Critiquing the blatant Burzynski Clinic / Antineoplaston Paid Astroturf Smear Campaign on Wikipedia

[1] – Wikipedia, claims:
——————————————————————
“There is a scientific consensus that antineoplaston therapy is unproven and of little promise in treating cancer””
——————————————————————
“… a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit from antineoplaston treatment.[1]“”
——————————————————————
“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]“”
——————————————————————
Interestingly, the above 1st claim by “Wikipedia” does NOT provide any specificcitation(s)reference(s), or link(s) to support this claim
——————————————————————
[2] – 2/1999 – What “Wikipedia” does NOT advise the reader about the 2nd and 3rdclaims, is that the conclusion of the study was:

“Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy
——————————————————————
[3] – 6/1999 – Wikipedia also does NOT point out that Burzynski replied to the 2/1999publication, that:

[A] – Study tested dosing regimen known to be ineffective

[B] – Dosages of A10 and AS2–1 used in study were meant for treatment of single small lesion (<5 cm)

5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than 5 cm

[C] – As the provider of A10 and AS2–1, I strongly suggested to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with greater tumor load

[D] – Study was closed when I insisted 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)

[E] – Review of clinical data in the article by Buckner et al proves validity of my position

[F] – Study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels

My phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine (PG) levels 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine (isoPG) levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate (PN) levels 2 times greater than those reported by Buckner et a1 [1]

[G] – Clinical outcomes reported by Buckner et al, based on inadequate dosage schedulediffer dramatically from my phase 2 studies in which higher dosage regimen was used

[H] – They reported no tumor regression

In contrast, in 1 of my ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses [2]

[I] – Difference in outcomes primarily due to difference in dosage schedules

[J] – Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by Buckner et al is duration of treatment was too brief

Almost all patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days

1 patient received only 9 days of treatment

Current studies indicate objective tumor responses usually observed after 3 months of therapy

Additional 8 months of treatment usually needed to obtain maximal therapeutic effect

[K] – Ambiguities in response evaluation and analysis in article by Buckner et al

In.2 patients, tumor necrosis attributed to “radio-necrosis”

Interpretation’s clouded by fact antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis

[L] – Analysis by Buckner et al could’ve highlighted 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than 1 year

This is of interest because patients typically have life expectancy of 3 to 6 months

[M] – At time of the study by Buckner et al, the sponsor, NCI, decided against higher dosing regimen I proposed and closed the study

Study used dosing regimen known to be ineffective
======================================
[2] – 10/4/1991 – Five doctors (3 from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Branch (CTEP); including the Head of the Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and 2 invited consultants; including one from theNational Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/31/1991 – Michael A. Friedman, M.D. Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Department of Health &Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a one page Memorandum toBruce A. Chabner, M.D., Director, Division of Cancer Treatment, which stated, in part:

“I thought you would be interested in this for several reasons:”

“3. Antineoplastons deserve a closer look”

“It turns out that the agents are well defined, pure chemical entities
=======================================
=======================================
“The human brain tumor responses are real”
=======================================
=======================================
[4] – 11/15/1991 – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a 7 page letter to Decision Network, which stated, in part, on page one:
=======================================
=======================================
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “
=======================================
=======================================
[5] – 12/2/91 – NCI (National Cancer Institute)Decision Network Report onAntineoplastons, states in part, on page 11:
=======================================
=======================================
“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “
=======================================
=======================================
[6] – CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services, Antineoplastons, pg. 1

=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
[7] – Page 1 of 6, BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, Antineoplaston Cancer Therapy, Policy #: 280, Category: Medicine, states, in part, on page 2 of 6:

Key Points:
=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
[8] – ANTINEOPLASTON THERAPY, HS-183, pg. 2
=======================================
=======================================
“After the reviewers found some evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
These facts indicate to me that Wikipedia’s claim about “antineoplastons”, is“debatable”

Maybe they should have learned how to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
=======================================
REFERENCES:
=======================================
[1]
——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic

——————————————————————
Antineoplastons, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
======================================
[2] – 2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
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

Material & Methods:

Patients received escalating doses of A10 and AS2-1 by multiple intermittent intravenous injections with use of portable programmable pump to the target daily dose of 1.0 g/kg for A10 and of 0.4 g/kg for AS2-1

Mean steady-state plasma concentrations of phenylacetate & phenylacetylglutamine after escalation to the target doses of A10 and AS2-1 were 177 +/-101 ug/mL & 302 +/- 102 ug/mL, respectively

Results:

9 patients were treated, in 6 of whom treatment response was assessable in accordance with protocol stipulations

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4

Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611638354
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999), PMID .10069350

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext

DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf

Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–145

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/full

Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/references

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

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbs6xce2&s=3423e3cd1955667e8e8cdf33323faf0bd85b6a29

Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota USA

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbrndkdf&s=e0af2d3bfb13841852d92a839d3a4932a5f4bb48

======================================
[3] – 6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10377942
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8

Comment on
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext

Mayo Clin Proc. 1999

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf

Comment on
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter)

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8

Mayo Clin Proc
74 (6): 641-2

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf

Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641
1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Mayo
Buckner, Reid, & Malkin
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 2 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64144-X/fulltext

Mayo Clinic Proceedings
74(6):2 1999 Elsevier Ltd.

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS002561961164144X.pdf

=======================================
[6]
——————————————————————

http://www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Treatment/Antineoplastons.pdf

=======================================
[7]
——————————————————————

https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/280.pdf

=======================================
[8]
——————————————————————

https://www.wellcare.com/WCAssets/corporate/assets/HS183_Antineoplaston_Therapy.pdf

=======================================

Advertisements

THE LANCET ONCOLOGY REJECTS THE FIRST EVER RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL USING ANTINEOPLASTONS

The first ever independent randomized controlled clinical trial using Antineoplastons for the treatment of cancer at Kurume University in Japan—was rejected by Lancet Oncology this week. Even more interesting, the Japanese consulted with one of Britain’s top oncology peer-reviewers to ghostwrite the manuscript, to make sure it was in perfect format for the Lancet.

The Lancet’s reason for the rejection? It had nothing to do with the science or the study’s design—but instead the Lancet simply said “we don’t have enough room in our journal for this randomized study on Antineoplastons”. In other words, the Lancet and the cancer establishment as a whole does not have any room for an oncology paper that involves cancer being cured by a paradigm-shifting invention, especially when the study is a randomized study which elevates “anecdotal” to “proven”—since the randomized study is the industry’s holy grail of clinical testing. If the Lancet had accepted it—they would have ironically been Lanced.

The fact is, Antineoplastons do not fit the Pharma mold, and therefore they are not allowed in. It’s just the way our system works. Science is secondary to profit in today’s market. Anyone who feels the need to come up with conspiracy theories to justify the ignorance toward Antineoplastons, just doesn’t have a basic understanding of how our system works. This is just business 101.

Profit has and will always trump scientific truth. The entire industry is clever enough to realize that if Antineoplastons were allowed onto the market, their patents would eventually run out and they would eventually become a generic drug. And that can’t be allowed to happen. If all companies within Pharma is allowed to make and sell Antineoplastons (as they do the antibiotic), who in their right mind would choose destructive and carcinogenic chemotherapy or radiation ever again? The industry knows this, and to protect the bottom line and Wall Street as a whole, Antineoplastons simply can’t be allowed in.

However, the Japanese randomized studies WILL be published, but likely not in a journal that serves the industry and the owners who dictate the journals’ content.

 

You can learn more about this randomized Japanese study of Antineoplastons by watching: Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II by Eric Merola

 

 

BURZYNSKI SKEPTIC – Intro to the Sociopathic Ranting of Bigotry and Hate by the anti-Burzynski Astroturf / “Skeptics” (aka “Thought Police/Status Quo Chauvinists”)

UPDATED MARCH 9, 2014:

orac_gorski_burzynski_douchebag

Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People

Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.

What is an Astroturf Campaign?

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message (e.g. political, advertising, or public relations) to give the appearance of it coming from a disinterested, grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility of an independent entity by withholding information about the source’s financial connection. The term astroturfingis a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.

The Skeptics are the Sheriff’s Department of the “Thought Police”. Not be to be confused with the genuine Skeptics like Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson — these people exposed in this blog are those who hide behind the Skeptic Movement as a medium for their paid propaganda. Not all of them, but those at the top are paid, while feeding their blithering nonsense to their “followers”, very cult-like. The followers just blindly believe in whatever they say, without researching anything. Not exactly the behavior of a Skeptic huh? Pretty embarrassing for them, but hey, people are pretty stupid and will believe anything their trusted peers say without verifying any of it! The Skeptics in this blog care not about Science, that care not about Research, they care only about destroying any scientific innovation that threatens the current status quo. They are there to protect the “establishment” and like its name, it is “established” and it not open to change.

The very idea that they identify themselves as “Skeptics” is one of the most hilarious, yet sad, oxymorons set forth in our society.

dianthus_medical_denial

UK’s Dianthus Medical (Adam Jacobs) PAID Pharma consultant shill & professional Astroturfer against any new competing science and technology, primarily on twitter — pretends he does it without getting paid! Visit his consulting website here: http://dianthus.co.uk/

Using terms like “rape” to relate to a life-saving scientist isn’t uncommon either:

scumbag

Bob Blaskiewicz, the creator of the bizzarely perverted death list known as the “other Burzynski patient group” & the internet’s leading astroturfing sociopath and troll apparently got a raise and created a FAKE twitter account in Dr. Burzynski’s name (Bob quickly yanked it down out of fear of being sued into homelessness and losing his other “cover job” allegedly “teaching english” to children):

twitter_criminals

He also makes rude videos too, here is a screenshot:

video_screen

doctor_paul_morgan

 

dianthus_bigot

Guy Chapman, another professional Astroturfer against anything of scientific innovation that competes with the status quo, pretends to not know how to spell “astroturfing“.

guy_chapman

This tweet above is quite comical. “Guy Chapman” is the “Editor in Chief” and lead Gate Keeper to the “Burzynski Clinic” Wikipedia page. He is a dangerous and well-paid sociopath, much like Orac/Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz. If you are wondering why the Wikipedia Page on “Burzynski” reads like a North Korea Tourist brochure, ask Guy Chapman. 

bigot_tweet

Notice PHIL HARRIS’ tweet. Racism is also common with the personalities the industry hires to carry out this dirty work. Sort of like hiring a professional hit man, these are not nice people. Imagine how deranged a human being must be to sit around all day getting paid to insult cancer patients on twitter and anyone practicing the concept of “thinking for yourself”. It’s right out of the policies of Mein Kampt.

download

Screen shot 2012-11-13 at 10.37.00 PM

1_hack

2_Hack

3_Hack

Bob Blaskiewicz bragging just before he and his paid wanna-be Nazi cronies apparently hacked the Burzynski Clinic webpage. 

 

Screen shot 2012-11-23 at 9.59.29 PM

Screen shot 2013-12-25 at 12.38.45 AM

Robert “Bob” Blaskiewicz is an unbridled sociopath who sadly teaches English to children (if their parents only knew)  – which is hilarious that he claims to teach “science” (lying pathologically is a part of the package of a sociopath like Bob)-  he spends all day, every day, 7 days a week, nearly 24 hours a day following internet alerts to fight anyone online who finds out about Dr. Burzynski, a Burzynski patient, or anyone that dares talk about stepping outside of the status quo in regards to trying to save their own life (think Holocaust prisoner seeing an open door to the bunker, and Robert “Bob” Blaskiewicz is the guy that is secretly working for Hitler that says “oh no, you need to stay here, you will be fine if you stay here.” If you encounter this lunatic online, steer clear, unless you are ready to enter a realm of nonsensical, illogical, crazy neo-nazi style fireworks of fear, hate and unbridled bigotry.

Robert “Bob” Blaskiewicz is also the lunatic behind the cancer death list called “the other burzynski patient group” – He’s a very unstable and sick person.

Skeptics are nasty name-callers

BOb_AgencyTweet Screen shot 2012-11-07 at 10.07.46 AM Screen shot 2012-11-08 at 10.48.56 AM Screen shot 2012-12-17 at 8.46.24 AM Rat_CallsPatientsActors

Peter Bowditch aka “Rat Bags” is one of the meanest, sociopaths out there on the internet in regards to harassing people suffering from cancer. Dr. David Gorski aka Orac and Blob Blaskiewicz do not hold a candle to this guy. Orac/Gorski and Blob wish they would have been a part of Hitler’s SS brigade—but Peter Bowditch, he wishes he could be SATAN himself.  Ratbags_CallsLauraInventedStoryScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.03.20 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.03.59 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.04.20 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.06.33 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.07.15 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.09.49 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.27.55 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.28.04 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.28.12 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.49.37 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.50.44 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.52.24 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.53.08 AMScreen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.54.24 AM

Screen shot 2012-11-07 at 2.56.49 AM Screen shot 2012-11-07 at 3.02.49 AM rys_morgan_Burzynski

orac_gorski_burzynski_douchebag

“Dr.” David Gorski is the highest paid of them all. Writing under two names #1 “Dr.” David Gorski (where he pretends to not be a hateful bigot); and #2 “ORAC” where under his fake name, unleashes a fury of paid bigotry and hate unmatched by the late Adolf Hitler. 

They are well-organized, much like teh Westboro Church are well-organized

Just a small collection of the ranting tweets of hate from the Astroturf campaign known as “The Skeptics” towards scientific innovation that competes with the status quo, with a heavy focus on Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and any of his patients. The Cancer Industry relies on such campaigns coupled with their Guerrilla-style internet vandalism tactics to highjack the search engines with slanted, biased, straw man, and often falsified information. You will notice they will never address a root argument. They rely only on bigoted and Chauvinist remarks, feeding on the fear in people – instead of rational and reasonable discussion. It is only a matter of time before they begin picketing the funerals of cancer patients. 

I read this quote on The Burzynski Movie Facebook page recently, and though it was quite fitting for this post:

“Taking one simple glance at history—using simple common sense—we will find that everything of scientific innovation has come from the fringe, and directly threatened the status quo at the start. From The Wright Brothers to Steve Jobs – they were all once considered “fringe mavericks” until their efforts merged into the mainstream and became a participant in the “status quo”. The status quo is there to create its own legion of followers, while only those who dare to step out of it and take a risk with something that could change it—those are the only people in human history that have ever contributed to changing it. These innovators didn’t listen to anyone except their own hearts and minds—while ignoring all the noise around them.” (this quote was apparently film director Eric Merola’s quote)

• RELATED ARTICLE: WIKIPEDIA ASTROTURFING (wikipedia)

• Example Astroturfing consulting firm  Dianthus Medical