Talk:Burzynski Clinic

Neutrality

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 article takes great pains to maintain NPOV despite the clear evidence that Burzynski is selling false hope to people in need. He has also, both directly and indirectly, tried to defame the entire medical community and the FDA. Quite frankly, he's lucky that the first sentence in this article does not include the word "fraud." Karthik Sarma (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. Editors assume the conclusion then write a horribly biased article. The article, purportedly to be about a person, comes out swinging with attacks on antineoplasons, which should be in the article on antineoplastons, and not in this article about the man. If antineoplaston therapy is addressed in this biographical article, it should be limited to its own heading, and not up at the top of the article. Any talk about antineoplastons should be limited to antineoplastons and not the surrounding controversy. Controversy may be mentioned, but should be directed to the primary article on antineoplastons. RenegadeMinds (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr Karthik, please show the facts where he tried to defame the entire medical community and FDA and demonstrate how that's relevant to this article? If its relevant, please post it with appropriate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhsarp (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If mainstream medicine objects to his work, it's likely objecting for a reason. While the original version of the article ([2]) should have backed up its claims more thoroghly and had a more neutral _tone_, your version ([3]) takes all of this researcher's claims as unquestioned fact. I've put a POV tag on the article to get other editors to take a look at it. --Christopher Thomas 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the unsigned person who wrote this point. The article should be neutral and just explain his side and then the side against him. He has cured several people of cancer, people who were told by their doctors that they would die. This is extraordinary! I believe that history will remember Dr. Burzynski. This article should at least be neutral.Neurolanis (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that antineoplastons have helped anybody at all (other than by reducing the weight of their pocketbooks!). I would challenge you to produce even a shred of peer-reviewed research that supports their use. On the other hand, there is gold standard randomized controlled trial evidence that they do not. Karthik Sarma (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is the exact problem with the article. Editors assume the conclusion, then write a biased article. And again, the topic of antineoplastons and the surrounding controversy belongs in the antineoplastons article, and not here in a biographical article about a man. As for "no evidence whatsoever", again there is plenty of evidence that editors have simply refused to acknowledge. This is bias. A properly neutral article on the controversy should state the evidence for and against, and the sources for the evidence. It is not the job of editors to make conclusions on the topic and then present that conclusion with its supporting evidence. RenegadeMinds (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response to Maya's post right below this one on evidence. You may also want to see WP:MEDRS Karthik Sarma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Dear Mr Sarma I have been closely following the patient case of Laura Hymas, 25-year old mum who was diagnosed with aggressive brain cancer in Dec 2010 and told by doctors in UK that her illness is terminal with outlook of 6-12 months. However after commencing the treatment in the Dr Burzynski clinic her tumour has been steadily decreasing in size with the latest progress if 36% reduction since the MRI scan 6 weeks earlier. Although her treatment is far from over and anything could happen along the way, the results so far are clearly indicating that there is more then just 'false hope' that is provided by the treatment! I would urge sceptics like yourself to get your information right and acknowledge not just criticism but also success. This Wikipedia article is strongly biased against the work of the clinic and Dr Burzynski himself and should be sufficiently reviewed by Wikipedia as in its current state is not acknowledging the positive results achieved by treatment so far.Maya marsh (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Maya - I appreciate your concern about the possibility that the treatment may work. However, the truth is that I could grind up a rock and claim that it is a cure for cancer. I could then administer the ground-up rock to ten thousand people with incurable cancer. Of this people, 2 or 3 will experience a miraculous recovery, and then I could claim that the rock cured them! The truth, though, is that when medical professionals give you a prognosis, they are doing that based on their experience. If they have treated 1000 people with a similar illness and 800 of them have died between 6-12 months, that is what they will tell you because it is the most likely outcome. However, the other 200 might have died sooner or might have never died at all -- cancer is a truly mysterious illness and medical science freely admits that we do not understand very much about it. Doctors do their best, but sometimes they are wrong. In this particular case, the way to know for sure if the drug works or does not work is to run something called a 'clinical trial.' This experiment has the ability to decide with a high degree of confidence whether or not a drug actually works. Dr. Burzynski has at first repeatedly refused to share his own data or to run a public clinical trial. Recently, he finally asked for permissions to run a clinical trial, but the trial is not public and the the investigators are all people affiliated with Dr. Burzynski! The fact is that there is absolutely no reliable evidence that say that antineoplastons work, and a lot of reliable evidence to show that it doesn't. There is no giant conspiracy of doctors trying to suppress him -- if there were, why wouldn't they secretly give their loved ones with terminal cancer the drug if it worked? Karthik Sarma (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr Sarma, my concern is not with the possibility that treatment 'may' work. My concern is about critics like yourself, who feel they are on the mission to discredit someone no matter what others say. You have obviously put a lot of effort into this, your name is all over this discussion page and you could as well be accountable for information given in the article itself. This you are backing with your medical background. I don't have your medical knowledge and neither did I spend time doing lengthy research on Dr Burzynski and his practices. What I do know is, that situation of the young woman I mentioned has been medically documented as steadily worsening up to the treatment she started in the Burzynski clinic. No ground rock or other silly metaphors. For her, this treatment WORKS. The tests on the progress are conducted in Europe, by radiologists not affiliated with Burzynski clinic, so any bias is out of question. All that I am pointing out is, that this article is not taking into account the successfully treated patients and only concentrates on highlighting the negative publicity surrounding the treatment. The fact that there are living examples of the successful outcome of the treatment, and there is more then negligible percentage of them should be also presented in this article. At its present state, the article is simply biased, concentrating on antithesis with no mention of the thesis and successful outcomes. Maya marsh (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't any reliable evidence that antineoplastons work whatsoever. You reference a single case (which was not, by the way, published). As I mention about, the problem with using a single case (assuming that it's true) is that it's too likely to have been a coincidence. Sometimes people get worse for awhile and then get better (when antineoplastons are not involved at all). If one treats enough people with antineoplastons then eventually one of those people will happen to be one of the people who naturally get worse and then get better - a coincidence. The only way to demonstrate effectiveness is, as I mentioned, a clinical trial. In the absence of clinical trials, at the very least publishing medical case reports (written in the formal medical style) would be appropriate, but this simply hasn't been done. If there is something that complies with WP:MEDRS that isn't mentioned, then you are right -- by all means it should be included! I also regret that you feel I'm on a mission to discredit anyone -- my mission is one of helping people (as I imagine yours is). That's why I've given up years and years of my life to the medical profession instead of doing something like going to Wall Street and taking money from everyday people. I don't think anyone here thinks you have bad faith, but I do (personally, at least) think that you're misinformed, and that misinformation could potentially harm someone. Karthik Sarma (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please keep your comments focused on content rather than other editors and their motives. Avoid soapboxing and use reliable sources to back up your suggestions. Thanks you in advance. 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Ready for phase III? Perhaps. But none of the phase II trials has yet completed successfully. And the Court seems to disagree with the statement that "the testimony of nearly a dozen patients, in court, weighs heavily towards Burzynski's side." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Where does the court disagree with this? He has undergone several (understatement) court procedings without once having a judgement rendered against him. If anything they neither agree nor disagree, unless their is some cited evidence that they were indeed moved by this testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.31.42 (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Courts of law do not have the responsibility nor the ability to establish scientific validity. None of the cases here have anything to do with that, probably due to bulletproof waivers that patients have to sign. Karthik Sarma (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

He was convicted of insurance fraud, was he not? It's possible that the alleged "testimony of nearly a dozen patients" was irrelevant to that case; if it were relevant, it obviously wasn't given much weight.

Referring back to an earlier comment in this thread, FDA reports do not show any of the phase II trials as completed, as far as I can tell. How could they be "completed successfully"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that they have not been completed successfully. Karthik Sarma (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For the simple reason that they have not had time to be completed. The 11 trials currently listed as approved by NCI (easily found on the NCI website) have not all even started, much less been completed. How can you object that the process has not yet been completed, when it has barely begun? At least it *IS* in process. This would seem to me to negate any such objections.

Also, it should be pointed out that the earlier study done in cooperation with NCI itself "did not reproduce his results" for the simple reason that it could not. The evidence, again presented on Burzynski's own website in the form of scanned documents, is so strong as to be nearly incontrovertible. In fact it is admitted, in print, by those in charge at NCI: the documents clearly show that the institutes involved in the study, along with NCI, changed the protocols after the trial had already begun, and significantly (that is an understatement) altered not only the dosages and method of delivery, but even the criteria for success! If you are in the field of medicine as you claim, you know that you cannot change the protocols (especially in such radical fashion) away from those Burzynski used, and call that a valid study that either verifies or falsifies anything. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, nor a WP:SOAPBOX on which to stand and make baseless assertions. If one day there is something published and worth reporting then we will do so. You also fundamentally misunderstand what it means to have a trial "FDA approved." That says absolutely NOTHING about the efficacy of the treatment so it's really not an argument for anything. I'll say it again, no sources = no changes. N^oformation ^Talk 02:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat a comment that I made below earlier: this is a section about NEUTRALITY. If someone is making invalid assertions (as Mr. Sarma has), then it is appropriate for someone else to point it out. I was hardly "soapboxing", I was objecting to someone else's soapboxing. The fact that you chose to single me out rather than him shows why there needs to be a section about neutrality in the first place. Some of Sarma's objections are simply not valid.

Further, I am not misunderstanding anything about trials. Mr. Sarma was making obvious implications about the effectiveness of Burzynski's treatments (HE was making those statements, not me), and I was simply pointing out that not having effectiveness demonstrated is meaningless until such studies have been carried out. My point was that 11 trials have been approved, and are either started or approved to start. And that the one trial that was started in the past in cooperation with the NCI was hopelessly bungled. By the NCI. Their own documents prove it. Therefore, there is no cause to imply that lack of trials says anything about Burzynski. I am trying to HELP the cause of neutrality here, by pointing out biased statements by others. (Added note: I have, however, removed the last sentence of that entry, as it could validly have been considered merely opinion.) -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The lack of demonstrated effectiveness is not meaningless. It means that there's no evidence that the treatments are effective; simple as that. Talk page comments should be focused on specific actionable details about the article's content. I don't see a single constructive suggestion in any of your comments so far. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You have "neutrality" confused with "unbiased." Wikipedia is neutral as set forth in our WP:NPOV policy (which you should read top to bottom) but we are not unbiased. These are two very different concepts and we have a very specific definition of neutrality. On WP being neutral means representing what sources say in proportion to their prominence, the details of which are laid out at WP:MEDRS. Neutrality here has everything to do with sources. If all sources say that X is BS, we say that X is BS (not in those words but that's the gist). The whole point of NPOV is that editor opinion is not put into the article, but if all the reliable sources say that this treatment is bunk then to be neutral is to report what they say, it would be an NPOV violation to do differently. With that said, I will not respond to anymore of your posts unless you either present valid sources that meet our standards and adopt a more humble attitude that's indicative of your desire to learn and conform to WP policies. Most of us have been here a lot longer than you, so for you to come here and lecture us as though you understand the internal workings of WP better than we do is audacious and uncalled for. Start a new section and make specific recommendations based on reliable sources and we'll have something to talk about. If you don't do that then you're wasting your time and ours - this is WP:NOTAFORUM. N^oformation ^Talk 08:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article completely ignores to mention a set of facts that counter bias displayed in the wikipedia article. The article is thus not presenting all the facts regarding the person in question and needs to be corrected. All the critics seem to be focused on whether the treatments work. That's not relevant for publishing this article. What's relevant is whether all the concerned & documented facts are presented in the article maintaining its neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhsarp (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 January 2012 (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)

Neutral doesn't mean neither positive nor negative - it means the same way reliable sources describe the subject. For any medical claim, even stricter rules apply. If there are high quality peer-reviewed articles, published in high impact medical journals, that say antineoplaston therapy has a 30% cure rate, we can cite them and make that statement. Do you have such sources? --Six words (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia may regret not being balanced with article." I'm wondering how that can be construed as anything other than a threat. Please tell me I'm wrong. Rhode Island Red (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a threat. It's a serious observation about the neutrality of the topic. The person just raises a question of lack of neutral approach on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhsarp (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement about phase 2 is false. Untreated cancer kills almost everybody it affects. Radiation therapy kills a few people, but cures many more (as determined by many, many clinical trials in the medical literature). Antineoplastons have never been demonstrated to cure anyone. Let me give you a clearer-cut example. Let's say I ground up rocks and told everyone that it was a cure for cancer, and that I had an MD-PhD degree. Would it be ethical for the FDA to allow people to take the rocks to cure their cancer instead of treatments that work? Those people might be fooled by the degree into thinking that I was infallible -- but they will almost all die because my rock dust doesn't cure cancer. The only way to know for sure is to ethically test my rock dust in a clinical trial. We know what proportion of people die after radiation therapy already, and we know what proportion of people are killed by the radiation and what proportion are killed by the cancer. We will be able to tell from the clinical trial results whether or not the antineoplastons work, but all the evidence up to now suggest that not only do they not work, but they are also harmful. I'll also point out that antineoplastons are *not* at all gene-targeted. The argument that the treatment would not be contentious if there was evidence that it didn't work does not hold up -- there is evidence, and yet it is still contentious. Unfortunately, all too often people hold on to believing in their ideas whenever all the evidence is against it. Karthik Sarma (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Sarma: I must echo the concerns of others who have labeled you as someone who is obviously biased. You might get a different picture if you simply go to Burzynski's own website and examine the scanned documents presented there. His evidence of harassment and corruption are extremely convincing; further, he has convinced courts of law of the same. I daresay they saw more evidence than you have.

In addition, your statements about random controlled studies are disengenuous. While that is indeed "the gold standard", you should know that in cases of treatments that show promise of curing patients, they are generally not performed before Phase II or even Phase III trials (of which some have been approved). To do so needlessly endangers lives. In many cases, randomized blind trials are not done for many years, if at all. I think we all agree that it would make for the best evidence available, but are YOU willing to sentence a control group to death?

Further yet, it is well-documented that Burzynski has shown remission in some of the deadliest of cancers, some of which have an almost 100% 5-year mortality rate with other treatments. To say that his results are not significant is simply to ignore the facts. Not only that, 11 clinical trials have been approved, which should, in all reasonableness, silence your objections about that anyway.

It very much looks to me as though Mr. Sarma has been on a witch-hunt, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As Burzyinski's website is not a reliable source for much of anything, let alone a reliable source for medical claims. That this man has promoted this for years without any real results to show for it says enough. Further discussion needs to focus on MEDRS compliant sources rather than WP:SOAPBOXing by editors. Yobol (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What Yobol said. I could make a webpage claiming that eating poop under a full moon cured cancer and publish my own "documents." I could then open a clinic in TJ and charge people an arm and a leg for it. Until the medical community takes notice and peer reviews it, it's really irrelevant here. No sources = no claims. N^oformation ^Talk 01:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary: scanned documents that have already been used as evidence in court are good evidence indeed. Sure, you could make something up. But you could not fake court documents and get away with it. Your objections are therefore invalid. Also, I will point out that your claims that he doesn't "have anything to show for it" are unsupported. We have, in fact, government patent applications that make the very claims for effectiveness that he has made. If you are accusing him of fraud, then you must also, therefore, be accusing the Federal government and the National Cancer Institute of fraud. Please make up your minds, because you can't have it both ways. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not what you or I find convincing, but what is reliable for Wikipedia. Again, please review WP:MEDRS. Patent applications and court documents do not count. Yobol (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this section is about NEUTRALITY, and others have brought up objections that are simply, logically, invalid. If this were a section about proof of the effectiveness of his treatments, then I agree WP:MEDRS would apply. But even then, I would have some objections to raise, because since trials have not been finished for these treatments, there is nothing significant related to WP:MEDRS to be had anyway. If you insist that everything here must relate to things that do not exist, you might as well just pull the whole article. On the other hand, I have pointed out that there are legal documents from government sources that do in fact exist, which is better than anyone else here has done. And they happen to be in Burzynski's favor. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We have established that 15 of B's Phase II trials were scheduled to end by December 31, 2011. If you say that they haven't started, that's another issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2012 (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)

"If mainstream medicine objects to his work, it's likely objecting for a reason" - but what is that reason? Is money or power ever a motivating factor? Misguidance? Malevolence?

Or should we instead ask "Does it work?" and "By what measures?" And stop citing how many authoritative bodies say what and instead look at the science?

My experience with the NPOV tag is that it is used much in the same way "I am not a liar" was used by Richard_Nixon. A lot of "NPOV" appeal to authority here. "NPOV" - yeah, right. Xkit (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think B is more the "I am not a liar" type. But we should ask "does it work"—and the answer is, there is no evidence that it does, nor is there a reliable source that says that it does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 12 June 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)

His "supporters" aren't experts so far as I know. A layman's opinion on medicine has no place in an encyclopedia. If you have credible experts that support his work then perhaps such sources can be integrated but I don't remember ever seeing any. Sædon^talk 00:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Burzynski has published over 40 articles in several peer-reviewed journals."PubMed". I suppose these peer reviews were supposedly an "expert opinion" in your or Wikipedia's understanding and most likely weren't that unfavourable - if these articles actually got published. I see that some people have an opinion that Burzynski is nothing more than a con artist - but please, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not the place to express own opinion. The most that can be said about the Burzynski treatment is that his experiments and theories could not be independently verified (if that's true) - the way many other scientists present that (for example in an episode of the Great Ormond Street TV servies). Mass media articles are mostly NOT an ultimate proof of a scientific theory's (in)validity. In the current form, I fully support @BenW's view that the article is one of the most biased articles out there on English Wikipedia. If anyone would edit it relying mostly on medical literature this would only do good. kashmiri 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have independent sources that meet WP:MEDRS, please bring them forward. Personal declarations of "bias" do not help improve the article. That after 30 years no one independent seems to be able to reproduce any positive results speaks for itself. Yobol (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

How many attempted? We know of one attempt, not of 30 years of attempts. If you only knew how difficult it is to obtain funding for medical research and how many great inventions lie in drawers unconfirmed - you would be shocked. The fact that no one obtained the same results does not falsify the initial proposition. Example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9508895/A-virus-that-kills-cancer-the-cure-thats-waiting-in-the-cold.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) kashmiri 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to debate the topic but to improve the article with suggestions based on appropriate sourcing. Do you, or do you not, have appropriate WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing to add to the article? Yobol (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither you nor anyone else knows "how many great inventions lie in drawers unconfirmed" by virtue of the fact that they are unconfirmed; it's hyperbolic. What I do know and what I imagine many other editors at this page know is how hard it is to get funding, that's because a lot of us are scientists. However it's an academic point; unless you are willing to put forth the effort to find sources you're wasting your time and ours. No amount of attempting to explain why there aren't sources will substitute for an actual source. Sædon^talk 08:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer review isn't published so there are no sources of which to speak. If there are no expert sources to counter the sources we have then there's nothing to add. Wikipedia is not unbiased, it is neutral; that is, wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources. Sædon^talk 19:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a valid point. If only I had time and/or motivation for this particular topic I would happily add reliable sources from the other end to balance the text a little. However, at this moment it is much easier to point out irregularities than to remedy them ;) kashmiri 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the feedback page nor a debate club. If you do not have specific suggestions based on reliable sources, I will remove further attempts to WP:SOAPBOX that violate our WP:TPG. Yobol (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yobol, discussion on sources and their reliability/availability is absolutely justified on talk pages - I would suggest you first study WP:TPG throroughly before you start acting like a policeman here. kashmiri 18:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup required

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):

• The Antineoplaston section should be kept short and concise, major content (and any arguments for or against the therapy) should be moved to the existing article Antineoplaston.
• Any discussion concerning the company called Burzynski Research Institute (except the information that it exists and is controversial) should be moved from this biographical article to a separate article (to be created).

Thanks, kashmiri 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the article is about the clinic, and Burzynski does not appear to be independently notable. There is really only one subject here, and having it as a biography is problematic on several levels. The clinic, its founder, its ethical problems, its unproven treatment - all belong in one place. Burzynski Clinic looks like the right title to me on balance, but you could just as easily go with Antineoplaston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I don't feel strongly either way. I do feel strongly that this is a minefield if presented as a WP:BLP as we'd have to go scratching around looking for articles in mainstream sources that are anything other than namechecks in the context of his questionable promotion of his unproven treatment. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Burzynski is notable for this clinic and antineoplastons, and not independently notable. Would redirect here, as surely this stuff does not need 3 separate articles. Yobol (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I made large edits before reading your reply here, including moving the Burzynski section to a separate article. In general, I see a couple of problems when mixing information of different categories (like biographies, hospitals and drugs) into a single article: (1) linking to other language wikis that keep separate articles for these topics, (2) problems with categories - a single article would have to belong to as diverse categories as "people born in 1943", "hospitals" and "drugs" (how many templates will you have to put on the Talk page?), (3) narration consistency - e.g., in need to avoid repetitions, remotely related sections have to cross-reference, thus none of them is complete on its own.

As web space does not cost anything, I believe it is much more clear for the reader if the topics are kept separately - especially keeping in mind that the Burzynski Clinic will most probably continue to function and attract media attention, and antineoplastons, scientists' attention even after the times of Stanislaw Burzynski.

As to notability, Burzynski+tumor and Stanislaw Burzynski have around 100,000 Google results each; antineoplaston has over 50,000 results. Less notable people and things have their articles on Wikipedia. kashmiri 00:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I merged it back. We already had an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burzynski Clinic) that settled on merging the clinic and person articles. Nobody's saying Burzynski is not notable, it's just that he's notable *only* for this one thing, there is only one subject, the Burzynski / clinic / antineoplaston gestalt. Guy (Help!) 06:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's stay this way, even though I still see problems with with an article belonging to so many diverse categories as well as I do not agree with the opinions that this clinic is not notable (as repeated several times in AfD): the sheer umber of Google results are a testimony; I also saw the clinic and therapy mentioned in one of recent episodes of BBC's Great Ormond Street TV series. Definitely it is more known in the medical world than many one-season footballers, so abundant on Wikipedia, or, say, the brother of Stalin's second wife. I would strongly keep this article with as much relevant information as possible, at least for the sake of offering a complete picture to potential patients. kashmiri 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit messy but I think it's better than having a biography which is basically teased from passing mentions in articles about the treatment. There really is only one topic, in my view, and trying to manage the POV issues in multiple places is a headache too. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favour of it staying in once place, it's really all about the same thing: Stanislaw Burzynski use of "antineoplaston therapy" at the Burzynski Clinic.IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cancer is Serious Business Film Section

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)

WP:NPOV and WP:SOFIXIT. Shot info (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is some of fellow Wikipedia editors seem to believe they have a noble mission of "saving the humanity from the wrong", and perhaps believe they should openly brand what they believe is "wrong". It takes a lot of effort to explain to them that a lot of concepts in medical science (and elsewhere) are relative, not absolute, and are continuously being modified as our understanding deepens. Hence, all scientists that I have known were humble when discussing medical theories and therapies, always relativising them to the current level of knowledge. I saw a respected doctor commenting on the Burzynski therapy: "This therapy has not been shown to work". But these Wikipedia editors will twist it into a propaganda phrase: "All scientists agree that the Burzynski therapy is quackery". See the difference?

So, if you feel like going being bold and editing this entire article in the spirit of neutrality, you will have my full support. kashmiri 12:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"But these Wikipedia editors will twist it into a propaganda phrase: "All scientists agree that the Burzynski therapy is quackery". See the difference?"

Yes, I see the difference but what does it have to do with anything? Where exactly did someone make the statement "All scientists agree that the Burzynski therapy is quackery" and which editors are you referring to? Manufactured quotes and vague charges against fellow Wikipedians have no place in the discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"The practice is considered quackery by critics" – lead section of an old revision [4], followed by a reference not to a peer-reviewed article in accordance with WP:MEDRS but to some dodgy website, itself in the centre of controversies. The author of this edit is (Cacycle) who basically gave shape to the entire artcile back in 2008. Sorry I did not quote verbatim (I quoted from memory - my fault, I didn't take time to go through the long edit history), but anyway the sense is the same.

Anyhow, my intention was just to encourage 70.72.55.227 to go ahead and bring more neutrality to the text, and if you allow I see little point of discussing this further. kashmiri 18:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So in reality you were re-litigating something that hasn't been in the article since 2007. That seems counterproductive to say the least. I wouldn't be giving anon IP SPAs carte blanche to "bring more neutrality to the text". However, it would be perfectly reasonable to post suggestions and reliable sources here on the talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:07, 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)

You haven't proposed any text for inclusion, nor have you brought forth any references, so it's impossible to know what you think should be added to the article already that has not already been covered. The goal of an encyclopedia isn't to present every single POV but rather to develop a cohesive NPOV narrative based on reliable sources and proper weight (see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). Burzynski seems to be of the opinion that APs are a cure for cancer and that he has been unfairly persecuted by unnamed conspiratorial forces that are hell bent on suppressing cancer cures. Neither of these positions are supported by reliable evidence or expert sources. The amateurish self-serving lopsided movie about Burzynski, a primary source that does not meet WP:MEDRS for any type of medical/scientific claim, is unlikely to offer anything at all that would merit inclusion. If you have concrete text proposals and reliable supporting sources, then make a proposal -- we're all listening. Nebulous general complaints, however, will likely be given short shrift. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri, I looked over your latest comments again and it seems that you are making a thinly-veiled attack on the integrity of the editor Cacycle based on the inclusion of a reference that you referred to as "not a peer-reviewed article" and "a dodgy website". The reference in question was posted on Quackwatch, which is a long way from being dodgy, and the article posted on Quackwatch was a courtesy copy of a publication from The Cancer Letter, which is a respectable publication that does in fact appear to meet WP:MEDRS. It has been in print for 35 years, it has editorial oversight,[5] and it is cited by other highly reputable publications (like Science magazine).[6]

So aside from the fact that you made a sweeping indictment about Cacycle's integrity based on a single sentence from 5 years ago, your charges against the source he provided are pretty far off the mark. There's no need to continue re-litigating this non-issue from 5 years ago, but an apology wouldn't be a bad idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What would be a correct, probably sourced, statement is that all reputable scientists believe that Burzynski's beliefs are not supported by evidence. Not quite the same as he's a quack, but it is all. We don't need to have that in the article, but we certainly shouldn't have anything which contradicts it, with a clear source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Arthur, any universal quantifier would be incorrect - which was the entire point I was trying to make. Unless you ask ALL the reputable scientists their opinion on this therapy you have no right to say so. Instead, you are free (and perhaps correct) to say, for example, that "no published independent studies have found any evidence in support of this therapy".
• @Rhode Island Red, your interpretation of my "character indictment" goes a bit too far as I did not mean anyone specific; later, I provided an example of what I regard as an unfortunate edit. I accept that the words I used were not very fortunate either (blame the emotions stemming from my recent POV-related discussions in other articles).
• I tried hard to see whether The Cancer Letter was ever discussed in WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because on its own, for not being peer-reviewed, cannot be counted among scientific journals or medical journals in WP:MEDRS understanding. I did not succeed. I also noted that the tone of the quoted article was somewhat inconsistent with scientific publications and resembled more of investigative journalism. So, I fully stand by my assertion that opinions in The Cancer Letter do not represent scientific consensus and are not consistent with MEDRS. Besides, I insist that Quackwatch is a dodgy and absolutely unreliable website - there already was a discussion about this very topic on this Talk page (see archive) and as a result, the majority of references to Quackwatch were removed from the article.
• That said, I also personally believe (although this matters least) that the whole antineoplaston therapy has very little to do with actual science, despite claims by Burzynski et al. However, considering the existence and verifiability of placebo effect; the fact that many therapies in official use lack theoretical base and/or are not replicable in different population (see medical anthropology) while many therapies approved for use in modern medicine have efficacy equal to placebo and still doctors prescribing them are not called "quacks" -- hence, all I am asking for I would ask for a bit of humility and a less of judgemental tone in the article. Yes, there is no scientific evidence of efficacy whatsoever. Yes, in experiments, most patients died with no improvement. But yes, some people claim that "antineoplastons" have helped or cured them. Now, let's present the facts and leave it up to the reader to form a final judgement. This is what is neutral point of view. kashmiri 23:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY regarding QW. Sædon^talk 00:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri, what I gather from your comments is that you think the article has some broad POV problem (the details of which you did not elaborate) and that you are attributing the alleged problem to other editors’ ignorance/bias/or lack of humility. I also see quite a bit of soapboxing, but what I don’t see are any tangible suggestions, with the possible exception of expressing mild disdain for The Cancer Letter as a source.

However, as I already pointed out, that publication is cited by high-caliber publications like Science magazine (and many others,[7]) and it has received various awards.[8]. Furthermore, the statements in the WP article based on The Cancer Letter (an independent review of APs conducted by 3 prominent oncologists) are properly attributed and reinforced by a secondary source, so I think you’ll have an extremely hard time creating consensus that it has been used inappropriately.

Moving on, I hear alarm bells when I see comments such as the following: “Some people claim that antineoplastons have helped or cured them. Now, let's present the facts and leave it up to the reader to form a final judgment. This is what is neutral point of view.” What does that mean exactly? I hope you weren’t suggesting that we should include unvetted testimonials in the article, because I’m pretty sure that will never happen.

Lastly, Quackwatch is most definitely not an “absolutely unreliable website”, and I have a pretty clear picture of how WP regards the site because I reviewed the extensive discussions that took place about it in various RFCs and DRs for the main article pages on QW and Stephen Barrett. The site has received numerous awards and is currently cited 233 times on WP.[9] It seems that, for the most part, the only people that malign it are those very same pseudoscience practitioners that are featured in QWs reports. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:24, 19 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 is that... the Burzynski clinic is expensive": I hope this is not a joke - I would love to see any evidence of a consensus on therapy costs, esp. between US and UK. "Independent scientists have failed to reproduce the benefits reported by Burzynski" (repeated three times across the article): correctly, two independent attempts of reproducing... failed. "In January 2012, Lola Quinlan... sued": I would definitely drop this out, anyone is free to sue anyone and IMHO as long as there the responder has not been found guilty this information does not serve any purpose in an encyclopaedia except maligning. Etc.etc.

Being quoted by another non-peer reviewed source still doesn't make The Cancer Letter a source compatible with WP:MEDRS, although I agree Science tends to be an interesting and high-calibre publication.

Do you have problems with patient reports? Knowing the existence of the mentioned placebo effect and the fact that diseases (including tumours) can undergo [[spontaneous remission#Frequency of spontaneous regression in cancer|]] I would not necessarily question the authenticity of patient reports. See, this is exactly WP:bias: exonerating a website that openly admits to an agenda (Quackwatch) but depreciating first-hand reports. We don't take a stance on Wikipedia, we are here to present facts, whether they fit our own understanding of the world or not.

Fox News has been mentioned 25 times as much (don't know about the awards) - does it bring more credibility to it? Please. Citation ranking applies to research articles but not to arbitrary websites. Quoting Quackwatch's opinion in science-related matters is for me like citing the Flat Earth Society in geography articles - so let's better stay with WP:MEDRS. kashmiri 13:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch would have a notable (although not that high) citation index, even by the standards of WP:MEDRS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 19 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.

It’s grammatically correct and perfectly defensible from an editorial perspective. The sources are quoted and it’s clear which oncologists are being referred to. If I’m not mistaken, the article used to say “some oncologists” but the word “some” was viewed as an unnecessary qualifier. Check the Talk page.

"The consensus among the professional community...” I hope this is not a joke.

You left out that part where the statement was attributed: “as represented by the American Cancer Society[19] and Cancer Research UK[20]” This seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Do you have problems with patient reports?...I would not necessarily question the authenticity of patient reports.

Yes, as a general rule, I do, but regardless, I haven’t seen any patient reports in relation to Burzynski that would come anywhere near close to qualifying as WP:RS. If you know of any exceptions, you’re free to post them here for discussion.

Quoting Quackwatch's opinion in science-related matters is for me like citing the Flat Earth Society in geography

(1) That's a blatant straw man argument. Quackwatch is not quoted; merely linked under external links. (2) Your opinion about the veracity of QW is not widely shared. The Flat Earth Society is clearly WP:FRINGE; QW is clearly not. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to stress that someone would ever regard two local charities as representative of the professional community (= global community of oncologists and researchers).

No, patient reports will not fulfil all the WP:RS criteria, and they should not be cited or given unnecessary weight. However, their existence should be acknowledged. BTW, linking to discussion boards is allowed AFAIK. Links have been quoted here before, I will copy them in a free moment.

Pars pro toto is hardly defensible outside of poetry and propaganda.

It's irrelevant whether FES is fringe or not: enough that it promotes a particular agenda and fights everything that offers differing views. I hoped it would be clear from my example. Let's agree that we disagree on QW's worthiness.

As for me, I feel the discussion is going nowhere and would be happy to signal EOT if you agree. kashmiri 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article

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)

Law Suits

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)

FDA Warnings Section

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)

Anti-Neoplaston Therapy Section

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)

The issues raised by this edit request, and the two posted immediately preceding it, have already been dealt with in the Neutrality section of this very talk page. WP:NPOV policy does not mean collecting every viewpoint, and for medical topics WP:MEDRS also applies. In particular, this page should not contain claims requested since they have been disproven (the fraud defense), discredited (the claims of treatment efficacy), or are extraordinary (the testimonials), without good reason. If there is something specific needed which doesn't violate policy, please suggest some specific wording. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

When an article deals with a controversial topic, then NPOV demands that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" are presented. Discussion on selection of sources to represent these varied views is pretty much admissible - and even encouraged - on talk pages.

Your mention of "disproven" or "discredited" claims is unsourced; and even disproven claims do have a place in an encyclopaedia – an encyclopaedia should not be mistaken for a therapy manual. kashmiri 10:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If a case is lost in a court of law it is, in legal terms, "disproven"; if an overwhelming scientific consensus agrees medical claims are in fact "scientific nonsense" then it is discredited. Yes, this article should include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", but it should not (as the edit requestor seemed to want) include all kinds of view (no matter whether significant or reliable). In any case, the pattern here is repeated over and over that there is a vague request for unspecific changes — it would be very helpful for editors wanting changes to draft some text, as otherwise it's hard to discuss the request meaningfully. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If only courts were to decide whether a therapy is effective or not... please. In science, to prove or disprove a theory or proposal you need to carry out unbiased research or, in medicine, double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials. You don't just ask a judge.

I feel this is perhaps not the right place to go into details, but let me give you an example of a proposed therapy that illustrates the problem: the use of valproates as a treatment in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Following three or four basic research articles, in 2007, an Italian team conducted a clinical trial with 15 patients that showed valproate to be an effective treatment in SMA ([10]). Similar results were obtained that same year by a team in Hong Kong ([11]). However, a subsequent US study was inconclusive ([12]), and a large 2010-2011 US trial (carried out by the same research team) concluded that valproic acid showed no benefit whatsoever in the selected patient group ([13], [14]). However, a 2011 Brazilian study again indicated benefits of valproate treatment in SMA patients ([15]).

As of today, I am not aware that any of those studies would have been called a "quack" or "scientific nonsense".

In Burzynski case, we also have a certain number of publications (by the Burzynski team) in peer-reviewed journals describing efficacy of their therapy; on the other hand, we have two independent trials that do not confirm efficacy. We do have to consider the conflict of interest in the Burzynski publications (acknowledged by the authors anyway). We have to consider, also, that a mere two studies, be it "independent" or not, are not able to establish the "truth". Maybe one day we will get a Cochrane meta-study that will review all antineoplaston trials and give credence or disqualify any. Until then, arguing about antineoplaston therapy by quoting some "Quackwatch", an amateur film, or court cases is childish to say the least.

I can't stop myself from noticing that with just three court cases the Burzynski Institute fares quite well: several US hospitals face hundreds of lawsuits over treatment ([16]). kashmiri 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The legal case in question centres on insurance fraud. The treatment claims in question have been discredited by many reputable medical sources, as detailed in the article. Of course one may speculate about whether new human knowledge in future will adjust our view of the world, but it's reasonable to exercise some judgement when engaging in such speculation - some people today believe the Earth is flat. Again I ask, is any actual text being proposed for an edit? … I'm not seeing any. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 25 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)

It appears that no one not associated with the Institute has written a positive (or neutral) article in a peer-reviewed journal. That strongly suggests that the positive reports either escaped peer review or were fraudulent. It's not proof, and we can't say that it the article, but we can act on it. (Furthermore, Burzynski's "PhD" is disputed, possibly because of translation problems.) We could present his perspective, in his voice, without claiming there is evidence behind it. 06:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)~

It appears to me that you are confusing peer-reviewed journals with tabloids. Unlike the latter, peer-reviewed journals are not about "positive" or "negative" opinions but about (in this case) molecular mechanisms or trial results. Two independent clinical trials of antineoplaston therapy did not confirm earlier trials conducted by the Burzynski Institute – that's all, there's nothing positive or negative about it. Differing results of different trials is everyday bread for medical scientists. It is not up to you or Wikipedia authors to judge whether trial results were fraudulent or not, nor to speculate whether Burzynski's Ph.D. is a "translation problem" unless you have a relevant source. kashmiri 09:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a reliable source that his degree is the equivalent of a Ph.D.; actually, to be precise, we only have one source (perhaps reliable) that he has the degree, and another source (perhaps reliable) that the degree is the equivalent of a PhD. And the IP seems to be confusing peer-reviewed journals with the Institute's own publications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "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."

Yes I agree, let's be realistic. The reality is that Burzynski is not going "against the status quo" any more than anyone else who claims to have a treatment/cure for cancer. There's a mechanism for proving therapeutic/curative claims (positive phase 3 clinical trials) and there is a mechanism for FDA approval of drugs that make such claims (the FDA's drug approval process). Furthermore, the expectation that Burzynski should prove his claims is comparable to asking Galileo to prove his theories to fellow astronomers, not the Catholic Church. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:36, 3 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)

Hey, this article is not for discussing the competences of FDA nor its policies or independence. Wikipedia has a set of policies as to what constitutes a reliable source in medicine (WP:MEDRS), and generally FDA approvals are considered highly. This should not be debated here. The problem with this article is that a few editors here have a strong desire to publicly discredit the "antineoplaston therapy" and the science/reasoning behind it (without actually referring to this science or even mentioning the main ingredients of the "antineoplastons"), and they try to achieve this by attacking the Burzynski Institute or Dr Burzynski himself (by focusing on lawsuits, therapy costs, putting his academic credentials to doubt, etc.). This precisely is in violation of NPOV and constitutes a bad writing style. kashmiri 00:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

His academic credentials are in doubt. When there were two articles (Burzynski and Antineoplastons), the doubt was restricted to the first article. As for focusing on lawsuits, therapy costs, etc., what else is there to focus on. There was a phase I study (safety), and a dozen or so phase II studies which never completed. There's no evidence that therapy (or therapies) work, other than the word of researchers at the Clinic. (I thought there was something on Antineoplastons here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri, please comment on specific content issues rather than what you perceive to be the desires and motives of other editors. There is no POV violation that I can see, nor do I agree that the article represents “bad writing” as you alleged. Sweeping generalizations like that are not helpful. Several credible sources have largely discredited the therapy and recommend that cancer patients not subject themselves to it. The fact that there is no credible supporting data after 35 years of Burzynki’s alleged research efforts is very telling; and damning. In the words of Andrew Vickers, the “therapy” is not just unproven, it is essentially disproven. I see no instances of misinterpretation or improper weighting of sources, nor have any of the Burzynski defenders offered up any reliable sources that haven’t already been considered. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 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)

Well, right or wrong, Kashmiri is not a WP:RS by WP standards, and there has been a WP:RS that did refer to the therapy as disproven, so that settles that issue. The rest of your comment is simply not constructive from an editorial perspective. Merely shouting "it's biased" accomplishes nothing. You have to prove your case by providing details and referring to specific text and sources. BTW, saying that editors here are "not interested in good scholarship" and that they "don't want to provide a well written neutral article" is not only not constructive, it constitutes a personal attack. You might also want to read WP:TPG to get an idea of what constitutes a constructive talk page comment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are also other WP:RS studies (ones published in renowned peer-reviewed journals) that show that the said therapy is effective [17]. See, it is very common in medical science that a drug or therapy appears effective in certain clinical trials and appears ineffective in others (see my example of valproates in spinal muscular atrophy above). The fact that a therapy did not work in one experiment means only that... it did not work that experiment. An interesting article [18] (a blog, therefore not a WP:RS) suggests, between lines of Burzynski bashing, that the "antineoplaston" therapy in fact uses common FDA-approved compounds (butyrates) that might – just might, because unfortunately little research has been made – help in certain types of tumour, and are only marketed and sold at exorbitant prices by Burzynski. The point is, the editors writing about medical science need to be very humble and not jump to a general conclusion based on published results of a single clinical trial conforming or denying efficacy of a compound. To reiterate: results of one clinical trial mean actually nothing, and should only be reported on Wikipedia as "results of one clinical trial". kashmiri 00:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost positive it's been pointed out to you in the past that WP:PRIMARY studies should not be used to contradict secondary studies. I'm also almost positive you know that we're not going to use studies publish by Burzynski himself in order to contradict what other scientists have concluded about his work. You people are arguing for a TJ doctor; this is simply ridiculous. Sædon^talk 00:49, 5 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.