This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
As Dr Burzinski has been taken to court many times and never been charged with any offence I think this link is in itself libelous.
86.164.40.53 (
talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am really disappointed by this entry - can I edit it so that the other side of the story is told? The person who wrote the entry obviously has not seen the documentary about Burzynski, or else has a reason to want to discredit him and his therapy. If the Wikipedia editors have not seen the documentary I request that someone take the time to watch it - it can be seen on Netflix. According to the documentary the FDA tried to dismiss his claims, but there appears to be evidence that he has had some success. Could someone please tell me if I'm able to edit the text and if so how to do it, and also would one of the editors please just watch the documentary in order to get the other side of this story that is not reflected in this article at all? Thank you-
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreenvc ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am amazed by the bias in the article, I'm especially fascinated by how it can mention the movie "Burzinksi" using references describing it as a disgrace of a documentary because it "only represents one side of the story"... Documentaries are allowed to do this, they're trying to get a point across. Neutral-online-wikis do not have this luxury. However not once in this article is Dr. Burzynksi positively described. I've seen the movie, this wiki-article is far more biased then it is.
Something else I've noticed from a designer's point of view. This doctor has possibly solved cancer, but there are no pictures of him on his wiki page. Even though a Google search will find you more than enough. In contrast: Sara Palin, who was a bit of a joke on the political scene, has plenty of pictures and personal information on her wiki. This de-personifies Burzynski, which would make defamation easier.
His institute is mentioned, but without a link to the website.
It appears that people are dying, because the FDA won't support Dr. Burzynski, because it will make chemo therapy and radiation obsolete, which are multi-billion dollar businesses. Right now this wiki-page won't change for some reason and I would like to find out what we can do about this. If anybody reading this has figured out how to fight this in a better way, contact me.
Also, something else I noticed; I was checking the references and found this article cited: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/534614-praise-for-rhys-morgan-15-over-miracle-cure-alert I was surprised because it's an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, a source one would assume is quite reliable. Come to find out that the article isn't related to Dr. Burzynski at all. How does this happen?!
I have sent an email to the Richard Dawkin's Institute regarding this false reference, hopefully they can have an effect on the future of this wiki-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambrazle ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
What is a supposedly neutral site like Wikipedia posting crap about Burynski? Buryzinski is a biochemist and renowned for his cancer treatment: his only sin is his unorthodoxy. Yet he is summarily dimissed as a quack bvy some nameless fraud, who links to what? a quack watch site! Burzynsmi is a qualified scientist, has a PhD in biochemistry, and has 200 publications, yet he's called 'pseudoscientific'! Really! This sort of arrogant decree pseudoscience and legally its libel.
'no properly designed scientific study '
The poster provides no links for this statement, and the word 'proper' suggests an inquisitorial attitude as to what is acceptable.
Does Wikipedia know that such libel on a public site is illegal?
Why is there no link to Burzynski's own site. And if there are no 'proper scientific studies' why is there no link to a 'proper' scientific site? Huh? [1]
Brian August 2o 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 ( talk • contribs)
The neutrality of this article is indeed questionable at best. The live footage of the testimony of nearly a dozen patients, in court, weighs heavily towards Burzynski's side. Not to mention his clinical trials were finally approved by the FDA and and on 2009 were ready for phase III. Yet the articles depicts Burzynski's research as shady and inconclusive. This borderlines in slander and is unacceptable. This article needs to be rewritten. sources: http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.182.136 ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is overly biased against Burzynski. It is as if Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge any benefits of his antineoplastons treatment. I'm disappointed in Wikipedia for this bias and I hope someone in Wikipedia will gain the clarity to see this bias and will know how to correct it. I think it lacks a balance of "facts" and it does not adequately address the undeniable benefits Burzynski has provided. His treatment would not continue to be contentious if there were no valid reasons. This article is not balanced and lacks important information. Additionally, The FDA has approved him for Phase III. However, the FDA is requiring that radiation be used in conjunction with his antineoplastons. Radiation is not a part of his antineoplaston treatment but the FDA is requiring it for ethical reasons because cancer kills people. Radiation kills people also. See the new problem with Phase II. Also, the FDA has in recent years approved a large number of cancer drugs for market without requiring them to be subjected to Phase 3 (randomized) clinical trials, although virtually none of them have shown a cure qualifying them for approval. Burzynski's Phase 2 trials of treating childhood brainstem glioma, Antineoplastons have an almost 30% cure rate which means Antineoplastons are the first and only cures in medical history. Why isn't this information included? Antineoplastons are gene-targeted cancer medications and are the way of future medical treatments. Wikipedia may regret not being balanced with article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.55.214 ( talk) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I've tried twice to document the lack of neutrality--in particular the Legal Issues that fail to mention five failed indictments as well as numerous legal restraints, and generally in the tone--on this article. The guy is not a saint something between and efforts to link to debates seem to make this missive inadmissible. The Live Help was extraordinarily hostile. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.85.236 ( talk) 04:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the most biased articles I have read. Sure include criticism of Burzynski but don;t make that the entire article. Why not include his supporters views as well? BenW ( talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
kashmiri 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This article requires some serious cleanup IMHO to keep it up to the standard of a well-drafted biographical article. Thus, it should ideally contain only biographical facts about the person along with indication why the person is deemed notable (including concise indication of the existence of controversies, but not any longish argument in favour or against):
Thanks, kashmiri 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This section only presents criticism of the film but does not talk about its actual content, nor if there were critics who pointed out the film's positive aspects along with its negative. By doing so, the article is not a neutral point-of-view with respect to information about the controversial cancer treatment and should be modified. It should at least account for some of the facts raised in the film against the facts presented by the FDA and other critics. It should account for so many of the clients who pleaded with the FDA to allow Burzynski to continue his treatment against the opinion of critics. The issue here is neutrality, and it's easy to read bias in an article, even if there is no expertise on the subject. If there is controversy against the doctor, there should at least for the sake of neutrality (even "criminals" get a person describing their version of events, don't they?) be a section describing the doctor's side of the story. It might be appropriate at that point to talk about the content of the film. That way all sides are presented and the reader can make up his/her own mind, rather than be indoctrinated. I think it's that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yikes! This is a hot topic. My whole suggestion is simply to account for the perspective of the doctor as well in the article. This can be done by stating facts about what Burzynski has said in return in his legal defenses, in the documentary about cancer, and perhaps by other sources. The writer need not take a side, but simply report the debate between Burzynski and the medical community. Right now, there is hardly anything in the article which shows Burzynski's reasoning for his medicine, the many who testified in favour of Burzynski to the FDA and in trials, etc. But there is *a lot* on what the FDA and others have said about his medicine, and let's be honest, critics are not hard to find. I don't know if the article is blocked, and if trying to modify the article will be "frustra." But I hope the editors do change it, simply for the sake of good internet scholarship! hehehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me this offer you quotes: "Oncologists have described Burzynski's studies as flawed". This sentence suggests some sort of consensus among oncologists while, as a matter of fact, it was only three oncologists that have expressed such an opinion in press.
"The consensus among the professional community...” I hope this is not a joke.
Do you have problems with patient reports?...I would not necessarily question the authenticity of patient reports.
Quoting Quackwatch's opinion in science-related matters is for me like citing the Flat Earth Society in geography
In the interest of Neutrality, I am requesting that the following additions be made re the reviews of this film since the reviews are about 33 words of negativity versus about 4 positive. I reviewed Steven Spielberg's Article and am basically just requesting the same Neutrality that has been afforded his films. This includes the filmaker's reply to the critics; specifically The Village Voice, so i have included the Voice again to include other statements in it. It is said that the Author had to revise her review after her initial publishing on-line.
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 09:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12
I suggest you add the following to the Variety review & cite the doctor. www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 03:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12
I have no idea why my comment for change to the article was posted above, so I made a "new topic" to make it clear.
Regarding my proposals for change to the article: To "Rhode Island Red": I have made very clear comments regarding the neutrality of the article, even if specific content for change itself has not been proposed. That's perfectly valid according to Wiki rules and criticism for encyclopedic entry. It is not impossible to know what I'm thinking regarding what should be added to the entry. I was very clear that Burzynski's own defense both in trial and according to other sources like the movie have not been addressed nor described explicitly. This is not presenting "every single point of view." There are basically two: those (including Burzynski and his lawyers) who are for his treatment/medicine and those who are not. Right now, the article does *not* adequately account for Burzynski's point of view, and it is crucial for a fair and neutral encyclopedic entry. Without it, the article basically does what it accuses makers of the documentary of doing: being one-sided. What you said yourself could be added to the encyclopedic entry in much greater detail: "Burzynski seems to be of the opinion [although I'm sure the arguments of his defense lawyers are not 'opinion' but reasoned argument] that APs are a cure for cancer and that he has been unfairly persecuted...." Then the article could go to explain the very content of the movie, what his lawyers argued, the testimony given to FDA officials by clients, etc. The writers need not choose a side, but simply present the reasoning of both parties involved. Simply because editors or you yourself do not like the documentary, that does not mean it is a poor source. There are many, many documentaries that make an argument simply for one side. So, these are my "concrete proposals," and I'm glad you're listening. Perhaps next time you could do so with less antagonism and with a greater spirit for proper scholarship--although I do understand that this is the internet, not an academic journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Editors:
I would like to propose some changes for the sake of greater neutrality for the entry. Right now under "law suits" it says:
"In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment.[28]"
It would be good for the sake of neutrality to state what Burzynski's lawyers argued in defense. This is typical in other cases where someone has been accused of a wrong but where a person maintains that he is innocent. So there is no harm in putting it here either.
"In 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.[29] An appeal against the advertising restrictions on the grounds of free speech was denied on the basis that this was commercial speech promoting an unlawful activity. In December 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.[29]"
This may be true, but it is also true that Burzynski responded to these complaints, and it is not described what he said. Just as it is a fact that there were complaints, it is also a fact that there was a response. Neutrality calls for presenting both sides crucial to the controversy.
"In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski for using false and misleading tactics to swindle her out of $100,000. She also sued his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court. She sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy.[30]"
Again, this is a fact. But it is also fact that he was or was not found guilty, and it is also a fact that Burzynski had a reasoned argument in response to this law-suit. For the sake of neutrality these two crucial facts to the very controversy must be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
1997 Harvard releases "The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis," citing Burzynski. [28] Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 13:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski's attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan's claims: "On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski's attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan's allegations on Houston's KPRC News." [29] [30] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 15:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas
Hi Editors:
I'd like to propose some changes to the article in this section.
It says: "Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General,[25][26] and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result."
It is also a fact that Burzinski replied to these charges. Neutrality demands that not just the FDAs point of view is shown but Burzinski's as well. His point of view is crucial to the controversy, so it is appropriate.
"In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Burzynski Research Institute, stating that an investigation had determined the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB) "did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects." It identified a number of specific findings, among them that the IRB had approved research without ensuring risk to patients was minimized, had failed to prepare required written procedures or retain required documentation, and had failed to conduct required continuing reviews for studies, among others. The Institute was given fifteen days to identify the steps it would take to prevent future violations.[27]"
Again, Burzynski replied to this as well. Neutrality calls for his point of view that is also at the heart of the controversy. Right now this reads like an FDA commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that link 29 be changed to [31] since the site it is linked to is obviously anti-Burzynski, so linking directly to the source document would seem to make more sense from a Neutral point of view. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 04:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/8/12
Hi Editors:
I would like to suggest some changes to this section.
This part of the article does mention what the therapy is, but it quickly states that it disregarded by the FDA. If you're going to write about how it is disregarded right away upon describing the therapy, you should also include those testimonies that show the medicine works for the sake of greater neutrality. This does not mean that you pick a side but that you simply present both sides in describing the therapy, just as you would present both sides when presenting evolutionary theory against creationist theory. Gathering from the movie (although some research via legal documents and testimonies at trial might show the same thing), there were many who have seen from their own experience that his therapy works. This is at the heart of the controversy, and the article does not account for these experiences.
Thanks! Happy writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, it' obvious that the writer(s) has/have a bias against the doctor. It is clear that neutrality would call for not all viewpoints, but the two in question,to be described. Simply because it has been discredited by the FDA or a court of law does not mean that Burzynski's own account is worthless and should not be narrated. Furthermore, your comments miss the fact that NOT ALL lawsuits against him were successful. In fact, the FDA dropped numerous charges against Burzynski, showing that Burzynski is not completely discredited de jure. As for the science, let's be realistic. The fact is that Burzynski is up against the scientific political status quo, so of course you will not have the legitimacy of that status quo to prove Burzynski is correct in his treatments. That's like asking Galeleo to prove his theories by the approval of the catholic Church. Additionally, Dr. Burzynski is a doctor in medicine, not just a physician, but a PhD. Surely this grants him some legitimacy de facto and de jure, which is not at all discussed in the article. In other words, he's not simply proposing witchcraft as a cure for cancer. This article removes his view-point, and in doing so it is clear the writers have no interest in providing a neutral perspective. That's fine, no one said Wikipedia had to be scholarly. But let's not pretend to provide an unbiased perspective when what we're doing is helping to endorse the agenda of the FDA. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Burzynski is going against the status quo, if the status quo is the FDA. There is a mechanism, but that mechanism is established by the FDA, NOT science alone. There are many things in science which are NOT proven by clinic trials, so that Burzynski did not prove his cure for cancer by clinic trials is not proof that his claims are not science. Why should the FDA dictate how things are done? Don't forget, it is a political entity, not purely a scientific one. As for Galileo, the FDA acts like the Catholic Church because it is the established power determining what is and is not science. However, like Galileo, Burzynski is doing science which is NOT accepted by the FDA in the same way that Galileo was doing science that was not accepted by the Catholic Church. You forget that the Catholic Church was itelf involved in science at that time. It was not separated as religion and science are now! So, I say, don't pretend to provide an unbiased article when it clearly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 00:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Kashmiri is right. The therapy has not been disproven. In fact, it's very difficult to disprove any therapy because the proof often would rest on inductive premises, and induction is impossible to prove. It doesn't matter, if the writers don't want to provide a well-written, neutral article on Burzynski that's there fault. To anyone reading it, the bias is very obvious. Lastly, if Burzynski is soooo discredited, why then is he still practicing without being sent to jail? Check the website, his clinic is still open and he still offers the therapy the FDA derides. Were his credentials in question, he would not be allowed to practice medicine at all. There's no winning with the writer(s) of this article. They are not interested in good scholarship. PS I understand sources are important, but you can find sources to prove just about anything, so continually making reference to some source against Burzynski isn't good enough for determining whether Burzynski is an outlaw or providing medicine that doesn't work. 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I hate to break the news, but I have pointed out very carefully what is biased and what is not. It is you who after anyone presents a well-reasoned argument with details simply says they are not part of Wikipedia standards. Kashmiri pointed out very specific details about clinical trials, and all you can simply say is that it is not the case. When I offer specific suggestions on what is biased, you simply say that that means representing all view-points, when in reality, it's absurd not to present the TWO view-points in question. I am not simply shouting that the article is biased, it clearly is for the REASONS already described in detail. The sources that I have pointed out, such as the documentary or the legal proceedings from Burzynski's defence are to you not good enough. What you want is an FDA approved source, and you are NOT going to find one because the FDA has a political interest in not approving the therapy. You yourself have made unsubstantiated claims about the therapy not being science, when all aforementioned reason points out that science need not be simply what the FDA says it is. But for every point raised by others, you don't actually address any of the points, you simply shout, "No, this is not Wikipedia Standards," or "No, it is not because I say it is not." You haven't answered the question I raised: If Burzynski is so discredited as you say he is, why then is he still practicing as a doctor and providing the therapy without being sent to jail or without any further legal proceedings from the FDA? He could not do this were he not a real doctor. I suggest you stop quoting Wikipedia standards when it is clear that you don't wish to abide by them but simply use the in an ad hoc fashion to suit your own views. The article IS biased for all the reasons I CAREFULLY articulated. If you don't want to change it, that's fine. But don't talk about scholarship and rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 19:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No, not every point was addressed. Why is he practicing if he is discredited? You have said nothing about this. How can something be disproved scientifically when a disproof rests upon inductive premises? You have said nothing on this. Why are the two view-points not discussed when clearly they are at issue. All you've said is that this means every view-point is discussed, and that's not true--only two crucial ones! Who says the film is not a credible source? All you have done is point to another source that says the film is not credible. But that just means there are two conflicting sources, not that yours is right (that's your bias showing again, and you don't even realize it!). No one can claim that a few case studies are superseded by secondary reliable sources. Your own claim to that is that no FDA EVIDENCE has been generated. That's a bias. My comments about why he is still practicing are COMPLETELY relevant because YOU claim that his credentials are in question. My comment shows exactly that this is absurd if he is still practicing. That's an obvious point, but you and your bias for the FDA do not allow you to see that. For you, anything that is a counter-argument is not according to Wiki rule or is off topic, or is simply wrong because you say that it is. Finally, it is YOU who are using Wiki rules in an ad hoc fashion whenever you hear something you don't like. In fact, NOTHING of what I said or suggested breaks WIKI rules. I hate to break the news, but court proceedings also included scientific evidence, and if your claim is that the doctor has been discredited and is not doing science, then the case argued for him in court which contains scientific evidence for his case counts as scientific evidence and a credible source. What you want is an FDA source. And without it, you think you are right in arguing that everything the doctor does and who he is as a professional is bogus. That's simply untrue. Look at the facts. Why is he practicing if he is a quack? If he is discredited, why is he still providing the treatment against FDA approval? Why do people claim that his therapy works? A GOOD article would account for those things, rather than just screaming that without the FDA, nothing the doctor does is legitimate. I suggest you have a look at the evidence and the facts of this commentary as well as the Wiki rules so you can make an argument that holds water, rather than just reiterates your bias in an arrogant way. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You see? You can never respond appropriately. Everything is about everyone breaking the rules, but if you have something to say, you NEVER break the rules. It's obvious you try to use the rules in an ad hoc fashion when you hear something you don't like, or when you can't respond. NO ONE is breaking the rules, we're talking about the article, you just can't make a proper case for rejecting what people say. I made actual editorial suggestions, but you can't respond to any of them because all your views resort to is slander of the doctor and misinterpretation of the rules. You lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 15:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47] AS2-1
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52] & AS2-5
[53]) were submitted for Phase I clinical studies in advanced cancer patients.
[54]
Didymus Judas Thomas (
talk) 11:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/12/12Please add re cancer . gov, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Antineoplastons: Human/Clinical Trials, Studies of Specific Malignancies Treated with Antineoplastons, Brain tumors, A phase II study; which references 19 sources: [62] in order to dispute this claim that no phase II clinical trials have been published & because this is important as Antineoplastons are the only medicine to have shown these results in Phase II clinical trials: "Antineoplastons are the only medicines in the history of medicine to cure a brainstem glioma." [63] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 07:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/26/2012
Reference 11 is cited to support the sentence "In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[11]" The reference is an article on the National Cancer Institute, which refers the reader to a "Human/Clinical Studies" section for more information (on the inability to reproduce?). However, the Human Clinical Studies section has no mention of the failure of any indenpent researchers to reproduce the findings. i.e. There is no meat in this reference. We either need to find a better reference for this (an example study that couldn't reproduce the findings) or remove the reference [11] and the related article sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.75.10 ( talk) 03:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Something needs to be added about Burzynski's claim to a Ph.D. That has been widely disputed, but he still uses Ph.D. in his movie and in his clinic. See http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/587-audio-archive.html#episode_25 and the previous skeptics reports that are already linked to in the article. Burzyski claims to have received a Ph.D. in the same year that he actually received his D.Msc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.34.149 ( talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
A few editors keep insisting that this article belongs to Category:pseudoscience. I revert these changes since we should not blur the distinction between a rightful scientific theory and (unethical) business practices.
To all those who are not much familiar with medicine. Certain medical disorders have more than one theory that try to explain its mechanism, each theory valid on its own. For example, spinal muscular atrophy has been proposed to be a disorder of neurons, neuromuscular junctions, or a result of system-wide oxidative stress. These different theories give rise to differing therapeutic approaches, and respective experimental therapies are developed an trialled in patients. Even if ultimately only one approach proves correct, no one will label the other ones as "pseudo-science".
The entire "antineoplaston theory" is one of such theories proposed in support of an experimental treatment. The problem is not with the theory itself. The problem is with unethical marketing; with U.S. patent laws that block others from using the patented compounds; and with the resulting lack of independent studies confirming or denying efficacy. We shouldn't fool ourselves: one independent study means next to nothing – a theory needs dozens of independent studies to be proven or disproved: earlier (above on this page) I mentioned the history of valproic acid proposed as treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, thank you to read it.
Until now, Burzynski has successfully blocked independent studies. But this does not render "antineoplastons" a pseudo-science like astrology! kashmiri 12:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A film released in 2010 called, "Burzynski" provides an in-depth history of events surrounding this very controversial subject of a private physician dedicated to curing cancer fighting the cancer establishment.
Liquidtruth ( talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Ssww
{{edit semi-protected|answered=no)}
Just a handful of examples of total untruth, not even scratching the surface of this Wiki page:
"There is no conclusive evidence to support the antineoplaston theory. Trials initiated in 1993 and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute were closed due to inability to recruit qualifying patients, and a Mayo Clinicstudy found no benefit.[1]"
"no conclusive evidence" has no source. It is also Not true. FDA wouldn't have given permission for Phase 3 trials if this were true. The Mayo clinic trials were stopped early. Therefore it is impossible to say whether or not they could find benefit. These Mayo clinic trials are totally scientifically invalid as they were never ever completed. Italic text
"While the clinic does offer conventional chemotherapy and (via an associate center) radiotherapy,"
No source. Invalid statement. Italic text
"The clinic has been the focus of much criticism due to the way the unproven antineoplaston therapy is promoted, the costs of participating in trials, the claims made for the efficacy, nature and supposed lack of side effects of the treatment, significant problems with the way the trials are run and legal cases brought as a result of the sale of the therapy without board approval, and for other causes."
Zero sources, and contains opinion only.Italic text
"Some sixty phase 2 clinical trials have been registered by Burzynski since the mid 1990s, and one phase 3 trial, but none has been published. Scientific consensus is that antineoplastons are unproven and of little promise."
Not true, many articles have been published. They conveniently pretend nothing has been published. Italic text
"As Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center says, "Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans."[1]
Not true, read the original source, they do not say "bottom line" anywhere - the editor just made this up. Italic text
"..with alleged anti-cancer activity."
Not alleged, as the FDA wouldn't grant Phase 3 trials on an allegation. Italic text
but is not approved for general use due to lack of clinical evidence.
Not true, it is not approved for general use due to lack of completion of Phase 3 trials. Italic text
Although Burzynski and his associates claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various diseases, there is no evidence of clinical efficacy of these methods.
Not true, Burzynsi isn't claiming success. The FDA has proven success by granting Phase 3 clinical trials. (they love to pretend that Dr B is claiming these things, by ignoring the peer-reviewed data and the FDA sanctioned clinical trials & phase 3 permission. Italic text
Oncologists have described Burzynski's studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[11]
May be. But they ignore all the oncologists who praise Antineoplastons. Namely Dr. Nicholas Patronas for the National Cancer Institute. Italic text
In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[12]
Not true, Proper testing independently has been done in Japan, for nearly 10 years Italic text
There is no convincing evidence from any randomized controlled trial that antineoplastons are useful for the treatment of cancer.
Not true. THey like to play with words here. First, there has not been any randomized trial in the USA—therefore how can there be convincing evidence from one? But there has been a randomized trial in Japan - with double the survival rate using ANP. Italic text
Independent researchers have failed to reproduce the benefits reported by Burzynski.
Again Japan has been done, independently. Italic text
This above, is just getting started on the issues of this page. Italic text 76.94.58.224 ( talk) 23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done Please don't use the edit request template unless asking for an actual edit; if you could break down the above into concrete bite-sized proposals, that would allow editors here to consider them properly. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if there's anything to integrate but here is a new secondary source commenting on a critique of the Burzynski clinic/treatment/etc. Sædon talk 09:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 14:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12
Apparently there is a group of Burzynski supporters that are crowd-sourcing others to come edit this page. Some reference that we have been using quotes out of context and other claims. Here is one "the issue is, they block any new or old users from editing it, and Wiki has no way to police it. It's a brick wall. The article also breaks all sort of Wiki rules, such as posting quotes out of context, etc. especially in the "review' section of this film. They even used a quote from the Houston Press "reviewing" my film, when the linked article/source for this review clearly states that I refused an advance copy of the film to the writer—meaning the "reviewer" never actually viewed the film at all. The list is endless." If we are in error then we to clean up these problems.
Here is another post from someone ready to bring it on. "Merrill Aldighieri I don't have accurate stuff to fill in. If you want to send me some preferred text, I will paste it in whenever i have a free minute to spare. I am not a pro at coding though, i can only cut and paste raw text. Don't know how to make bold headers or add footnotes, etc."
Just want to bring this to the attention of everyone. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151240453868442&id=318281183441 Sgerbic ( talk) 03:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
As Dr Burzinski has been taken to court many times and never been charged with any offence I think this link is in itself libelous.
86.164.40.53 (
talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am really disappointed by this entry - can I edit it so that the other side of the story is told? The person who wrote the entry obviously has not seen the documentary about Burzynski, or else has a reason to want to discredit him and his therapy. If the Wikipedia editors have not seen the documentary I request that someone take the time to watch it - it can be seen on Netflix. According to the documentary the FDA tried to dismiss his claims, but there appears to be evidence that he has had some success. Could someone please tell me if I'm able to edit the text and if so how to do it, and also would one of the editors please just watch the documentary in order to get the other side of this story that is not reflected in this article at all? Thank you-
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreenvc ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am amazed by the bias in the article, I'm especially fascinated by how it can mention the movie "Burzinksi" using references describing it as a disgrace of a documentary because it "only represents one side of the story"... Documentaries are allowed to do this, they're trying to get a point across. Neutral-online-wikis do not have this luxury. However not once in this article is Dr. Burzynksi positively described. I've seen the movie, this wiki-article is far more biased then it is.
Something else I've noticed from a designer's point of view. This doctor has possibly solved cancer, but there are no pictures of him on his wiki page. Even though a Google search will find you more than enough. In contrast: Sara Palin, who was a bit of a joke on the political scene, has plenty of pictures and personal information on her wiki. This de-personifies Burzynski, which would make defamation easier.
His institute is mentioned, but without a link to the website.
It appears that people are dying, because the FDA won't support Dr. Burzynski, because it will make chemo therapy and radiation obsolete, which are multi-billion dollar businesses. Right now this wiki-page won't change for some reason and I would like to find out what we can do about this. If anybody reading this has figured out how to fight this in a better way, contact me.
Also, something else I noticed; I was checking the references and found this article cited: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/534614-praise-for-rhys-morgan-15-over-miracle-cure-alert I was surprised because it's an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, a source one would assume is quite reliable. Come to find out that the article isn't related to Dr. Burzynski at all. How does this happen?!
I have sent an email to the Richard Dawkin's Institute regarding this false reference, hopefully they can have an effect on the future of this wiki-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambrazle ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
What is a supposedly neutral site like Wikipedia posting crap about Burynski? Buryzinski is a biochemist and renowned for his cancer treatment: his only sin is his unorthodoxy. Yet he is summarily dimissed as a quack bvy some nameless fraud, who links to what? a quack watch site! Burzynsmi is a qualified scientist, has a PhD in biochemistry, and has 200 publications, yet he's called 'pseudoscientific'! Really! This sort of arrogant decree pseudoscience and legally its libel.
'no properly designed scientific study '
The poster provides no links for this statement, and the word 'proper' suggests an inquisitorial attitude as to what is acceptable.
Does Wikipedia know that such libel on a public site is illegal?
Why is there no link to Burzynski's own site. And if there are no 'proper scientific studies' why is there no link to a 'proper' scientific site? Huh? [1]
Brian August 2o 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 ( talk • contribs)
The neutrality of this article is indeed questionable at best. The live footage of the testimony of nearly a dozen patients, in court, weighs heavily towards Burzynski's side. Not to mention his clinical trials were finally approved by the FDA and and on 2009 were ready for phase III. Yet the articles depicts Burzynski's research as shady and inconclusive. This borderlines in slander and is unacceptable. This article needs to be rewritten. sources: http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.182.136 ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is overly biased against Burzynski. It is as if Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge any benefits of his antineoplastons treatment. I'm disappointed in Wikipedia for this bias and I hope someone in Wikipedia will gain the clarity to see this bias and will know how to correct it. I think it lacks a balance of "facts" and it does not adequately address the undeniable benefits Burzynski has provided. His treatment would not continue to be contentious if there were no valid reasons. This article is not balanced and lacks important information. Additionally, The FDA has approved him for Phase III. However, the FDA is requiring that radiation be used in conjunction with his antineoplastons. Radiation is not a part of his antineoplaston treatment but the FDA is requiring it for ethical reasons because cancer kills people. Radiation kills people also. See the new problem with Phase II. Also, the FDA has in recent years approved a large number of cancer drugs for market without requiring them to be subjected to Phase 3 (randomized) clinical trials, although virtually none of them have shown a cure qualifying them for approval. Burzynski's Phase 2 trials of treating childhood brainstem glioma, Antineoplastons have an almost 30% cure rate which means Antineoplastons are the first and only cures in medical history. Why isn't this information included? Antineoplastons are gene-targeted cancer medications and are the way of future medical treatments. Wikipedia may regret not being balanced with article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.55.214 ( talk) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I've tried twice to document the lack of neutrality--in particular the Legal Issues that fail to mention five failed indictments as well as numerous legal restraints, and generally in the tone--on this article. The guy is not a saint something between and efforts to link to debates seem to make this missive inadmissible. The Live Help was extraordinarily hostile. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.85.236 ( talk) 04:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the most biased articles I have read. Sure include criticism of Burzynski but don;t make that the entire article. Why not include his supporters views as well? BenW ( talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
kashmiri 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This article requires some serious cleanup IMHO to keep it up to the standard of a well-drafted biographical article. Thus, it should ideally contain only biographical facts about the person along with indication why the person is deemed notable (including concise indication of the existence of controversies, but not any longish argument in favour or against):
Thanks, kashmiri 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This section only presents criticism of the film but does not talk about its actual content, nor if there were critics who pointed out the film's positive aspects along with its negative. By doing so, the article is not a neutral point-of-view with respect to information about the controversial cancer treatment and should be modified. It should at least account for some of the facts raised in the film against the facts presented by the FDA and other critics. It should account for so many of the clients who pleaded with the FDA to allow Burzynski to continue his treatment against the opinion of critics. The issue here is neutrality, and it's easy to read bias in an article, even if there is no expertise on the subject. If there is controversy against the doctor, there should at least for the sake of neutrality (even "criminals" get a person describing their version of events, don't they?) be a section describing the doctor's side of the story. It might be appropriate at that point to talk about the content of the film. That way all sides are presented and the reader can make up his/her own mind, rather than be indoctrinated. I think it's that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yikes! This is a hot topic. My whole suggestion is simply to account for the perspective of the doctor as well in the article. This can be done by stating facts about what Burzynski has said in return in his legal defenses, in the documentary about cancer, and perhaps by other sources. The writer need not take a side, but simply report the debate between Burzynski and the medical community. Right now, there is hardly anything in the article which shows Burzynski's reasoning for his medicine, the many who testified in favour of Burzynski to the FDA and in trials, etc. But there is *a lot* on what the FDA and others have said about his medicine, and let's be honest, critics are not hard to find. I don't know if the article is blocked, and if trying to modify the article will be "frustra." But I hope the editors do change it, simply for the sake of good internet scholarship! hehehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me this offer you quotes: "Oncologists have described Burzynski's studies as flawed". This sentence suggests some sort of consensus among oncologists while, as a matter of fact, it was only three oncologists that have expressed such an opinion in press.
"The consensus among the professional community...” I hope this is not a joke.
Do you have problems with patient reports?...I would not necessarily question the authenticity of patient reports.
Quoting Quackwatch's opinion in science-related matters is for me like citing the Flat Earth Society in geography
In the interest of Neutrality, I am requesting that the following additions be made re the reviews of this film since the reviews are about 33 words of negativity versus about 4 positive. I reviewed Steven Spielberg's Article and am basically just requesting the same Neutrality that has been afforded his films. This includes the filmaker's reply to the critics; specifically The Village Voice, so i have included the Voice again to include other statements in it. It is said that the Author had to revise her review after her initial publishing on-line.
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 09:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12
I suggest you add the following to the Variety review & cite the doctor. www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 03:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12
I have no idea why my comment for change to the article was posted above, so I made a "new topic" to make it clear.
Regarding my proposals for change to the article: To "Rhode Island Red": I have made very clear comments regarding the neutrality of the article, even if specific content for change itself has not been proposed. That's perfectly valid according to Wiki rules and criticism for encyclopedic entry. It is not impossible to know what I'm thinking regarding what should be added to the entry. I was very clear that Burzynski's own defense both in trial and according to other sources like the movie have not been addressed nor described explicitly. This is not presenting "every single point of view." There are basically two: those (including Burzynski and his lawyers) who are for his treatment/medicine and those who are not. Right now, the article does *not* adequately account for Burzynski's point of view, and it is crucial for a fair and neutral encyclopedic entry. Without it, the article basically does what it accuses makers of the documentary of doing: being one-sided. What you said yourself could be added to the encyclopedic entry in much greater detail: "Burzynski seems to be of the opinion [although I'm sure the arguments of his defense lawyers are not 'opinion' but reasoned argument] that APs are a cure for cancer and that he has been unfairly persecuted...." Then the article could go to explain the very content of the movie, what his lawyers argued, the testimony given to FDA officials by clients, etc. The writers need not choose a side, but simply present the reasoning of both parties involved. Simply because editors or you yourself do not like the documentary, that does not mean it is a poor source. There are many, many documentaries that make an argument simply for one side. So, these are my "concrete proposals," and I'm glad you're listening. Perhaps next time you could do so with less antagonism and with a greater spirit for proper scholarship--although I do understand that this is the internet, not an academic journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Editors:
I would like to propose some changes for the sake of greater neutrality for the entry. Right now under "law suits" it says:
"In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment.[28]"
It would be good for the sake of neutrality to state what Burzynski's lawyers argued in defense. This is typical in other cases where someone has been accused of a wrong but where a person maintains that he is innocent. So there is no harm in putting it here either.
"In 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.[29] An appeal against the advertising restrictions on the grounds of free speech was denied on the basis that this was commercial speech promoting an unlawful activity. In December 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.[29]"
This may be true, but it is also true that Burzynski responded to these complaints, and it is not described what he said. Just as it is a fact that there were complaints, it is also a fact that there was a response. Neutrality calls for presenting both sides crucial to the controversy.
"In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski for using false and misleading tactics to swindle her out of $100,000. She also sued his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court. She sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy.[30]"
Again, this is a fact. But it is also fact that he was or was not found guilty, and it is also a fact that Burzynski had a reasoned argument in response to this law-suit. For the sake of neutrality these two crucial facts to the very controversy must be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
1997 Harvard releases "The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine: A Historical Review and Current Analysis," citing Burzynski. [28] Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 13:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski's attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan's claims: "On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski's attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan's allegations on Houston's KPRC News." [29] [30] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 15:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas
Hi Editors:
I'd like to propose some changes to the article in this section.
It says: "Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General,[25][26] and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result."
It is also a fact that Burzinski replied to these charges. Neutrality demands that not just the FDAs point of view is shown but Burzinski's as well. His point of view is crucial to the controversy, so it is appropriate.
"In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Burzynski Research Institute, stating that an investigation had determined the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB) "did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects." It identified a number of specific findings, among them that the IRB had approved research without ensuring risk to patients was minimized, had failed to prepare required written procedures or retain required documentation, and had failed to conduct required continuing reviews for studies, among others. The Institute was given fifteen days to identify the steps it would take to prevent future violations.[27]"
Again, Burzynski replied to this as well. Neutrality calls for his point of view that is also at the heart of the controversy. Right now this reads like an FDA commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that link 29 be changed to [31] since the site it is linked to is obviously anti-Burzynski, so linking directly to the source document would seem to make more sense from a Neutral point of view. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 04:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/8/12
Hi Editors:
I would like to suggest some changes to this section.
This part of the article does mention what the therapy is, but it quickly states that it disregarded by the FDA. If you're going to write about how it is disregarded right away upon describing the therapy, you should also include those testimonies that show the medicine works for the sake of greater neutrality. This does not mean that you pick a side but that you simply present both sides in describing the therapy, just as you would present both sides when presenting evolutionary theory against creationist theory. Gathering from the movie (although some research via legal documents and testimonies at trial might show the same thing), there were many who have seen from their own experience that his therapy works. This is at the heart of the controversy, and the article does not account for these experiences.
Thanks! Happy writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 ( talk) 18:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, it' obvious that the writer(s) has/have a bias against the doctor. It is clear that neutrality would call for not all viewpoints, but the two in question,to be described. Simply because it has been discredited by the FDA or a court of law does not mean that Burzynski's own account is worthless and should not be narrated. Furthermore, your comments miss the fact that NOT ALL lawsuits against him were successful. In fact, the FDA dropped numerous charges against Burzynski, showing that Burzynski is not completely discredited de jure. As for the science, let's be realistic. The fact is that Burzynski is up against the scientific political status quo, so of course you will not have the legitimacy of that status quo to prove Burzynski is correct in his treatments. That's like asking Galeleo to prove his theories by the approval of the catholic Church. Additionally, Dr. Burzynski is a doctor in medicine, not just a physician, but a PhD. Surely this grants him some legitimacy de facto and de jure, which is not at all discussed in the article. In other words, he's not simply proposing witchcraft as a cure for cancer. This article removes his view-point, and in doing so it is clear the writers have no interest in providing a neutral perspective. That's fine, no one said Wikipedia had to be scholarly. But let's not pretend to provide an unbiased perspective when what we're doing is helping to endorse the agenda of the FDA. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Burzynski is going against the status quo, if the status quo is the FDA. There is a mechanism, but that mechanism is established by the FDA, NOT science alone. There are many things in science which are NOT proven by clinic trials, so that Burzynski did not prove his cure for cancer by clinic trials is not proof that his claims are not science. Why should the FDA dictate how things are done? Don't forget, it is a political entity, not purely a scientific one. As for Galileo, the FDA acts like the Catholic Church because it is the established power determining what is and is not science. However, like Galileo, Burzynski is doing science which is NOT accepted by the FDA in the same way that Galileo was doing science that was not accepted by the Catholic Church. You forget that the Catholic Church was itelf involved in science at that time. It was not separated as religion and science are now! So, I say, don't pretend to provide an unbiased article when it clearly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 00:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Kashmiri is right. The therapy has not been disproven. In fact, it's very difficult to disprove any therapy because the proof often would rest on inductive premises, and induction is impossible to prove. It doesn't matter, if the writers don't want to provide a well-written, neutral article on Burzynski that's there fault. To anyone reading it, the bias is very obvious. Lastly, if Burzynski is soooo discredited, why then is he still practicing without being sent to jail? Check the website, his clinic is still open and he still offers the therapy the FDA derides. Were his credentials in question, he would not be allowed to practice medicine at all. There's no winning with the writer(s) of this article. They are not interested in good scholarship. PS I understand sources are important, but you can find sources to prove just about anything, so continually making reference to some source against Burzynski isn't good enough for determining whether Burzynski is an outlaw or providing medicine that doesn't work. 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I hate to break the news, but I have pointed out very carefully what is biased and what is not. It is you who after anyone presents a well-reasoned argument with details simply says they are not part of Wikipedia standards. Kashmiri pointed out very specific details about clinical trials, and all you can simply say is that it is not the case. When I offer specific suggestions on what is biased, you simply say that that means representing all view-points, when in reality, it's absurd not to present the TWO view-points in question. I am not simply shouting that the article is biased, it clearly is for the REASONS already described in detail. The sources that I have pointed out, such as the documentary or the legal proceedings from Burzynski's defence are to you not good enough. What you want is an FDA approved source, and you are NOT going to find one because the FDA has a political interest in not approving the therapy. You yourself have made unsubstantiated claims about the therapy not being science, when all aforementioned reason points out that science need not be simply what the FDA says it is. But for every point raised by others, you don't actually address any of the points, you simply shout, "No, this is not Wikipedia Standards," or "No, it is not because I say it is not." You haven't answered the question I raised: If Burzynski is so discredited as you say he is, why then is he still practicing as a doctor and providing the therapy without being sent to jail or without any further legal proceedings from the FDA? He could not do this were he not a real doctor. I suggest you stop quoting Wikipedia standards when it is clear that you don't wish to abide by them but simply use the in an ad hoc fashion to suit your own views. The article IS biased for all the reasons I CAREFULLY articulated. If you don't want to change it, that's fine. But don't talk about scholarship and rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 19:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No, not every point was addressed. Why is he practicing if he is discredited? You have said nothing about this. How can something be disproved scientifically when a disproof rests upon inductive premises? You have said nothing on this. Why are the two view-points not discussed when clearly they are at issue. All you've said is that this means every view-point is discussed, and that's not true--only two crucial ones! Who says the film is not a credible source? All you have done is point to another source that says the film is not credible. But that just means there are two conflicting sources, not that yours is right (that's your bias showing again, and you don't even realize it!). No one can claim that a few case studies are superseded by secondary reliable sources. Your own claim to that is that no FDA EVIDENCE has been generated. That's a bias. My comments about why he is still practicing are COMPLETELY relevant because YOU claim that his credentials are in question. My comment shows exactly that this is absurd if he is still practicing. That's an obvious point, but you and your bias for the FDA do not allow you to see that. For you, anything that is a counter-argument is not according to Wiki rule or is off topic, or is simply wrong because you say that it is. Finally, it is YOU who are using Wiki rules in an ad hoc fashion whenever you hear something you don't like. In fact, NOTHING of what I said or suggested breaks WIKI rules. I hate to break the news, but court proceedings also included scientific evidence, and if your claim is that the doctor has been discredited and is not doing science, then the case argued for him in court which contains scientific evidence for his case counts as scientific evidence and a credible source. What you want is an FDA source. And without it, you think you are right in arguing that everything the doctor does and who he is as a professional is bogus. That's simply untrue. Look at the facts. Why is he practicing if he is a quack? If he is discredited, why is he still providing the treatment against FDA approval? Why do people claim that his therapy works? A GOOD article would account for those things, rather than just screaming that without the FDA, nothing the doctor does is legitimate. I suggest you have a look at the evidence and the facts of this commentary as well as the Wiki rules so you can make an argument that holds water, rather than just reiterates your bias in an arrogant way. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You see? You can never respond appropriately. Everything is about everyone breaking the rules, but if you have something to say, you NEVER break the rules. It's obvious you try to use the rules in an ad hoc fashion when you hear something you don't like, or when you can't respond. NO ONE is breaking the rules, we're talking about the article, you just can't make a proper case for rejecting what people say. I made actual editorial suggestions, but you can't respond to any of them because all your views resort to is slander of the doctor and misinterpretation of the rules. You lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 ( talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 15:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47] AS2-1
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52] & AS2-5
[53]) were submitted for Phase I clinical studies in advanced cancer patients.
[54]
Didymus Judas Thomas (
talk) 11:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/12/12Please add re cancer . gov, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Antineoplastons: Human/Clinical Trials, Studies of Specific Malignancies Treated with Antineoplastons, Brain tumors, A phase II study; which references 19 sources: [62] in order to dispute this claim that no phase II clinical trials have been published & because this is important as Antineoplastons are the only medicine to have shown these results in Phase II clinical trials: "Antineoplastons are the only medicines in the history of medicine to cure a brainstem glioma." [63] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 07:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/26/2012
Reference 11 is cited to support the sentence "In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[11]" The reference is an article on the National Cancer Institute, which refers the reader to a "Human/Clinical Studies" section for more information (on the inability to reproduce?). However, the Human Clinical Studies section has no mention of the failure of any indenpent researchers to reproduce the findings. i.e. There is no meat in this reference. We either need to find a better reference for this (an example study that couldn't reproduce the findings) or remove the reference [11] and the related article sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.75.10 ( talk) 03:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Something needs to be added about Burzynski's claim to a Ph.D. That has been widely disputed, but he still uses Ph.D. in his movie and in his clinic. See http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/587-audio-archive.html#episode_25 and the previous skeptics reports that are already linked to in the article. Burzyski claims to have received a Ph.D. in the same year that he actually received his D.Msc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.34.149 ( talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
A few editors keep insisting that this article belongs to Category:pseudoscience. I revert these changes since we should not blur the distinction between a rightful scientific theory and (unethical) business practices.
To all those who are not much familiar with medicine. Certain medical disorders have more than one theory that try to explain its mechanism, each theory valid on its own. For example, spinal muscular atrophy has been proposed to be a disorder of neurons, neuromuscular junctions, or a result of system-wide oxidative stress. These different theories give rise to differing therapeutic approaches, and respective experimental therapies are developed an trialled in patients. Even if ultimately only one approach proves correct, no one will label the other ones as "pseudo-science".
The entire "antineoplaston theory" is one of such theories proposed in support of an experimental treatment. The problem is not with the theory itself. The problem is with unethical marketing; with U.S. patent laws that block others from using the patented compounds; and with the resulting lack of independent studies confirming or denying efficacy. We shouldn't fool ourselves: one independent study means next to nothing – a theory needs dozens of independent studies to be proven or disproved: earlier (above on this page) I mentioned the history of valproic acid proposed as treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, thank you to read it.
Until now, Burzynski has successfully blocked independent studies. But this does not render "antineoplastons" a pseudo-science like astrology! kashmiri 12:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A film released in 2010 called, "Burzynski" provides an in-depth history of events surrounding this very controversial subject of a private physician dedicated to curing cancer fighting the cancer establishment.
Liquidtruth ( talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Ssww
{{edit semi-protected|answered=no)}
Just a handful of examples of total untruth, not even scratching the surface of this Wiki page:
"There is no conclusive evidence to support the antineoplaston theory. Trials initiated in 1993 and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute were closed due to inability to recruit qualifying patients, and a Mayo Clinicstudy found no benefit.[1]"
"no conclusive evidence" has no source. It is also Not true. FDA wouldn't have given permission for Phase 3 trials if this were true. The Mayo clinic trials were stopped early. Therefore it is impossible to say whether or not they could find benefit. These Mayo clinic trials are totally scientifically invalid as they were never ever completed. Italic text
"While the clinic does offer conventional chemotherapy and (via an associate center) radiotherapy,"
No source. Invalid statement. Italic text
"The clinic has been the focus of much criticism due to the way the unproven antineoplaston therapy is promoted, the costs of participating in trials, the claims made for the efficacy, nature and supposed lack of side effects of the treatment, significant problems with the way the trials are run and legal cases brought as a result of the sale of the therapy without board approval, and for other causes."
Zero sources, and contains opinion only.Italic text
"Some sixty phase 2 clinical trials have been registered by Burzynski since the mid 1990s, and one phase 3 trial, but none has been published. Scientific consensus is that antineoplastons are unproven and of little promise."
Not true, many articles have been published. They conveniently pretend nothing has been published. Italic text
"As Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center says, "Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans."[1]
Not true, read the original source, they do not say "bottom line" anywhere - the editor just made this up. Italic text
"..with alleged anti-cancer activity."
Not alleged, as the FDA wouldn't grant Phase 3 trials on an allegation. Italic text
but is not approved for general use due to lack of clinical evidence.
Not true, it is not approved for general use due to lack of completion of Phase 3 trials. Italic text
Although Burzynski and his associates claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various diseases, there is no evidence of clinical efficacy of these methods.
Not true, Burzynsi isn't claiming success. The FDA has proven success by granting Phase 3 clinical trials. (they love to pretend that Dr B is claiming these things, by ignoring the peer-reviewed data and the FDA sanctioned clinical trials & phase 3 permission. Italic text
Oncologists have described Burzynski's studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[11]
May be. But they ignore all the oncologists who praise Antineoplastons. Namely Dr. Nicholas Patronas for the National Cancer Institute. Italic text
In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[12]
Not true, Proper testing independently has been done in Japan, for nearly 10 years Italic text
There is no convincing evidence from any randomized controlled trial that antineoplastons are useful for the treatment of cancer.
Not true. THey like to play with words here. First, there has not been any randomized trial in the USA—therefore how can there be convincing evidence from one? But there has been a randomized trial in Japan - with double the survival rate using ANP. Italic text
Independent researchers have failed to reproduce the benefits reported by Burzynski.
Again Japan has been done, independently. Italic text
This above, is just getting started on the issues of this page. Italic text 76.94.58.224 ( talk) 23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done Please don't use the edit request template unless asking for an actual edit; if you could break down the above into concrete bite-sized proposals, that would allow editors here to consider them properly. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if there's anything to integrate but here is a new secondary source commenting on a critique of the Burzynski clinic/treatment/etc. Sædon talk 09:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
Didymus Judas Thomas ( talk) 14:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/7/12
Apparently there is a group of Burzynski supporters that are crowd-sourcing others to come edit this page. Some reference that we have been using quotes out of context and other claims. Here is one "the issue is, they block any new or old users from editing it, and Wiki has no way to police it. It's a brick wall. The article also breaks all sort of Wiki rules, such as posting quotes out of context, etc. especially in the "review' section of this film. They even used a quote from the Houston Press "reviewing" my film, when the linked article/source for this review clearly states that I refused an advance copy of the film to the writer—meaning the "reviewer" never actually viewed the film at all. The list is endless." If we are in error then we to clean up these problems.
Here is another post from someone ready to bring it on. "Merrill Aldighieri I don't have accurate stuff to fill in. If you want to send me some preferred text, I will paste it in whenever i have a free minute to spare. I am not a pro at coding though, i can only cut and paste raw text. Don't know how to make bold headers or add footnotes, etc."
Just want to bring this to the attention of everyone. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151240453868442&id=318281183441 Sgerbic ( talk) 03:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)