This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Burzynski Clinic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Burzynski Clinic. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Burzynski Clinic at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Burzynski Clinic was copied or moved into Stanislaw Burzynski with this edit on 12:03, 29 August 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
A 2015 study from Ogata et al. titled "Randomized Phase II Study of 5-Fluorouracil Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as an Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer" ( https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120064) records that in an open label, non-blinded but randomized phase II study cancer specific survival rate (CSS) was significantly higher in the antineoplaston arm vs. the control (i.e. non-antineoplaston) arm. This study had 65 patients enrolled, with 33 of those in the control group not receiving antineoplaston therapy, and 32 receiving the treatment. Median survival in the antineoplaston group, was, in fact, 67 months vs. 39 months, with a CSS of 60% and 32%, respectively. Furthermore, there were no incidental serious toxicities or apparent liver or kidney damage. Now, I demand an answer on moral grounds: Why is this study not mentioned in this article? I hold a biochemistry degree and a master's degree in medical science and would like to know why this isn't mentioned in the article.
Additionally, Ushijima et al. in the journal Oncology Reports published an article called "Demethylation effect of the antineoplaston AS2-1 on genes in colon cancer cells" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868501/) which clearly reports epigenetic changes in colon cancer cells, changes which are very likely to suppress cancer development and progression using the body's natural tumor suppression system. This work from these researchers is highly suggestive, just as Dr. Burzynski has stated in on-the-record interviews, that epigenetic modulations in response to the presence of antineoplastons are, in whole or in part, how they fight cancer.
While this is not absolute proof of antineoplaston therapy's efficacy, it is extremely favorable evidence and analysis, and I would just like to know how anybody could look at these studies and act as if the whole antineoplaston therapy question should just be dismissed as quackery.
Wikipedia - in fact, anybody - I ask you: why is none of this mentioned in the article on the topic? In fact, why are the staff at Wikipedia not seriously disturbed at the lack of research into this topic? How could anybody look at these studies and not demand further investigation? 2600:1700:407B:2810:153:D9CA:A5FC:2ECC ( talk) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Check these recent edits of mine. Burzynski has published a lot more results than the article lets on. Bon courage insisted on stonewalling when I tried to work with them to correct the false/outdated claim in the article that "that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results". (Though just before finishing this comment, I saw some further edits have been made - hope they are a pleasant surprise.) RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)many dozens which he suspiciously hasn't published the results of
— User:2600:1700:407B:2810:D80F:D35D:F99E:FBCA 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a deceptive summary. You misrepresented the primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant when it was. You don't want to walk it back, fine. But I'm getting a lot of pushback when I'm removing demonstrably false, defamatory information violating BLP that I stumbled upon. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)If you insist on including the paper, I'm ok with summarising it along the lines: In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer.
— User:Kashmiri 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
so why do you say 3.7%? "3.7" doesn't even appear in the paper! FR! BTW, the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sources. If I was keen to make neoplastons look better, I could cut most of the negative info out of the article based on MEDRS. How 'bout we compromise, leave all that in, and take out the false info I'm objecting to? RudolfoMD ( talk) 08:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Nevertheless, the CSS[cancer-specific survival] rate was significantly higher in the AN arm versus the control arm (n=33) with a median survival time 67 months (95%CI 43-not calculated) versus 39 months (95%CI 28-47) (p=0.037) and 5 year CSS rate 60% versus 32% respectively.
Diffs showing cherry-picked results being crammed into the article?Aren't you trying to put what you call "Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan" into the article? It is one primary study out of many, so it is cherry-picking. Even if we regard only this study, you are cherry-picking the one significant result out of four.
Back off with the personal attack, eh?A "personal attack" is something that refers to the person instead of what the person is saying or doing. I referred to what you were saying or doing. That is not a personal attack.
Does MEDRS say anything about the Multiple comparisons problemMEDRS does not explicitly mention it, but considering it is part of good practice. If you avoid primary studies like this one, that is a good start avoiding the multiple comparisons problem.
Cancer Specific Survival was the SOLE, PRE-selected, primary endpointWas the "PRE-selected, primary endpoint" published before the result was? I cannot find it.
why do you say 3.7%?3.7% = 0.037.
the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sourcesWP:PARITY say,
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you please stop trying to cram cherry-picked results into the article?when I had done nothing of the sort = false and disparaging but OK, a "not personal" attack, so you're sort of right. RudolfoMD ( talk) 13:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
You can't even find a diff showing [...] Or that I tried to put the article you are trying to refer to into the article. So...- diff. MrOllie ( talk) 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. It's my understanding that BLP requires removing the false claim that "other investigators have not been successful in duplicating" any of his results. We all know: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. This is obviously poorly sourced as it is contradicted by w:V .gov sources. I've pulled it. If anyone want's to revert, I urge a visit to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as a next, pre-revert step. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
A footnote in a journal article on the Phase III trial that the wipedia article uses as a source:
[1]
is
§ See M. R. Hammer, Burzynski antineoplaston case study: conflict issues and recommendations. Office of Alternative Medicine report, National Institutes of Health, 1996; M. Hammer, The management of dispute and judgment process in controversial complementary and alternative medicine research. Office of Alternative Medicine Report, National Institutes of Health, 1996.
Has anyone found a copy of it anywhere online? I can't with google.
The article is by Hammer and he is citing his own work ... which I can't find. Curious. Also, he doesn't put it in the References section endnote like all his other sources, but rather in a footnote. Also curious. The resulting procedures - methods of social management of research in controversial areas to allow them to proceed anyway that the reference documents haven't been employed in a subsequent second attempt. Curious as well. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
References
“ | If I say 1996+2=2004, then 1996+2=2004. | ” |
- O'Brien RudolfoMD ( talk) 07:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3527634/ should really not be used for anything like a factual claim, as it's ABOUTSELF material - Burzynski's own self-serving statement, with no objective review, and including contentious and likely tendentious claims like "The treatment was free from significant side-effects and resulted in objective response in a number of advanced cancer cases". After half a century, there should be an independent source for this, and almost certainly would be, if it were objectively true. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The wording is a bit close, but it is a paraphrase. Rather than deleting it, suggest a reword. MrOllie ( talk) 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Beware Talk page vandalism removing active discussion. RudolfoMD ( talk) 06:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
{{ BLP noticeboard}} RudolfoMD ( talk) 09:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is slanderous. Reliable source : Burzynski documentary. Cancer cure cover up. It’s big business. He’s not a quack. Big $ has all the power to run smeer campaigns on anyone they like. The fda & Texas medical board were so despicable & unashamedly bold in taking him down because of his non invasive EFFECTIVE treatment of cancer. There are so many testimonials court appearances protests & news reports in this 2 part documentary it’s mind blowing. Deedssky ( talk) 05:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)<Eric Merola>
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Burzynski Clinic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Burzynski Clinic. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Burzynski Clinic at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Burzynski Clinic was copied or moved into Stanislaw Burzynski with this edit on 12:03, 29 August 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
A 2015 study from Ogata et al. titled "Randomized Phase II Study of 5-Fluorouracil Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as an Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer" ( https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120064) records that in an open label, non-blinded but randomized phase II study cancer specific survival rate (CSS) was significantly higher in the antineoplaston arm vs. the control (i.e. non-antineoplaston) arm. This study had 65 patients enrolled, with 33 of those in the control group not receiving antineoplaston therapy, and 32 receiving the treatment. Median survival in the antineoplaston group, was, in fact, 67 months vs. 39 months, with a CSS of 60% and 32%, respectively. Furthermore, there were no incidental serious toxicities or apparent liver or kidney damage. Now, I demand an answer on moral grounds: Why is this study not mentioned in this article? I hold a biochemistry degree and a master's degree in medical science and would like to know why this isn't mentioned in the article.
Additionally, Ushijima et al. in the journal Oncology Reports published an article called "Demethylation effect of the antineoplaston AS2-1 on genes in colon cancer cells" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868501/) which clearly reports epigenetic changes in colon cancer cells, changes which are very likely to suppress cancer development and progression using the body's natural tumor suppression system. This work from these researchers is highly suggestive, just as Dr. Burzynski has stated in on-the-record interviews, that epigenetic modulations in response to the presence of antineoplastons are, in whole or in part, how they fight cancer.
While this is not absolute proof of antineoplaston therapy's efficacy, it is extremely favorable evidence and analysis, and I would just like to know how anybody could look at these studies and act as if the whole antineoplaston therapy question should just be dismissed as quackery.
Wikipedia - in fact, anybody - I ask you: why is none of this mentioned in the article on the topic? In fact, why are the staff at Wikipedia not seriously disturbed at the lack of research into this topic? How could anybody look at these studies and not demand further investigation? 2600:1700:407B:2810:153:D9CA:A5FC:2ECC ( talk) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Check these recent edits of mine. Burzynski has published a lot more results than the article lets on. Bon courage insisted on stonewalling when I tried to work with them to correct the false/outdated claim in the article that "that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results". (Though just before finishing this comment, I saw some further edits have been made - hope they are a pleasant surprise.) RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)many dozens which he suspiciously hasn't published the results of
— User:2600:1700:407B:2810:D80F:D35D:F99E:FBCA 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a deceptive summary. You misrepresented the primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant when it was. You don't want to walk it back, fine. But I'm getting a lot of pushback when I'm removing demonstrably false, defamatory information violating BLP that I stumbled upon. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)If you insist on including the paper, I'm ok with summarising it along the lines: In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer.
— User:Kashmiri 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
so why do you say 3.7%? "3.7" doesn't even appear in the paper! FR! BTW, the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sources. If I was keen to make neoplastons look better, I could cut most of the negative info out of the article based on MEDRS. How 'bout we compromise, leave all that in, and take out the false info I'm objecting to? RudolfoMD ( talk) 08:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Nevertheless, the CSS[cancer-specific survival] rate was significantly higher in the AN arm versus the control arm (n=33) with a median survival time 67 months (95%CI 43-not calculated) versus 39 months (95%CI 28-47) (p=0.037) and 5 year CSS rate 60% versus 32% respectively.
Diffs showing cherry-picked results being crammed into the article?Aren't you trying to put what you call "Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan" into the article? It is one primary study out of many, so it is cherry-picking. Even if we regard only this study, you are cherry-picking the one significant result out of four.
Back off with the personal attack, eh?A "personal attack" is something that refers to the person instead of what the person is saying or doing. I referred to what you were saying or doing. That is not a personal attack.
Does MEDRS say anything about the Multiple comparisons problemMEDRS does not explicitly mention it, but considering it is part of good practice. If you avoid primary studies like this one, that is a good start avoiding the multiple comparisons problem.
Cancer Specific Survival was the SOLE, PRE-selected, primary endpointWas the "PRE-selected, primary endpoint" published before the result was? I cannot find it.
why do you say 3.7%?3.7% = 0.037.
the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sourcesWP:PARITY say,
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you please stop trying to cram cherry-picked results into the article?when I had done nothing of the sort = false and disparaging but OK, a "not personal" attack, so you're sort of right. RudolfoMD ( talk) 13:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
You can't even find a diff showing [...] Or that I tried to put the article you are trying to refer to into the article. So...- diff. MrOllie ( talk) 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. It's my understanding that BLP requires removing the false claim that "other investigators have not been successful in duplicating" any of his results. We all know: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. This is obviously poorly sourced as it is contradicted by w:V .gov sources. I've pulled it. If anyone want's to revert, I urge a visit to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as a next, pre-revert step. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
A footnote in a journal article on the Phase III trial that the wipedia article uses as a source:
[1]
is
§ See M. R. Hammer, Burzynski antineoplaston case study: conflict issues and recommendations. Office of Alternative Medicine report, National Institutes of Health, 1996; M. Hammer, The management of dispute and judgment process in controversial complementary and alternative medicine research. Office of Alternative Medicine Report, National Institutes of Health, 1996.
Has anyone found a copy of it anywhere online? I can't with google.
The article is by Hammer and he is citing his own work ... which I can't find. Curious. Also, he doesn't put it in the References section endnote like all his other sources, but rather in a footnote. Also curious. The resulting procedures - methods of social management of research in controversial areas to allow them to proceed anyway that the reference documents haven't been employed in a subsequent second attempt. Curious as well. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
References
“ | If I say 1996+2=2004, then 1996+2=2004. | ” |
- O'Brien RudolfoMD ( talk) 07:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3527634/ should really not be used for anything like a factual claim, as it's ABOUTSELF material - Burzynski's own self-serving statement, with no objective review, and including contentious and likely tendentious claims like "The treatment was free from significant side-effects and resulted in objective response in a number of advanced cancer cases". After half a century, there should be an independent source for this, and almost certainly would be, if it were objectively true. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The wording is a bit close, but it is a paraphrase. Rather than deleting it, suggest a reword. MrOllie ( talk) 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Beware Talk page vandalism removing active discussion. RudolfoMD ( talk) 06:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
{{ BLP noticeboard}} RudolfoMD ( talk) 09:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is slanderous. Reliable source : Burzynski documentary. Cancer cure cover up. It’s big business. He’s not a quack. Big $ has all the power to run smeer campaigns on anyone they like. The fda & Texas medical board were so despicable & unashamedly bold in taking him down because of his non invasive EFFECTIVE treatment of cancer. There are so many testimonials court appearances protests & news reports in this 2 part documentary it’s mind blowing. Deedssky ( talk) 05:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)<Eric Merola>