Respectful Insolence

The weekend was busy, and I was working on grants, which meant that I could only come up with one post of Orac-style length and depth. Sadly, it wasn’t for this blog. Fortunately, C0nc0rdance came to the rescue with a must-watch video about our old friend Stanislaw Burzynski. He’s the guy who claims to treat cancer more successfully than conventional medicine—and not by a little—using chemicals he calles “antineoplastons,” which he originally isolated from urine but now synthesizes in a laboratory. More recently, he’s been claiming to deliver “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” that is more appropriately referred to as “personalized cancer therapy for dummies,” given Burzynski’s lack of sophistication and “throw everything but the kitchen sink at the cancer” approach, coupled with his arrogance of ignorance about genomics. Meanwhile, patients suffer, paying huge sums of money to partake of Burzynski’s dubious clinical trials that never seem to produce usable results.

Here, C0nc0rdance has boiled down a couple of key issues into a nice, concise video. Particularly effective is his explanation of key red flags that should be warning signals to cancer patients considering spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly to Houston and be treated at the Burzynski Clinic:

As I’ve said before many times, if pharmaceutical companies pulled the same sorts of shenanigans that Stanislaw Burzynski pulls, the same people defending him would be calling for the FDA to shut those companies’ activities down and on the government to fine them billions of dollars. And guess what? I’d be right there with them. Funny how they don’t see the problem when Burzynski does it.

Comments

  1. #1 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    January 28, 2013

    What makes me think that C0nc0rdance is going to get some nasty-grams from Burzynski’s marketing machine? Great video that every patient considering this quack clinic should watch.

  2. #2 Todd W.
    harpocratesspeaks.com
    January 28, 2013

    @Science Mom

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

  3. #3 FilipinoMDstudent
    January 28, 2013

    And as commented by one youtube user named “godhatesyeast” in the video, charging patients to enroll in clinical trials isn’t a “red flag”. It is a Mushroom Cloud.

  4. #4 kruuth
    January 28, 2013

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

  5. #5 Guy Chapman
    January 28, 2013

    The closing point is the killer punch, IMO. If “Big Pharma” acted like this, the Burzynski shills would be at the front of the mob with the pitchforks and the burning torches – and that is absolutely classical behaviour in SCAM. They do not want a level playing field, as we see with Healht Fooldom bills, they want to be playing downhill and downwind all the time.

  6. #6 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center IMAX 3-D Video Viewing Velodrome
    January 28, 2013

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

  7. #7 prn
    January 28, 2013

    I agree that the Burzynski phase II trials appear to abuse the FDA process. However the FDA process is killing the country(s) with delays and inflated prices caused by a lack of cheap, competitive medicines. Including foreign ones that already exist or beat US or major pharmaceutical competitors by decades.

    On pricing, I am not sure whether to classify Burzynski as a marketing leader in the 80s and 90s or an aggressive copycat. I am not close enough to the medical field to know offhand. He sure isn’t alone on high cost medicine of low efficacy.

    “..produced and distributed to everyone in the world.”
    This US restricted marketing model is subsuming the US economy with grossly overpriced, marginally effective medicines like those with optimistic medians of one month additional PFS or OS for $100,000-$300,000. Often, despite the “protections,” blockbuster drugs are removed, blackboxed, or continue long term despite data that suggest no net benefit.

    Pay to play experimental models actually could have great advantages on time to develop with already known or very low toxicity substances. “Pay to play” is more common overseas, even with major pharmaceutical players now.

    Right now, US “pay to play” is effectively retarded to fragmented off-label uses, alternative nutrition and medicine, and individuals’ (self)experiments with a lot of interferences that violate their rights.

    No matter how distasteful Burzynski has become, his story is a reflection of much, much bigger problems in medicine and government.

  8. #8 Pareidolius
    Axis of Me-ville
    January 28, 2013

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

  9. #9 Ren
    State of groggyness
    January 28, 2013

    “Didymus Judas Thomas” = “Th1Th2″, or is the stupidity multiplying?

  10. #10 Todd W.
    harpocratesspeaks.com
    January 28, 2013

    @prn

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

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

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

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

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

  11. #11 Narad
    January 28, 2013

    “Didymus Judas Thomas” = “Th1Th2″, or is the stupidity multiplying?

    DJT makes Th1Th2 look like a model of coherence, man.

  12. #12 Denice Walter
    January 28, 2013

    @ Ren:

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

  13. #13 Narad
    January 28, 2013

    He sure isn’t alone on high cost medicine of low efficacy.

    Except that the stuff Burzynski is ultimately selling isn’t of high cost, unless you buy it from him. Phenylacetate is not exactly a complicated molecule.

  14. #14 THS
    January 28, 2013

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

  15. #15 Edith Prickly
    January 28, 2013

    “Didymus Judas Thomas” = “Th1Th2″, or is the stupidity multiplying?

    Nope. Diddling Thomas is a force of nuttery unto him/her/itself.

    However, the Thing did reappear recently under a new ‘nym – lilady spotted her first and the IP evidence confirmed it.

  16. #16 Didymus Judas Thomas
    #8 At the Tu-Quack Center I don't try to "scare" people with my quotes Quonset Hut
    January 28, 2013

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

  17. #17 Didymus Judas Thomas
    #9 At the Tu-Quack Center Ren & Stimpy slide
    January 28, 2013

    Ren & Stimpy, go read Posts #101, 103, & 105, et al. & apply your equation to Orac as well: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
    .
    Then returneth the & posteth it herein for all to gaze in wonder at.

  18. #18 Didymus Judas Thomas
    #11 At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDunderMifflin Dorm
    January 28, 2013

    How’s the “blubber” taste?

  19. #19 Didymus Judas Thomas
    #15 At the Tu-Quack Center Epic Post epicenter
    January 28, 2013

    Oh, do tell, prickly pair!!!

  20. #20 Denice Walter
    January 28, 2013

    @ THS:

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

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

    I have to leave to get curry.

  21. #21 prn
    two birds #10, #13
    January 28, 2013

    I can buy generic leucovorin at a US drugstore for ca $25 per 25 mg tablet. Calcium folinate, a fairly simple molecule, costs under $100 per kg to manufacture. No patent problem there, either. Does Burzynski charge over $10,000 a day for his bilge (under $1/mg)?

    I previously pointed out an example of UFToral as not available in the US. It was available overseas for ~2 decades before Xeloda and actually has distinct advantages still. Ca 1999 Bristol Meyers Squibb showed trials that it was effective even with standard hamfisted regimens, but still got turned down by the FDA for reasons not merit based. Generic UFToral, priced like much larger fluoroquinolone caps at Walmart, would cost cancer patients perhaps $1-2 per day.

    But to blame FDA for all of the problems you see and say they’re “killing the country”…
    Not all alone, their sponsors are still busy with the rape part.

  22. #22 lilady
    January 28, 2013

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

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

  23. #23 Orac
    January 28, 2013

    Indeed. DJT appears to be all about Burzynski. He almost always seems to show up after a post about Burzynski. It’s almost as though he had a Google Alert set to notify him of posts about Burzynski…

  24. #24 Thom Denick
    Los Angeles
    January 28, 2013

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

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

    Seriously, Burnyzski couldn’t have more deleterious friends.

  25. #25 Narad
    January 28, 2013

    Calcium folinate, a fairly simple molecule, costs under $100 per kg to manufacture.

    I take it that you didn’t compare the structures. Anyway, with almost no effort whatever, I can find 5 kg of phenyl acetate for $276 at retail, and this very much appears to be built into Scamley’s fee structure at order-of-magnitude inflated levels, although he may not be able to make it a line item.

    In any event, leucovorin is of no relevance whatever, as the underlying assertion is that Burzynski’s private pharmacy charges above retail by a similar margin for regular chemotheraputics as well (e.g., the Quinlan complaint [PDF]).

  26. #26 Ren
    January 28, 2013

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

  27. #27 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Anti-Matter Research Room
    January 28, 2013

    #22 lilady
    “Ren: I’m not *getting* the Thingy Troll vibes from Diddums.”
    .
    #15 Edith Prickly
    ““Didymus Judas Thomas” = “Th1Th2″, or is the stupidity multiplying?
    Nope. Diddling Thomas is a force of nuttery unto him/her/itself.
    However, the Thing did reappear recently under a new ‘nym – lilady spotted her first and the IP evidence confirmed it.”
    .
    CONGRATULATIONS Prickly!! Your research ability reminds me of Dr. Orac!!

  28. #28 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Urinememonic Master Bathroom
    January 28, 2013

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

  29. #29 Mark McAndrew
    United Kingdom
    January 28, 2013

    Why is every brave and noble Seeker Of Truth ™ too scared to post under their real name?

    Oh right – the Big Pharma assassination squads…

  30. #30 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Thumbalina Theatre
    January 28, 2013

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

    You are in excellent company. BRAVO!!

  31. #31 Narad
    January 28, 2013

    One might note that the unnecessary use of periods for paragraph breaks strongly suggests that it oozed in from another habitual locale.

  32. #32 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Renal Retention Room
    January 28, 2013

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

  33. #33 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Philosophy Pathos Pathway
    January 28, 2013

    #29 Mark McAndrew
    United Kingdom
    “Why is every brave and noble Seeker Of Truth ™ too scared to post under their real name?
    Oh right – the Big Pharma assassination squads…”
    .
    Yeah!! I’ve always wondered why Orac does that. Good point!!!

  34. #34 prn
    25, 21, 13, 7 cont'd
    January 28, 2013

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

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

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

  35. #35 Narad
    January 28, 2013

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

    It is indeed short on detail (which is normal for a complaint), but the allegation is the same as Merritt’s, which is that the overcharging at the “Southern Family Pharmacy,” which is essentially mandatory for Burzynski’s marks, extends to regular chemotherapeutic agents. Indeed, you have completely failed to address the point that Burzynski has nothing to do with your own idée fixe.

  36. #36 Robert Blaskiewicz
    January 28, 2013

    Wow. What a nasty piece of crap.

  37. #37 prn
    Narad-35
    January 28, 2013

    I object overcharging in general. While the private pharmacy is indeed a warning flag, such conflicts of interest have abounded in medicine.

    Could you describe a little more precisely what you think my “idée fixe” is?

  38. #38 The Danish Salmon of Doubt
    In Ireland
    January 28, 2013

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

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

  39. #39 Narad
    January 29, 2013

    I object overcharging in general. While the private pharmacy is indeed a warning flag, such conflicts of interest have abounded in medicine.

    This is evasive, prn, and obfuscatory, unless you wish to fully embrace the position that Burzynski is just like everybody else.

    Could you describe a little more precisely what you think my “idée fixe” is?

    Yes. You appear, and long have done so, to have homebrew cancer treatment as a fixation. I regret that I do not recall what you’re fighting, although I wish you nothing but the best in your efforts. Burzynski is still a crook.

  40. #40 Xplodyncow
    January 29, 2013

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

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

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

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

  41. #41 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Blarney Stone Bookshelf
    January 29, 2013

    #38 The Danish Salmon of Doubt
    In Ireland
    “I have been a silent lurker here for a while, but today felt the need to comment. A person named Didymus Judas Thomas has been very active indeed lately on the Wikipedia “Burzynski Clinic” page, at least in the Talk section, where he has swamped the Talks with attempts to introduce loads of primary studies that are not cited in any secondary source. His status as a Wikipedia user is currently “suspected sockpuppets”.
    And DJT, #33, anybody can find out who Orac is with less than a minutes research”
    .
    I smell something “fishy,” & I’m not referring to the salmon.
    .
    Oh doubter from the land of ‘taters, if you are so wonderously wise in all things Wikipedian, please bestow your sanctified knowledge upon us mere mortals as to what Wikipedian policy you are basing your wonderful prose upon.
    .
    Verily, & thinketh thou that I knowest not that? Forsooth, I shall nary be bequeathing my name in the midst of other nameless vapid individuals who resort to referring to others as “trolls” because they have minds that are small like a trolls’, or leprechaun if ye prefer.

  42. #42 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center XplodingMeatpuppet Moot Coutroom
    January 29, 2013

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

  43. #43 Didymus Judas Thomas
    The Tu-Quack Center Danish Salmon of Doubt Sockpuppet Studio
    January 29, 2013

    #38 The Danish Salmon of Doubt, how does a Danish with salmon taste?
    .
    According to Wikipedia you are a “Sockpuppet,” because your name is “The Danish Salmon of Doubt,” which is most likely a pseudonym, & this you are trying to deceive us by not letting us know who you really are. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

  44. #44 LW
    January 29, 2013

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

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

  45. #45 LW
    January 29, 2013

    “Thinketh” is third person singular. That means it is used with he, she or it.

    “Knowest” is second person singular. That means it is used with thou.

    The iDJiT has managed to get this wrong every single time.

  46. #46 Lawrence
    January 29, 2013

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

  47. #47 Todd W.
    harpocratesspeaks.com
    January 29, 2013

    @LW

    I hear Shakespeare’s bones rattling as he turns in his grave. Truly painful to read.

  48. #48 LW
    January 29, 2013

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

  49. #49 c0nc0rdance
    January 29, 2013

    @Orac

    Many, many thanks for sharing my video. I tried to steer away from the science, which can easily get bogged down; and the litigation, which always appears petty or vindictive. Both build a much more complete picture of a clinic where medical ethics and patient safety take a back seat to profit. This was meant to be the “outreach” form of the video. I’d like to follow up later with something approaching your thoroughness.

    What I wish I could convey to all the knee-jerk alt-med proponents is that they should be rejecting this clinic’s methods as well. They’re not using herbs or sunshine or flowers and rainbows on patients, they are using CHEMO… and way more of it than your average “cut-n-burn” oncologist. The hypernatremia should have given that away.

    Many thanks, Orac, for doing the really deep discovery on the Burzynski Clinic. A little Sunshine is the best disinfectant*.

    *(This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. Sunshine Corporation, Inc. does not imply that their product is intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.)

  50. #50 Politicalguineapig
    January 29, 2013

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

  51. #51 Stu
    January 29, 2013

    bestow your sanctified knowledge upon us mere mortals as to what Wikipedian policy you are basing your wonderful prose upon.

    It was explained to you on the Talk page, and you ignored it there. Why repeat it here? You’re way too much of a delusional blowhard to listen.

  52. #52 Orac
    January 29, 2013

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

    You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you? The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there. If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified. Thus far, he has failed to do so.

  53. #53 lsm
    January 29, 2013

    @49: It is a much needed video, cOncOrdance. Burzynski can’t get away without an answer to his sham of a video. I appreciate that you, and others, are answering the comments so eloquently, reaching many who have no clue about how clinical trials really work. Keep up the good work.

  54. #54 Edith Prickly
    January 29, 2013

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

    Mr. Caballero, is that you?

  55. #55 Denice Walter
    January 29, 2013

    @ cOncOrdance:

    Excellent as usual.

  56. #56 lilady
    January 29, 2013

    @ cOncOradance: Simply superb!

  57. #57 herr doktor bimler
    January 29, 2013

    The Danish Salmon of Doubt, how does a Danish with salmon taste?
    I imagine that sour cream and dill will come into it somewhere.

  58. #58 Edith Prickly
    January 29, 2013

    @HDB and some akvavit to wash it down?

  59. #59 W. Kevin Vicklund
    January 29, 2013

    According to Wikipedia you are a “Sockpuppet,” because your name is “The Danish Salmon of Doubt,” which is most likely a pseudonym, & this you are trying to deceive us by not letting us know who you really are. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

    Do you ever actually read what you link?

    A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.

    The source you cited directly contradicts you. So please cite the FACTS* that led to your accusation of sockpuppetry.

    * ‘FACTS’ as used by DJT do not appear to have more than a passing resemblance to ‘facts’ as used in standard English or scientific dialogue.

  60. #60 Richard Smith
    January 29, 2013

    @Edith Prickly (#54)

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

  61. #61 herr doktor bimler
    January 29, 2013

    The “sockpuppet” suspicions within the Wikipedia community seem to have arisen because DJT was contributing to the discussions — including the discussion about banning DJT — using the default IP-address form of signature, as well as the formally logged-in signature of ‘DJT’. That’s understandable as an accidental omission, and not as egregious as (for instance) creating multiple identities.

  62. #62 The Danish Salmon of Doubt
    In Dublin
    January 29, 2013

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

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

  63. #63 Narad
    January 29, 2013

    Oh doubter from the land of ‘taters

    Another DJT triangulation failure. (The correct answer is of course this.)

  64. #64 lilady
    January 29, 2013

    No Narad…the correct answer is this…

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

  65. #65 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Aarent Shpelling Studio
    January 30, 2013

    #44 LW (Lack Write stuff)
    I replied 2 ur erudite reply on appropriate blogger space. Get thee henceforth forthwith & spout ur epiphany herewith.

  66. #66 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center c0nc0rdancehall
    January 30, 2013

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

  67. #67 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Can't Wikireadian Room
    January 30, 2013

    #50 Politicalguineapig (Phenylacetylglutamine (PG) pig)
    .
    “A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

  68. #68 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center StuInYourOwnJuices StuKitchen
    January 30, 2013

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

  69. #69 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Everyone's a Comedian Club
    January 30, 2013

    #54 Egad Prickly
    .
    “Mr. Caballero, is that you?”
    .
    No, it’s Carlos Mencia!!

  70. #70 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Danish Salmon of Doubtlessly
    January 30, 2013

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

  71. #71 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Center People who can't "Fact-Check" Fanboy room
    January 30, 2013

    #62 The Danish Salmon of Doubt
    In Dublin
    .
    Hey DSoD, I’ll ask you the same ? I asked at #68 Stuwed.
    .
    #51 Stu
    .
    “What does this mean on my User page (down at the very bottom) on Wackypedia?”
    .
    “I think administrators may have concluded that you are already familiar with policy. In fact, you seem to do nothing but cite policy… — 21:53, 28 January 2013″
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=535384292

  72. #72 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDenialist
    January 30, 2013

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

  73. #73 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree
    January 30, 2013

    #52 Orac

    “You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you? The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there. If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified. Thus far, he has failed to do so.”
    .
    Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:
    .
    “Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
    .
    Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?
    .
    1. “[T]he study tested a dosing regimen known to be ineffective.”
    .
    2. “[D]osages used in the study “were meant for the treatment of a single small lesion…”
    .
    3. “5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than” said single small lesion.
    .
    4. “As the provider,” SRB “strongly suggested to the NCI that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with their greater tumor load.”
    .
    5. “[T]he study was closed when” SRB “insisted that the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used (letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995).”
    .
    6. “A review of the clinical data in the article … proves the validity of” SRB’s “position” per SRB.
    .
    7. “Their study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels.”
    .
    8. SRB’s “phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine levels that are 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine levels 53 times greater, & phenylacetate levels 2 times greater than those reported…’”
    .
    9. “The clinical outcomes reported … based on their inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from” SRB’s “phase 2 studies in which a higher dosage regimen was used.”
    .
    10. “They reported no tumor regression. In contrast, in 1 of” SRB’s “ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses.’”
    .
    11. “The difference in outcomes is primarily due to the difference in dosage schedules,” per SRB.
    .
    12. “Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by … is that the duration of treatment was too brief.”
    .
    13. “Almost all the patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days.”
    .
    14. “1 patient received only 9 days of treatment.”
    .
    15. “The current studies indicate that objective tumor responses are usually observed after 3 months of therapy.”
    .
    16. “An additional 8 months of treatment is usually needed to obtain a maximal therapeutic effect.”
    .
    17. “[A]mbiguities in the response evaluation & analysis in the article…”
    .
    a) “In 2 patients, tumor necrosis was attributed to “radionecrosis.””
    .
    b) “However, such an interpretation is clouded by the fact that antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis.”
    .
    c) “Moreover, the analysis … could have highlighted the 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than I year.”

    d) “This is of interest because these patients typically have a life expectancy of 3 to 6 months.”

    18. “It is regrettable that, at the time of the study … the sponsor, NCI, decided against the higher dosing regimen that I proposed & closed the study.”

  74. #74 Lawrence
    January 30, 2013

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

  75. #75 JGC
    January 30, 2013

    DJT, I believe I asked you this in a previous thread, to no response: what in your opinion is the single strongest piece of scientific evidence supporting Burzynski’s claim that antineoplastons are effective at treating advanced cancers?

    I mean, there is some reason other than sheer contrarianism why you believe that Burzynski’s something other than a charlatan, preying on people at the time they’re most vulnerable–right?

  76. #76 Narad
    January 30, 2013

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

    That you’re both incompetent and in Pennsylvania.

  77. #77 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Referencing Reference References room
    January 30, 2013

    #74 Lawrence
    .
    The 1999 Mayo study references the below 3 SRB publications which are included as part of the study;
    .
    2. Burzynski SR , Kubove E , Burzynski B . Phase II clinical trials of antnieoplaston A10 and AS2-1 infusions in astrocytoma . In: Adam D , Buchner T , Rubinstein E editor. Recent Advances m Chemotherapy . Munich: Futuramed Publishers; 1991; p 2506.-.2507
    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext#back-bib2
    20. Burzynski SR . Antineoplastons; history of the research (1) . Drugs Exp Clin Res . 1986; 12(Suppl 1): l–9
    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext#back-bib20
    21. Soltysiak-Pawluezuk D , Buriynskl SR . Cellular accumulation of antineoplaston AS2- 1 in human hepatoma cells. Cancer Lett . 1995; 88: 107–112
    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext#back-bib21
    PubMed: Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
    Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350/?i=4&from=Phase%20II%20Study%20of%20Antineoplastons%20A10
    Abstract: Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/abstract
    Full Text: Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext
    PDF: Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
    http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf
    References: Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
    http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/references
    Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
    http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/10069350/Phase_II_Study_of_Antineoplastons_A10__NSC_648539__and_AS2_1__NSC_620261__in_Patients_With_Recurrent_Glioma
    PubMed: 6/1999 – Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
    Related: 1995 – Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8667595/?i=6&from=/10377942/related
    Abstract: 1995 – Toxicological Study on Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in Cancer Patients
    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_article
    PDF: 1995 – Toxicological Study on Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in Cancer Patients
    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_pdf
    References: 1995 – Toxicological Study on Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in Cancer Patients
    https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_article/references
    Related: 2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234/?i=5&from=/10377942/related
    PubMed: 2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
    PubGet: 2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
    http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/15563234/Phase_II_study_of_antineoplaston_A10_and_AS2_1_in_children_with_recurrent_and_progressive_multicentric_glioma___a_preliminary_report
    2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
    Springer: Adis Data Information BV: Drugs in R & D
    http://adisonline.com/drugsrd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?mobile=0&year=2004&issue=05060&article=00002&type=Abstract&desktopMode=true
    Search: Springer: Adis Data Information BV: Drugs in R & D (up to 500 references) 35% increase in the Drugs in R&D ISI impact factor (IF) to 1.354
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Drugs+in+R+%26+D%22&go=Go
    Related: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929/?i=4&from=/10377942/related
    PubMed: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
    Abstract: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.abstract
    Abstract: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.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
    PDF: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.full.pdf
    PDF: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.full.pdf
    References: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.refs
    References: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.refs
    PubGet: 6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
    http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/15911929/Long_term_survival_of_high_risk_pediatric_patients_with_primitive_neuroectodermal_tumors_treated_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1
    Related: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713/?i=2&from=/10377942/related
    PubMed: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
    Abstract: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.abstract
    Abstract: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    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
    PDF: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.full.pdf
    PDF: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.full.pdf
    References: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.refs
    References: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.refs
    PubGet: 3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
    http://assets0.pubget.com/paper/16484713/Targeted_therapy_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1_of_high_grade__recurrent__and_progressive_brainstem_glioma
    SAGE Publications: SAGE Journals: Integrative Cancer Therapies: Impact Factor: 2.136
    Ranked: 6 out of 22 in Integrative & Complementary Medicine
    118 out of 196 in Oncology
    Source: 2011 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2012)
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_Cancer_Therapies#section_2
    Search: SAGE Publications: SAGE Journals: Integrative Cancer Therapies (Integr Cancer Ther) [up to 500 references]
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Integr+Cancer+Ther%22&go=Go

  78. #78 Richard Smith
    January 30, 2013

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

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

  79. #79 LW
    January 30, 2013

    In the iDJiT’s list o’ links:

    mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4 appears six times.  download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf is just a duplicate copy of mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4; so is assets0.pubget.com/paper/10069350/Phase_II_Study_of_Antineoplastons_A10__NSC_648539__and_AS2_1__NSC_620261__in_Patients_With_Recurrent_Glioma.  www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350, which appears twice, is yet another copy of the same paper.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942 is a link to a comment by Burzynski on the paper above. 
     
    ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40 appears six times.   assets0.pubget.com/paper/16484713/Targeted_therapy_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1_of_high_grade__recurrent__and_progressive_brainstem_glioma is another copy of the same paper by Burzynski. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713, which appears twice, is yet another copy.

    This seems to be a pattern.

    There are six links to ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168;   assets0.pubget.com/paper/15911929/Long_term_survival_of_high_risk_pediatric_patients_with_primitive_neuroectodermal_tumors_treated_with_antineoplastons_A10_and_AS2_1 is another copy of the same paper by Burzynski; as is   www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929, which appears twice.

    Three links to  www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241; as usual we have a duplicate of the paper in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8667595. Surprisingly, the paper isn’t by Burzynski.

    Then there are two links to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234, a paper by Burzynski, with duplicates at assets0.pubget.com/paper/15563234/Phase_II_study_of_antineoplaston_A10_and_AS2_1_in_children_with_recurrent_and_progressive_multicentric_glioma___a_preliminary_report and adisonline.com/drugsrd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?mobile=0&year=2004&issue=05060&article=00002&type=Abstract&desktopMode=true.

    Finally, we have three links to wikipedia.

    So all those links add up to the Mayo paper, Burzynski’s comment on same, three papers by Burzynski, one paper that isn’t by Burzynski, and some links to wikipedia.  I suppose the iDJiT’s teachers are impressed by the feat of turning one paper into nine or ten links. 

  80. #80 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDenialist Nook
    January 31, 2013

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

  81. #81 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NarAndrewDiceClay Club
    January 31, 2013

    #76 Narad
    .
    “That you’re both incompetent and in Pennsylvania.”
    .
    Nope, NaraDon’tKnow. It means you wouldn’t come close to understanding this:
    .
    WP:NICETRY “Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these.” (Wikipedia:Blocking policy: WP:BP Blocking: Preliminary: Education and warnings.) [1]
    In my humble opinion, WP editors & administrators did not follow the above policy. Thus, the indefinite block violates the blocking policy.
    Because of this, in my humble opinion, the indefinite block falls under the category of: “Purpose and goals: When blocking may not be used: Blocks should not be punitive: 1. in retaliation against users; 3. as punishment against users; 4. or where there is no current conduct issue of concern.” [[WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE]]
    1/19/13 Editor grievance blocked by xxxxxxxxxx without allowing me opportunity to comment. Later unblocked without advising me. (See below link re: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV)
    1/18/13 filed editor conduct grievance (1/19/13 WP time).
    1/23/13 indefinite block by xxxxxxxxx without allowing me to comment. (See below link re: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV)
    “Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.” (Wikipedia:Blocking policy: [[WP:BP]]) [2]
    “The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates blocking policy)” because as I posted numerous times (See above link re: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV), I did not post anything on the Article in question once my Article content dispute on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (See below) was filed 1/16/13. [[WP:NICETRY]] [3] [4] 1/16/13 filed Article content dispute on Dispute resolution noticeboard (Filing ignored / removed)
    Therefore, I was not engaged in “abuse of editing.”
    In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators engaged in: “Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored.” ([[WP:SOP]] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.)
    Editors & administrators did not explain [[WP:NPOV]] when I repeatedly requested they do so.
    In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators did “not” engage in “good faith” in eleven WP policies, statements of principles, core principles, & founding principles, including: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion, consensus-building, neutral point of view, thoughtful, diplomatic honesty, politeness, objectively and without bias, & realistically. ([[WP:DR]], [[WP:SOP]] 1., [[WP:SOP]] 7., [[WP:SOP]] 8., [[WP:SR]], [[WP:SR]] 1., “Founding principles: 1.,” “Founding principles: 6.,” [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Giving “equal validity,” [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Religion:,” [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Pseudoscience:”)
    Therefore, I was not engaged in “abuse of editing.”
    Editors claimed [[WP:MEDRS]] was coequal with [[WP:NPOV]] but refused to explain [[WP:NPOV]] “The principles upon which this ‘policy’ is based cannot be superseded by ‘other policies.’” They refused to respond as to what “policies” [[WP:NPOV]] supersedes if it doesn’t supersede [[WP:MEDRS]].
    [[WP:NPOV]] versus [[WP:MEDRS]] is “not” the correct reason for them to claim. The correct claim is [[WP:NPOV]] versus [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Pseudoscience: If we’re going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.”
    The indefinite block should be reversed for the above reasons.
    “Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.” (Indefinite blocks [[WP:INDEF]])
    “Tell us why you are here. Say how you intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after you are unblocked. See here for some ideas about what you could do.” [[WP:NICETRY]]
    I have actually researched the issues & am trying to get WP to abide by its ([[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
    “Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]
    “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”. [[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
    I am in “good faith” concerned that certain WP editors & administrators do not have the appropriate skills or knowledge to deal with WP issues re the above.
    It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts. (Account information: block log · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed socks) Categories: Wikipedia sockpuppeteers
    Really? Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas 1/28//2013

  82. #82 Narad
    January 31, 2013

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

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

  83. #83 Narad
    January 31, 2013

    Nope, NaraDon’tKnow. It means you wouldn’t come close to understanding this

    I’ve already seen it, you moron. This is the part implied by the fact that I commented on it already. You apparently don’t grasp the dynamics at play, in that, yes, even Wikipedia can identify rank stupidity.

  84. #84 Didymus Judas Thomas
    The Tu-Quack Center Peer-Review this
    January 31, 2013

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

  85. #85 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Clear as Mud bath
    January 31, 2013

    #83 Narad
    .
    “I’ve already seen it, you moron. This is the part implied by the fact that I commented on it already. You apparently don’t grasp the dynamics at play, in that, yes, even Wikipedia can identify rank stupidity.”
    .
    Your posts are:
    http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/clear_as_mud
    .
    http://geekpundit.blogspot.com/2005/09/pointless-wikipedia-entries-part-2.html?m=1

  86. #86 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Deliverance set
    January 31, 2013

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

  87. #87 ChrisP
    January 31, 2013

    DJT, allow me to kindly suggest that you are a moron.

    I have absolutely no idea what you think you are doing with your latest Gish gallop of links (#84), but it has convinced me that you really have no idea.

    What you have presented us with is 4 separate links to Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls by Munshi et al. 2008.

    This rather unadventurous review regales us with all the (S)CAM treatments for cancer including stupid stuff like Reiki that show no efficacy. Burzynski’s antineoplastons are in there along with shark cartilage and Di Bella therapy. This is probably all as it should be. An exhaustive review of the stuff that has no evidence for efficacy should be complete.

    You then regale us with 4 separate links to: Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer by Cassileth and Deng 2003, which may as well be exactly the same paper. Actually considering the layout and text used, I would be willing to bet my right testicle that Munshi et al based their review on Cassileth and Deng. They even copied some of it. Once again, Burzynski’s antineoplastins get equal billing with all the other stuff that doesn’t work.

    And then we have a link to a search of how often each of the journals gets a mention in Wikipedia. Which is supposed to mean what exactly? It does not constitute evidence that anyone in science outside the (S)CAM journals (actually that is an oxymoron, but I will leave it go as you know what I mean) is taking any notice of Burzynski’s research. WHich would be hard because he hasn’t really published it.

    There is not a rule around here that the person with the most links in their posts wins. It is the quality that matters.

  88. #88 herr doktor bimler
    January 31, 2013

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

  89. #89 LW
    January 31, 2013

    The iDJiT was considerably more civil at Wikipedia, though.

  90. #90 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Hashtag # Hall
    January 31, 2013

    #45 LW
    .
    #grammarpolice
    #wordnazi

  91. #91 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Lincoln Logs Linking Logic Louge
    January 31, 2013

    #87 ChrisPeeps
    .
    “DJT, allow me to kindly suggest that you are a moron.
    I have absolutely no idea what you think you are doing with your latest Gish gallop of links (#84), but it has convinced me that you really have no idea.”
    .
    ChrisPeeps, allow me to kindly suggest that you can’t read & comprehend.”
    .
    #80 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDenialist Nook
    .
    #79 LW
    .
    In the iDJiT’s list o’ links:
    .
    LordWriteous,
    .
    1. You do realize that if I didn’t provide every conceivable link, that NaraDenialist would “Whine & Cheese,” right?
    .
    “(which can be reviewed in HTML: … or PDFs at pg. 5 of 9 & reference at pg. 9):”
    .
    ”(which can be reviewed in HTML: … or PDFs at pg. 4 of 10 & references at pg.. 7):”
    .
    If you do not understand the above that were in the post, then it’s folly for me to refer you to WP policy.
    .
    If anyone had a problem with these articles in these publications, then they had every opportunity to write to those publications.

  92. #92 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "CHEMOTHERAPY" but 'NOT' "CHEMOTHERAPY."
    January 31, 2013

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

  93. #93 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Biased Blockage Ballaballoo
    January 31, 2013

    #88 herr doktor bimler
    .
    “It’s kind of sobering to think that DJT regards RI as a second-best alternative, and is commenting here as the fall-back to being banned from Wikipedia.”
    .
    1/13 & 1/15/13 I requested content be posted on Article (see A)(Content # 3). Denied by Alexbrn 1/15 & 1/16/13 (easiest to start at bottom of Content # 3 & work up from 1/16 to 1/13/13 posts,). 1/16/13 I filed Article content dispute on Dispute resolution noticeboard (Filing ignored / removed) (see B). 1/18/13 I filed editor conduct grievance (1/19/13 WP time) (see C) (Content # 4 – 4.4). My Editor grievance was blocked 1/19/13 by xxxxxxxxxx without allowing me an opportunity to comment. Later it was unblocked without advising me. 1/23/13 an indefinite block was implemented by xxxxxxxxx without allowing me to comment.
    In my humble opinion, editors & administrator did not in “good faith” engage in [[WP:DR]] “Dispute resolution: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages.”; [[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales: 1. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.”; [[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles: 7. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way.”; [[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles: 8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness.”; [[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”. Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information. Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate. Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”; [[WP:SR] “Core principles: 1. Five pillars: The foundations of the Wikipedia community are summarized in 5 simple ideas: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; it has a neutral point of view; it is free content that anyone can edit and distribute; all Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner; and Wikipedia does not have firm rules.”; [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles]. “Founding principles: 1. Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle.”; [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles] “Founding principles: 6. Maintaining room for fiat to help resolve particularly difficult problems.”; [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Giving “equal validity”: Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV.”; [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Religion: NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree.”; [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Pseudoscience: If we’re going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.” In my humble opinion, editors & administrators engaged in: [[WP:SOP]] “7. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored.”

  94. #94 Narad
    January 31, 2013

    #grammarpolice
    #wordnazi

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

  95. #95 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Aretha Franklin "Respectful Insolence" Room
    January 31, 2013

    #89 LW
    .
    “The iDJiT was considerably more civil …”
    .
    Respect is earned.

  96. #96 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center HashNaradTag Toilet
    January 31, 2013

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

  97. #97 Chemmomo
    At Respectful Insolence, not Wikipedia
    February 1, 2013

    Didymus Judas Thomas @93
    This is ridiculous. If you have issues with the administration at a completely different website, you’re not going to get them resolved here.
    The walls of text you post on topic are bad enough. What are you hoping to accomplish now?

  98. #98 ChrisP
    February 1, 2013

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

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

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

    And you think these support Burzynski’s antineoplastins?

  99. #99 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center ChemoMomument
    February 1, 2013

    #97 Chemmomo

    At Respectful Insolence, not Wikipedia
    .
    Didymus Judas Thomas @93
    .
    NaraDenialist needs help understanding:
    .
    #85
    Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Clear as Mud bath
    .
    #83 Narad
    .
    “I’ve already seen it, you moron. This is the part implied by the fact that I commented on it already. You apparently don’t grasp the dynamics at play, in that, yes, even Wikipedia can identify rank stupidity.”

  100. #100 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Rate This Room
    February 1, 2013

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

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

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

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

  101. #101 ChrisP
    February 1, 2013

    DJT, incredible. I make a post in short paragraphs and you copy it into single sentence paragraphs. This is truly bizarre.

    Brainstem glioma is an aggressive and dangerous cancer. Without treatment, the life expectancy is typically a few months from the time of diagnosis. With appropriate treatment, 37% survive more than one year, 20% survive 2 years. and 13% survive 3 years.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem_glioma#section_5

    Umm. Citation needed.

    It even says so.

  102. #102 Narad
    February 1, 2013

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

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

  103. #103 Narad
    February 1, 2013

    #83 Narad
    .
    “I’ve already seen it, you moron. This is the part implied by the fact that I commented on it already. You apparently don’t grasp the dynamics at play, in that, yes, even Wikipedia can identify rank stupidity.”
    .
    That means WP’s relevant because NaraDenialist needs help understanding it.

    I hate to break this to you, but nobody’s ever complained about my WP edits. Not only do you not understand how it works, you completely fail to understand the culture and how to figure out what you’ve been told repeatedly. You think I didn’t bother reading your sorry efforts? It’s just another case of your barging in someplace and insisting that you know better than everyone else despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

    And to take a step back to your moronic “grammar police” routine, pointing out that you don’t understand that pronouns and verbs have person and number is not an example of the phenomenon.

  104. #104 LW
    February 1, 2013

    @ChrisP:

    Umm. Citation needed.

    It even says so.

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

  105. #106 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDenialist Nietzsche
    February 2, 2013

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

  106. #107 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDenialist Nietzsche Nook
    February 2, 2013

    Then after #23, go to 28, 52, 73, 77, & 80.

  107. #108 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center What does NaraDenialist have in Common with WP ???
    February 2, 2013

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

  108. #109 Krebiozen
    February 2, 2013

    Nice to know that those at Wikipedia can also recognize an unhinged time waster with nothing useful to add to a discussion.

  109. #110 Marc Stephens Is Insane
    February 2, 2013

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

  110. #111 Narad
    February 2, 2013

    You seem to relegate yourself to what you’re good at.
    .
    Make snide, vapid, insignificant remarks.

    Project much, Piddles?

  111. #112 LW
    February 2, 2013

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

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

  112. #113 herr doktor bimler
    February 2, 2013

    It is unethical and unfair to seek to discredit DJT’s arguments by re-publishing the Wikipedia community’s conclusion that DJT is an incompetent, childish obsessive, an ignorant waste of skin with nothing to contribute…
    Oh, I see, it’s DJT who’s repeating that conclusion. Carry on then!

  113. #114 Narad
    February 2, 2013

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

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

  114. #115 LW
    February 2, 2013

    @Narad:

    Quoth DJT: “I’ve worked in the legal industry for over 22 years”

    Oh. Oh my. Assuming this is true, imagine the fate of any client who wanders into that firm. Maybe DJT just sweeps the floors and has delusions of grandeur (in addition to the other delusions). One can but hope.

  115. #116 LW
    February 2, 2013

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

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

  116. #117 Narad
    February 2, 2013

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

    Nah, and upon closer examination, he’s almost certainly not. When he posts from his phone, it’s come from the 166.205.55.0/26 CIDR block (that’s 63 addresses). That’s just space leased to WDSPC, which is in Pennsylvania, and allocated to Cingular/AT&T. There are some rather tedious methods one could apply based on the assumption of 24-hour lease duration, but the S/N would likely be low.

  117. #118 LW
    February 2, 2013

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

  118. #119 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu- Quack Center Checking Orac's EPIC & Legendary Research phase II
    February 2, 2013

    #103. Narad
    .
    #83 Narad
    .
    “I’ve already seen it, you moron. This is the part implied by the fact that I commented on it already. You apparently don’t grasp the dynamics at play, in that, yes, even Wikipedia can identify rank stupidity.”
    .
    ” The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated: “Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans.”[1]”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burzynski_Clinic&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
    .
    I bet you believe the above as well. “Bottom Line:…”
    .
    Let’s actually “fact-check” that, shall we???
    .
    Oh!! That’s NOT what’s on their web-site!!!
    http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/antineoplastons
    .
    “Warnings
    There is no conclusive evidence to support the antineoplaston theory.”
    .
    WP, the last bastion of accuracy on the net!! In WP we trust, all others pay cash.

  119. #120 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu- Quack Center Checking Orac's EPIC & Legendary Research phase III
    February 2, 2013

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

  120. #121 Didymus Judas Thomas
    February 2, 2013

    #110. Marc Stephens Is Insane In the MemBrain,
    .
    “I choke every time I read the words “in my <humble opinion”…"
    .
    Not surprising considering…
    http://www.livestrong.com/article/155872-the-definition-of-mentally-handicapped ;)

  121. #122 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Puddle of Mudhole
    February 2, 2013

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

  122. #123 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center If the Bimler Fits...
    February 2, 2013

    #113. herr doktor bimler
    .
    “Oh, I see, it’s DJT who’s repeating that conclusion. Carry on then!”
    .
    … Wear it.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=Bimler+removable+orthodontic+appliance

  123. #124 LW
    February 2, 2013

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

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

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

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

  124. #125 Narad
    February 2, 2013

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

    There is exactly zero chance that DJT is a lawyer. His invocation of and babbling about Black’s Law Dictionary, not to mention rambling about having sued the “gub-ment,” makes this plain.

  125. #126 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Quoting unsubstantiated Quotes
    February 2, 2013

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

  126. #127 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Appeal THIS
    February 2, 2013

    #115. LW
    .
    Then you’ll really enjoy THIS!!!
    .
    Wikipedia Arbitration Request Appeal to Jimbo Wales [[WP:NPOV]]
    Didymos Thomas
    to xxxxxx-xxxxxxx-xx@xxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx, me
    This appeal is directly to Jimbo Wales.
    ["Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, ..."
    ([[WP:AP]] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy 2.9 Appeal of decisions)]

    {{subst:arbreq|WP:NPOV}}

    1. Xxxxxxx, 2. xxxxxxxxxxxxx, 3. XX Xxx, 4. Xxxxxxx’xxx:Xxx xx12345 (Xxx xx12345), 5. Xxx Xxxxxx,, 6. Xxxxxxxxxx, 7. Xxxx Xxxx, 8. Xxxx, 9. Xxxxxxxx, 10. Xxxxx, 11. Xxxxxx, 12. xxxx, 13. Xxxxxxxxx, & 14. Didymus Judas Thomas

    (A.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burzynski_Clinic]
    (B.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Burzynski_Clinic]
    (C.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV]

    No reply received to my 1/25/2013 Clarification request re: “WP:NPOV/Arbitration Committee decision” sent to
    Xxxxx Xxxxxxx/XxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.com & xxxxxx-xxxxxxx-xx@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    1/25/2013 case denial received from Xxxxxxx citing allegations that: “the community were united that your contributions were biased:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV,” “I don’t see a case for misconduct against the editors you list as they
    were following policy, and that was supported by consensus,” “that you do not have the appropriate skills or knowledge to edit Wikipedia with ease,” “your attempts to communicate with us, you do appear to be struggling a little,” “attempting to understand what it is you want,” “[Y]ou may appeal your block to us, though in the circumstances this is
    unlikely to be successful,” “inappropriate both in terms of content and layout,” “not responded well,” “sources you wish to use are inappropriate,” & concerns re “learning,”promotion,” & “crowd-sourcing.”

    In my humble opinion, editors & administrators engaged in: [[WP:SOP]] “7. Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored.”

    1/13 & 1/15/13 I requested content be posted on Article (see A above) (Content # 3) denied by Xxxxxxx 1/15 & 1/16/13 (easiest to start at bottom of 3 at 1/16 posts & work up to 1/13/2013 posts)

    1/16/13 I filed Article content dispute on Dispute resolution noticeboard (Filing ignored / removed) (see B above)

    1/18/13 I filed editor conduct grievance (1/19/13 WP time) (see C above) (Content # 4 – 4.4).[later changed to 3. - 3.4 & later removed / I guess archived)

    My editor grievance was blocked 1/19/13 by Xxxxxxxxxxx without allowing me the opportunity to comment. Later unblocked without advising me.
    1/23/13 indefinite block by Xxxxxxxxx without allowing me to comment.

    In my humble opinion, editors & administrator did not observe: [[WP:DR]] “Dispute resolution,” [[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales: 1. Doing The Right Thing,” [[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles: 7.,” [[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles: 8. Diplomacy,” [[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct,” [[WP:SR] “Core principles: 1. Five pillars,” [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles] “Founding principles: 1. Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle,” [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles] “Founding principles: 6.” [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views / Giving “equal validity,” [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views / Religion,” & [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views / Pseudoscience.”

    Thank you very much. DIdymus Judas Thomas (Xxxxxxx.X.Xxxxxxx@xxxxx.com)

  127. #128 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center I P address
    February 3, 2013

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

  128. #129 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Jaffe JuiceBar
    February 3, 2013

    #118. LW
    .
    “Ah, okay, I just wondere if perhaps DJT were Richard Jaffe.”
    .
    Care for some Jaffe Juice??? :)
    http://www.jaffejuice.com

  129. #130 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Completely Clueless Calculator Club
    February 3, 2013

    #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.

  130. #131 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDull Day Diner
    February 3, 2013

    #125. NaraDull
    ..
    Must be a slow news day if THAT is the best you can do!!!
    .
    Maybe you should try tackling #73 for Orac.

  131. #132 Krebiozen
    February 3, 2013

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

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

  132. #133 Antaeus Feldspar
    February 3, 2013

    The pity about Duddy’s mathematical process being so jaw-droppingly unique is that if I asked him “what survival rate, expressed as a percentage, is ten patients out of 14?” I truly have no idea what his answer would be and by what convolutions he would obtain it.

    If his answer was anything other than 80%, I’d point out that percentages are nothing more than a means of expressing proportions, and he just got two different percentages out of the exact same proportions (5/7 = 10/14 = 15/21 = …) But sadly, from there the answers would become boringly predictable, at least in outline: “Hey Ann-Tuneless FRAUD-Spoor of the Tu-Quack Cancer Center!! How about you read these eight links to the exact same paper! It comes to the conclusion that Burzynski’s methods have not yet been 100% proven ineffective in 100% of patients and that’s nearly the same thing as ‘these methods are awesomely effective at least some of the time!!’”

  133. #134 LW
    February 3, 2013

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

  134. #135 LW
    February 3, 2013

    “Hey Ann-Tuneless FRAUD-Spoor of the Tu-Quack Cancer Center!! How about you read these eight links to the exact same paper! It comes to the conclusion that Burzynski’s methods have not yet been 100% proven ineffective in 100% of patients and that’s nearly the same thing as ‘these methods are awesomely effective at least some of the time!!’”

    And don’t forget the nudists and their tick bites.

  135. #136 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center NaradNudism Lights Out Superbowl
    February 3, 2013

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

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

  136. #137 flip
    February 4, 2013

    That was a good video.

    As for Squidymus – why is it there are moments when he seems capable of putting a normal sentence together, but seems to prefer word salad? It’s almost like he’s trolling for laughs… ;)
    Re: his attempts at editing the Wiki page for the clinic… is he still trying to deny that he’s defending Burzyinski? Cause he continues to act like he is. One wonders why his trolling is so fixated on this one person.

    Orac wanted them in “Peer-Reviewed” medical journals & that’s why there are links to WP showing they are such & those medical journals have been referenced on WP at least 500 times each.

    Holy crap this is so wrong it’s not even right.

  137. #138 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center KreBinaryBloggerzen Basement
    February 4, 2013

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

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

  138. #139 Didymus Judas Thomas
    T the Tu-Quack Center FeldsparFalkacy Fileroom
    February 4, 2013

    #133 Antaeus Feldspar
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

  139. #140 Didymus Judas Thomas
    T the Tu-Quack Center FalseFlagLimpWrag Wroom
    February 4, 2013
  140. #141 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center LWatatoullie Wromm
    February 4, 2013
  141. #142 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Smells Like Teen Spirit ... or Chicken
    February 4, 2013

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

  142. #143 Didymus Judas Thomas
    February 4, 2013

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    .
    OH GOODY !!!
    .
    .#137 flip
    .
    “Holy crap this is so wrong it’s not even right.”
    .
    Hey flipGumFlapper
    .
    “Citeless???” Still???
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint-Gaudens_double_eagle
    Citeless weasel words…

  143. #144 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Appeals & Oranges
    February 4, 2013

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

  144. #145 OccamsLaser
    February 5, 2013

    I don’t want to spoil anyone’s fun, but I do feel I should ask that we all (excepting Didymus Judas Thomas, of course) avoid further interactions with Mr. Thomas given the overwhelming evidence that he is suffering from a mental disability in my opinion, and thus that it is pointless and in a sense cruel to attack someone so defenseless and detached from reality. It can’t be much clearer that there is nothing to be gained in terms of furthering the discussion, and I doubt Mr. Thomas could do any more damage to the image of supporters of Mr. Burzynski given the unbalanced nature of the content and the erratic form of his posts to date. This is just my opinion, but attempting to debate someone who is sick can’t really be of much value, can it?

  145. #146 Narad
    February 5, 2013

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

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

  146. #147 OccamsLaser
    February 5, 2013

    Narad, I don’t disagree with your characterization, but it seems to me that there is at the very least a social disorder in play. Like I said, I don’t want to spoil the fun; I just don’t see what people are getting out of it at this point. Maybe it’s just the sport of sparring with a lunatic.

  147. #148 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center One-Hit-Wonder Opinions are Like A$$holes - Thank you Doctor Blogsplat
    February 5, 2013

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

  148. #149 OccamsLaser
    February 6, 2013

    Mr. Thomas:

    Thank you for your post. I admire the effort you have put in to collect and organize the wide range of information you have posted here, and I’m sure you have made your best effort to represent the point of view you hold. The material you have supplied, along with your ample commentary, surely present a comprehensive picture of how a supporter of Dr. Burzynski views data, reasons through issues, and interacts with others in the course of a discussion. I encourage you to continue your research and the promotion of your views. It can be very rewarding to champion a cause with such vigor, and it can give some stability and structure to one’s daily life in times of challenge, and that’s a positive thing.

    Good luck.

  149. #150 Didymus Judas Thomas
    #149 OccamsLaser Mr. Laser
    February 6, 2013

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

  150. #151 OccamsLaser
    February 7, 2013

    Mr. Thomas -

    It’s great to hear that you are having some fun! Keep finding ways to maintain some sense of purpose, as this can produce some degree of progress and stability, though care should be taken to be aware of the potential for regression, with the attendant difficulties. I hope it encourages you to hear that your efforts are definitely contributing to the public image of the defining characteristics of supporters of Dr. Burzynski; you are certainly leaving your mark on that cohort. It is important that people seeking representatives of your position have so much material available to make assessments of the intellectual capacities and logical rigor of promoters of your beliefs. Thanks again for your efforts in this regard.

  151. #152 Didymus Judas Thomas
    #151 OccamsLaser - Mr. Laser
    February 7, 2013

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

  152. #153 OccamsLaser
    February 7, 2013

    Mr. Thomas -

    Wonderful stuff. I think it’s fair to say that when a curious soul seeks information about Dr. Burzynski , your writings will be front and center, and they will make a strong impression. I know that feeling of accomplishment your campaign must bring you, and I again encourage you to seek these rewards and keep your purpose uppermost in your mind; you will see that improvement is sporadic but certain over the long haul. Looking forward to more.

  153. #154 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center Educating Orac Phase III
    February 7, 2013

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

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

  154. #155 Krebiozen
    February 7, 2013

    I think I preferred walls of text to these sentence fragments separated by periods that make these screeds impossible to read.

  155. #156 Lawrence
    February 7, 2013

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

  156. #157 Narad
    February 7, 2013

    I think I preferred walls of text to these sentence fragments separated by periods that make these screeds impossible to read.

    I’ve been wondering about the periods as well. It didn’t use them in its Wikipedia meltdown. I have seen places where they were basically the only way to effect paragraphs, CR/LF being inexplicably eaten as whitespace, perhaps Disqus from a couple of years ago. It probably exists in the wild elsewhere.

    Here, however, one can see in stark relief the sloppiness of the cut-and-paste routine: it only uses its proprietarily idiotic too-many-links avoidance routine (“let’s put spaces everywhere!”) in some of the entries. Why in G-d’s name it thinks it needs to repeat the same links over and over again in different formats when the first one identifies all of them is anyone’s guess.

  157. #158 Narad
    February 7, 2013

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

  158. #159 Narad
    February 7, 2013

    I would further note that at least one chunk of this is simply an incompetent reformatting of one of the actual Ralph Moss items non-linked at the bottom. Seriously, Piddles, if you’re just going to copy and paste, try not to make your sources look as stupid as you are.

  159. #160 herr doktor bimler
    February 7, 2013

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

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

  160. #161 Narad
    February 7, 2013

    ” ‘I have a chance to live,” said Patricia Meade, a SRB patient from Iowa who is afflicted with a rare form of cancer
    .
    SRB displayed a wide grin as he & his wife surveyed the jubilant scene outside the 9-floor courtroom

    Note also that it’s taking the trouble to modify the text it’s stealing from, and doing a rather poor job of it.

  161. #162 Chemmomo
    Re 155 through 161
    February 7, 2013

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

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

  162. #163 flip
    Waiting for my scroll button to be replaced
    February 8, 2013

    @Narad

    Why in G-d’s name it thinks it needs to repeat the same links over and over again in different formats when the first one identifies all of them is anyone’s guess.

    I think it’s a case of googling stuff and simply copying the results, rather than taking the time to read the content on the pages. It’s why I said it’s like watching someone practice how to copy and paste on a computer; they’re not really paying attention to what they’re copying, just that they are able to do it.

  163. #164 Lawrence
    February 8, 2013

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

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

  164. #165 Krebiozen
    February 8, 2013

    flip,

    I think it’s a case of googling stuff and simply copying the results

    As Narad observed, he is making minor modifications to the text (“&” for “and” for example) in what I assume is an inept attempt to disguise his sources. That suggests a little more thought than mindless copying anything that has Burzynski’s name in it, though the end result appears much the same. He now seems to be back-pedaling frantically to pretend he was never supporting Burzynski in the first place. He (she or it) is an odd fish, that’s for sure.

  165. #166 flip
    February 8, 2013

    @Krebiozen

    mindless copying

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

  166. #167 Narad
    February 8, 2013

    I think it’s a case of googling stuff and simply copying the results, rather than taking the time to read the content on the pages.

    That doesn’t seem to be the case with this one:

    ht[]p://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/8846812?show=full
    PDF
    ht[]p://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846812/cberry.pdf?sequence=1
    HTML
    ht[]p://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846812/cberry.html?sequence=2
    Rich Text Format (RTF)
    ht[]p://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846812/cberry.rtf?sequence=3

    It very much looks to me as though it took the trouble to explicitly add the expansion of RTF.

  167. #168 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Duck Dynasty" Dining room
    February 8, 2013

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

  168. #169 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/

  169. #170 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "Off-Topic" Olfactory Office
    February 8, 2013

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

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

  170. #171 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center OracQuack Queue
    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 OracDuck needs to explain my post #246
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons

  171. #172 Didymus Judas Thomas
    At the Tu-Quack Center "You've Been SCROOGLED" Bingalow
    February 11, 2013

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

  172. #173 Narad
    February 11, 2013

    #167 NaraDuck
    .
    “It very much looks to me as though it took the trouble to explicitly add the expansion of RTF.”
    .
    No shhhhhhh “IT,” Sherlock!!

    Thank you for confirming the wholesale incompetence that was being suggested.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.