Talk:Burzynski Clinic

missing source

please give a source for this statement: "there is no clinical evidence of the efficacy of these methods" Stjohn1970 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

See the article, where it says "The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated: "Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans." and the reference there that supports it. The rest of the article has multiple refs many of which support the fact. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/275868/ 207.244.205.106 (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That reference does not support what is written in the article. If that's what the reference says, then say that. There is "clinical evidence of efficacy", but I suppose what you consider a reputable source of the operative determination so it is should be "there are no FDA approved clinical evidence" or something to that effect based on the reference article. Eluxides (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not just the FDA (some administration in some random country), it is the scientific community that counts. --Hob Gadling (talk)

The scientific community is a monolith now and you speak for them? Eluxides (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please point us to class I evidence published in a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal. It's not a monolith, there are literally hundreds of such journals worldwide. One quality publication will suffice. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Here’s one source: (I have ~20 more to post too)

https://doi.org/10.2165/00126839-200304020-00002 GenericUsername9000 (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That 2003 paper discusses 12 patients (11 children and an adult), 11 of whom died (for a 92% mortality rate.) The median survival was 7 months. The 12 are a small percentage of the patients treated. It's no wonder that experts have found no evidence antineoplastons work for cancer. Also, at Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources are preferred when it comes to medical topics. See WP:MEDFAQ. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (edited)

From what I understand this doesn't begin to come close to adhering to the practiced protocol. Not looking for debunks of homeopathy or drastically limited range of relevant active components (to this wiki article). Please bridge the gap between any source publication and the article. RaoulTheWok (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also I'll second the need for secondary sources that indeed do this work of demonstrating relevance already, I'm not sure I follow who responds to what claim here, sorry for any confusion. RaoulTheWok (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The 2003 paper states that four patients were alive as of its writing (out of 12), and two of them were tumour free, so the survival rate was a bit higher than what you provided. But that's irrelevant – the key problem is that this was an observational study with very high risk of bias, not controlled for confounders and where the PIs had an inherent COI. The study, therefore, has zero value in terms of establishing safety or efficacy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Statistics never PROVES anything

Change the first sentence that uses the word “proven.” NO TREATMENT has “proof” of efficacy. We do not PROVE a treatment’s success or failure - EVER!

Either the data shows evidence or it does not for efficacy of a treatment.

The evidence could easily be examined by looking at historical data. A neutral party needs to run the numbers. JanBlueCoco (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I miswrote… the first sentence has the word, “unproven.” Proof, proven, unproven are all nonsensical words in statistics. We look for evidence! JanBlueCoco (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Medicine is not mathematics and has its own idiom, in which "unproven drug" is a common term for drugs which have no good evidence of worth. Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Well.... "Unproven efficacy" or "unapproved medication". There are no "unproven drugs", because a drug is not something that can be "proven". — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

How can somebody with such a history here make such a silly statement? - Roxy the dog 20:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how will you prove a drug? Use scientific terminology if possible please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This is so dumb in several ways and I guess a month later it doesn't really need a response but: the word "prove" has many related senses and one of them is "to test the worth or quality of". (And many other related senses not equivalent to proof of the mathematical type; "he felt he had to prove himself" is completely sensible idiomatic English.) 66.44.62.177 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Quackery

The article cited makes no use of this term which can be characterized as as hominem attack with the intent to undermine the credibility of the doctor in question. The cited article does raise a question as to "how a treatment can be around for 40 years..." etc. Which would be a more apt way of characterizing the debate around the treatment. Eluxides (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The first line of this Wikipedia article is supported by the last line of the Lancet Oncology article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the Lancet thingie is an opinion piece. It should not be there in the lead and it always MUST be attributed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Negative Bias

After reading this Wikipedia page, it’s inherently clear that it only includes negative biases towards this doctor. Why do no references include the 100’s of published, reviewed, and cited studies conducted by Dr. Burzynski’s Research Institute? Why is there no discussion of any patients that have been enrolled in his, FDA cleared, Phase II clinical studies that have been cured of cancer included anywhere on this page? Why does the entire “Legal Issues” section omit mentioning that after being summoned by more than 5 grand juries there was no federal indictment proving there was no chargeable criminal activity being performed? The list goes on but I look forward to the response. 2601:240:E500:58C0:709D:54C0:1AF8:1C57 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to at least one publication containing results of even one well-designed study? Obviously it should be published in a respectable, peer-reviewed academic journal; not self-published. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You are hoping for a balanced view of this doctor's efforts to cure terminal cancer patients.

Even if his treatment worked on only 3% of patients, it'd be 'worth a try'. Otherwise you get drawn into the medical establishment's well-established damage limitation strategy. But, it's far higher. So, what now? 171.252.188.69 (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)v00n2000

As of today, there's no scientific evidence that these treatments work even in 0.0001% of patients. But of course - it's your money, so you decide where to spend it. You're free to give it to a crook, too. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Really?

In 1993, Georgetown University expert and the National Cancer Institute's Chief of Radiology, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, and a team at the National Cancer Institute analyzed 7 of Dr. Burzynski's cases. Dr. Patronas testified in Court that "the basic conclusion was that in 5 of the patients with Brain Tumors, that were fairly large, the tumor resolved, disappeared. It's amazing, the fact that they are living.. it's impressive and unbelievable." Direct quote.

5 out of 7. I'm not good at math, but I think thats more than 0.0001%. A lot more, I think?

This was before they tried to steal his formula, and filed 11 Patents on it. But the formula a Doctor that worked with him stole was incomplete. And since Dr. Burzynski had ALREADY patented the missing part of the formula, theirs did not work and their patents were useless. So since they couldn't have it, they started a smear campaign so he doesn't disrupt their multibillion dollar Chemo & Radiation industry. Bizzmoneyb (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan

A 2015 study from Ogata et al. titled "Randomized Phase II Study of 5-Fluorouracil Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as an Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer" (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120064) records that in an open label, non-blinded but randomized phase II study cancer specific survival rate (CSS) was significantly higher in the antineoplaston arm vs. the control (i.e. non-antineoplaston) arm. This study had 65 patients enrolled, with 33 of those in the control group not receiving antineoplaston therapy, and 32 receiving the treatment. Median survival in the antineoplaston group, was, in fact, 67 months vs. 39 months, with a CSS of 60% and 32%, respectively. Furthermore, there were no incidental serious toxicities or apparent liver or kidney damage. Now, I demand an answer on moral grounds: Why is this study not mentioned in this article? I hold a biochemistry degree and a master's degree in medical science and would like to know why this isn't mentioned in the article.

Additionally, Ushijima et al. in the journal Oncology Reports published an article called "Demethylation effect of the antineoplaston AS2-1 on genes in colon cancer cells" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868501/) which clearly reports epigenetic changes in colon cancer cells, changes which are very likely to suppress cancer development and progression using the body's natural tumor suppression system. This work from these researchers is highly suggestive, just as Dr. Burzynski has stated in on-the-record interviews, that epigenetic modulations in response to the presence of antineoplastons are, in whole or in part, how they fight cancer.

While this is not absolute proof of antineoplaston therapy's efficacy, it is extremely favorable evidence and analysis, and I would just like to know how anybody could look at these studies and act as if the whole antineoplaston therapy question should just be dismissed as quackery.

Wikipedia - in fact, anybody - I ask you: why is none of this mentioned in the article on the topic? In fact, why are the staff at Wikipedia not seriously disturbed at the lack of research into this topic? How could anybody look at these studies and not demand further investigation? 2600:1700:407B:2810:153:D9CA:A5FC:2ECC (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. We wait until there are favorable secondary sources that collect primary ones. That is also how competent scientists judge those things. Accepting primary studies at face value is naive and amateurish. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply.

1. Who said anybody should "just accept" this or that study "at face value"? - nobody, that's who. The point I made is that this is an example of a professional, independent, peer-reviewed clinical trial which produced results that unambiguously suggest that antineoplastons have clinical efficacy. Yes - duh, obviously - it could be a fluke - it's just that, without evidence to the contrary it is unlikely to be a fluke. Does such evidence exist, or not? No clinician in their right mind would say that "this single study means we need to start giving patients antineoplastons right away!" ...but no objective clinician could possibly look at that study and honestly say that this doesn't warrant interest. Given the history of the field any physician or researcher would be PERFECTLY within their rights to look at that study and say "meh, I'll bet it's a fluke - happens all the time," but that sort of reply is not science. Only follow-up studies that demonstrate no replication of effect WOULD be evidence. A study like that warrants follow up, and that's a plain fact. To ignore it wholesale in an article which is designed precisely to deal with the very controversy of the efficacy of the drugs is NOT objective or neutral.

2. Wikipedia's own policy (the one you linked me to) on Primary Sources (from "Reliable sources") states:

=======

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

=======

And here [from "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"]:

=======

Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors

=======

Mentioning the results of the aforementioned 2015 Ogata et al. study clearly would not violate the explicit, stated policy, and in fact would do wonders for the objectivity of the article.

3. This article currently says verbatim that "there is no clinical evidence of the efficacy of these [Burzynski's] methods." The authors throughout the Wiki article were very careful to be objective and only report the opinions of institutes and bodies that stated that antineoplastons were not effective, instead of making categorical statements of fact or categorically characterizing the entire extent field of evidence as one way or the other. That is objectivity. However, in the aforementioned statement, this standard was dropped and the article makes a categorical statement which is, in fact, false, because the 2015 Ogata et al. study is an exact contradiction to the statement.

4. I have no serious academic interest, economic incentive or personal conflict on this matter at all. I just care about objectivity and have an interest in healthcare. Surely you're a clinician or scientist of some kind (I would hope) - what exactly IS your view on the 2015 Ogata et al. study? Do you think it was a fluke?

I apologize for the length of my reply. 2600:1700:407B:2810:6015:D9D0:4A7D:D0AE (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have an idea of Hobs opinion, but instead I'm going to give you mine. For us encyclopedia editors, Ogata et al is entirely unimportant, because of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. - Roxy the dog 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Uncannily accurate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain. When summarising the 2015 Japanese study, you quoted raw survival data. This means that you've disregarded the existence of confounders and, essentially, the entire statistical model. However, the study conclusion reads: "Overall survival was not statistically improved (p=0.105) in the AN arm (n=32). RFS was not significant (p=0.343)." As you may know, the p-value indicates, in lay terms, to what extent the observed outcome can be credited to the studied intervention. Commonly, statistical models require p not to exceed 0.05 for the results to be considered statistically significant.

Here in this study, p was significantly higher, which essentially means that the observed outcome (e.g., difference in survival) has not been solely due to the intervention (antineoplaston therapy), since other factors have influenced it more strongly.

To but it bluntly, the study offers some evidence that antineoplastons are not effective in the studied dose for this type of cancer (although, being an open-label study, its evidence value is anyway low).

If you insist on including the paper, I'm ok with summarising it along the lines: In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your analysis is excellent, and we should definitely not include it for those reasons. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry but did you not read the rest of the findings section you quoted from??! It's not even five or six sentences long! And the very next sentence directly after the one you quoted states:

Nevertheless, the CSS rate was significantly higher in the AN [antineoplaston] arm versus the control arm (n=33) with a median survival time 67 months (95%CI 43-not calculated) versus 39 months (95%CI 28-47) (p=0.037) and 5 year CSS rate 60% versus 32% respectively.

At the risk of being redundant, I will point out that the P-value is below the threshold of 0.05 you selected! Not that p = 0.05 is some "special" threshold - it's just a convention. Many researchers value a p of 0.1, some 0.05, some 0.01 - those are all not uncommon p values. Either way it doesn't matter since you chose the p of 0.05, which you must not have realized the study conclusion did in fact satisfy. Did you not read the paltry few sentences of the article summary? Or are you seriously purposefully distorting the information? (See #3 below)

2. The Wikipedia policy states: "Any text that relies on primary sources should...only describe conclusions made by the source ... Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors

Now, your suggested "summary" is a complete reversal of the conclusion the study authors reach, which is described in the single sentence - not difficult to read or see - in the "Interpretations" paragraph of the study: Antineoplastons (A10 Injection and AS2-1) might be useful as adjunctive therapy in addition to HAI after hepatectomy in colorectal metastases to the liver. To include YOUR summary of the article would be a direct violation of the Wikipedia guideline you originally invoked!

3. Perhaps most telling of all, you either didn't read the paltry few sentences of the article summary, or had more insidious designs. I'm really just quite perplexed.

(A) Your "explanation" - which this person "Guy" bizarrely praised as "excellent" - suggested that a summary of the article could be included as In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer.

Excuse me, but what...the hell? The study was not testing 5-fluorouracil! It was not the adjuvant! You obviously didn't understand the simple trial! The article was testing addition of antineoplastons TO a therapeutic HAI (Hepatic Arterial Infusion) of 5-fluorouracil - the 5-fluorouracil is not an antineoplaston and is a known chemotherapeutic for this adminstration route - which is WHY they were using it in the first place! The antineoplastons were being added as adjuvants to be tested - BOTH groups got 5-fluoruracil, ONE got the antineoplastons.

(B) You obviously didn't understand the study despite it being incredibly simple. You didn't understand what was being tested, didn't know that 5-fluorouracil was not an antineoplaston, didn't know that 5-fluorouracil via HAI was a known chemotherapeutic, and thought that the data suggested 5-fluorouracil was ineffective, when in fact it is KNOWN to be effective, and the data in fact suggested that the antineoplaston WAS effective. I mean, this is just a ridiculous misinterpretation (or something) on your part - I'm sorry.

4. While your characterization of a study on basic research as "utterly useless" regarding clinical applications is an absurd exaggeration, it's perfectly legitimate to suggest it doesn't belong in a subsection, perhaps, about clinical results of a trial of the drug. But to call such basic research "utterly useless" is mind-numbingly obtuse - you can't GET to clinical trials without some plausible mechanism or evidence buttressed by basic research. I have no problem not mentioning the known epigenetic activity of antineoplastons in a summary of clinical trials - but to say it just shouldn't be included anywhere in an article about Burzynski and his therapy on antineoplastons is asinine. It's a known effect of the drug in cancerous cell lines and you have huge portions of an article dedicated to - supposedly - objectively analyzing the efficacy, plausibility and suitability of Burzynski's therapy for cancer treatments! To dismiss it as "utterly useless" is absurd!

5. I apologize for any overtly rude-sounding aggression but I was just left gobsmacked and dumbfounded by your response. I thought the people who would be editing a Wikipedia article about a supposed quack cancer treatment would be highly qualified experts in a closely related field, if not in the field itself. Instead it seems as if you weren't even familiar with a common chemotherapeutic agent, didn't know what kind of medication it was, and were unable to understand a simple article.

6. Let me be clear: I have no intention to continuously revisit these posts over and over again, though perhaps I might if I must. I feel I have said enough that needs to be said and the record will show it here. As I said before I have NO serious dog in this fight or conflict of interest, and I even am SUSPICIOUS of Burzynski's therapy myself! 40+ years of antineoplaston existence - you would think - WOULD render something more substantial by now if the therapy is legitimate. In addition, I'm fully aware that Burzynski has registered numerous trials - even many dozens which he suspiciously hasn't published the results of - and in the long run you're bound to get flukes. This study could have been a fluke - BUT THE EVIDENCE does NOT suggest that! To fail to mention this study in the kind of article you've written is simply NOT objective analysis and below the kind of objectivity I would expect from Wikipedia, which I have donated to more than once in the past and find an invaluable source of information. The fact is sharing these kinds of controlled trial results CANNOT damage humanity - it will all be part of a record that people are entitled to know about, and to FAIL to mention it is just as bad as promoting false information.

Again I'm sorry if this sounded rude but direct confrontation of distortion and confusion can often sound rude when its sole purpose is to get closer to accurate representation of the truth. I really hope you consider this further regardless of whatever decision you make and appreciate your time. I'm sorry again for the length of my writing here but I know of no other way to be thorough and as I said before I hope I do not find myself coming back to this repeatedly since I believe the analysis is self-evident and virtually all that I needed to say has been said here, though it be lengthy. 2600:1700:407B:2810:D80F:D35D:F99E:FBCA (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

See the second sentence of this reply to you. - Roxy the dog 05:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Re. the Ogata study, it's all basic research – utterly useless for an article about clinical applications. We don't even need to go into the primary vs secondary debate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Kashmiri has repeatedly made edits which I think tend to obscure the extremely dubious nature of this clinic, as covered in multiple reliable sources. I think these changes require prior discussion. I'm not against changes, but anything that tends to lend a specious air of legitimacy is problematic, in my view. No, not really whitewashing, good faith edits, but still, I am not comfortable.

Particular sticking points for me: removing "urine-derived", since that is in fact the root of the entire delusion; removing the word "quackery" (this is the only article, we don't have a separate on the Houston cancer quack, so we need to be really clear here); and removing coverage of the extent to which he scams vulnerable families. Of course this could be rolled into a prose paragraph not a blow-by-blow, but I think that the message the article needs to leave with the reader is (a) there's no proof this works (and indeed no reason to think it should); (b) Burzynski's methods are unorthodox and problematic and (c) the only truly repeatable result of his treatment is bankruptcy. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See my response in the next section. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Subset of proposed edits

@Kashmiri has proposed various edits, which @JzG has disputed. I agree with JzG's points. I want to focus on a subset of Kashmiri's edits that I'm neutral on, and I think could be acceptable. Changing the year 1976 for clinic opening is acceptable, if there's a better source for that change. According to Saul Green's 1992 JAMA article:

He received a doctorate in medical science in 1968, interned at Lublin in surgery, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology, and he then undertook a residency in internal medicine. Burzynski came to the United States in 1970 and worked as a research associate in the Department of Anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex, where he isolated peptides from the brain tissue of conditioned rats. He was licensed to practice medicine in 1973, published his theory of antineoplastons in 1976, and began treating patients at his newly opened Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) in 1977.

However, the Green article goes on to explain that Burzynski's interest in peptides was earlier than 1976. ("The first [Burzynski] report of an effect of peptides from human urine on cancer cells in vitro appeared in 1973.") The Clinic web site and Murray Smith reference also refer to 1977. So I'm fine with changing clinic opening in the lead to 1977 or making it clear that he published his theory in 1976. Previous revisions of this page specify that Burzynski first administered antineoplastons in December 1976 but I'm not sure of the source.

As for changing the words "offers" to "sells" and adding more citations in the lead, I think those would also be acceptable, if others agree. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ScienceFlyer,

My edits explained:

1. The initial sentence, which always has to define the article subject, was rewritten to follow the classical genus–differentia model: "...is a [controversial, cancer, etc.] clinic {←genus} that sells unapproved cancer medications {←differentia specifica}. This model offers us a dispassionate, neutral definition.
   Note on "sells": I prefer it to "offers", because "offering" something for sale is hardly a crime. I for instance can put up a website that offers the Statue of Liberty for sale. Controversy/crime will start only when a transaction takes place. Same with Burzynski.
2. Subsequent sentences: Expand on the differentia specifica: mention the location, founder, year of founding. Importantly, expand on the controversial element.

It is baffling to see an experienced editor like JzG arguing that an encyclopaedia article should define the subject through an opinion piece: "Mr X is a person whom Mr Y called nuts". "Hotel X is a London hotel that Steve Jobs called shit". See the problem with such a definition?

Re. year, thanks for going through the available sources. I merely harmonised the date in the lead with the better sourced date in the body. I don't know (nor do I care tbh) when he founded the business or started experimenting with peptides.

Re. urine-derived, my understanding is that these compounds are currently synthesised (I read about it somewhere, although don't recall the source atm). If so, insisting on having "urine-derived" would be akin to defining aspirin as "willow-derived compound" or vitamin E as "fish oil derived compound". If however there are good sources to confirm that these compounds are manufactured from urine, then obviously this can be reinstated.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT

Regarding the controversial first paragraph, consisting of assumed bias and sourced by supposed opinion pieces according to the ongoing discussion on this talk page, I asked what ChatGPT has to say about it. Here was the response:

My Question: "Does Dr. Burzynskis Cancer therapy work?"

Answer: "Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's cancer therapy, known as antineoplaston therapy, is a controversial treatment that is not widely accepted by the medical community. The therapy is not FDA approved and there is limited scientific evidence to support its effectiveness in treating cancer. Some studies have shown promising results, but more research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of the therapy. It's important to consult with a qualified medical professional before considering any type of alternative cancer treatment."

This much better reflects the current situation (to my understanding) and uses more neutral and appropriate wording, addressing many of the concerns mentioned in the previous user's contributions. I don't dare recommend to use this for the opener of the page (for obvious reasons such as relying on an unsourced, flawed chatbot). However I would like to once more plead for a less polemic revision of this article. Which will be closer in style to this my posted example as opposed to the current version.

What do you think about it? 134.76.62.21 (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this is an example of a neutral wording. It would be good to have something very similar here. Only, I would be more cautious with the term "promising results", because evidence is not simply about existence of studies but mostly about their quality, and actually those few "promising" studies had a weak design and a low evidence value. For this reason, I'd prefer to keep any discussion about studies out of the lead section.

Regretfully, we have a handful of editors who mistake Wikipedia for a medical guidebook that should advise people on what treatments to take, and they oppose any neutral wording. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The first time I used ChatGPT, it told me to use a set of Rust libraries that turned out not to exist. So I guess it's fitting that some people would want to use a tool known to make shit up to describe a quack clinic. --McSly (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point about the promising results!

I'm afraid you're not wrong about certain actors on this platform pursuing interests removed from what Wikipedia should be about. The commentator below is one clear such example, attempting to derail the discussion by provocatively nitpicking on irrelevant contents instead of actually meaningfully contributing to a satisfactory solution the majority can come to terms with. 134.76.62.21 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. - Roxy the dog 17:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess, but when the IP wrote that, there was no "commentator below". My own comment is newer. I don't know what "below" may refer to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Some studies have shown promising results, but more research is needed is something we could add to pretty much every medical method that does not work. If there are studies, there are badly done ones which "show promising results". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"No evidence?!" SMEAR CAMPAIGN

In 1993, Georgetown University expert and the National Cancer Institute's Chief of Radiology, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, and a team at the National Cancer Institute analyzed 7 of Dr. Burzynski's cases. Dr. Patronas testified in Court that "the basic conclusion was that in 5 of the patients with Brain Tumors, that were fairly large, the tumor resolved, disappeared. It's amazing, the fact that they are living.. it's impressive and unbelievable." Direct quote. That isn't evidence? CT and MRI scans showing tumors, and after 3 months of treatment there is no tumor on the scan isn't real evidence?!! People that were told they had months to live, and are still here 15 years after being treated by Dr. Burzynski isn't evidence?!! What happened was the National Cancer Institute was trying to steal his formula. Using a doctor he worked with, she thought she found and stole it, and then she and the National Cancer Institute filed 11 patents for it! Why would you file patents for a Cancer drug you insist doesn't work?! But it didn't work! Because they didn't get the complete formula! There is a portion of the formula that Dr. Burzynski ALREADY patented! So since THEY can't have it, they smear him!! Because he would disrupt their multibillion dollar chemo/radiation industry!! Entire websites were created to discredit him.. almost like a.. Government operation? There were 2 Congressional Oversight Hearings where people testified how he saved their life, or their childs life. Brain cancers like Glioblastoma were a death sentence. I know of several that Dr. Burzynski cured! Not evidence?! But now the FDA has banned Antineoplaston altogether. Now he uses another company to run your genome to find the exact genes that are causing the cancer, and uses combinations of cancer drugs to help people. One man had Colon cancer, and Dr. Burzynski put him on 3 cancer medications, NONE of which were for Colon cancer. 3 months later his tumor was gone. It's truly a shame when the man's own Wikipedia page is another smear piece. Bizzmoneyb (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

In medicine, cherry-picked individual stories do not count as evidence because they are easy to collect even if something does not work. With cancer survivors, one of the tricks is to stop counting the time shortly before they die. If B's method worked, he could publish his results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Read WP:MEDRS to find out what sort of evidence you need. A random person turning up here to tell stories about non-oncologists talking about oncology, such as Patronas, or about anything else is not it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, journalist Liz Szabo says: "Dr. Nicholas Patronas is still at NIH, but did everything he could to avoid being quoted about Burzynski, and basically said any of his earlier comments were about preliminary work from the 1990s, and not meant to assess efficacy." ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)