Defending ORAC

By Keir Liddle

OracA new blog has appeared with the specific purpose of combatting ““misdirection,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and lies posted by entities like Orac” about Stanislaw Burzynski. We thought we would take a look at this new blogs claims and defend ORAC. Not that ORAC needs us to defend him given he knows more about cancer and quackery than most but it’s nice to be able to help.

In the new blog ORAC is accused, seemingly without irony, of ignoring  ““facts,” “fact-checking,” “research,” citations and references like the plague” in favour of hyperbole and insults.

Note that this description may seem familiar to Burzynski critics but they might think it fit’s better as a description of  the vocal minority of Burzynski supporters whose entire contribution to the debate has been to deny the lack of evidence for ANP and throw insults and defamation at Skeptics.

What is interesting about this latest blog is it attempts to use “evidence” to show that the Skeptics are wrong. It’s a bold and unusual tactic from supporters of Stanislaw Burzynski as normally they just make unsubstantiated allegations about Skeptics harassing patients and being in the pay of Big Pharma.

It’s also an interesting tactic because it allows us to explore, dissect and debunk their evidence.

The first piece of evidence provided by this new attack blog is a link to “Fight4yourhealth.com” a site set up by one Dr. Garry Gordon the self styled father of Chelation therapy. The site is basic wordpress in design and unconvincing in it’s content. It seems to have been included because of the following paragraph:

Urine has also been shown by Dr. Burzynski (Texas) and Dr. Folkman (Harvard University, e.g. endostatin) to contain several compounds that inhibit cancer cells. At present, 72 ingredients have been successfully isolated and identified in CDA-II, and several of these components inhibit cancer in preclinical studies.

The eagle eyed among you will note that while this paragraph has been presented by the attack blog as evidence that antineoplasteons are being studied in Asia it is in fact simply a cursory reference to the extraction of urine to treat cancer. It is not ANP we are talking about here it is a different chemical named “CDA-II”. From the rest of the blog, reporting the treatment being given alongside large dose vitamin C, confidence has not been inspired that a remarkable new cure has been discovered.

The blog then goes on to list research that has been done into CDA-II which again  is not one of Burzynski’s ANPs in defence of Burzynsksi ANP.

Does anyone else notice the glaring issue with that line of argument?

If you can’t here is the argument paraphrased:

“These people say antineoplasteons don’t work but look here is some “evidence” that shows another substance that isn’t ANP “works” ergo those people are liars”

Needless to say the evidence provided isn’t massively convincing in persuading that CDA-II will develop into a promising cancer treatment. All of the peer reviewed studies linked to are In Vitro. Or to put it bluntly conducted in petri dishes not humans. The issue with that? .

As “research” into high dose vitamin C has shown if you fill a petri dish with enough of any chemical and some cancer cells at some dosage the cancer cells are likely to die. The problem is this doesn’t automatically translate into benefits in humans. We cannot draw any conclusions about whether it will work as a treatment when administered to humans and our messy biology.

In short this argument has nothing to do with Burzynski beyond a passing mention and I look forward to many more opportunities to debunk the lazily argued whataboutery of this new blog.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Featured, news, opinion, Scepticism, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Defending ORAC

  1. Alan Thomas says:

    Thanks for the info.

    Interesting name for that blog. Didymus, one imagines, is a reference to Thomas the Apostle, the eponymous “Doubting Thomas”. Then the reference to Judas,the Apostle that betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, or however the mythical story goes. Then a further iteration of Thomas – again, no doubt, a reference to Thomas the Apostle.

    So, the person behind the blog makes his prejudices very clear. Doubt, Sceptical thinking is a betrayal. Presumably Dr. Burzynski is being cast in the role of Jesus?

    The selection of names suggests someone with a religious mindset too, and although it does not necessarily follow, I am sure we have all seen those with extreme religious beliefs rejecting reality and pouring scorn on those sceptical of a biblical version of reality.

    The blog linked to is not especially well served by the lack of an adequate spell-checking stage either. I presume that,when they used the phrase “Hypocritical Oath”, they actually meant to use the phrase “Hippocratic Oath”. That,or they were attempting to be humorous/sarcastic – and if that is the case, they have fallen short of the mark there, as well….

    Does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the contents, and that is just the title!

    Is it coincidence do you think, or significant that this blog has appeared shortly after a new PR/Media Relations person has taken up the task of spinning – errmm, defending – Burzynskis reputation?

  2. I believe this blog has been set up by a notorious spammer, who was prevented from commenting on Orac’s blog after posting 40 comments in 12 hours.

    I had comments from this person to my own blog (content virtually identical to the blog discussed above. I have unapproved them as he seems to be a spammer.

    I also note that the blog contains multiple variants of Burzynski’s name and is also apparently set up with the sole purpose of smearing Orac. I think it probably violates the WordPress.com TOS.

    Here is where it can be reported as Spam:

    http://en.wordpress.com/report-spam/

    I think my own blog was suspended because Errol Denton reported me in this way and was encouraging others to do the same.

  3. Marc Stephens Is Insane says:

    The owner of this new pro-Burzynski blog had been posting literally hundreds upon hundreds of nonsensical and abusive comments on Orac’s blog since early December. Orac avoided banning him until just this week. He was also banned from editing the Burzynski entry on Wikipedia due to his spamming.

    If you want some idea of his idiocy, pick any of the recent Burzynski columns on Orac’s blog and settle in for some fun. He kept reposting the exact same links he thought were “proving” that Burzynski has published, that research around the world backed him up, that he couldn’t start Phase III because of lack of children and money, that Burzynski has thousands of survivors, transcipts of Eric Merola’s movie, the FDA has no power to stop Stan, etc.

    Even when it was pointed out that none of his references proved what he thought they proved, he persisted, insulting Orac and his readers, calling us all stupid, etc.

    He claimed to have no particular interest in defending Count Stan and was just seeking fair and balanced reporting.

  4. MarkL says:

    The major fault in his reasoning was pointed out to Orac’s poorly trained former house pet, aka Didymus, when he first tried out this line of argument on the Pharyngula blog.

    His answer?

    …..where the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks do you think they came up with “URINARY preparation, isolated from HEALTHY HUMAN URINE???

    There is no reasoning with someone that is so devoid of intelligence (and shame), that he doesn’t recognise holes in his own argument that are big enough to drive a coach and four through!

  5. Bronze Dog says:

    Recall one bit of troll math DJT performed while I was more lurky at RI. It was about Burzynski’s 7 best cases, where 5 people survived and somehow 2 deaths counted among those “best cases.” DJT asserted that 5 out of 7 was an 80% survival rate. I think his explanation went something like this:

    7 = 70%, 5 = 50%, add 30% to both, so 70% becomes 100% and 50% becomes 80%, therefore 5/7 = 80%.

    Real world math: 5/7 ~ 0.7143 * 100 = 71.43%

    In either case, it doesn’t really matter what the survival rate is for the 7 best cases because they’re cherrypicked by virtue of being the best cases instead of typical cases, so they don’t tell us anything about Burzynski’s overall performance. If the survival rate was anywhere near that high, it would raise the question why all those other hypothetical survivors have their outcome rated lower than those two deaths in the “best cases.”

    Naturally, we expect some people will survive even if the quack treatments they take are ineffective. Burzynski’s been at this for decades, so he’s had plenty of patients/victims to sift through for lucky examples.

  6. I’ve approved and replied to the comments now. He might have had one twitter account (@PDiddymus) and the new one (@PDidymusJThomas) might have 0 followers but I think his tweet accusing me of deleting comments I dislike must have got to me.

    https://twitter.com/PDidymusJThomas/status/303083432190300160

    http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/#comment-4380

    And to be fair, I do normally allow people to say pretty much anything and had I not been prewarned about this one I would have let it through in the first place. But as I wrote in my reply, I think it is more an attempt to deflect and derail than an attempt at genuine debate. It just isn’t as obvious as some others. Also, I didn’t feel happy writing it off without at least looking at the links and personally, I’ve not had time. I’m impressed and grateful that you did.

  7. I find it interesting that critics are happy to blog away in their own little world as long as no one questions their alleged “infallibility”

    Let’s take Orac, for example
    Does everyone know what “Catch-22” is?

    If not, look it up

    I blogged and Orac’s pals would complain because I would reply to all of them in one response

    So what happened when I left them to their own devices for 3 days and came back and instead of replying to them all in one post I started replying to them individually?

    Then Orac complains because I respond to them individually
    It’s called “Catch-22”

    They complain when you do it one way and complain when you do it the other way

    The “fact” is that I would respond to their questions and then they would not answer some of mine

    They need to put on their “Big Boy” pants on Orac’s blog if they want to play with the “Big Boys”

    Just like Josephine Jones who posts that ANP’s are “Gene Targeted Therapy” and I guess “forgets” the sentence in the letter that precedes that, which indicates its “experimental”
    Let’s not “cherry pick” sentences or words out of content

    THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED TO ADD FORMATTING AND IMPROVE READABILITY NO CONTENT HAS BEEN ALTERED.

  8. With respect Didymus I answered all of your questions.

    Your response was to ask them again and time and time again.

    I gather that you aren’t satisfied with the answers I have given you but I respectfully suggest that you completely failed to answer any questions asked of you put by me.

    Instead preferring to spam my twitter with irrelevant links and rhetoric that betrays a complete misunderstanding of how either science or debate are supposed to work.

    As regards the Josephine Jones comment it’s worth noting that this cuts to the heart of the issue with Burzynski.

    He has delivered this therapy for around thirty five years. Only calling it experimental after the result of the FDA/TMB court case against him.

    Prior to this it was simply a “treatment”.

    Also there is one other glaring problem with pinning your argument on the word “experimental”. Experiments produce results.

    Where are Burzynskis results?

    • PDiddymus says:

      My good friend Endless Psych claims:

      “I answered all of your questions”

      Not true. You instead posted the expected excuse of some critics:

      “I’m blocking you for flooding my mentions with drivel” 10:04pm – 23 Feb 13

      Where are your “facts”?
      For the benefit of you, below is a list where:
      “E” = you
      “M” = me
      Want to guess who posted more?
      Me 10:16pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 10:04pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 10:03pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 10:02pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 10:02pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 10:02pm – 23 Feb 13
      (E 10:01pm – 23 Feb 13)
      E 10:01pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 10:00pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 9:59pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 9:58pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 9:56pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 9:47pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 9:12pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 9:08pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 9:03pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:53pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:48pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:45pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:43pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:36pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:33pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:31pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:27pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:21pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:15pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:12pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:03pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 8:00pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 7:51pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 7:38pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 7:29pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 6:37pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 7:36pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 7:05pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 6:35pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 6:30pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 6:25pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 6:20pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 5:49pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 5:44pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 3:23pm – 23 Feb 13
      (E 3:22pm – 23 Feb 13)
      E 3:22pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 3:20pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 3:14pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 3:11pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 3:10pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 3:10pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 3:03pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 3:00pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 2:52pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:49pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:47pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:42pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:32pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:30pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 2:22pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:19pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 2:19pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:18pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 2:17pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:15pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:12pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 2:10pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:08pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:29pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:26pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:25pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:24pm – 23 Feb 13
      (E 1:19pm – 23 Feb 13)
      E 1:19pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:17pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:13pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 1:09pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:09pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:08pm – 23 Feb 13
      (E 1:07pm – 23 Feb 13)
      M 1:07pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:07pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:06pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 1:05pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 1:04pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 1:02pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:54pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 12:54pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:52pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:50pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 12:48pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:46pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 12:27pm – 23 Feb 13
      (E 12:26pm – 23 Feb 13)
      E 12:26pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:25pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 12:25pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:24pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:19pm – 23 Feb 13
      M 12:17pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 7:43am – 23 Feb 13
      (E 7:42am – 23 Feb 13)
      E 7:42am – 23 Feb 13
      E 7:41am – 23 Feb 13
      E 7:35am – 23 Feb 13
      E 7:34am – 23 Feb 13
      (E 7:31am – 23 Feb 13)
      E 7:31am – 23 Feb 13
      M 5:13am – 23 Feb 13
      M 5:09am – 23 Feb 13
      M 5:00am – 23 Feb 13
      M 4:48am – 23 Feb 13
      M 4:13am – 23 Feb 13
      M 4:05am – 23 Feb 13
      M 3:49am – 23 Feb 13
      M 3:33am – 23 Feb 13
      M 2:06am – 23 Feb 13
      M 1:57am – 23 Feb 13
      ————————————-
      E 11:56pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 11:52pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 11:38pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 11:37pm – 22 Feb 13
      (E 11:36pm – 22 Feb 13)
      E 11:36pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 11:34pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 11:32pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 11:27pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 10:14pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 10:08pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 9:48pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 9:46pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 9:05pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 9:04pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 8:59pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:52pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:51pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 8:50pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:49pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:48pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:47pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 8:39pm – 22 Feb 13
      (E 8:26pm – 22 Feb 13)
      E 8:26pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 8:24pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:19pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 8:16pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:07pm – 22 Feb 13
      (E 8:05pm – 22 Feb 13)
      E 8:05pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 8:04pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 8:03pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 8:00pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 7:58pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 7:55pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 7:54pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 7:51pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 7:31pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 7:30pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 7:29pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 7:23pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 7:22pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 7:04pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 5:06pm – 22 Feb 13
      (E 5:03pm – 22 Feb 13)
      E 5:03pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 4:58pm – 22 Feb 13
      M 4:58pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 4:57pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 4:56pm – 22 Feb 13
      (E 4:55pm – 22 Feb 13)
      E 4:55pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 4:54pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 4:50pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 4:49pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 4:47pm – 22 Feb 13
      E 3:14pm – 23 Feb 13
      E 4:20pm – 22 Feb 13
      You = 93
      Me = 82
      My friend posts:

      “Your response was to ask them again and time and time again”

      Prove it
      And:

      “I gather that you aren’t satisfied with the answers I have given you but I respectfully suggest that you completely failed to answer any questions asked of you put by me”

      Prove it
      One of the lame excuses used by my learned friend is to attempt to deflect criticism by using the “spam” word:

      “Instead preferring to spam my twitter with irrelevant links and rhetoric that betrays a complete misunderstanding of how either science or debate are supposed to work”

      Prove it
      And then he goes as far as to post:

      “As regards the Josephine Jones comment it’s worth noting that this cuts to the heart of the issue with Burzynski”

      Let us see what JJ actually posted, shall we ?
      http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-burzynski-clinic-misleads-prospective-patients

      “It is stated that it is a TARGETED gene therapy”

      What does it really state?

      “For patients with primary brain tumors, we may be able to offer Antineoplastons, an EXPERIMENTAL gene therapy …”

      JJ also states:

      “Eric Merola falsely states that skeptics are a hate group paid to lie about #Burzynski” 2/19/13, 5:30 AM

      What did he really state?

      “The FBI’s classification of a “hate group” is what you people are”
      “Either that, OR you too are on the skeptic payroll, paid to lie intentionally like the rest of them”

      My friend then posts:

      “He has delivered this therapy for around thirty five years. Only calling it experimental after the result of the FDA/TMB court case against him”
      “Prior to this it was simply a “treatment””

      So? What do you think a drug in clinical trials is?
      Non-Experimental?
      And he posts:

      “Also there is one other glaring problem with pinning your argument on the word “experimental” Experiments produce results”

      So what? I guess after it finishes the clinical trials process it will no longer be “experimental”
      And he at last posts:

      “Where are Burzynskis results?”

      The FDA has them. They are the ones who approved phase 3 clinical trials

      THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED TO ADD FORMATTING AND MAKE IT READABLE. NO CONTENT HAS BEEN ALTERED.

      • “Flooding” does not simply relate to the volume posted but the timing in which they were posted. Observe the last day. You made it impossible for me to use twitter to communicate with anyone else by responding to every single tweet I produced.

        If you had read them before firing off a response you might have realised that many of them were an argument expressed over more than one (or even two) tweets and did not require a reply.

        I’m sorry if that offends you but I like to be able to use twitter for more than being asked to answer the same questions I feel I have answered time and time again by the same person.

        Particularly when the tweets are constructed in such a way that they are hard to comprehend and their meaning is thus difficult to divulge.

        As for proof? If your account is not suspended (as twitter informs me it is) I will perhaps storify the account if it appears again and answer your questions via that medium.

        My recollection of the conversation may be biased. Mea Cupla if so.

        However as I recall it involved the following main points seemingly, from my end at least, endlessly repeated:

        1. That there were missing links on one of our posts and that this undermined all the arguments within them.

        The first missing link was simply to a page on the Burzynski clinic website (which they removed as a result of an FDA warning letter) to support the statement that:

        Sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) is converted to phenylacetate (PA) and phenylacetylglutamate (PAG) by the liver and kidneys (along with a few other chemicals summarised on the Burzynski website.

        In all honesty this doesn’t really matter what Burzynski said on the matter (before he removed his content) does it? It’s a matter of chemistry, not Dr Burzynskis say so, what PB metabolises to.

        The second missing link referred to:

        Burzynski claims that Antineoplastons ‘switch on’ tumour suppressor genes and ‘switch off’ oncogenes.

        And you can now see him make that claim in the updated and edited link available within the PDF of his site that was attached to the FDA Warning letter itself available at the top the article.

        The third missing link you complained about was to a newspaper article that was moved by the newspaper. Another link has been provided with the same statement. You can also find this information in a copy of “the cancer letter” published on the Quackwatch website.

        The thing to note here is that none of these are substantive points that are completely unsupported by other information. They are illustrative points that support the arguments put forward but those few missing links in no one undermine the rest of the article.

        2. You believe that unconvincing trials of CDA-2 somehow validates Burzynski. I apologise if you don’t think this but I’d struggle to see why you would have brought it up otherwise.

        Needless to say CDA-2 is not ANP or PB. Though it features two of the chemicals that PB metabolises into and that Burzynski calls ANPs, one as the main component, it also contains a number of other chemicals.

        Although none of the papers you provided as evidence to support the notion of CDA-2 efficacy or use in cancer treatment stood up to scrutiny anyway. The one large scale human trial reported no survival details.

        3. You seem to flip flop on the issue of whether Burzynski uses PB alone. Quite what you mean by this I am unsure.

        We know he has used PB as a prodrug for ANPs in some of his “clinical trials”. In these he is bound by medical ethics , FDA trial approval and the like to not use other chemotherapy agents.

        If you are saying he is then you are claiming he is in breach of his own research protocols. He would also likely be in a spot of bother with the FDA again if this was the case.

        If you are saying that outwith the treatment he is using PB alongside conventional chemo. Then that is something we have long suspected but been unable to prove definitively.

        But again this is a somewhat meaningless point for all this back and forth disagreement. As the post you object to, and many others about Burzynski on various sites, point out one thing.

        PB as a treatment for cancer is not that impressive.

        PB as an adjunct or HDACi hasn’t shown that much premise either.

        In comparison to other drugs it’s effectively obsolete.

        Ironically enough references you provided against this point highlighted that it has little or no impact on cancer survival. With your favoured 2005 ref. showing 19/23 patients died.

        Most of the “issues” you raise, if I am honest, look a lot like nit picking to me. But picking that avoids answering the substantive questions raised in the many articles about Burzynski and ANPs raised on this and other blogs.

        I’m sorry if you feel you had uncovered some earth shattering flaws in the critics case against Burzynski. I have to inform you that you haven’t.

        You have also rather missed the point about Burzynski treating people with ANP before running any clinical trials or research into toxicity/efficacy.

        That’s a major failure of medical and research ethics and deserves more than a “so?”.

        If you feel it would be productive to post further feel free.

        Though I would suggest it would be better to state your entire case (either in a comment below or on your own blog – I’ll admit I find the latter more appealing) and let people decide which they find more convincing.

        We aren’t going to agree and there seems little point in further engagement between the two of us.

        It is unlikely I will reply again. As a friendly warning I won’t tolerate flooding of these comments boards either and if you do that I will block you at least temporarily.

      • PDiddymus says:

        My good friend EP pulls a “psych” and posts:

        ““Flooding” does not simply relate to the volume posted but the timing in which they were posted”

        Maybe he should thought of this before sending me a passel of twits

        EP continues:

        “Observe the last day. You made it impossible for me to use twitter to communicate with anyone else by responding to every single tweet I produced”

        Posts the person who maybe should stick to “flooding” twitter with rugby or Zombie comments, or about turning up in Paisley a month early?

        EP then foments:

        “If you had read them before firing off a response you might have realised that many of them were an argument expressed over more than one (or even two) tweets and did not require a reply”

        This is the same person who already proved that he knew how to number items if he was going to start posting replies to tweets, one after the other, in a “running commentary”
        (see example below using “1.” and “2.”):

        “Links in post – 2 1. Links broken – 2. Both broken links to #burzynski clinic website” 9:04pm – 22 Feb 13

        Which is why I posed the question to EP:

        “Running commentary ?”
        8:36pm – 23 Feb 13
        https://twitter.com/PDidymusJThomas/status/305506357967204352
        Or, he clearly could have posted what his intention was

        Instead of asking what I thought he had not replied to, EP then goes off on a tangent where he “guesses” what he thinks should be addressed

        “I’m sorry if that offends you but I like to be able to use twitter for more than being asked to answer the same questions I feel I have answered time and time again by the same person”

        EP provides no proof in support of his claim about supposedly answering “the same questions I feel I have answered time and time again”
        Nor does he “offend” me because I am we’ll aware of the excuses and tactics of critics, like this:

        You: “Searching FDA website can only find info for Buphenyl” 7:31pm – 22 Feb 13
        You: “what DEFINITION of APPROVED are you using exactly?” 11:38pm – 22 Feb 13
        Me: “FDA’s:”
        http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm107293.htm
        2:47pm – 23 Feb 13
        You: “If you aren’t going to link to anything relevant or answer questions I’m afraid I’m not going to engage anymore” 2:52pm – 23 Feb 13
        Me: “Quit making excuses. That’s FDA APPROVE orphan drug link” 9:08pm – 23 Feb 13
        You: “No I am not” 9:47pm – 23 Feb 13
        Me: “1. You asked for DEFINITION of APPROVED I was using. 2.That is the FDA DEFINITION” 9:56pm – 23 Feb 13
        You: “NO I pointed out that orphan drug labelling /= approved as effective, safe etc” 10:00pm – 23 Feb 13

        So, clearly, at the beginning of the dialogue you asked:

        “what DEFINITION of APPROVED are you using exactly?” 11:38pm – 22 Feb 13

        EP then continued:

        “Particularly when the tweets are constructed in such a way that they are hard to comprehend and their meaning is thus difficult to divulge”

        I could say the same about yours

        EP next posts:

        “As for proof? If your account is not suspended (as twitter informs me it is) I will perhaps storify the account if it appears again and answer your questions via that medium”

        Do not worry about me
        I am still there

        EP states:

        “My recollection of the conversation may be biased. Mea Cupla if so”

        Yes, it might be, which is why I actually referred to the tweets

        EP rambles:

        “However as I recall it involved the following main points seemingly, from my end at least, endlessly repeated:”

        As were your posts without supporting links

        EP states:

        “1. That there were missing links on one of our posts and that this undermined all the arguments within them”

        Uhhh, No. That would be you:

        “Have you read anything I’ve sent you?” 7:31am – 23 Feb 13

        It is somewhat difficult to “read anything” if the links do not work

        EP resumes with:

        “2. You believe that unconvincing trials of CDA-2 somehow validates Burzynski. I apologise if you don’t think this but I’d struggle to see why you would have brought it up otherwise”

        And so you conveniently ignore that CDA-2 went through phase 1 – 3 trials by 2003 and was approved as a first class new anti-cancer drug in solid tumors in 2004
        http://english.people.com.cn/200508/17/eng20050817_202981.html

        And EP rolls on:

        3. You seem to flip flop on the issue of whether Burzynski uses PB alone. Quite what you mean by this I am unsure

        You seem to “flip flop:”

        “I’m not going to defend that #burzynski is using PB as HDACi alone. As he isn’t”
        1:05pm – 23 Feb 13

        And then 1 minute later you posted:

        “As I have actually said he is using PB alone as a pro-drug for ANPs” 1:06pm – 23 Feb 13

        So:
        ” … he is using PB … alone. As he isn’t”
        ” … he is using PB alone”

        So: He IS, … or he ISN’T

        You are the one who brought this up:

        “For the benefit of @PDidymusJThomas a case study from #burzynski where he reports the use of PB”
        http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=7795
        7:35am – 23 Feb 13

        And I pointed out:

        “Sr.oncologist advised
        consider chemo.
        w/etoposide cisplatin
        retinoic acid
        PATIENT REFUSED”
        5:44pm – 23 Feb 13

        EP continues:

        “Ironically enough references you provided against this point highlighted that it has little or no impact on cancer survival. With your favoured 2005 ref. showing 19/23 patients died”

        Where you conveniently ignore the 9/2011 UK publication again

        EP resumes:

        “Most of the “issues” you raise, if I am honest, look a lot like nit picking to me. But picking that avoids answering the substantive questions raised in the many articles about Burzynski and ANPs raised on this and other blogs”

        Posts the person who cannot be bothered with reading a link:

        Me: “Burzynski describe whether had success w/kind of cancer or not”
        http://www.commonweal.org/pubs/choices/21.html
        12:46pm – 23 Feb 13
        You: “Could you reform that tweet in comprehensible English please as I am not sure what you mean?” 12:48pm – 23 Feb 13
        Me: “Afraid 2 read? Burzynski more able to describe to patients whether he’s had success w/their kind of cancer”
        7:36pm – 23 Feb 13

        EP strides on:

        “You have also rather missed the point about Burzynski treating people with ANP before running any clinical trials or research into toxicity/efficacy”

        Burzynski SR, …
        Toxicology studies on antineoplaston AS2-1 injections in cancer patients
        Drugs Exp Clin Res 12 (Suppl 1): 25-35, 1986

        Burzynski SR, …
        Toxicology studies on antineoplaston A10 injections in cancer patients
        Drugs Exp Clin Res 12 (Suppl 1): 47-55, 1986
        http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
        OR:
        http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/publications.html
        “That’s a major failure of medical and research ethics and deserves more than a “so?””

        So ?

        “If you feel it would be productive to post further feel free”

        Posts the person who stated:

        ” … clinic has removed all references to ANP from website” 8:05pm – 22 Feb 13

        Which turned out to be incorrect

        And you were the one to drone on and on about PB without providing any link(s) in support of your “theory” that it was “obsolete”

        You: ” … there is little to suggest it is particularly useful in cance” 4:55pm – 22 Feb 13
        Me: “That explains this:
        http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/phenylbutyrate
        8:16pm – 22 Feb 13
        You: “What in that do you feel contradicts the prior tweet?” 8:19pm – 22 Feb 13
        Me: “studies point to potential role for PB in treating” 12:24pm – 23 Feb 13
        You: ” … further research into PB … paints a different picture” 12:26pm – 23 Feb 13
        Me: “You provide no link” 6:37pm – 23 Feb 13
        You: “Looked promising as HDACi or adjunct to chemo in some studies. But others better” 12:27pm – 23 Feb 13 (PROVIDES NO LINK)
        Me: “interest growing worldwide”
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21902286
        7:05pm – 23 Feb 13
        (from 9/2011 UK publication)

        “Though I would suggest it would be better to state your entire case (either in a comment below or on your own blog – I’ll admit I find the latter more appealing) and let people decide which they find more convincing”

        Yes, I find that some critics cannot handle criticism on their own turf

        “We aren’t going to agree and there seems little point in further engagement between the two of us”

        “@PDidymusJThomas

        I’m glad we agree” 2:19pm – 23 Feb 13

        What was that, again ?

        “It is unlikely I will reply again. As a friendly warning I won’t tolerate flooding of these comments boards either and if you do that I will block you at least temporarily”

        Well, so much for that 🙂

      • I tweet a lot. Note I did not tweet any of the comments you refer to @ you. To bring them up seems both irrelevant and if I’m honest slightly stalkerish.

        Why mention a tweet about my location not related to any discussion we have ever had?

        Poor form at best.

        You do not understand flooding it seems and neither do you seem to understand how to react when someone offers you the opportunity to be reasonable by giving you the benefit of the doubt.

        Burzynski is not claiming to use PB as an HDACi. He may be alone, I believe this has been at least inferred from patient blogs, as a pro drug for ANP.

        If you cannot see the distinction between those two different propositions then I cannot conceive of any way to make it clearer for you.

        Actually that pretty much address you entire posting style.

        Why are you so keen for me to read common weal? I have read it for the record. But see no relevance to any of our discussions.

  9. In Anerica we have “Free Speech.” Something which must be “Foreign” here. I’m sure you like to post whatever you like with no rebuttal or anyone questioning your supposed “infallibility.”

    Always good to see that posted in a comment freely available on the site where you are making the criticism. It’s something of a delicious irony.

    Well, I do question people’s alleged “infallibility,” even when they resorted to child-like “name-calling,” “disinformation,” “misinformation,” not backing up their comments with references, citations. or links to sources.

    All comments on Burzynski in the blogs here are backed up with reference to sources. Not all of them primary but they are there. In the case of the missing links you pointed out (of which there were a grand total of 3) two were taken down by Burzynski himself and one related to a newspaper article that was taken down by the press.

    There are of course no links to published peer reviewed papers reporting the results of any of Burzynsksi 60+ trials because these do not exist.

    It’s called “Catch-22.” They complain if you respond to all in one post, so when you respond individually to them, Orac complains.

    I can’t really blame people for complaining about your posting style, having experienced being flooded by you on twitter with irrelevant nonsense. (Clearly you don’t think it is irrelevant but it pretty much is).

    Perhaps you should read our guide to posting on science forums? Though I suspect you could have written it!

    • PDiddymus says:

      My learned critic Endless Psych quotes me:

      “In Anerica we have “Free Speech.” Something which must be “Foreign” here. I’m sure you like to post whatever you like with no rebuttal or anyone questioning your supposed “infallibility.””

      And then posts:

      “Always good to see that posted in a comment freely available on the site where you are making the criticism. It’s something of a delicious irony”

      Yet he twatted:

      “So the latest #burzynski supporters posts got marked by spam on @the21stfloor knows it’s stuff our spam filter!” 2/24/13, 1:08 PM

      Having mentioned no one by name, I thought he was referring to me since when I tried to submit comments on the 21stfloor, it did not indicate that the comments were “awaiting moderation”
      He then quotes my:

      “Well, I do question people’s alleged “infallibility,” even when they resorted to child-like “name-calling,” “disinformation,” “misinformation,”

      not backing up their comments with references, citations. or links to sources”
      He then posts:

      “All comments on Burzynski in the blogs here are backed up with reference to sources. Not all of them primary but they are there. In the case of the missing links you pointed out (of which there were a grand total of 3) two were taken down by Burzynski himself and one related to a newspaper article that was taken down by the press”

      I had to repeatedly point out to EP that the link to:

      “Indeed, in 1998, the FDA noted that 65% of the 404 patients participating in a study were suffering from hypernatraemia, which they said may have contributed to the deaths of at least seven patients”

      did not work
      At first it was linked to the Houston Chronicle, which did not work
      Then it was linked to U.S. News and World Report, which did not work, and STILL does not work
      http://mobile.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981005/archive_004873_4.htm
      Seriously, why would anyone link to a “newspaper” about a study, instead of the actual study?
      EP then continues:

      “There are of course no links to published peer reviewed papers reporting the results of any of Burzynsksi 60+ trials because these do not exist”

      Whoop-T-Doo!
      If you wanted to stay up with what is going on you could find it:
      1. 2003 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(2):91-101
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
      2. 3/2006 Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
      Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
      3. 2007 Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma
      Review Article
      Cancer Therapy Vol 5, page 379
      Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007
      http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/PDF/42._Burzynski,_379-390.pdf
      4. 2/29/2012 Form 10-K, fiscal year ended:
      http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465912040430/a12-12972_110k.htm
      You may not like it, but it gives you an idea of what is going on
      EP also cites my post:

      “It’s called “Catch-22.” They complain if you respond to all in one post, so when you respond individually to them, Orac complains”

      And proceeds with:

      “I can’t really blame people for complaining about your posting style, having experienced being flooded by you on twitter with irrelevant nonsense. (Clearly you don’t think it is irrelevant but it pretty much is)”

      This is the person I just proved wrong in my previously submitted post as to who sent more twits
      He then finishes up by posting:

      “Perhaps you should read our guide to posting on science forums? Though I suspect you could have written it!”

      This again, is the person whom after I posted the FDA link re Orphan Drug Designation:
      http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
      posted:

      “Which shows it is an orphan drug?” 2/22/13, 11:32 PM

      When the top of the document clearly has:
      “Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effecive: 5/5/2009”

      THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED TO ADD FORMATTING AND MAKE IT READABLE. NO CONTENT HAS BEEN ALTERED.

      • My learned critic Endless Psych quotes me:
        “In Anerica we have “Free Speech.” Something which must be “Foreign” here. I’m sure you like to post whatever you like with no rebuttal or anyone questioning your supposed “infallibility.””
        And then posts:
        “Always good to see that posted in a comment freely available on the site where you are making the criticism. It’s something of a delicious irony”
        Yet he twatted:
        “So the latest #burzynski supporters posts got marked by spam on @the21stfloor knows it’s stuff our spam filter!” 2/24/13, 1:08 PM

        Yet your posts have appeared and are continuing to appear.

        Having mentioned no one by name, I thought he was referring to me since when I tried to submit comments on the 21stfloor, it did not indicate that the comments were “awaiting moderation”

        TBH I don’t know what the site/ theme tells people whose comments it automatically marks as spam. I’ll look into it. Regardless it’s irrelevant. Look your posts are here now!

        did not work
        At first it was linked to the Houston Chronicle, which did not work
        Then it was linked to U.S. News and World Report, which did not work, and STILL does not work
        http://mobile.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981005/archive_004873_4.htm
        Seriously, why would anyone link to a “newspaper” about a study, instead of the actual study?

        The best I believe I can currently offer is another secondary source: The Cancer Letter:http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html

        The newspaper link does work for me and others I have asked. I do not know why it doesn’t work for you.

        <blockquote“There are of course no links to published peer reviewed papers reporting the results of any of Burzynsksi 60+ trials because these do not exist”
        Whoop-T-Doo!
        If you wanted to stay up with what is going on you could find it:

        Oh boy. You REALLY should have read more of the Burzynski blogs on this site. Then you would have avoided embarrassing yourself here.

        1. 2003 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(2):91-101

        The clue is in the “preliminary report” part of the title. Does not report full results of any clinical trials.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
        2. 3/2006 Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
        Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713

        Is a review article that again doesn’t report any clinical trial results much like your next example:

        3. 2007 Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma
        Review Article
        Cancer Therapy Vol 5, page 379
        Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007
        http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/PDF/42._Burzynski,_379-390.pdf
        4. 2/29/2012 Form 10-K, fiscal year ended:
        http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465912040430/a12-12972_110k.htm

        Indeed I’ve been through all of Dr Bs publications and there are no randomised controlled trials of ANPs published by him in peer review journals.

        You may not like it, but it gives you an idea of what is going on

        Yes it gives me the idea that Burzynski isn’t publishing any trial results in peer reviewed literature.

        This is the person I just proved wrong in my previously submitted post as to who sent more twits

        You miss out the Mea Cupla and also the clarification of exactly WHY I blocked you. For flooding not sending me a greater volume of tweets.

        This again, is the person whom after I posted the FDA link re Orphan Drug Designation:
        http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
        posted:
        “Which shows it is an orphan drug?” 2/22/13, 11:32 PM
        When the top of the document clearly has:
        “Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effecive: 5/5/2009″

        You appear to have massively missed the point of WHY I asked that question.

        I shall explain again:

        I wanted you to agree that PB was an orphan drug before continuing. If you recall we were having a debate about whether PB was approved or not for use in cancer treatments.

        You might recall you posted a paper showing it was approved for use in urea conditions. To whit the response should probably have been “well done it’s approved for the condition it was developed to treat”.

        You then might recall you tried to say it was approved because of grammar in a published paper. Something we disagreed on and you could not back up with a ref. to FDA cite.

        You then provided the above ref. that shows it is an orphan drug.

        So I clarified you were saying it was an orphan drug as opposed to approved for treatment.

        I did this because I knew the following from the Orphan drug act 1983:

        “Orphan drug designation does not indicate that the therapeutic is either safe and effective or legal to manufacture and market in the United States. That process is handled through other offices in the US Food and Drug Administration. Instead, the designation means only that the sponsor qualifies for certain benefits from the federal government, such as reduced taxes.”

        See wikipedia for a summary: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act

      • PDiddymus says:

        EPic quotes what has been quoted before
        If there were theoretically some other blog out there, they would no doubt start referring to this as the “tu-quote fallacy”

        “Look your posts are here now!”

        Maybe the Scottish have some redeeming quality after all 😉

        Embarrass myself? Really? I think not

        Sure it is “preliminary report”
        Nor did I deny that it “Does not report full results of any clinical trials”

        And again, I did not indicate that the other 2 were anything other than what they are

        Neither have I indicated that there are randomized controlled trials

        And neither have I indicated that any trial results were published in peer reviewed literature

        No, I did not miss the “Mea Cupla” and the excuse as to WHY you blocked me, for responding to your greater volume of tweets

        “You appear to have massively missed the point of WHY I asked that question”

        “I shall explain again:”

        “I wanted you to agree that PB was an orphan drug before continuing. If you recall we were having a debate about whether PB was approved or not for use in cancer treatments”

        “You might recall you posted a paper showing it was approved for use in urea conditions. To whit the response should probably have been “well done it’s approved for the condition it was developed to treat”

        Really ?

        You: “Searching FDA website”

        Me: “Bottom 1/4th•Phenylbutyrate Treatment…leukemia”
        http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
        11:27pm – 22 Feb 13
        https://twitter.com/PDidymusJThomas/status/305187219822477312

        5 minutes later:

        You: “Which shows it is an orphan drug?” 11:32pm – 22 Feb 13
        https://twitter.com/endless_psych/status/30518826762255564

        So you needed to “clarify” the title of the document

        Good one

        Yeah, and I sent you:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

  10. If anyone has a genuine concern that anything I’ve written or published is untruthful or misleading in any way then I would be happy to take steps to correct it. I certainly don’t consider myself (or indeed any other blogger) infallible but I do take care to be truthful and accurate – as does Keir, as does Orac. I also take care to link to sources so that people can look at the information themselves. I am not obliged to do so and if those original sources disappear when other sites get updated or moved, that is completely beyond my control.

    For the record (as will be obvious if you read the Comments on my blog), I allow people to write pretty much whatever they like (provided it’s within the law). However, I really don’t have time to get into petty arguments with trolls and spammers. Since I had been warned that Didymus Judas Thomas was a notorious spammer and since I was about to go away on holiday, I thought it best to keep this particular commenter at arm’s length. I did not delete the comments but left them unapproved until I had more time. Since then, I was pleased to find that Keir has looked into the points raised (which unsurprisingly seemed to be of less relevance than Didymus Judas Thomas had implied).

    I don’t particularly feel I need to explain myself to Didymus Judas Thomas but I would appreciate it if he would refrain from either implying that what I write is inaccurate or from implying that I have a policy of deleting comments I don’t like. Those accusations are unfounded.

    • PDiddymus says:

      JJ posts:

      If anyone has a genuine concern that anything I’ve written or published is untruthful or misleading in any way then I would be happy to take steps to correct it”

      Well, I mentioned 2 examples in my reply to Endless Psych
      JJ then posts:

      “I certainly don’t consider myself (or indeed any other blogger) infallible but I do take care to be truthful and accurate – as does Keir, as does Orac”

      Seriously? I pointed out how Orac and quite a few of his band of brethren and sistern were incorrect a number of times
      This is the Orac who claimed that this 2/1999 study supported his position that ANP’s do not work:
      http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext
      When I requested that he respond to the comments on the below link:
      http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext
      Orac would not “touch it with a 10 foot pole”
      JJ goes on to post:

      “I also take care to link to sources so that people can look at the information themselves
      I am not obliged to do so and if those original sources disappear when other sites get updated or moved, that is completely beyond my control”

      This definitely is going to come in handy if JJ is going to “misquote” or “cherry pick” parts of comments out of context
      JJ further posts:

      For the record (as will be obvious if you read the Comments on my blog), I allow people to write pretty much whatever they like (provided it’s within the law)
      However, I really don’t have time to get into petty arguments with trolls and spammers”

      Why am I not surprised that JJ resorts to another tactic used by some critics?
      Using words like “trolls” and “spammers” to “label” individuals who are critics of critics who do not get their facts straight, does not impress me in the least
      It reminds me of what an adolescent would do
      JJ continues with:

      “Since I had been warned that Didymus Judas Thomas was a notorious spammer and since I was about to go away on holiday, I thought it best to keep this particular commenter at arm’s length”

      So JJ takes the word of some “unknown” source(s) as credible without “fact-checking”
      Then JJ states:

      “I did not delete the comments but left them unapproved until I had more time”

      When I get an auto-e-mail about my comments:
      “[New comment] Happy Birthday, Dr Burzynski… and goodbye, antineoplastonsInbox
      Josephine Jones
      To:
      Date: February 15, 2013, 4:03 AM
      New comment on Josephine Jones
      didymusjudasthomas commented on Happy Birthday, Dr Burzynski… and goodbye, antineoplastons”

      and I go on the blog and do not find my comments, I am going to take it that they were deleted until someone proves otherwise

      JJ also posted:

      “Since then, I was pleased to find that Keir has looked into the points raised (which unsurprisingly seemed to be of less relevance than Didymus Judas Thomas had implied)”

      As if this somehow “proves” something?
      Example of what I mean re my post:
      #179 Didymus Judas Thomas
      At the Tu-Quack Center “Fact-Checktorium”

      February 12, 2013
      #3 Marc Stephens Is Insane
      “I am also curious as to how this new development will affect the release of the second of Merola’s BS SB commercials due out “any day now.””

      ME responding:
      “This new documentary, tentatively to be released in SPRING of 2013, …”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_(season)
      “If you could “fact-check” it might help”
      http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
      JJ ends by post

      “I don’t particularly feel I need to explain myself to Didymus Judas Thomas but I would appreciate it if he would refrain from either implying that what I write is inaccurate or from implying that I have a policy of deleting comments I don’t like
      Those accusations are unfounded”

      Prove me wrong re your 2 comments I referred to at the beginning of this post

      THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED TO ADD FORMATTING AND MAKE IT READABLE. NO CONTENT HAS BEEN ALTERED.

      • This is a warning: you have a problem with another site you take it up with them.

        Doing otherwise will be considered off topic and be treated/edited as spam.

        Read the posts. All of them.

        Come back when you have a more substantial argument to make than producing papers we have all seen before or to complain about 2 broken links.

        If you continue to post the same irrelevant arguments over and over again after they have been answered you will be blocked.

        You will note your freedom of speech is not at risk because you already have you’re own blog.

        [Also I have just formatted all your posts so people can actually read them.

        Please note you can use tags to indent quotes and the like and also that the enter key traditionally functions as a carriage return.]

  11. MarkL says:

    It is unsurprising that Diddymus has spent the last few weeks more concerned with defending his own tattered reputation and continuing the ad hominems on all who disagree with him, rather than countering the arguments (thank you, Keir) that have slain his “The Chinese once investigated a chemical formulation derived from urine so Burzynski MUST be right” dragon.

    His inability to comprehend both that his “evidence” doesn’t say what he thinks it does and that his arguments are illogical to the point of being nonsense hasn’t stopped him from regurgitating the same blather on every forum and blog he can get access to.

    The fact that his feculent outpourings have not drawn one mote of support from even the most deluded conspiracy theorists amongst Burzynski’s supporters cannot have passed him by, so I am forced to conclude from his persistence that his intention is not to engage in scientific discussion, but to act as a crude smoke screen, to deflect attention from what is actually going on at the clinic.

    Changes are certainly afoot chez Stan. The dropping of ANPs from the clinic’s website and replacing them in the treatment options with “conventional therapies” and/or “approved targeted therapies”, along with the paperwork uncovered by others involved in the battle to close him down that indicates he is planning to market his “great discovery” only in developing economies with money but more rudimentary public health safeguards, indicate to me that possibly the brave maverick is preparing his exit strategy.

    • PDiddymus says:

      MarkyLMark incorrectly ASSumes I am somehow concerned about my reputation
      As usual, MarkyLMark does not know what he is “talking” about
      My “reputation” is intact no matter what the “non-fact-based” MLM “thinks”
      It is unsurprising that MLM; who is infamous for “getting it wrong” and not being able to provide references to prove his “points,” cannot prove anything
      Let us say for argument sake that theoretically there is an alternate universe where MLM resides, and in that “black hole” is a theoretical blog where comments are posted and which people read and are able to send the author e-mails that they like the posts. Well, MLM would nothing about this because he is in that “black hole sun”
      MLM in his alternate universe “conspiracy theory” somehow thinks I am trying to deflect attention away from the clinic. I could care less. My suggestion is that maybe in his own little world that MLM might be able to, on 3/5/2013, be able to get Part II and maybe learn something so he does not have to engage in his usual “speculation” specialty

  12. Initially I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt but I am less inclined too now.

    What makes me question their intent is that, for quite a while now, I’ve been flooded by responses from them on twitter. Now these briefly were centred on further discussion and answering and responding to questions but quickly descended into repetition of points that I felt I had already answered.

    It ended up going round in circles and in the end, so I could actually use twitter, I had to block them. (Only the second person I have ever had to block on social media).

    Though given the quality of the arguments and the misunderstandings of basic science and research. The construction of arguments based upon the most spurious of links between chemical compounds and their use backed up with papers that don’t advance the debate on Burzynski in the slightest…

    I have to invoke Hanlons razor.

    Incompetence is more likely than malice.

    • PDiddymus says:

      Repetition, incompetence, more words some critics have to resort to hide behind when they need an excuse for not being able to support their blatherskite

      • Ok.

        List your objections to the following:

        1. Burzynski has never published any full results in peer reviewed scientific journals of his many, many ANP trials.

        2. ANPs are not CDA-2 thus it’s mention is irrelevant.

        3. Even if we are charitable and assume that ANPs and CDA-2 are related in some close way. The papers you h e provided show that it is being used in an entirely different manner to how Burzynski is using ANPs in his trials.

        4. Burzynski has used PB as a pro drug for ANPs. PB can be used as an HDACi but Burzynski has not used it in trials and if he had he would have violated his own trial protocols. But he may have used it outwith the trials.

        To my mind these are the substantive and relevant points on which you disagree. I would also argue that many people have, patiently at first but with increasing frustration, answered these points repeatedly.

        That you do not acknowledge this is your replies must mean you have either not understood how people have rebutted your point or you reject their rebuttals.

        Either way does it strike you as reasonable to continue “debating”?

  13. Guy Chapman says:

    @PDiddy: Your arguments are barely coherent, display an evangelical zeal, and are stated in an excessively aggressive way. That’s why you were kicked from Wikipedia. It’s probably also a big chunk of the reason your Twitter accounts keep getting nuked.

    The problem is not everyone else, as you seem to believe, it is you.

    HTH

  14. flip says:

    @Endless Psych

    May I ask is English your first language as there are some rather odd word choices in some of your postings?

    I asked that over on RI and got a torrent of unending insults and even more silly non sequiturs. Despite everything though there are glimmers of intelligent writing and I highly suspect the lack of formatting and incoherence is a put on. He’s a troll, nothing more, nothing less. Don’t bother engaging, he’s more interested in spamming blocks of garbled text than in debating.

    In the end, that’s why most of us at RI are happy he’s been banned there.

    @Guy Chapman

    The problem is not everyone else, as you seem to believe, it is you.

    This too has been repeated. He’s dense. So dense the only thing that happened when we explained that he’d do better with proper blockquoting is that he got worse at formatting posts, not better.

    Oh, and the wall of text got worse too.

    • PDiddymus says:

      Poor flip is so used to getting “flipped off”
      For those who wonder if I consider ESL,
      I could “bloody well” care less aboot the “Kings’ English”
      I specialize in “Americanisms”
      As usual, in your prepubescent
      pastureland, you see “trolls” in every stream, underneath a bridge
      You obviously do NOT know the meaning of the word “Insolence” 😉

  15. As I’ve said already, I don’t have time to waste in petty arguments with trolls and spammers. If Didymus is able to make a sensible and coherent argument that has not already been answered then I will do what I can to address it. Repetitions of the same points and wilful misunderstandings, misinterpretations and twisting of words will be ignored, as will enormous lists of links without any explanation as to their presumed relevance.

    I’m sorry that Didymus doesn’t like being described as a troll and a spammer. But if you behave like a troll and a spammer, don’t be surprised when people use those words to describe you.

    Spammer isn’t just a flyaway insult – the behaviour exhibited by this user violates defined anti spam policies. For example, I think Didymus is now on his fifth Twitter account and that the the previous four have almost certainly been taken down for spamming.

    I could be wrong of course and I’m sure Didymus would be delighted to correct me if so. However, it seems clear to me that his tweeting behaviour would be considered spam by Twitter:

    https://support.twitter.com/articles/64986-how-to-report-spam-on-twitter#

    Similarly, as I said earlier, I also felt that the wordpress.com blog discussed above could be in violation of their TOS.

    Didymus wrote that I was incorrect to note that this blog contains multiple variants of Burzynski’s name. He may wish to look at the header on his blog, which contains the word “Burzynski” eight times:

    http://www.freezepage.com/1361796508TYWWNGFRIM

    The blog is being pushed via unwanted electronic messages on other sites (Twitter, for example) and it seems to have been set up to promote the Burzynski Clinic. This would put it in violation of the wordpress.com TOS.

    Didymus also wonders why I think his blog has been set up to smear Orac. Perhaps he forgot writing this:

    The purpose of this blog is to combat the “misdirection,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and lies posted by entities like Orac (HerOrac {“Hero” “Orac”}, OracQuack) and his “Oracolytes” on the “Respectful Insolence” blog

    http://www.freezepage.com/1361796829QQXRLJEOPO

    Orac has not been misinforming anyone and certainly hasn’t been lying. Unless Didymus can provide evidence (and no, I don’t mean a long list of irrelevant links) to support these serious accusations, I conclude that his blog is an attempt to promote Burzynski and smear critics.

  16. Oh – and I’m sorry if this wasn’t clear. I approved and replied to the comments by Didymus quite a few days ago, on my own blog. I assumed he would have seen that by now. They were never deleted but as I’ve already said, ‘unapproved’.

  17. Please take note of this.

    This is a warning: you have a problem with another site you take it up with them.

    Doing otherwise will be considered off topic and be treated/edited as spam.

    Consider this a friendly reminder or your second warning there will not be a third.

  18. As for your arguments Diddymus they lack substance and they lack any style?

    So what use are they?

    You persist with this fantasy of neutrality. When you spend all your time arguing with Burzynski critics about Burzynski.Posting irrelevant link after irrelevant link that you claim supports Burzynski.

    You post links as if you believe them to be the killer evidence blow against the critics, they aren’t, they are more akin to some poor confused soul who has confused a discarded Styrofoam coffee cup with the Holy Grail.

    Each and everyone of your arguments has massive holes in them. If you have any notion of how an argument is constructed or understood surely you can see that?

    Your nit picking is irrelevant. Who cares what peoples subjective opinion is of you? They don’t need to provide evidence to back that up. That’s hyperskepticism at best Holmes and at worst a pathetically transparent attempt at distracting from the main issues.

    Note the warning above. I have no obligation to allow you to post endless screeds of drivel or to allow you a platform to criticise and reply to posts on ANOTHER UNRELATED SITE.

    Despite the fact that I have never banned anyone from this site I am tempted to make an exception in your case.

    Not because of what you are saying or how you are saying it but because YOU CANNOT FORMAT POSTS AND I FEEL COMPELLED TO EDIT THEM!

    Whether these edited posts make your arguments look more or less intelligent I am not sure.

  19. Also I think it’s ironic you demand proof that you are retreading and recycling the same old arguments time and again a few posts before you recycle and retread the same tired old arguments again.

  20. Feel free to support your case and prove your intellectual credentials by continually insulting your critics.

    It’s a great tactic. No one will think the less of you for it.

    No siree.

  21. So you have no substantive disagreements with us then actually and you are just wasting our time?

    Ok.

    Ban hammer falls. Sorry about that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s