I received a reply to my last post fairly promptly. I don’t have much to add at this point. I said all I want to in my email response, which is also below. If your just catching up, it’s worth reading this and this for a bit more background.
I read your latest post of my e mail to you and your ‘journalistic commentary”. In it, I am called a liar, even though I told you in great detail about my work, which I did not have to do.
You suggest I am ‘ naive about medicine”. Again, as I told you I have been involved on and off with the clinic for only six weeks, and they are one of many clients. Before that I spent 27 years as a reporter investigating government corruption. Just because someone does not know all your answers in a few days doesnt mean they are naive. I just do not want to give you bad answers.
You portrayed yourself as someone who is trying to get legitimate answers to questions. I have been willing to try to answer what I can, trying to explain that the FDA has very strict rules on what the clinic can say about investigative drugs. If I tell you the vast , vast majority of patients are not involved in clinical trials, you say that doesnt matter. If I tell you about patients who feel their lives were saved or prolonged you dismiss it as an anecdote.
Without exception you attack my answers, given without consulting anyone else, so that my sincerity at dialogue would be appreciated. I have no interest in portraying people who question the clinic as villians. So stop trying to create drama where there isn’t. I just said that people who say outrageous things will not get my attention if they want to know answers to real questions.
Pick which group you want to be in. I will not waste my time any further otherwise . I am dissapointed that my efforts to talk to you ‘journalist to journalist’ have been met with such hostility.
My reply is below. I look forward to his response.
Good morning Wayne,
Lets cover your first point and get it out of the way. When you emailed the Merritt’s you said, “Dr. Burzynskis office has retained my company to assist them in establishing, how should I say it, more mature conversations with people who have issues with the clinic.” You then said to me, “Without seeking prior approval I contacted the Merritts because I was intrigued by their blog.” Now, these statements do not marry up. Either you contacted them without prior approval and were therefore lying to the Merritt’s about having been instructed by the clinic. Or you had been instructed by the clinic, as you said to the Merritt’s and you mislead me about doing it off your own back. As it was you who brought this up again, I’d be interested in an accurate clarification. If you feel my logic is wrong, please explain how so I can understand.
That said, this is an irrelevance. It is not important to the actual topic at hand.
I did suggest that you are naive about medicine. This isn’t to be viewed as a negative or an insult. It’s a fact that you yourself have agreed with. You have said numerous times that you’re “not a medical man”, that’s fine! The dictionary definition of naive is, “having or showing a lack of experience or information”. As you say, you’ve only worked for the clinic on and off, for 6 weeks. You are currently naive on this topic. My suggestion would be for you to actually put the many questions I’ve asked you to Dr. Burzyński.
Better still, I am willing to speak to Dr. Burzyński directly, if you feel this is something that could be arranged? Whether this be in a conference call, so that he could mediate his answers through you, would be equally acceptable. Like you have said, I have raised many questions that you are not yet able to answer, this would be a good solution.
Not for the first time I agree with you that the FDA do have strict guidelines about details clinics can release regarding Investigative New Drugs (IND’s). These guidelines do not cover medical facilities being unable to give details of planned publication time frames. This would normally be expected if they were serious about publication.
Let me explain again why patients surviving without any clinical data is anecdotal. If the patients are NOT in the clinical trails they are NOT supposed to be receiving Antineoplaston treatments. ANP’s are only agreed to as a clinical study drug. So, if the patients are not in the trials, they aren’t receiving ANP therapy and are therefore receiving conventional treatments. These are tried and tested treatments. The sorts used in every hospital around the world. While I’m pleased that these patients are being treated and surviving, it has nothing to do with the trial patients that were treated with ANP’s.
As a side point, If you are aware of patients receiving ANP outside of a trail situation, you have a duty to report this to the FDA.
The reports of cure or reduction in tumour size by patients on ANP only are anecdotal because there is no data to support the efficacy of ANPs. If proper, randomised, double blinded trial data had been published over the years, we would be having a very different discussion. You and I would not be in a debate, we would have the relevant data.
I completely refute your assertion that I have attacked your answers. I have either explained why your answers are not relevant because they lacked the relevant information previously required or asked you more questions.
I appreciate that you replied to my email and I understand that it wasn’t with all the relevant details to hand, but if we’re going to have a meaningful dialogue, you have to be able to answer the questions I’ve asked you. I am happy to wait for you to contact the Clinic with my questions so that you can answer in an informed and detailed way. I don’t want this to end in empty rhetoric without us achieving our mutual aim of open and honest communication.
I again make my offer to speak with Dr. Burzyński directly.
I am disappointed that you feel you have been attacked. I am not interested in offending you. I just want answers to the questions of so many.