Protect Desperate Patients from the Houston Cancer Quack

A petition at Change.org by Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients asking the United States Congress to protect cancer patients and their families from being exploited by Stanislaw Burzynski.

Rep. Darrell Issa: Protect Desperate Patients from the Houston Cancer Quack

The petition:

We are writing to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the exploitation of cancer patients, their families, and their communities.

For nearly 40 years, Houston cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski has been treating cancer patients for decades with an unproven chemotherapy he calls “antineoplastons.” Following an agreement in the 1990s with the FDA, he has only been able to administer the drug under the auspices of clinical trials. For this questionable treatment, he charges patients exorbitant fees (often hundreds of thousands of dollars) to participate in a trial and claims to cure the most difficult, almost uniformly fatal pediatric brain cancers. His claims are not supported by science and evidence - despite running more than 60 trials over 15 years he has not published the results of a single clinical trial.

On Friday, November 15, 2013, many concerning issues about Dr. Burzynski were detailed in a front-page exposé in USA Today, including his past use of antineoplastons as an AIDS and Parkinson’s treatment. Sickeningly, critics of the Clinic have found a pattern going back 20 years of patients publically celebrating unambiguous signs of disease progression as signs that antineoplastons were working.

The FDA recently released site inspection notes about Stanislaw Burzynski’s clinic. Their findings were horrific:

-- Burzynski “failed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects under your care.”
-- “Forty-eight (48) subjects experienced 102 investigational overdoses“
-- Burzysnki allowed overdoses continue: “Overdose incidents have been reported to you [....] There is no documentation to show that you have implemented corrective actions during this time period to ensure the safety and welfare of subjects.”
-- All baseline tumor measurements were destroyed: “Your [...] tumor measurements initially recorded on worksheets at baseline and on-study treatment [...] studies for all study subjects were destroyed and are not available for FDA inspectional review.” Without any measurement there is no way to determine any actual efficacy of the treatment, making Burzynski’s claims unsupported and unpublishable.
-- Burzynski’s reported success rates are inflated: He “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, therapeutic response [...] for 67% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”Nonetheless, these inaccurate outcomes are used to convince dying patients antineoplastons can save them.

Other issues cited by the FDA included:

-- Paying patients who failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study were admitted to Burynski’s trials;
-- Burzynski did not report all adverse events as required by his study protocols, and many exhibiting toxic effects were not removed from treatment;
-- Adverse events were not reported in a timely fashion (in one case 7 years);
-- The FDA received two different versions of a pediatric patient's records during an inspection, especially significant because the child apparently died of a known side effect of antineoplastons.

Shockingly, these observations were made after a decade of abysmal site reviews by the FDA. Currently, Burzynski’s trials are subject to a partial clinical hold, which means Burzynski is still treating patients already on his protocol.

We are asking that you:

-- Encourage the FDA to dissolvethe Burzynski Research Institute’s clearly deficient Institutional Review [ethical oversight] Board and to place a permanent hold on any more cancer patients receiving antineoplastons;
-- Investigate how Burzynski has been allowed to conduct experiments on pediatric cancer patients while repeatedly cited for violating rules designed to prevent uncontrolled human experimentation.
-- Investigate why the FDA allowed this abysmal researcher to advance to phase 3 clinical trials without publishing a single phase 2 trial;
-- Protect cancer patients from abuse through legislation and FDA oversight reform.          

Please help end a medical ethics scandal that involves eight times as many patients as the Tuskegee Experiment. I look forward to your response on this important matter.

If the Government is shut down, then who is paying the shills?

It's been a week now since the part of the federal government shut down due to lack of funding because Congress can not agree on a budget.

Since much of the government has been shut down due to funding there is a question I have for conspiracy theorists: Who is paying the shills?

Now according to many conspiracy theorists shills are apparently anyone who goes around the internet spreads what they consider to be "dis-information" to discredit their conspiracy theories (which for some reason is often times backed up with facts and logic).

Basically, skeptics and debunkers (those people claim to be volunteering their time to debunk conspiracy theories on the internet, but according to many conspiracy theorists, are being paid by the government to spread dis-information, and who's only "evidence" they have to prove that they are shills is simply that they disagree with the conspiracy theorist).

So if the government is shut down, then why do shills like myself (according to conspiracy theorists) still have their sites up, and are still posting blog articles debunking conspiracy theories?

Sure there are some Federal agencies still up and running, and their are still some government employees who are considered essential for running the government who are still working (granted many of them aren't actually going to be paid until after Congress comes up with a budget that gets approved by the president).

Now certainly spreading "dis-information" over the internet couldn't possibly be an essential part of government, could it? I can't see any logical reason why it would be.

Maybe the shills are being paid by the [insert some dark and shadowy group here] and that's the reason why they are continuing to spread their facts and logic based "dis-information".

Or, perhaps skeptics and debunkers really aren't shills, and they're not being paid by the government to spread what conspiracy theorists consider to be dis-information.

Perhaps what they are really spreading is research based facts and logic, and that they are doing it on their own and are not being paid by anyone.

Perhaps the real reason why conspiracy theorists believe that skeptics and debunkers are shills aren't because they are, but because they can't accept the fact someone has looked at the facts of some conspiracy theory and have concluded something different, and thus in their minds the only "logical" conclusion that they can come up with is that those people who are saying that a conspiracy theory is bogus is that the person whom is claiming that the conspiracy theory is bogus is being paid to say so.

Human Guided Spiritual Defense Waves... Pseudoscience at it's greatest (and Insanest)

When you explore the world of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, you often times find out that there is no deep end in the theoretical pool of craziness, and just when you think you've reached the bottom, you find out you're still not at the deep end.

Recently I thought I had found that deep end with the helmet that "stops alien abductions".

It turns out I was wrong, and that there is something crazier than even that:

Human Guided Spiritual Defense Waves

What this claims is that human beings can use "spiritual energy" to get rid of chemtrails.

In other words, use something that's imaginary to get rid of something else that's imaginary.

Not only does the article claim that people can repel these alleged chemicals away, it also claims you can concentrate them and focus them on small area, even house.

In fact, it even says you should do so over the homes of members of Congress (which is a tad bit disturbing). It even tells you to "make them suffer" (which I would consider a threat, if I wasn't fairly certain this wouldn't work at all, and that neither of these things not even existing in the first place) and suggest using social networks to help organize groups of people to "focus" their "spiritual energy" in order to do so.

I also find it somewhat ironic that while this article encourages people to use such "powers" to basically cause harm to other people that they perceive is their enemies, the article also says, "When you understand this type of power, you really only want to use it to help, not hurt, but there is no reason not to use it for defensive purposes."

In other words, it's telling you to use this "power" to harm others, yet you won't want to use it to harm others once you figure out how to use it...

The whole bases for these claims about "Spiritual Defense Waves" and their alleged existence is this stuff called Rodin Aerodynamics, which is some sort of mathematical hypothesis created by Marco Rodin, and basically tries to explain that a person alter the world around them, and tries to show how mathematics does this, and that numbers are alive.

Basically it's a combination of pseudomathematics and quantum woo.

All this article is showing isn't how to get rid of chemtrails, but both how crazy some people who believe in chemtrails are, and the sheer lengths they will go to in order to get rid of something that doesn't even exist.

And, it also shows what type of people they really are. They are people who have no problem harming others whom they believe are harming them, even when they have no proof of this.

Franklin and Sequoyah: Two states that never were

In either a few weeks, or perhaps several years from now, Puerto Rico is set to become the 51st state, but if history (and the heart of congress) had gone differently, Puerto Rico would not be on it's way to becoming the 51st state. It would actually be on it's way to becoming either the 52nd or 53rd state of the Union.

Now there have been multiple proposals for new states over the years that never came to be. There have been several proposals for a state of Jefferson and a state of Lincoln (both in various sites). There have been proposals for the Upper Michigan peninsula to become it's own state, and even Long Island (along with New York City) to become it's own state. There was even a proposal for a state of Absaroka (which would have taken land from Northern Wyoming, South Eastern Montana, and Western South Dakota to form), but the two places that almost became their own states were called the states of Franklin and Sequoyah.

Now Franklin (if you could not tell was to be named after Benjamin Franklin) is part of what is now North Eastern Tennessee, but back when it attempted to become it's own individual state in 1785, it was actually apart of the state of North Carolina, because until 1796 Tennessee was apart of North Carolina.

Back in April 1784 North Carolina ceded what is today Tennessee to the Federal Government in order to pay off debts the state had gained as a result of the War of Independence. The government was reluctant to accept this, and also many frontiersmen in that region were pretty upset about this to, and also feared that the territory might even be sold to a foreign power, so in August of 1784 several counties in what is to North Eastern Tennessee seceded from North Carolina, which resulted in the state of North Carolina to rescind  it's offer of cession, and even ordered judges to hold court in those counties, and send soldiers to the counties that wanted to secede. This of course did nothing to stop the growing secession movement, and on May 16, 1785 a delegation from the region submitted a petition to Congress for approval of statehood.

The State failed to receive the two-thirds majority of approval from the other states that is necessary in order to be admitted to the Union (only seven of the thirteen states at the time voted to admit Franklin to the Union) and couldn't even get the support of Benjamin Franklin himself.

In 1788 the region was finally disbanded and readmitted to North Carolina, and would later become part of Tennessee, but this would not be the last time the area would attempt to become it's own state, the most notable during the Civil War as a result of Eastern Tennessee disapproval of the rest of the state seceding from the union. While the region never did secede from the rest of Tennessee, there were many people there who proposed seceding from Tennessee and rejoining the Union (much like what West Virginia actually did when it seceded from Virginia and rejoined the Union in 1863).

Now as for the State of Sequoyah, which was to be named in honor of Sequoyah, a Cherokee silversmith who invented the Cherokee syllabary (or alphabet), the area which would have become it's own state was part of what is today Eastern Oklahoma, and was from 1890 until 1907 when it was merged with the Oklahoma Territory and became the State of Oklahoma, it's own individual territory known as the Indian Territory, which actually once included most of Oklahoma, but after 1890 a little over half the territory was ceded to white settlers to form it's own separate territory.

In 1905 the territory formed a constitutional convention, and voted to send a petition to the United States Congress for approval of statehood.

The delegation that arrived at Washington D.C. from the Indian Territories did not receive a warm reception, with many eastern politicians not wanting to admit two new western states. Even President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that the two territories be merged back again and become the State of Oklahoma (which is what happened in 1907). Still, all the hard work of the Sequoyah state constitutional convention was not lost as the Sequoyah constitution served as the basis for the Oklahoma constitution.

It should also be noted that if Sequoyah had ended up becoming a state, it would have been the first (and only) state where the majority of the people were Native Americans.

Who really was the first President?

If you were to ask a bunch of people who was the first President of the United States most of them would probably tell you that George Washington was the first President.

Those people would be wrong.

While it is true that George Washington was the first person to hold the title of "President of the United States of America" there were actually multiple people who were President of the United States before him, they just didn't hold the actual title of "President of the United States of America".

In fact the first Presidents of the United States actually held the title of "President of the Continental Congress" and they were not chosen by the people, but by the Continental Congress (which was the legislative body of the United States before the constitution basically dissolved the Continental Congress and split it into two with the creation the Senate and the House of Representatives) and in reality was closer to what we would consider to be the modern day Speaker of the House than President of the United States, and was more of an honorable title that held little authority. Still, the President of the Continental Congress was the Head of State for the United States, and therefore the Presidents of the Continental Congress were in fact the first Presidents of the United States.

Now Peyton Randolph was the first President of the Continental Congress, but he is not the first President of the United States, and for two very good reasons: One, he was president before the United States declared independence, and two, he actually died before the United States declared independence from Great Britain.

Now John Hanson first President of the Continental Congress to be elected under the Articles of Confederation, but Samuel Huntington was the President of the Continental Congress when the Articles of Confederation was ratified, and therefore many people consider him to be the first President of the United States.

Now of course Elias Boudinot could also be considered the first President of the United States because he was President of the Continental Congress when Great Britain officially recognized our independence on September 3, 1783, and he signed the Treaty of Paris, but the United States government doesn't recognize that date to be the date this country's independence. Instead the government officially considers July 4, 1776, the day the Continental Congress adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence, as the date of this country's independence.

So who was really the true first President of the United States?

It was John Hancock.

The Continental Congress, and the title of President of the Continental Congress was created before the Revolutionary War even began, and when the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed, John Hancock was President of the Continental Congress (and of course one of the document's most famous signatories) and was actually President of the Continental Congress for almost 16 months after the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed. Therefore since Hancock was President of the Continental Congress during and after signing of the Declaration of Independence, he is really the first President of the United States.

Of course there are others who will say otherwise...

Can a tie happen?

Many of you may know that it takes the overwhelming majority of all of the electoral votes in order to become President of the United States. While the amount these votes have varied at times in our history, ever since 1961 we have had 538 electoral votes, so currently it takes at least 270 electoral votes in order to win the presidency. Also, the electoral votes are actually cast by individuals called Electors who are suppose vote for the candidate who wins the majority of the popular votes in the state in which the electors are in (although this isn't always the case).

Now there is a problem with this.

What happens when no one wins the overwhelming majority?

Well, we already know the answer, because this has already happened before.

In the election of 1824 there were four major presidential candidates, all of whom won electoral votes.

Now, Andrew Jackson actually won the most electoral votes, but he didn't have the overwhelming majority of the electoral votes. Due to our laws the election was resolved this the United States Congress. The House of Representatives voted on who would become President (mind you they only got one vote per state, rather then one vote per Representative), and the Senate voted on who would become Vice President (in this case each Senator gets one vote).

In the end John Quincy Adams was elected by the House of Representative to become the President, while John C. Calhoun was vote in by the Senate to become the Vice President.

So back to the question at hand, is it still possible that only two candidates who win all of the electoral votes between that neither one of them still not win the election?

Yes, it is possible.

As you can clearly see the electoral votes are even, and if a candidate was to win the ten states with the highest number electoral votes plus either Virginia, or any combination of states that make up 13 electoral votes, then that candidate will have only 269 electoral vote (as will the other candidate).

Of course this combination isn't actually need, this is just the fastest one I came up with. There are probably dozens of different combinations that can cause this. Plus there is what is called a Faithless Elector who chooses to vote for the candidate other then the one that the other Electors in that state have pledged to vote for (or not vote for anyone if they choose to) and thus you end up getting a tie that way, or neither candidates having enough votes that way.

Then there is of course the possibility of a third candidate (or more) capturing enough electoral votes that it causes the two top candidates to not get enough electoral votes to win.

So in theory it is possible for two major candidates to get a tie in an election (or neither get enough electoral votes) and so what would happen is that for the second time in our history is that our Congress would choose who would become President and Vice President of the United States.

Scary thought, isn't it?

The current Electoral Map of the United States