Many of us strongly suspect that he hasn’t done so because they are not effective, not because of a lack of either funding or suitable patients as you have suggested.

  30. #30 flip
    February 7, 2013

    I really hope in all this someone at the FDA is reading the various blogs and comments about Burzyinski. The wealth of information out there already is worth them looking into.

  31. #31 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quacking Center seriously? Seriously?? SERIOUSLY??? Scienter
    February 7, 2013

    #229 Krebiozen
    .
    DJT,
    .
    “That’s a quote from Burzynski’s movie, not from any peer-reviewed paper, and it isn’t true.”
    .
    NO, KreBloggerZen.
    .
    This is from post #218, which is in reference to #207, re: #194, re #191, re #128
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465909002283/a09-2965_1ex99d1.htm
    .
    http://biz.yahoo.com/e/121015/bzyr10-q.html
    Specifically, the 2nd link.
    .
    This is why I have a difficult time taking a lot of you “SERIOUSLY,” because of this apparent lack of researching & “fact-checking” before posting.

  32. #32 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    I hope, while the FDA is auditing him, that they finally cancel or revoke the never-gonna-happen Phase III trial approval and make it official.

    IT”S OVER FOR STAN!!!!

  33. #33 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    Here’s more from the patient’s blog:

    I believe it was August, the FDA stopped new pediatric patients because a child had went into a tumor related coma and did not get enough water during treatment, thus spiking the sodium level to a fatal level. Now, in January, for reasons unknown to me, the FDA has suspended new adult patients from the ANP as well. I do not know when the new patients will be allowed again or if any restrictions on current patients will also follow. Friday, the Burzynski Clinic shipped us 3 months of ANP, where they normally only ship 2 weeks. They are being proactive and making sure we have the meds she needs just in case any medicine production is stopped. Apparently, a person who monitors the medicine production had a serious medical emergency. This, along with the FDA auditing has us a little on edge waiting to see how it all plays out. Even though this is bad news for the clinic, there is silver lining because when this is finished, the clinic should be moving into Phase 3 of the clinical trail and hospitals and doctors should be able to start prescribing the ANP and doing clinical trials of their own. To my knowledge, Dr. Burzynski has the only medicine not sponsored or picked up by a pharma company. I think that’s why things don’t work like they do for normal drug approval.

    I see his customers are still being lied to and deluded about the “never-gonna-happen” Phase III trial.

    http://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/02/07/something-is-going-down-at-the-burzynski-clinic/

    Of course the Burzynski suck-ups on Twitter are saying this isn’t credible, we’re all lying, that we’re ignoring all the people “cured” and that Stan is saving lives.

  34. #35 W. Kevin Vicklund
    February 7, 2013
    Antineoplastons are responsible for the first recorded cures in medical history within any FDA-approved clinical trial for inoperable brainstem gliomas in children — with a 30%-50% cure rate. A “cure” is defined as a 5-year survival.

    That’s a quote from Burzynski’s movie, not from any peer-reviewed paper, and it isn’t true.

    .
    NO, KreBloggerZen.
    .
    This is from post #218, which is in reference to #207, re: #194, re #191, re #128
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465909002283/a09-2965_1ex99d1.htm
    .
    http://biz.yahoo.com/e/121015/bzyr10-q.html
    Specifically, the 2nd link.
    .
    This is why I have a difficult time taking a lot of you “SERIOUSLY,” because of this apparent lack of researching & “fact-checking” before posting.

    I was able to find the above quote in Burzynski’s movie. I was not able to find it at either of the links DJT provided.

    What was that about fact-checking?

  35. #36 Lawrence
    February 7, 2013

    @W – this is actually the quote I like best:

    Certain matters discussed in this quarterly report, except for historical information contained herein, may constitute “forward-looking statements” that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements provide current expectations of future events based on certain assumptions. These statements encompass information that does not directly relate to any historical or current fact and often may be identified with words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “expects,” “estimates,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects” and other similar expressions. Management’s expectations and assumptions regarding Company operations and other future results are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.

  36. #37 Lawrence
    February 7, 2013

    If old Stan ever put a quote like that in an SEC filing, he could easily be held liable (since he, most likely, has to sign off on the accuracy of everything in the filing, or be held criminally responsible) – so I’m not surprised that those links don’t say what Didums say they do….or that anyone would use SEC filing as a measure of Scientific justification for anything.

  37. #38 Narad
    February 7, 2013

    So, DJT, has Jimmy Wales sent you a bouquet of roses and a comically oversized golden key to the City of Wikipedia yet?

  38. #39 Narad
    February 7, 2013

    What was that about fact-checking?

    It’s rather amusing that even DJT is unable to parse DJT.

  39. #40 Krebiozen
    February 7, 2013

    DJT,

    This is why I have a difficult time taking a lot of you “SERIOUSLY,” because of this apparent lack of researching & “fact-checking” before posting.

    Where are the published results of a controlled study or studies that show that antineoplastons are “responsible for the first recorded cures in medical history within any FDA-approved clinical trial for inoperable brainstem gliomas in children — with a 30%-50% cure rate”? What is the evidence for this claim?

  40. #41 herr doktor bimler
    February 7, 2013

    “forward-looking statements” that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements.

    That is classic. “Nothing in this report should be read as non-fiction”.

  41. #42 Krebiozen
    February 7, 2013

    Also perhaps worth mentioning is that long-term survival of children with brainstem glioma is rare but not unknown.

  42. #43 Narad
    February 7, 2013

    That is classic. “Nothing in this report should be read as non-fiction”.

    Except the historical statements. This is standard financial boilerplate.

  43. #44 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    Narad,

    Jimmy Wales doesn’t seem to have much tolerance for any form of quackery. He’s become outspoken against homeopathy (someone tried to sell him Oscillo and he declared it utter nonsense) and is using WP to fight homeoquackery. I’m glad he’s such a staunch opponent of medical quackery like BS-SB as well.

  44. #45 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    Narad,

    Here’s a short essay Jimmy Wales wrote about his intention to try to bring down homeopathy. I like this guy!

    http://jimmywales.quora.com/Homeopathy-Oscillococcinum-in-particular

    When people are told that Oscillococcinum can disrupt the DNA of the flu, they may very well choose not to have a flu vaccine.

    What I want to know is this: why is this legal? Or, if it is not legal, then what can be done about it? I’m quite sure that the clerk himself had no direct financial interest in defrauding me, and likely didn’t even know he was doing it.

    In the Guardian article, “Take-up of flu jab drops” it was reported that the percentage of high-risk elderly people in the UK receiving the vaccine was just under 50%. How many of the other 50% chose not to take it because they believe this hoax remedy will protect them? And how many of those died?

    My understanding is that the legal situation in the UK is particularly bad. Homeopathic remedies of no value whatsoever are legally marketed as cures for specific diseases.

    Who should I talk to about this in order to encourage the creation of a campaign to stop this? This is not my primary area of interest and so I am not the right person to lead it myself. But I would like to help.

  45. #46 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Juris-What Washroom
    February 7, 2013

    #219 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    .
    “I just read some exciting, breaking news on the Josephine Jones website. No details yet, but she’s reporting that the FDA has forced Slimy Stan to stop accepting new patients for ANPs!!!”
    .
    Is this the same FDA???
    .
    This current FDA official read from a former FDA agent’s letter to a Congressman stating that:
    .
    “Dr. Burzynski may manufacture & sell antineoplastons in Texas, where the FDA lacks jurisdiction”
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
    Post #154

  46. #47 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Hydration station
    February 7, 2013

    #224 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    .
    “No bloody side effects, huh?”
    .
    Oh!!! THESE “side effects” I’ve posted about before???
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
    ” … informed consent forms that all patients were required to sign
    .
    In these forms, Dr. B. clearly informed the patients that his antineoplastons were experimental in nature & had not been approved by the FDA
    .
    The forms were explicit that there could be no guarantee that antineoplastons would reduce or stabilize their cancers
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
    Post #154
    .
    Do you think the patient signed one of these???
    .
    WHO didn’t make sure the patient stayed hydrated???

  47. #48 lsm
    February 7, 2013

    I have been chewing on rumors that Burzynski is establishing his anti-aging business in various countries abroad, but not ANP for cancer (except perhaps Japan). Is it possible he is setting himself up for greener pastures?

  48. #49 Orac
    February 7, 2013

    Didymus Judas Thomas, I suspect, will be very interested in tomorrow’s post. Yes, it is about Stanislaw Burzynski. Stay tuned. 🙂

  49. #50 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Flower Power Pantheon
    February 7, 2013

    #238 Narad
    .
    “So, DJT, has Jimmy Wales sent you a bouquet of roses and a comically oversized golden key to the City of Wikipedia yet?”
    .
    You do know JW is from Alabama, right??
    .
    And you DID “fact-check;” as you ALWAYS do before you post, right???
    .
    How can I contact Jimmy Wales directly? – Quora
    http://www.quora.com
    “You can email me … Keep in mind that I get a lot of email, so I am often slow in responding.”

  50. #51 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 7, 2013

    Orac,

    Without asking for spoilers, does tomorrow’s post concern the FDA audit?

  51. #52 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu- Quack Center "Fact-Based Medicine" Meeting room
    February 7, 2013

    #249. Orac
    .
    “Didymus Judas Thomas, I suspect, will be very interested in tomorrow’s post. Yes, it is about Stanislaw Burzynski. Stay tuned.”
    .
    Hopefully it will be about “Fact-Based Medicine.” 😉

  52. #53 lilady
    February 8, 2013

    Be patient Marc. I’m sure Orac will be serving up a delightful scrumptious post about Stan.

  53. #54 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 8, 2013

    I hope he posts it around 3 am ET like he sometime does. I’m still awake then and can read it before I go to sleep.

    The tweets from #BurzynskiSaves about this FDA audit are getting nastier and nastier, if anyone cares to follow him/her/it (it’s probably Mercola anyway.)

  54. #55 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 8, 2013

    Damn…that should have been Merola. Why do those two twits have to have such similar last names?

  55. #56 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Phasers On, Scotty Phacility
    February 8, 2013

    #229 Krebiozen
    .
    DJT,
    .
    That’s a quote from Burzynski’s movie, not from any peer-reviewed paper, and it isn’t true. No properly controlled trials of antineoplastons for gliomas have ever been published, so it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty that antineoplastons are responsible for anything of the sort.”
    .
    Based on your “word salad,” I’m going to dissect it leaf by leaf.
    .
    Post #128
    .
    Since 1995, all cancer patients who received Antineoplaston treatment in the USA, did so under the approval & supervision of the FDA.
    .
    The patients were treated within “Phase 2 FDA clinical trials”, without the aid of the National Cancer Institute, or any other cancer research entity.”
    .
    ANTINEOPLASTONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 1ST RECORDED CURES IN MEDICAL HISTORY WITHIN ANY FDA-APPROVED CLINICAL TRIAL FOR INOPERABLE BRAINSTEM GLUOMAD IN CHILDREN-WITH A 30%-50% CURE RATE.
    .
    A “cure” is defined as 5-year survival.
    .
    1/13/2009 – Study to Evaluate Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465909002283/a09-2965_1ex99d1.htm
    “… a type of tumor that has shown itself to be highly treatment resistant
    .
    & challenged further by severely limited treatment options.”
    .
    “… overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (DBSG) who receive … antineoplaston therapy [Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)]”
    .
    “DBSG are considered to be one of the most difficult types of cancer to treat.”
    .
    “It combines highly malignant characteristics with the very difficult location of the brainstem.”
    .
    “DBSG are inoperable because they involve most of the brainstem (diffuse and intrinsic).”
    .
    “The # of children in the US with BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS is approximately 660.”
    .
    “Absent treatment, the survival rate from time of diagnosis is 6 months or less.”
    .
    “At present, there are no standard curative treatments for the disease.”
    .
    RT is the only treatment that may slow its progress:
    At 2 years 93% of children with this type of cancer die.
    None of them survive for 5 years.
    .
    “Other conventional treatments such as chemotherapy have generally been tried in clinical trials but are shown to be ineffective.”
    .
    “There are no pharmacological treatments approved for DBSG at this time.”
    .
    Based on data provided by SRB, I take it the FDA approved the above, based on the below:
    .
    5/1/2012 – Certain prospective protocols which have reached a Milestone:
    .
    · Protocol BT-06, involving the study of A10 & AS2-1 in children with high grade glioma

    · Protocol BT-07, involving the study of A10 & AS2-1 in patients with glioblastoma multiforme, not treated with radiation therapy or chemotherapy

    · Protocol BT-09, involving the study of A10 & AS2-1 in patients with brain tumors

    · Protocol BT-10, involving the study of A10 & AS2-1 in children with brain tumors

    · Protocol BT-11, involving the study of A10 & AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma

    · Protocol BT-18, involving a study of A10 & AS2-1 in the treatment of “mixed glioma,” a type of PMBT

    · Protocol BT-20, involving the study of A10 & AS2-1 in patients with glioblastoma multiforme, which recurred after standard radiation and/or chemotherapy

    · Protocol BT-22, involving a study of A10 & AS2-1 in children with primary malignant brain tumors

    5/1/2012 – The results of Protocols BT-06, BT-07, BT-09, BT-10, BT-11, BT-12, BT-18, BT-20, BT-22 are set forth below:

    Protocol # / Patients
    Accrued / Evaluable Patients / # & % of Patients Showing Complete Response / # & % of Patients Showing Partial Response / # & % of Patients Showing Stable Disease / # & % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

    BT-06 / 19 / 11 / 1 / 9.1% / 3 / 27.3% / 3 / 27.3% / 4 / 36.4%
    BT-07 / 40 / 24 / 2 / 8.3% / 1 / 4.2% / 3 / 12.5% / 18 / 75.0%
    BT-09 / 40 / 28 / 4 / 14.3% / 5 / 17.9% / 13 / 46.4% / 6 / 21.4%
    BT-10 / 30 / 22 / 3 / 13.6% / 1 / 4.5% / 7 / 31.8% / 11 / 50.0%
    BT-11 / 40 / 28 / 5 / 17.9% / 4 / 14.3% / 12 / 42.9% / 7 / 25.0%
    BT-12 / 13 / 11 / 3 / 27.3% / 1 / 9.1% / 3 / 27.3% / 4 / 36.4%
    BT-18 / 20 / 13 / 3 / 23.1% / 1 / 7.7% / 3 / 23.1% / 6 / 46.2%
    BT-20 / 40 / 22 / 1 / 4.5% / 1 / 4.5% / 12 / 54.5% / 8 / 36.4%
    BT-22 / 40 / 24 / 1 / 4.2% / 3 / 12.5% / 9 / 37.5% / 11 / 45.8%
    .
    Phase II Study according to Protocol CAN-1 included 35 evaluable brain tumor patients
    .
    Complete & partial responses were obtained in patients diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, mixed glioma, medulloblastoma, & malignant meningioma
    .
    The treatment with A10 & AS2-1 resulted in:
    48.6% cases of objective responses
    31.4% cases of stable disease
    .
    The largest group of evaluable patients involved in the study had glioblastoma multiforme
    6 classified as complete & partial responses
    4 obtained stabilization
    4 developed progression of disease
    .
    Notwithstanding the response results of the trials that have reached a Milestone, FDA may require additional clinical trials based upon such protocols to be conducted by an institution not affiliated with Burzynski before advising that an NDA filing is warranted
    .
    FDA has indicated it will not accept efficacy data, but will accept toxicity data generated by the Phase II study according to Protocol CAN-1 because the trial was partially retrospective
    .
    The Company cannot predict if &/or when it will submit an NDA to the FDA, nor estimate the # or type of additional trials the FDA may require
    .
    There can be no assurance that an NDA for Antineoplastons, as a treatment for cancer, will ever be approved by the FDA
    .
    No assurance can be given that any new IND for clinical tests on humans will be approved by the FDA for human clinical trials on cancer or other diseases, that the results of such human clinical trials will prove that Antineoplastons are safe or effective in the treatment of cancer or other diseases, or that the FDA would approve the sale of Antineoplastons in the US
    .
    5/1/2012 – Open for Enrollment Phase II Clinical Trials
    .
    The following table sets forth the title of each active Protocol & the # of persons currently enrolled in each study
    .
    All of the following trials are Phase II studies &, except as otherwise indicated, are of A10 & AS2-1 in patients with the conditions listed.
    .
    For purposes of this table, active means that the study is still under open enrollment
    .
    In addition, all of the studies listed have a maximum of 40 patients who may ultimately participate in the study
    .
    Title of Protocol / Subject of Protocol / # of Persons Enrolled
    BT-10 / Children with Brain Tumors / 30
    .
    Orphan Drug Designation
    .
    10/30/2008 – FDA granted ODD for A10 & AS2-1 for treatment of GLIOMAS
    .
    9/3/2004 – FDA granted ODD for A10 & AS2-1 for treatment for patients with BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
    .
    2/23/1996 – FDA requested all then-current patients desiring to continue Antineoplaston treatment be admitted to a Phase II Study, according to Protocol CAN-1
    .
    This resulted in the formation of 6 cohorts of patients in the CAN-1 study, with the largest group suffering from primary brain tumors
    .
    New patients either were admitted to the CAN-1 study or have been admitted to one of the other studies sponsored by the Company, as appropriate
    .
    All clinical trials are for the treatment of a wide variety of cancers using only a combination of A10 & AS2-1
    .
    Each trial provides for the admission of up to 40 patients, except the CAN-1 study, in which 133 patients were enrolled
    .
    Please see “—Active Phase II Clinical Trials” for a list of all of these clinical trials
    .
    Where tumor size is used as the Milestone, each clinical trial protocol that is open for enrollment describes a “complete response” as a complete disappearance of all tumors with no reoccurrence of tumors for at least 4 weeks
    .
    A “partial response” is described as at least a 50% reduction in total tumor size, with such reduction lasting at least 4 weeks
    .
    An “objective response” is described as either a complete or partial response for protocols BT-06, BT-08, BT-09, BT-10, BT-11, BT-12, BT-13, BT-15, BT-18, BT-21, BT-22 & BT-23
    .
    “Stable disease” is described as less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least 12 weeks
    .
    The protocols of the clinical trials involve a 2-stage design, wherein the 1st stage proceeds until the Company admits 20 patients into the trial
    .
    After a specified time period, if there are 0 responses by the 1st 20 patients, the trial will be discontinued & the drug declared to have less than desired activity
    .
    If there is at least 1 response, the trial will be continued until 40 patients have been accrued
    .
    If the study continues, the following conclusions according to protocols based on 40 patients can be made:
    .
    If there are 3 or fewer responses, then there is less than desired activity
    .
    If there are 4 or more responses, then there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Antineoplaston regimen used shows beneficial activity
    .
    1994 – Phase II Clinical Trials
    .
    Began Phase II clinical studies with 4 studies
    .
    A # of patients were also receiving Antineoplastons outside clinical trials
    .
    1983 – Orphan Drug Act, Congress sought to provide incentives to promote the development of drugs for the treatment of rare diseases
    .
    A drug may be considered for orphan drug designation if the drug is intended to treat a rare disease or condition affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the US or, even if the drug treats a disease affecting more than 200,000 people in the US, the drug is not expected to be profitable from sales in the US
    .
    Subject to applicable laws & regulations, the 1st sponsor to obtain FDA marketing approval for a drug with orphan drug designation for the designated disease or condition receives limited marketing exclusivity for 7 years; no other sponsor may bring to market the “same drug” for the treatment of the same disease or condition for a period of 7 years from the date the application is approved by the FDA
    .
    A drug with orphan drug designation must meet the same criteria for safety & efficacy as a drug without orphan drug designation
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465912040430/a12-12972_110k.htm
    .
    3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, & progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMA
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
    Brainstem glioma carries the 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 is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
    .
    Objective of report is to summarize the outcome of patients with HBSG treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials
    .
    18 evaluable:
    4 – glioblastomas
    14 – anaplastic HBSG
    .
    14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
    12 – suffered from recurrence
    6 – didn’t have radiation therapy or chemotherapy
    .
    Overall survival at 2 & 5 years:
    39% & 22%, respectively
    .
    17+ years: maximum survival for patient with anaplastic astrocytoma
    5+ years: patient with glioblastoma
    .
    At 6 months:
    39% Progression-free survival
    .
    11% – Complete response achieved
    11% – partial response
    39% – stable disease
    39% – progressive disease
    .
    Antineoplastons were tolerated very well:
    1 case – grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)
    .
    Antineoplastons contributed to 5-year + survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic GLIOBLASTOMAS & anaplastic astrocytomas of the BRAINSTEM in a small group of patients
    http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.short
    .
    http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=150&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Burzynski&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=Antineoplastons&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=match&resourcetype=HWCIT
    .
    http://ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.abstract
    PDF
    http://antineoplaston.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Targeted_Therapy_for_High-grade_Recurrent_and_Progressive_Brainstem_Glioma.283113019.pdf
    .
    http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/16484713/Targeted_therapy_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1_of_high_grade__recurrent__and_progressive_brainstem_glioma
    2003 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 & AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: a preliminary report
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
    1st 12 patients admitted to the study
    10 evaluable patients:
    2 complete response (20%)
    3 partial response (30%)
    3 stable disease (30%)
    2 progressive disease (20%)
    .
    Survival at 2 years was 33.3%
    .
    Of all 12 patients:
    2 – (17%) alive & tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis
    1 – alive for 5+ years
    1 – alive for 4+ years from the start of treatment
    .
    Only mild & moderate toxicities were observed, which included:
    3 – cases of skin allergy
    2 – cases of anaemia, fever & hypernatraemia
    1 – single case of agranulocytosis, hypoglycaemia, numbness, tiredness, myalgia & vomiting
    .
    Results compared favourably with responses of radiation therapy & chemotherapy
    .
    Study continues with accrual of additional patients
    http://mobile.adisonline.com/drugsrd/_layouts/oaks.journals.mobile/abstractviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=04020&article=00002

    http://adisonline.com/drugsrd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?mobile=0&year=2003&issue=04020&article=00002&type=Abstract&desktopMode=true

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/rdd/2003/00000004/00000002/art00002

    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

  56. #57 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Tossed "'Tater Salad" Table
    February 8, 2013

    #229 Krebiozen
    .
    “Can you name a single Burzynski patient with a biopsy-diagnosed inoperable brainstem glioma who has survived for more than 5 years without any conventional treatment?”
    .
    Oh, yeah!! Let me just grab my crystal 8 ball!!! 😉
    .
    After all there’s nothing like patient confidentiality…
    .
    I would know names like you would know names.

  57. #58 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Ignorance is Bliss" Ballroom
    February 8, 2013

    #229 Krebiozen
    .
    “Every case I have looked at closely either had a doubtful diagnosis, or was treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy and could be a case of artifactual tumor progression or regression after conventional treatment leading to the appearance of a response to antineoplastons.”
    .
    I guess I can now “officially” ignore those studies that mention patients treated without radiation or chemo.!!!

  58. #59 flip
    February 8, 2013

    Squidymus blathers

    After all there’s nothing like patient confidentiality…

    Yeah, cause it’s not like those patients aren’t revealing all their confidential treatment info all over Facebook and fundraising sites and blogs. How dare we ask for info they’re publishing freely themselves in public places?

  59. #60 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Phact Phinding Pharmaceutical Phase Philosophy Pharma
    February 8, 2013

    #229 Krebiozen
    .
    Some of the cancer medicines recently given “accelerated approval” by the FDA:
    .
    2010 – Afinitor (ubependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) brain tumor)
    .
    FDA granted accelerated approval for Afinitor after a single Phase 2 study of only 28 patients
    .
    32% of patients experienced a 50% reduction of their tumor, NONE of their tumors went away completely
    www. novartis. com/newsroom/media-releases/en/2010/1457419.shtml
    2009 – Avastin (Glioblastoma brain cancer)
    www. drugs. com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-brain-cancer-glioblastoma-has-progressed-following-prior-1342.html
    FDA granted accelerated approval for this medicine for Glioblastoma
    .
    FDA’s reasoning:
    .
    “People with this type of brain cancer have had no new treatments in more than a decade”
    .
    What about “brainstem glioma” patients?
    .
    They haven’t had a new treatment for that condition—ever
    .
    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
    .
    Antineoplastons have an upward of a 9% cure rate for this condition
    .
    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?
    .
    That is of course if we care about “response” vs. “cure”
    .
    2008 – Avastin (breast cancer)
    www. drugs. com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-combination-paclitaxel-chemotherapy-first-line-advanced-852.html
    FDA granted accelerated approval for Avastin in the treatment of advanced breast cancer
    .
    The results that allowed it to be “accelerated”
    .
    Only 11.3 months of “Progression-free survival”
    .
    FDA took it off the market for this condition 11/2011 because it doesn’t work at all if not properly prescribed
    www. fda. gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/ucm279485.htm
    The company that owns it made their fortune from it already for this condition, making up for 17% of the entire company’s sales
    www. wikinvest. com/stock/Roche_Pharmaceuticals_(RHHBY)
    1999 – Temodar (Anaplastic Astrocytoma brain cancer)
    www. drugs. com/temodar.html
    FDA granted accelerated approval for Temodar for Anaplastic Astrocytoma brain cancer
    .
    Only 12 of 54 patients “responded”, with only 9% of them being “cured”
    http:// clincancerres. aacrjournals. org/content/11/19/6767.full
    Antineoplastons have a 25% cure rate for this condition
    .
    2/2008 – Treatment of children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma with radiotherapy, vincristine and oral VP-16: a Children’s Oncology Group phase II study
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278121
    Prognosis for children with brain stem glioma remains grim
    .
    31 children enrolled:
    30 eligible & evaluable for survival & toxicity
    .
    Median age: 8 years (range 3-14 years)
    7 – (23%) partial response following radiation
    18 – (60%) stable disease
    2 – (7%) progressive disease
    3 – (10%) not measured
    .
    ALL 30 DIED
    .
    Overall survival at:
    1 – year, 27 +/- 7%
    2 – years, 3 +/- 2%
    .
    Median survival:
    9 months (range 3-36 months)
    .
    Hematologic toxicity was significant; other toxicities included constipation, mucositis, emesis, & infection
    .
    Addition of vincristine & oral VP-16 to standard external beam radiation causes moderate toxicity & does not improve survival of children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
    .
    1/2005 – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children: results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574
    Role of chemotherapy in treatment of children with newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma is uncertain
    .
    Study tested efficacy of temozolomide treatment after RT
    .
    Patients 3-21 years were eligible
    .
    33 (median age at diagnosis, 6.4 years) enrolled
    .
    16 patients received window therapy:
    6 – irinotecan treatment discontinued due to clinical progression
    10 – experienced disease stabilization
    .
    29 received combined total of 125 cycles of temozolomide
    .
    Grade 3/4 neutropenia & thrombocytopenia occurred in 33% & 29% of all temozolomide cycles, respectively
    .
    In approximately 1/3rd of the cycles, dose reduction was required due to myelosuppression
    .
    ALL DIED of disease progression (median survival, 12 months)
    .
    Estimated 1-year survival rate:
    48% (standard error, 8%)

    Temozolomide after RT did not alter the poor prognosis associated with newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
    .
    3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713?dopt=Abstract
    2003 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563?dopt=Abstract

  60. #61 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Phase III Phallacy Patio
    February 8, 2013

    #229 Krebiozen
    .
    “That’s why Burzynski needs to complete a Phase III study if he is going to demonstrate any real efficacy of antineoplastons.”
    .
    “Many of us strongly suspect that he hasn’t done so because they are not effective, not because of a lack of either funding or suitable patients as you have suggested.”
    .
    Well of course!!
    .
    THAT explains why THOSE drugs got to skip phase III!!!
    .
    You would much rather not discuss funding or patient recruitment as you are still unable to provide any citations or references re your knowledge of said subject-matter.

  61. #62 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Flip BlatherSkypes Foundry
    February 8, 2013

    #259 flip
    .
    Squidymus blathers
    .
    “Yeah, cause it’s not like those patients aren’t revealing all their confidential treatment info all over Facebook and fundraising sites and blogs. How dare we ask for info they’re publishing freely themselves in public places?”
    .
    Ahhhhhhh!! Then YOU CAN look up the names of children who had BRAINSTEM GLIOMA!!!

  62. #63 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center WeaKVision ViaTearDuct
    February 8, 2013

    #235 W. Kevin Vicklund
    .
    “What was that about fact-checking?”
    .
    WeaKVision
    .
    Where’s your head at??
    .
    Have you considered glasses or LASIK???

  63. #64 Narad
    February 8, 2013

    Based on your “word salad,” I’m going to dissect it leaf by leaf try to distract from the fact that I completely fυcked up.

    FTFY.

  64. #65 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Whine & Cheesecake" Factory
    February 8, 2013

    #239 Narad
    .
    “What was that about fact-checking?”
    .
    “It’s rather amusing that even DJT is unable to parse DJT.”
    .
    Parse THIS!!!
    http://lyrics.wikia.com/Nuclear_Assault:Whine_And_Cheese

  65. #66 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Where in the World is Krebiozen," San Diego??? Search Study room
    February 8, 2013

    #240 Krebiozen
    .
    DJT,
    .
    “What is the evidence for this claim?”
    .
    Where are the published results of a controlled study or studies that show that:
    .
    Afinitor, Avastin, Temodar, vincristine & oral VP-16 or Temozolomide “cure” BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children???

  66. #67 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Quack Pack" Pond
    February 8, 2013

    #245 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    .
    Narad,
    .
    “Here’s a short essay Jimmy Wales wrote … I like this guy!”
    .
    So do I. He’s from BAMA Jam country, & looky here!!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quack_Pack
    It’s y’all’s show!!!

  67. #68 Orac
    February 8, 2013

    Methinks Didymus needs to explain why Burzynski has apparently been prevented by the FDA from giving antineoplastons to new patients.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good/

  68. #69 Narad
    February 8, 2013

    Parse THIS!!!

    No, assmunch, you plainly demonstrated that you yourself are unable to figure out what’s what in your in incoherent text barfs. A person of good will and sound mind, when corrected, thanks the person who made the correction and either retracts or refines the original statement. You, on the other hand, apparently think the appropriate response is a case of the rum fits.

  69. #70 Krebiozen
    February 8, 2013

    Where are the published results of a controlled study or studies that show that: .
    Afinitor, Avastin, Temodar, vincristine & oral VP-16 or Temozolomide “cure” BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children???

    Where has anyone claimed any such thing? You still don’t appear to understand the tu quoque fallacy, which I assume is why you echo weird variations of the term in nearly every comment you make, like a deranged parrot. The fact that there is no effective conventional treatment for pediatric brainstem glioma is not evidence that Burzynski’s p!ss panacea is effective.

  70. #71 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center OracDuckDynasty Den
    February 8, 2013

    #169. Orac
    .
    “Methinks Didymus needs to explain why Burzynski has apparently been prevented by the FDA from giving antineoplastons to new patients.”
    .
    Methinks OracQuack needs to explain my above post #246

  71. #72 LW
    February 8, 2013

    “A person of good will and sound mind”. There’s the problem right there.

  72. #73 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Misdirection Mall
    February 8, 2013

    Still waiting for the reply to this:
    .
    Post #173
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
    Though I do enjoy your repeated attempts at “Misdirection.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misdirection&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
    It reminds me of THIS:
    The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA MISDIRECTION in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases
    .
    Mine was posted 1st. Give up yet??? 😉

  73. #74 W. Kevin Vicklund
    February 8, 2013

    DJT made the following claim (slightly reformatted):

    2009 – Avastin (Glioblastoma brain cancer)

    FDA granted accelerated approval for this medicine for Glioblastoma

    FDA’s reasoning:

    People with this type of brain cancer have had no new treatments in more than a decade

    What about “brainstem glioma” patients? They haven’t had a new treatment for that condition—ever

    Only 58 patients were treated in a single Phase 2 study. The median “response duration” was a mere 3.9 months

    Here is what the link actually said:

    Avastin Efficacy in Glioblastoma

    Study AVF3708g

    The accelerated approval is based on independently reviewed data from an open-label, multicenter, non-comparative Phase II study that included 167 patients with glioblastoma that had progressed following initial treatment with temozolomide and radiation. Patients were randomized into two arms: Avastin alone or Avastin in combination with irinotecan. A primary endpoint of the study was objective response rate. Response was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) and measured using World Health Organization radiographic criteria along with decreased or stable corticosteroid use. MRI does not necessarily distinguish between the tumor, swelling (edema), or tissue death (necrosis) caused by prior radiation therapy.

    According to an FDA analysis of the study, tumor responses were observed in 26 percent (95% confidence interval: 17.0%, 36.1%) of the 85 patients treated with Avastin alone, and the median duration of response in these patients was 4.2 months (95% confidence interval: 3.0 months, 5.7 months).

    The median age of the patients treated with Avastin alone was 54 years. Additionally, 32 percent were female, 81 percent were in first relapse, 45 percent had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of 90 to 100 and 55 percent had a KPS of 70 to 80. Patients with active brain hemorrhage were excluded from the study.

    Study NCI 06-C-0064E

    The efficacy of Avastin in glioblastoma that has progressed following prior therapy is supported by another study that used the same response assessment criteria as AVF3708g. In this single-arm study, 56 patients were treated with Avastin alone. Responses were observed in 20 percent of patients (95% confidence interval: 10.9%, 31.3%), and the median duration of response was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval: 2.4 months, 17.4 months).

    So there were two studies, both of them had more than 56 patients, and only one of them had a median duration of 3.9 months.

    What was that about fact-checking?

  74. #75 Krebiozen
    February 8, 2013

    The logic DJT (and Burzynski) appears to be employing is that since there is no reliably effective conventional treatment for pediatric brainstem glioma, any survivor of this illness who was given antineoplastons must have been cured by the antineoplastons. This obviously doesn’t follow as these cases may have been misdiagnoses, or rare cases in which conventional treatment was effective.

    Jessica Ressel is a good example of an alleged antineoplaston cure of a pediatric brainstem glioma. As both Orac and Jli have observed, she apparently never had a biopsy, and her brain lesion shrank, grew, disappeared and reappeared in bewildering fashion bearing no relation to her dose of antineoplastons before finally vanishing (hopefully) forever.

  75. #76 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 8, 2013

    Jodi Fenton’s story is also highly suspect and has been dissected by Orac and jli, and probablt others who know what they’re looking at and talking about.

    Some people do get lucky and survive, for whatever reason.

  76. #77 Krebiozen
    February 8, 2013

    Jodi Fenton’s tumor was in her parietal lobe, and was very probably surgically resected. Brainstem tumors, especially diffuse ones, are more difficult to resect without doing serious damage – the brainstem is where a lot of vital functions are carried out. I think that’s why Stan’s brainstem glioma anecdotes are mostly (if not all) doubtful diagnoses.

  77. #78 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 8, 2013

    Kreb,

    Nu-uh! Merola said Stan cured her, so it must be true!

  78. #79 Krebiozen
    February 8, 2013

    Nu-uh! Merola said Stan cured her, so it must be true!

    And it only took 2 days to make her tumor completely disappear. Antineoplastons started June 6. Tumor undetectable by PET scan on June 8. Miraculous.

  79. #80 Politicalguineapig
    February 8, 2013

    Wow, DJT is still here.

  80. #81 flip
    February 9, 2013

    @PGP

    Being banned from Wiki, he probably has nowhere else to go.

  81. #82 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Re-Post Posts Post Office
    February 11, 2013

    #229 Krebiozen
    .
    “Many of us strongly suspect that he hasn’t done so because they are not effective, not because of a lack of either funding or suitable patients as you have suggested.”
    .
    Let me to “quote” from an article I’ve posted on the BlatherBlog, at least twice before; of course, not in the hope that anyone would actually READ it:
    .
    “He’s in constant negotiations with the FDA, TRYING TO RAISE THE MONEY TO DO THESE CLINICAL TRIALS …” added Jaffe
    http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
    .
    http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html
    Post #108 (2/2/13)
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
    Post #114 (1/20/13)
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/07/lets-make-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-do-something-good-for-cancer-patients-for-a-change

  82. #83 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Stanislaw Exam Center (SEC)
    February 11, 2013

    #237 Lawrence
    .
    “If old Stan ever put a quote like that in an SEC filing, he could easily be held liable (since he, most likely, has to sign off on the accuracy of everything in the filing, or be held criminally responsible) – so I’m not surprised that those links don’t say what Didums say they do….or that anyone would use SEC filing as a measure of Scientific justification for anything.”
    .
    Waiting for y’all to hold SRB liable for the SEC filings … in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  83. #84 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Tossed Salad" Supperroom
    February 11, 2013

    #264 Narad
    .
    Based on your “word salad,” …
    .
    “FTFY.”
    .
    Fennel Tomatoes Figs Yams
    .
    Yep … “word salad.” 🙂

  84. #85 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Rum Runners room
    February 11, 2013

    #269 Narad
    .
    “You, on the other hand, apparently think the appropriate response is a case of the rum fits.”
    .
    I don’t partake of rum. It gives me “fits.” 😉

  85. #86 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "It couldn't be finer if it weren't made in Chiner" classroom
    February 11, 2013

    #270 Krebiozen
    .
    “Where has anyone claimed any such thing? You still don’t appear to understand the tu quoque fallacy, which I assume is why you echo weird variations of the term in nearly every comment you make, like a deranged parrot. The fact that there is no effective conventional treatment for pediatric brainstem glioma is not evidence that Burzynski’s p!ss panacea is effective.”
    .
    Yet some of y’all “parrot” the same old “tu quoque” “tu-quack” when the FDA approved phase III after FDA supervised phase II trials, which means they had the necessary data; without needing the “rubberstamping” of anyone here; just like the FDA hasn’t needed anyone’s elses approval for any other product, that in Japan they reported success with SRB’s product, & in China & Taiwan, ROC, they approved the product; based on SRB’s research, since 2004, as I posted: #88 & 89
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/22/another-way-to-join-the-skeptics-for-the-protection-of-cancer-patients-plus-a-brief-additional-comment-about-stanislaw-burzynski

  86. #87 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Riddle Me This, What Gives You Rum Fits" Fitness center
    February 11, 2013

    #272 LW
    .
    ““A person of good will and sound mind”. There’s the problem right there.”
    .
    Exactly!! Everyone knows that people who can’t respond to my post #273 are “not quite right.”

  87. #88 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Merola in the Dough" Den
    February 11, 2013

    #274 W. Kevin Vicklund
    .
    “DJT made the following claim (slightly reformatted):”
    .
    “What was that about fact-checking?”
    .
    I guess you can ask Merola for the reason.
    .
    post #555 (12/19/12)
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/26/significance-of-the-tmb-dismissal-case-against-burzynski

  88. #89 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Misdiagnosed Mall
    February 11, 2013

    #275 Krebiozen
    .
    “As both Orac and Jli have observed, she apparently never had a biopsy, and her brain lesion shrank, grew, disappeared and reappeared in bewildering fashion bearing no relation to her dose of antineoplastons before finally vanishing (hopefully) forever.”
    .
    You mean ALL of these were NOT “misdiagnoses?”

  89. #90 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center aSprint Armstrong Tour
    February 11, 2013

    #276 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    .
    “Some people do get lucky and survive, for whatever reason.”
    .
    THAT explains aspirin!

  90. #91 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack SCROOGLED Center
    February 11, 2013

    #277 Krebiozen
    .
    “I think that’s why Stan’s brainstem glioma anecdotes are mostly (if not all) doubtful diagnoses.”
    .
    Yes, because its much more fun to “speculate” rather than to just get the “facts” from the doctors who I guess “misdiagnosed;” since they should have known that the patient could have gone on with their life while the tumor disappeared on its own.

  91. #92 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center George Herbert Walker Bush "Read My Lips" Liposuction Library
    February 11, 2013

    #278 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    .
    “Nu-uh! Merola said Stan cured her, so it must be true!”
    .
    Yeah, it’s not like Jodi said it.

  92. #93 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Barb-e-que-GuineaPig Pit
    February 11, 2013

    #280 Politicalguineapig
    .
    “Wow, DJT is still here.”
    .
    Still waiting for y’all’s excuses for not responding to post #273.

  93. #94 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Punters Point
    February 11, 2013

    #281 flip
    .
    “Being banned from Wiki, he probably has nowhere else to go.”
    .
    See, I gave y’all plenty of time to comment on post #273. No comment. 🙂

  94. #95 W. Kevin Vicklund
    February 12, 2013

    #274 W. Kevin Vicklund
    .
    “DJT made the following claim (slightly reformatted):”
    .
    “What was that about fact-checking?”
    .
    I guess you can ask Merola for the reason.

    What was that about fact-checking?

    [btw, as near as I can discern, almost all of DJT’s copy-paste screeds are from Merola’s sites. Which raises the question of who DJT really is]

  95. #96 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Three Monkeys" museum
    February 12, 2013

    #295 W. Kevin Vicklund
    .
    “[btw, as near as I can discern, almost all of DJT’s copy-paste screeds are from Merola’s sites. Which raises the question of who DJT really is]”
    .
    And this just proves my point re post #263. 😉

  96. #97 MarkL
    February 12, 2013

    @WKV

    [quote][i] [btw, as near as I can discern, almost all of DJT’s copy-paste screeds are from Merola’s sites. Which raises the question of who DJT really is] [/i][/quote]

    Agreed, especially since Merola has also been whingeing about Wikipedia’s treatment of Stan and this whinging started at the same time Diddums was hit with the ban hammer there.

    DJT outed as a paid shill of the slimeball. Surprise surprise.

  97. #98 MarkL
    February 12, 2013

    Apologies for screwed up quotation – been spending too much time elsewhere!

  98. #99 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    February 12, 2013

    @Didymus Judas Thomas – comment 173 at the link you included at 273 above was by Narad and doesn’t appear to require any response.

  99. #100 Narad
    February 12, 2013

    Still waiting for y’all’s excuses for not responding to post #273.

    Which post is this:

    Still waiting for the reply to this:
    .
    Post #173
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are

    Which, in turn, isn’t even a comment from you. Nice work, halfwit. There’s a reason nobody is much responding to you (aside from simple mockery) and instead talking about you: you’re unable to come up with anything coherent to respond to in the first place.

  100. #101 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Fact-Checktorium
    February 12, 2013

    #3 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    .
    “I am also curious as to how this new development will affect the release of the second of Merola’s BS SB commercials due out “any day now.””
    .
    This new documentary, tentatively to be released in SPRING of 2013, …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_(season)
    If you could “fact-check” it might help

  101. #102 Krebiozen
    February 12, 2013

    DJT,

    You mean ALL of these were NOT “misdiagnoses?”

    I mean this patient’s history is not consistent with a malignant glioma, since these tend to get bigger rapidly and kill the patient. A number of other of Burzynski’s patients have equivocal diagnoses, for example Shontelle Hiron, whose doctors disagreed about the interpretation of her biopsy and who had 4 years of complex partial seizures before being treated, which is not consistent with a malignant tumor.

    Yes, because its much more fun to “speculate” rather than to just get the “facts” from the doctors who I guess “misdiagnosed;” since they should have known that the patient could have gone on with their life while the tumor disappeared on its own.

    Without a biopsy it is not possible to definitively diagnose a brain tumor, and therefore you cannot assume that this was a malignant glioma that was cured by antineoplastons. There are other possibilities which need to be excluded before we can assume that antineoplastons are effective and certainly, in my opinion, before anyone starts charging desperate patients money for this unproven treatment.

    By the way, when patients give permission for their records to be used for publicity purposes by Burzynski and Merola or present them as evidence of the efficacy of antineoplastons, I consider them fair game for speculation. You can check for yourself that there are no biopsy results among Jessica Ressel’s records, that Shontelle Hiron’s doctors disagreed about her diagnosis, and that Jodi Fenton’s brain tumor was undetectable on PET scan a mere 2 days after commencing antineoplastons; all these records are on the Burzynski movie website or on Shontelle Hiron’s website.

  102. #103 flip
    February 12, 2013

    @Squidymus

    It should be extremely clear by now that if I could understand what you’re saying, I’d reply to it. Other people and myself have asked you to write like a normal person. You refuse to do so; you get ignored.

  103. #104 flip
    February 12, 2013

    @W Kevin Vickland

    [btw, as near as I can discern, almost all of DJT’s copy-paste screeds are from Merola’s sites. Which raises the question of who DJT really is]

    I had a similar thought on another blog post. It would certainly explain a lot of his choices of attempting to look stupider than he is.

  104. #105 W. Kevin Vicklund
    February 12, 2013

    [reformatted so normal people can read it]

    I just read some exciting, breaking news on the Josephine Jones website. No details yet, but she’s reporting that the FDA has forced Slimy Stan to stop accepting new patients for ANPs!!!

    Is this the same FDA???

    This current FDA official read from a former FDA agent’s letter to a Congressman stating that:

    Dr. Burzynski may manufacture & sell antineoplastons in Texas, where the FDA lacks jurisdiction

    Is this the same Burzynski???

    in 1998, the State of Texas secured a consent agreement with Burzynski stipulating that he: (a) cannot distribute unapproved drugs in Texas; (b) is allowed to distribute “antineoplastons” only to patients enrolled in FDA approved clinical trials, unless the FDA approves his drugs for sale; (c) cannot advertise “antineoplastons” for the treatment of cancer; and (d) on his website and in promotional material his ads must have a disclaimer that the safety and effectiveness of “antineoplastons” have not been demonstrated.

  105. #106 TruBlu
    Perth
    March 3, 2013

    Thankyou very much Kerbiozen for relating to those points again.

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