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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Is antineoplaston therapy a type of chemotherapy? If so, what makes it so different from the other types of chemotherapy? My informed judgment is that it is NOT, and this article is misinforming the readers.
I see a big contradiction in this Burzynski article: In this article, the antineoplaston therapy is mentioned as a "chemotherapy" - which seems to contradict the main claims of antineoplaston therapy as a different approach which avoids the use of chemotherapy. Please get your act together, or the house of cards that is this Wikipedia article will crumble. I guess that prohibiting the Burzynski Clinic's website from mentioning antineoplaston therapy altogether is part of the orchestrated misinformation plan. I'm glad I got informed about this therapy before the authorities forced the Burzynski Clinic to stop informing the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniblum ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Am adding a clinical trials section to the article. I've been reading quite a bit about this topic and think the page is ready for this section. As I know this is a controversial page, I'm totally open to changes that continue to improve this page. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Prior to 1997, patients on antineoplastons had simply been treated by the clinic without external monitoring. Following an agreement with FDA that limited Burzynski to administering antineoplastons only to patients in clinical trials, Burzynski designed a large clinical trial that incorporated all of his current patients into a large single trial, as described by his lawyer, Richard Jaffe:
[W]e decided to hit the FDA with everything at the same time. All of his current patients would be covered in a single clinical trial which Burzynski called “CAN-1.” As far as clinical trials go, it was a joke. Clinical trials are supposed to be designed to test the safety or efficacy of a drug for a disease. It is almost always the case that clinical trials treat one disease.
The CAN-1 protocol had almost two hundred patients in it and there were at least a dozen different types of cancers being treated. And since all the patients were already on treatment, there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial. It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment. The FDA wanted all of Burzynski’s patients to be on an IND, so that’s what we did.
Jaffe further reports that in order to “make sure Burzynski could treat new patients,”
[...] Burzynski personally put together seventy-two protocols to treat every type of cancer the clinic had treated and everything Burzynski wanted to treat in the future. [...] We heard that the FDA had to put together a fifty-person task force to review all of the protocols Burzynski submitted. [1]
Of these trials, only one has been completed, and that one has not been published. [2]
03:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
An interesting article mentioning Jaffe: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-the-early-years-part-1/#more-27638 -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I edited the first paragraph about the Burzynski clinic because it was not sourced at all. It stated, "The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." None of the information was sourced, but yet when I changed it to sourced information, twice, it was changed back to unsourced information above. I was told on my talk page that Forbes and the American Cancer Society are unreliable sources. Here is what my change to the first paragraph was: The Burzynski Clinic is a cancer treatment clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1977 by Stanislaw Burzynski (Forbes) The clinic offers “personalized cancer therapy”(Burzynski clinic) but it is best known for its investigational "antineoplaston therapy" which is described by the American Cancer Society as a "complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease."[(American Cancer Society webpage) Docia49 ( talk) 05:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I just edited the first paragraph of the Burzynski clinic, but less than 10 minutes after, it was deleted. I just added the information back in because the material I added was sourced from the American Cancer Society and Forbes, which I believe are reliable sources. Please feel free to comment with your opinions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docia49 ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and help. The Burzynski Clinic already has a source listed in the reference section, so I am not sure why it can be sourced in one place and not another. I put the information from the Burzynski Clinic in quotation marks so the reader would understand what the Burzynski Clinic is saying that they do. I would like to know why the section from the American Cancer society was deleted also, as I believe that is a totally reliable source. Thanks Again Docia49 ( talk) 05:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The proposed edit was giving a definition of an antineoplaston. A medical definition by the American Cancer Society would give credibility to the article, and giving a definition would be neutral. I don't believe a definition would lead anyone to believe that the American Cancer Society is endorsing Burzynski's treatment. 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think the readers would be confused by what the ACS says when they continue reading the article. There has to be some kind of neutrality here. Docia49 ( talk) 06:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The article lede should have inline citations - WP:LEADCITE and it should be neutral - WP:NPOV so I propose we change the first paragraph to a neutral one. There is plenty of information in the following sections to show the clinic as being controversial. Docia49 ( talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
We can question whether any information is current, but I hardly think that the definition of an "antineoplaston" would change and if for some reason it did, I am sure the ACS would update their information. The definition of an 'antineoplaston' is a neutral statement so I still believe it should be included in the article. Docia49 ( talk) 06:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
okay, this is what I changed the lead paragraph to: he Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 that offers cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its investigational "antineoplaston therapy" which is a "complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease."[1] Docia49 ( talk) 06:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that my change has been removed again. I changed the first paragraph and removed the source from Forbes that you didn't like, but the paragraph has been changed again. Your paragraph gives the definition of an "antineoplaston" as "a controversial chemotherapy," but according to the American Cancer Society, an antineoplaston is:"a complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease" http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy Please stop changing it back, or please source that an antineoplaston is a "controversial chemotherapy" Docia49 ( talk) 06:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want the stance of the lede to be neutral, then you cannot put the "stance of the mainstream" in it, because that is not neutral. You cannot source the "stance of the mainstream." Docia49 ( talk) 06:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, officially everything that I have now added to the Burzynski Clinic article has been removed. I noticed that my last standing addition, which was to add that Burzynski is a member of the Texas Medical Association, complete with source from the Texas Medical Association has been removed ( http://www.texmed.org/Search/Detail.aspx?UserId=0) Does anyone have an explanation for this one? thank you Docia49 ( talk) 06:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to inform all of you that I have posted to the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Docia49 ( talk) 07:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
At a glance, perhaps some of the information in the article doesn't seemed biased, but I was hoping to add a little to this article to show both sides of the story here. Adding factual information about Burzynski, such as that he is a member of the Texas Medical Association and American Medical Association helps to balance things out. I noticed that the article states, " that Burzynski received the "James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award, which is bestowed each April Fool's Day on frauds." Although this man has been called a quack, he is also a medical doctor with some credentials, which I feel the readers have a right to know. 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The little amount of information that I added to this article was my attempt at creating some balance(WP:BALANCE). It looks as though Wikipedia would like both sides of this issue to be shown since there is conflicting information from the reputable sources. However, when trying to edit the article, I changed very little. I was trying to give the first paragraph a neutral point of view (WP:MOSBEGIN)and add some factual information about Burzynski with sources. 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually there is conflicting information. For example, the American Cancer Society is referenced at the bottom of the page as reference number 26. But yet when I tried to reference it, I was told that it was biased. Actually as I said before, the item I was sourcing was just the definition of what an Antineoplaston is. In the lead paragraph it states that antineoplaston therapy is "a controversial chemotherapy" I cannot find anything that gives the definition of an antineoplaston as such, hence the reason I changed the definition in the lead paragraph and sourced it. Since you won't let me make a change to this, Would you please add a source to that because I am unable to find it anywhere(WP:CHALLENGE). 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 16:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so why can't we change the definition of the antineoplaston in the lead paragraph or add a source that an antineoplaston is a "controversial chemotherapy?" Also, I am sure the reader will get the point that it is an unproven treatment since the first three paragraphs mention that it is an unproven treatment. Also, would you please source the founding date of the clinic. I cannot find the source for 1976. I am only finding 1977. thanks Docia49 ( talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Also, you have made my point again. You just quoted from the American Cancer Society to illustrate that antineoplastons are controversial, but you won't use the same source to give the definition of an antineoplaston in the first paragraph. Docia49 ( talk) 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, but my problem with the first paragraph is that I cannot find a source that states that antineoplastons are a form of chemotherapy. If you are going to leave it as such, please source it, or change it. Also, please change the word, devised, as antineoplastons are not devised by anyone because they are "naturally-occurring peptides in the human body" http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy. Thanks Docia49 ( talk) 18:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand why we can't use the American Cancer Society's definition of an antineoplaston. It is a reliable source. I actually believe it is more reliable than the piece you just sourced. He states, "At the risk of annoying some colleagues I know, I’m going to point out that I never really liked the term “personalized cancer therapy” or its many variants, for the simple reason that it always struck me as more of a marketing term than a scientifically meaningful description" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/. He is saying that it is called gene targeted medicine, but that he doesn't like the term. It doesn't matter if he likes the term or not, the term is the established term. The American Cancer Society is a neutral source. I am just asking to have some type of neutrality with sources in the beginning section. The items I proposed are neutral, with sources. So I am proposing again, Why can't we change the Burzynski Clinic's opening to 1977, when it has been established with sources? And, why can't we use the American Cancer Society's definition of an antineoplaston, when the American Cancer Society has already been sourced elsewhere in the article? I am not arguing the fact that this is a controversial subject. Is there a problem with changing this? 174.52.157.182 ( talk) 19:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Where it says his therapy is "unproven". That is a lie. He has thousands of patients that he treated with FDA approval and he cured most of them. It was when the FDA took over the studies and altered his regimen that they where not working. But then again if you read this site "articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/01/fda-budget-increase.aspx unreliable fringe source?" you will see why the FDA is not working for the Public but for the hand that feeds them. Big Pharma!!! I knew that from years ago when they did a bogus study on Stevia Extract. They extracted the Stevia themselves in their study and did not say what chemicals they used to do so then turned around and claimed Stevia Extract can cause cancer. This whole article is probably written by someone from the FDA or the Big Pharma Industry. It usually is when it lies like this. Sad but even these forums are packed with their propaganda as this one is. He had initially FDA approval to test on humans and he did so and proved his cures work but like all cures they get squashed by the powers that be and in this case the FDA themselves who are suppose to protect the public according to their mission statement. We all know that is not happening. They are barely even funded by the federal government. They get all their funding by the industries they are suppose to be policing. It will not be much longer and the people will fight back. That day is almost here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNo1 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
I just finished reading the Wikipedia exposé on Dr. Burzynski's ANP treatment.
I have several questions:
Your article cites the Cancer Is Serious Business movie as “one sided and biased”...I failed to see any argument in favor of ANP and/or any of Dr. Burzynski's successes....has he had any? How has he been able to withstand years of being indicted by the FDA and still be in business? Why am I in touch with several people who have had success with ANP, and why are there patients who participated in Phase III Clinical Trials prior to 2012 still allowed (by the FDA) to have ANP therapy? Most importantly, if these patients (Bay Area's Noah Stout for one) are still alive because they were allowed access to ANP therapy, why isn't that reported?
I've read countless articles in newspapers, books and online lauding ANP as a promising treatment for cancer.
Here's an excerpt from Dr. Ralph Moss' book, "The Cancer Industry" :
There was at least one scientist at the NCI who had found that Burzynski’s antineoplastons worked. On May 24, 1993, the NCI’s Chief of Neuroradiology, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, testified at a hearing that was contemplating suspending Burzynski’s license that “antineoplastons are the most effective treatment for brain tumors I have ever seen.”(p363) Patronas was severely reprimanded for supporting Burzynski and later withdrew a paper he was going to give about antineoplastons at a conference in Sweden.
I'm not interested in politics or conspiracy theories....just appreciate a "level playing field!"
Thank you,
David Lauser Dlauser ( talk) 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure the "Other Burzynski Patient Group" blog can not be cited here. But what about the FDA findings? http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM373967.pdf Sgerbic ( talk) 01:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
And http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/ucm373966.htm ( 76.19.65.193 ( talk) 05:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC))
So I suppose you have all seen this? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
I have a bit of time tonight and will take a stab at adding it to the page. If someone else wants to raise their hand I'll gladly pass it over to that person. As usual please make whatever changes to what I'm attempting to do. But please post here first so we don't override each others edits, I'm not fast at this. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan. "Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients."
The quote from the abstract: "Antineoplaston A-10 and AS2-1 are less toxic than conventional chemotherapeutics and they were useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients."
[5] 173.228.34.207 ( talk) 03:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
To date, no randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. Reports originating from Japan on the effect of antineoplaston treatment on brain and other types of tumors have been mixed, and in some Japanese studies the specific antineoplastons used are not named. In many of the reported studies, several or all patients received concurrent or recent radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or both, confounding interpretability.
— National Cancer Institute, NIH
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are some grammar/spelling issues that jumped out at me in the USA Today section. That is all.
MrStapler ( talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
At note 42 in the text, I think it needs to be indented or in quotes or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.250.146 ( talk) 05:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Burzynski charged by Texas State Medical Board with advertising that is false, misleading and violates Federal law.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1003370-tmb-case-against-burzynski-2014.html
Just for info, awaiting developments. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 13:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear why you only allow secondary sources, that isn't typically what real scientists use when citing material. Also, the NIH materials have legitimately been called into question due their studies having been conducted by individuals who were applying for patents of his medicine while intentionally conducting failed experiments with it. Very confusing. But obvious that the writers of this article aren't interested in doing any actual research on this topic, while probably considering themselves (incorrectly) to be skeptics. True skeptics dig until they find the truth, no matter what side of the fence they have to dig around on. Burzynski's methods are now being taught in basic undergrad cancer biology classes, because they have made it into textbooks. Try quoting that sort of source, peer reviewed by an army of researchers, not studies by someone trying to steal a patent to keep it's funding Pharma companies from kicking them out of a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.164.26 ( talk) 10:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Following the FDA smackdown, the closure of the trials, and with the commencement of another action by the Texas medical Board, the clinic is in damage limitation mode. As last time, they have hired Capitol Hill lobbyists and are pressing for some " legislative alchemy".
They've also set up an astroturfing site, anpcoalition.org (domain registered by the wife of Richard Edgar Schiff, a Director of the company, WHOIS privacy now applied). On this site they specifically target the Wikipedia article:
So this is a message to two audiences.
To those encouraged here by the "ANP coalition" website:
Welcome, you will need to register an account in order to edit the article because anonymous editing has been disabled due to long-term vandalism. Please discuss any proposed edits here - as the archive show, we have probably seen them before. Please note that you will get nowhere at all trying to argue form primary sources that the article is wrong. In order to change the tone of the article's coverage of ANPs and the clinic, you first have to get reliable independent sources to back your proposed content. Sites sucj as the Alliance for Natural Health are not reliable (see our guide to reliable sources for article son medical subjects).
Rather than wading straight in trying to Right Great Wrongs, I recommend you look instead at articles in areas away from alternative cancer treatments. Otherwise I am afraid you are in for a frustrating experience at Wikipedia.
And please don't bother emailing as per the request. It will be a complete waste of your time and will only annoy the email response team. I am on the email response team and have already alerted them to the call to action; it is framed in terms which are, I'm afraid, a mix of misunderstanding and outright nonsense. We understand why the clinic promotes this message, but it's simply not accurate.
To long-time Wikipedians
Please be prepared to help new editors, but also be on the lookout for sockpuppets. The clinic has used Twitter sockpuppets before now, as have its supporters, one of whom has dozens of abuse-terminated Twitter accounts to his name.
The claims in the quoted section are tropes straight from Eric Merola, art director on Zeitgeist: The Movie and director of the two equally fantastical Burzynski movies. Merola seems to think that there is some sinister group called "the skeptics" who were founded in order to undermine the clinic's pioneering work, and are in the pay of "the man". Merola is, by all accounts, a Truther. Enough said.
The tone of the article predates the formation of "Guerrila Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSoW), and is founded, as you can see from the archives, on the consensus view of reliable independent sources such as the FDA, ACS, NCI and others. I'm not aware of any conflicted or paid edits, "fake sources" or cherry-picking, other than from the clinic and its supporters. I completely understand why they believe what they do and feel the need to present a narrative of suppression, but the problem remains theirs not ours. The biggest problem for "antineoplastons" has always been that Burzynski does not seem to think he needs to go through all the tiresome business of clinical trials and marketing approval: as far as he is concerned, it's true, he believes it, and everybody else ust needs to start believing it too. That is, needless to say, not the way it goes, especially given the current evidence of large scale abuse of the clinical trials process by other drug manufacturers (and yes, burzynski is running a pharmaceutical company).
For the clinic, a life or death fight is approaching. It is reported to be suffering badly from adverse publicity and the suspension of the ANP trials, which does not look set to be lifted any time soon given the fact that the principal investigator is in receipt of warning letters and his lawyer has basically admitted they are a fiction anyway. It seems likely that his approval to use the orphan pro-drug phyenylbutyrate will also be restricted or withdrawn, and the TMB hearing may go badly given that he came off a ten year stayed suspension of his medical license and immediately resumed the behaviour that earned the original suspension. In the absence of its signature treatment the clinic is left only with existing patients (a rapidly dwindling band, as tends to be the case with patients of "alternative" cancer doctors) and unproven cocktails of conventional chemotherapeutic agents branded "personalized gene-targeted therapy". I think this is not selling well because the clinic has very few actual oncologists, even Burzynski is not an oncologist, and anyone looking for gene targeted therapy is much more likely to go to one of the research centres that actually understand it. Former defender Dan Burton is retired, I doubt Joe Barton will want to be played for a patsy again - Liz Szabo of USA Today indicates that they are running out of friends.
There is a world of hurt in Houston, and they are pretty desperate to do anything they can to make it go away.
The tone of the Wikipedia article is absolutely correct according to our policies, and as long as it remains so, it is a risk for them. Legislators and staffers will and do check Wikipedia, and I have heard of legislators referring letter-writers to Wikipedia for balanced information. It's great that they trust us, it's important that we maintain that trust, however sympathetic we might be to the plight of patients, or of a business that is probably suffering very badly right now and has no real way out mainly due to decisions made two decades ago. It's way too late to conduct the trials properly, most of the patients enrolled are already dead and the records not kept properly or even (if the FDA reports are correct) destroyed or falsifed. The clinic desperately need to get politicians onside, and this article is materially unhelpful to that agenda.
Needless to say we can sympathise, but to accede to their demands would be antithetical to our mission. The world says the Burzynski Clinic is behaving unethically and selling a drug that almost certainly doesn't work. That is not our problem to correct. Guy ( Help!) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Allegations of expense have been raised, but no sources indicate what the actual costs were, nor do they give any comparison to existing cancer treatments, which could also be considered, "Expensive". It also should be pointed out that the clinic's treatments are not subsidized, nor have the same public backing as other cancer treatments, and are considered new technologies which implicitely have higher costs. I suggest that better sources are provided that detail expenses as they compare to other cancer treatments, whether they are covered by health insurance or other subsidies.
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 06:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Partly done – I removed "the Burzynski clinic is expensive," as the section title implies that this section is devoted to discussion of efficacy, and not cost, of the treatment. This was mixing general discussion of the treatment with the amount charged by a specific provider of the treatment. Discussion of costs could possibly be more fully developed elsewhere in the article. Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I just started watching a documentary starting with congressional hearing witness talking about his daughter, and then came here to see wiki article. After the lead sentence I stopped. So much credibility this Wikipedia article provides that I have no desire to read it. Please correct the lead sentence. 212.200.213.54 ( talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree - "unproven" is NPOV. We shouldn't give equal validity to uninformed counter-claims. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
See [6]. Guy ( Help!) 22:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This seems relevant. Probably should go under the USA Today area. There is a part 2 coming out. I'll try to get to this if someone else does not. http://www.reportingonhealth.org/2014/01/12/qa-liz-szabo-braving-legal-threats-investigate-medical-folk-hero Sgerbic ( talk) 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
FDA agrees to let patients get controversial drug, Liz Szabo, USA Today, March 23, 2014 -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think it's funny that the FDA approves drugs with VERY dangerous side effects that are produced by huge pharmaceutical companies, yet claims Burzynski's drug is dangerous? As for the USA today story, notice that they themselves let slip that their information comes from sources that Burzynski is competing against (Not to mention that USA today is owned by Gannette - one of the worst, most biased media conglomerates in this country). 75.106.123.39 ( talk) 09:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the article uses the word "toxic" three times, the word "harm" twice, as well as "significant known side effects", etc, but the active ingredient mentioned in the page is /info/en/?search=Phenylacetylglutamine ! Now this seems to be contradictory to the overall tone of the page since Phenylacetylglutamine is "a common metabolite that can be found in human urine!" 67.206.184.214 ( talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Who ever is writing this article is completely completely biased toward the FDA. An example can be seen in the "legal issues" section, where evidence is presented against Dr Burzynski by the FDA, for his failure to comply with their protocol. But I do no see any mention of the FDA guided Phase II clinical trials that were run external to Burzynski, in which Burzynski's protocol was completely broken and likely altered to produce flawed results. Wikipedia is a place where I come to be educated, not where I come to be mislead by the false, biased, malicious opinion of the people who write an article. This is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes 932 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Letter from Dr Burzynski to Dr Freedman, Associate Director of Clinical Evaluation, NCI. http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/1995-03-29_DrBResponsetoNCIchanges.pdf
This
edit request to
Burzynski Clinic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2605:E000:8442:8000:E6CE:8FFF:FE1C:F3D0 ( talk) 08:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Unlock this page - FDA reopened clinical trials, allow democracy to function.
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Is antineoplaston therapy a type of chemotherapy? If so, what makes it so different from the other types of chemotherapy? My informed judgment is that it is NOT, and this article is misinforming the readers.
I see a big contradiction in this Burzynski article: In this article, the antineoplaston therapy is mentioned as a "chemotherapy" - which seems to contradict the main claims of antineoplaston therapy as a different approach which avoids the use of chemotherapy. Please get your act together, or the house of cards that is this Wikipedia article will crumble. I guess that prohibiting the Burzynski Clinic's website from mentioning antineoplaston therapy altogether is part of the orchestrated misinformation plan. I'm glad I got informed about this therapy before the authorities forced the Burzynski Clinic to stop informing the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniblum ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Am adding a clinical trials section to the article. I've been reading quite a bit about this topic and think the page is ready for this section. As I know this is a controversial page, I'm totally open to changes that continue to improve this page. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Prior to 1997, patients on antineoplastons had simply been treated by the clinic without external monitoring. Following an agreement with FDA that limited Burzynski to administering antineoplastons only to patients in clinical trials, Burzynski designed a large clinical trial that incorporated all of his current patients into a large single trial, as described by his lawyer, Richard Jaffe:
[W]e decided to hit the FDA with everything at the same time. All of his current patients would be covered in a single clinical trial which Burzynski called “CAN-1.” As far as clinical trials go, it was a joke. Clinical trials are supposed to be designed to test the safety or efficacy of a drug for a disease. It is almost always the case that clinical trials treat one disease.
The CAN-1 protocol had almost two hundred patients in it and there were at least a dozen different types of cancers being treated. And since all the patients were already on treatment, there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial. It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment. The FDA wanted all of Burzynski’s patients to be on an IND, so that’s what we did.
Jaffe further reports that in order to “make sure Burzynski could treat new patients,”
[...] Burzynski personally put together seventy-two protocols to treat every type of cancer the clinic had treated and everything Burzynski wanted to treat in the future. [...] We heard that the FDA had to put together a fifty-person task force to review all of the protocols Burzynski submitted. [1]
Of these trials, only one has been completed, and that one has not been published. [2]
03:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
An interesting article mentioning Jaffe: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-the-early-years-part-1/#more-27638 -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I edited the first paragraph about the Burzynski clinic because it was not sourced at all. It stated, "The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." None of the information was sourced, but yet when I changed it to sourced information, twice, it was changed back to unsourced information above. I was told on my talk page that Forbes and the American Cancer Society are unreliable sources. Here is what my change to the first paragraph was: The Burzynski Clinic is a cancer treatment clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1977 by Stanislaw Burzynski (Forbes) The clinic offers “personalized cancer therapy”(Burzynski clinic) but it is best known for its investigational "antineoplaston therapy" which is described by the American Cancer Society as a "complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease."[(American Cancer Society webpage) Docia49 ( talk) 05:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I just edited the first paragraph of the Burzynski clinic, but less than 10 minutes after, it was deleted. I just added the information back in because the material I added was sourced from the American Cancer Society and Forbes, which I believe are reliable sources. Please feel free to comment with your opinions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docia49 ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and help. The Burzynski Clinic already has a source listed in the reference section, so I am not sure why it can be sourced in one place and not another. I put the information from the Burzynski Clinic in quotation marks so the reader would understand what the Burzynski Clinic is saying that they do. I would like to know why the section from the American Cancer society was deleted also, as I believe that is a totally reliable source. Thanks Again Docia49 ( talk) 05:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The proposed edit was giving a definition of an antineoplaston. A medical definition by the American Cancer Society would give credibility to the article, and giving a definition would be neutral. I don't believe a definition would lead anyone to believe that the American Cancer Society is endorsing Burzynski's treatment. 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think the readers would be confused by what the ACS says when they continue reading the article. There has to be some kind of neutrality here. Docia49 ( talk) 06:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The article lede should have inline citations - WP:LEADCITE and it should be neutral - WP:NPOV so I propose we change the first paragraph to a neutral one. There is plenty of information in the following sections to show the clinic as being controversial. Docia49 ( talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
We can question whether any information is current, but I hardly think that the definition of an "antineoplaston" would change and if for some reason it did, I am sure the ACS would update their information. The definition of an 'antineoplaston' is a neutral statement so I still believe it should be included in the article. Docia49 ( talk) 06:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
okay, this is what I changed the lead paragraph to: he Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 that offers cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its investigational "antineoplaston therapy" which is a "complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease."[1] Docia49 ( talk) 06:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that my change has been removed again. I changed the first paragraph and removed the source from Forbes that you didn't like, but the paragraph has been changed again. Your paragraph gives the definition of an "antineoplaston" as "a controversial chemotherapy," but according to the American Cancer Society, an antineoplaston is:"a complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease" http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy Please stop changing it back, or please source that an antineoplaston is a "controversial chemotherapy" Docia49 ( talk) 06:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If you want the stance of the lede to be neutral, then you cannot put the "stance of the mainstream" in it, because that is not neutral. You cannot source the "stance of the mainstream." Docia49 ( talk) 06:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, officially everything that I have now added to the Burzynski Clinic article has been removed. I noticed that my last standing addition, which was to add that Burzynski is a member of the Texas Medical Association, complete with source from the Texas Medical Association has been removed ( http://www.texmed.org/Search/Detail.aspx?UserId=0) Does anyone have an explanation for this one? thank you Docia49 ( talk) 06:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to inform all of you that I have posted to the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Docia49 ( talk) 07:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
At a glance, perhaps some of the information in the article doesn't seemed biased, but I was hoping to add a little to this article to show both sides of the story here. Adding factual information about Burzynski, such as that he is a member of the Texas Medical Association and American Medical Association helps to balance things out. I noticed that the article states, " that Burzynski received the "James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award, which is bestowed each April Fool's Day on frauds." Although this man has been called a quack, he is also a medical doctor with some credentials, which I feel the readers have a right to know. 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The little amount of information that I added to this article was my attempt at creating some balance(WP:BALANCE). It looks as though Wikipedia would like both sides of this issue to be shown since there is conflicting information from the reputable sources. However, when trying to edit the article, I changed very little. I was trying to give the first paragraph a neutral point of view (WP:MOSBEGIN)and add some factual information about Burzynski with sources. 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually there is conflicting information. For example, the American Cancer Society is referenced at the bottom of the page as reference number 26. But yet when I tried to reference it, I was told that it was biased. Actually as I said before, the item I was sourcing was just the definition of what an Antineoplaston is. In the lead paragraph it states that antineoplaston therapy is "a controversial chemotherapy" I cannot find anything that gives the definition of an antineoplaston as such, hence the reason I changed the definition in the lead paragraph and sourced it. Since you won't let me make a change to this, Would you please add a source to that because I am unable to find it anywhere(WP:CHALLENGE). 71.213.7.26 ( talk) 16:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so why can't we change the definition of the antineoplaston in the lead paragraph or add a source that an antineoplaston is a "controversial chemotherapy?" Also, I am sure the reader will get the point that it is an unproven treatment since the first three paragraphs mention that it is an unproven treatment. Also, would you please source the founding date of the clinic. I cannot find the source for 1976. I am only finding 1977. thanks Docia49 ( talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Also, you have made my point again. You just quoted from the American Cancer Society to illustrate that antineoplastons are controversial, but you won't use the same source to give the definition of an antineoplaston in the first paragraph. Docia49 ( talk) 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, but my problem with the first paragraph is that I cannot find a source that states that antineoplastons are a form of chemotherapy. If you are going to leave it as such, please source it, or change it. Also, please change the word, devised, as antineoplastons are not devised by anyone because they are "naturally-occurring peptides in the human body" http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy. Thanks Docia49 ( talk) 18:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I still don't understand why we can't use the American Cancer Society's definition of an antineoplaston. It is a reliable source. I actually believe it is more reliable than the piece you just sourced. He states, "At the risk of annoying some colleagues I know, I’m going to point out that I never really liked the term “personalized cancer therapy” or its many variants, for the simple reason that it always struck me as more of a marketing term than a scientifically meaningful description" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/. He is saying that it is called gene targeted medicine, but that he doesn't like the term. It doesn't matter if he likes the term or not, the term is the established term. The American Cancer Society is a neutral source. I am just asking to have some type of neutrality with sources in the beginning section. The items I proposed are neutral, with sources. So I am proposing again, Why can't we change the Burzynski Clinic's opening to 1977, when it has been established with sources? And, why can't we use the American Cancer Society's definition of an antineoplaston, when the American Cancer Society has already been sourced elsewhere in the article? I am not arguing the fact that this is a controversial subject. Is there a problem with changing this? 174.52.157.182 ( talk) 19:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Where it says his therapy is "unproven". That is a lie. He has thousands of patients that he treated with FDA approval and he cured most of them. It was when the FDA took over the studies and altered his regimen that they where not working. But then again if you read this site "articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/01/fda-budget-increase.aspx unreliable fringe source?" you will see why the FDA is not working for the Public but for the hand that feeds them. Big Pharma!!! I knew that from years ago when they did a bogus study on Stevia Extract. They extracted the Stevia themselves in their study and did not say what chemicals they used to do so then turned around and claimed Stevia Extract can cause cancer. This whole article is probably written by someone from the FDA or the Big Pharma Industry. It usually is when it lies like this. Sad but even these forums are packed with their propaganda as this one is. He had initially FDA approval to test on humans and he did so and proved his cures work but like all cures they get squashed by the powers that be and in this case the FDA themselves who are suppose to protect the public according to their mission statement. We all know that is not happening. They are barely even funded by the federal government. They get all their funding by the industries they are suppose to be policing. It will not be much longer and the people will fight back. That day is almost here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNo1 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
To whom it may concern:
I just finished reading the Wikipedia exposé on Dr. Burzynski's ANP treatment.
I have several questions:
Your article cites the Cancer Is Serious Business movie as “one sided and biased”...I failed to see any argument in favor of ANP and/or any of Dr. Burzynski's successes....has he had any? How has he been able to withstand years of being indicted by the FDA and still be in business? Why am I in touch with several people who have had success with ANP, and why are there patients who participated in Phase III Clinical Trials prior to 2012 still allowed (by the FDA) to have ANP therapy? Most importantly, if these patients (Bay Area's Noah Stout for one) are still alive because they were allowed access to ANP therapy, why isn't that reported?
I've read countless articles in newspapers, books and online lauding ANP as a promising treatment for cancer.
Here's an excerpt from Dr. Ralph Moss' book, "The Cancer Industry" :
There was at least one scientist at the NCI who had found that Burzynski’s antineoplastons worked. On May 24, 1993, the NCI’s Chief of Neuroradiology, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, testified at a hearing that was contemplating suspending Burzynski’s license that “antineoplastons are the most effective treatment for brain tumors I have ever seen.”(p363) Patronas was severely reprimanded for supporting Burzynski and later withdrew a paper he was going to give about antineoplastons at a conference in Sweden.
I'm not interested in politics or conspiracy theories....just appreciate a "level playing field!"
Thank you,
David Lauser Dlauser ( talk) 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure the "Other Burzynski Patient Group" blog can not be cited here. But what about the FDA findings? http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM373967.pdf Sgerbic ( talk) 01:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
And http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/ucm373966.htm ( 76.19.65.193 ( talk) 05:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC))
So I suppose you have all seen this? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
I have a bit of time tonight and will take a stab at adding it to the page. If someone else wants to raise their hand I'll gladly pass it over to that person. As usual please make whatever changes to what I'm attempting to do. But please post here first so we don't override each others edits, I'm not fast at this. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan. "Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients."
The quote from the abstract: "Antineoplaston A-10 and AS2-1 are less toxic than conventional chemotherapeutics and they were useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients."
[5] 173.228.34.207 ( talk) 03:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
To date, no randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. Reports originating from Japan on the effect of antineoplaston treatment on brain and other types of tumors have been mixed, and in some Japanese studies the specific antineoplastons used are not named. In many of the reported studies, several or all patients received concurrent or recent radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or both, confounding interpretability.
— National Cancer Institute, NIH
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are some grammar/spelling issues that jumped out at me in the USA Today section. That is all.
MrStapler ( talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
At note 42 in the text, I think it needs to be indented or in quotes or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.250.146 ( talk) 05:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Burzynski charged by Texas State Medical Board with advertising that is false, misleading and violates Federal law.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1003370-tmb-case-against-burzynski-2014.html
Just for info, awaiting developments. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 13:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear why you only allow secondary sources, that isn't typically what real scientists use when citing material. Also, the NIH materials have legitimately been called into question due their studies having been conducted by individuals who were applying for patents of his medicine while intentionally conducting failed experiments with it. Very confusing. But obvious that the writers of this article aren't interested in doing any actual research on this topic, while probably considering themselves (incorrectly) to be skeptics. True skeptics dig until they find the truth, no matter what side of the fence they have to dig around on. Burzynski's methods are now being taught in basic undergrad cancer biology classes, because they have made it into textbooks. Try quoting that sort of source, peer reviewed by an army of researchers, not studies by someone trying to steal a patent to keep it's funding Pharma companies from kicking them out of a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.164.26 ( talk) 10:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Following the FDA smackdown, the closure of the trials, and with the commencement of another action by the Texas medical Board, the clinic is in damage limitation mode. As last time, they have hired Capitol Hill lobbyists and are pressing for some " legislative alchemy".
They've also set up an astroturfing site, anpcoalition.org (domain registered by the wife of Richard Edgar Schiff, a Director of the company, WHOIS privacy now applied). On this site they specifically target the Wikipedia article:
So this is a message to two audiences.
To those encouraged here by the "ANP coalition" website:
Welcome, you will need to register an account in order to edit the article because anonymous editing has been disabled due to long-term vandalism. Please discuss any proposed edits here - as the archive show, we have probably seen them before. Please note that you will get nowhere at all trying to argue form primary sources that the article is wrong. In order to change the tone of the article's coverage of ANPs and the clinic, you first have to get reliable independent sources to back your proposed content. Sites sucj as the Alliance for Natural Health are not reliable (see our guide to reliable sources for article son medical subjects).
Rather than wading straight in trying to Right Great Wrongs, I recommend you look instead at articles in areas away from alternative cancer treatments. Otherwise I am afraid you are in for a frustrating experience at Wikipedia.
And please don't bother emailing as per the request. It will be a complete waste of your time and will only annoy the email response team. I am on the email response team and have already alerted them to the call to action; it is framed in terms which are, I'm afraid, a mix of misunderstanding and outright nonsense. We understand why the clinic promotes this message, but it's simply not accurate.
To long-time Wikipedians
Please be prepared to help new editors, but also be on the lookout for sockpuppets. The clinic has used Twitter sockpuppets before now, as have its supporters, one of whom has dozens of abuse-terminated Twitter accounts to his name.
The claims in the quoted section are tropes straight from Eric Merola, art director on Zeitgeist: The Movie and director of the two equally fantastical Burzynski movies. Merola seems to think that there is some sinister group called "the skeptics" who were founded in order to undermine the clinic's pioneering work, and are in the pay of "the man". Merola is, by all accounts, a Truther. Enough said.
The tone of the article predates the formation of "Guerrila Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSoW), and is founded, as you can see from the archives, on the consensus view of reliable independent sources such as the FDA, ACS, NCI and others. I'm not aware of any conflicted or paid edits, "fake sources" or cherry-picking, other than from the clinic and its supporters. I completely understand why they believe what they do and feel the need to present a narrative of suppression, but the problem remains theirs not ours. The biggest problem for "antineoplastons" has always been that Burzynski does not seem to think he needs to go through all the tiresome business of clinical trials and marketing approval: as far as he is concerned, it's true, he believes it, and everybody else ust needs to start believing it too. That is, needless to say, not the way it goes, especially given the current evidence of large scale abuse of the clinical trials process by other drug manufacturers (and yes, burzynski is running a pharmaceutical company).
For the clinic, a life or death fight is approaching. It is reported to be suffering badly from adverse publicity and the suspension of the ANP trials, which does not look set to be lifted any time soon given the fact that the principal investigator is in receipt of warning letters and his lawyer has basically admitted they are a fiction anyway. It seems likely that his approval to use the orphan pro-drug phyenylbutyrate will also be restricted or withdrawn, and the TMB hearing may go badly given that he came off a ten year stayed suspension of his medical license and immediately resumed the behaviour that earned the original suspension. In the absence of its signature treatment the clinic is left only with existing patients (a rapidly dwindling band, as tends to be the case with patients of "alternative" cancer doctors) and unproven cocktails of conventional chemotherapeutic agents branded "personalized gene-targeted therapy". I think this is not selling well because the clinic has very few actual oncologists, even Burzynski is not an oncologist, and anyone looking for gene targeted therapy is much more likely to go to one of the research centres that actually understand it. Former defender Dan Burton is retired, I doubt Joe Barton will want to be played for a patsy again - Liz Szabo of USA Today indicates that they are running out of friends.
There is a world of hurt in Houston, and they are pretty desperate to do anything they can to make it go away.
The tone of the Wikipedia article is absolutely correct according to our policies, and as long as it remains so, it is a risk for them. Legislators and staffers will and do check Wikipedia, and I have heard of legislators referring letter-writers to Wikipedia for balanced information. It's great that they trust us, it's important that we maintain that trust, however sympathetic we might be to the plight of patients, or of a business that is probably suffering very badly right now and has no real way out mainly due to decisions made two decades ago. It's way too late to conduct the trials properly, most of the patients enrolled are already dead and the records not kept properly or even (if the FDA reports are correct) destroyed or falsifed. The clinic desperately need to get politicians onside, and this article is materially unhelpful to that agenda.
Needless to say we can sympathise, but to accede to their demands would be antithetical to our mission. The world says the Burzynski Clinic is behaving unethically and selling a drug that almost certainly doesn't work. That is not our problem to correct. Guy ( Help!) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Allegations of expense have been raised, but no sources indicate what the actual costs were, nor do they give any comparison to existing cancer treatments, which could also be considered, "Expensive". It also should be pointed out that the clinic's treatments are not subsidized, nor have the same public backing as other cancer treatments, and are considered new technologies which implicitely have higher costs. I suggest that better sources are provided that detail expenses as they compare to other cancer treatments, whether they are covered by health insurance or other subsidies.
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 06:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Akiva.avraham ( talk) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Partly done – I removed "the Burzynski clinic is expensive," as the section title implies that this section is devoted to discussion of efficacy, and not cost, of the treatment. This was mixing general discussion of the treatment with the amount charged by a specific provider of the treatment. Discussion of costs could possibly be more fully developed elsewhere in the article. Wbm1058 ( talk) 16:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I just started watching a documentary starting with congressional hearing witness talking about his daughter, and then came here to see wiki article. After the lead sentence I stopped. So much credibility this Wikipedia article provides that I have no desire to read it. Please correct the lead sentence. 212.200.213.54 ( talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree - "unproven" is NPOV. We shouldn't give equal validity to uninformed counter-claims. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
See [6]. Guy ( Help!) 22:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This seems relevant. Probably should go under the USA Today area. There is a part 2 coming out. I'll try to get to this if someone else does not. http://www.reportingonhealth.org/2014/01/12/qa-liz-szabo-braving-legal-threats-investigate-medical-folk-hero Sgerbic ( talk) 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
FDA agrees to let patients get controversial drug, Liz Szabo, USA Today, March 23, 2014 -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think it's funny that the FDA approves drugs with VERY dangerous side effects that are produced by huge pharmaceutical companies, yet claims Burzynski's drug is dangerous? As for the USA today story, notice that they themselves let slip that their information comes from sources that Burzynski is competing against (Not to mention that USA today is owned by Gannette - one of the worst, most biased media conglomerates in this country). 75.106.123.39 ( talk) 09:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the article uses the word "toxic" three times, the word "harm" twice, as well as "significant known side effects", etc, but the active ingredient mentioned in the page is /info/en/?search=Phenylacetylglutamine ! Now this seems to be contradictory to the overall tone of the page since Phenylacetylglutamine is "a common metabolite that can be found in human urine!" 67.206.184.214 ( talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Who ever is writing this article is completely completely biased toward the FDA. An example can be seen in the "legal issues" section, where evidence is presented against Dr Burzynski by the FDA, for his failure to comply with their protocol. But I do no see any mention of the FDA guided Phase II clinical trials that were run external to Burzynski, in which Burzynski's protocol was completely broken and likely altered to produce flawed results. Wikipedia is a place where I come to be educated, not where I come to be mislead by the false, biased, malicious opinion of the people who write an article. This is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes 932 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Letter from Dr Burzynski to Dr Freedman, Associate Director of Clinical Evaluation, NCI. http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/1995-03-29_DrBResponsetoNCIchanges.pdf
This
edit request to
Burzynski Clinic has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2605:E000:8442:8000:E6CE:8FFF:FE1C:F3D0 ( talk) 08:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Unlock this page - FDA reopened clinical trials, allow democracy to function.
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)