Talk:Burzynski Clinic

FDA Documents released

I'm sure the "Other Burzynski Patient Group" blog can not be cited here. But what about the FDA findings? http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM373967.pdf Sgerbic (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/ucm373966.htm (76.19.65.193 (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC))

We can quote or paraphrase the observations, or the detailed problems, but not both. A problem with using them is that we don't know which of Burzynski's 30 protocols are being discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Third party source to the rescue!

• Lipson, Peter. FDA Documents Paint Disturbing Picture Of Burzynski Cancer Clinic, Forbes, Nov. 11, 2013

Now there is no risk of problems with primary sources or synth violations. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! Please add it in. Sgerbic (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like no one else has volunteered, so I'm going to attempt to create a section explaining what the FDA released. I'm also going to try and mention it in the lede. Please someone look over it and make changes if you think you can improve what I added. Just fix it don't over discuss it. Sgerbic (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

USA Today Article

So I suppose you have all seen this? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/

I have a bit of time tonight and will take a stab at adding it to the page. If someone else wants to raise their hand I'll gladly pass it over to that person. As usual please make whatever changes to what I'm attempting to do. But please post here first so we don't override each others edits, I'm not fast at this.Sgerbic (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for completeness, how about...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/burzynski-cancer-science/2994731/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/jeanine-graf-cancer-children/2994675/

as well? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay here goes. Be patient lets see what I come up with. I read through these documents many many times now.Sgerbic (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just stuck a fork in it, I'm done. Someone else want to play with it, have a blast.Sgerbic (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Methodology has been confirmed independently

Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan. "Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients."

The quote from the abstract: "Antineoplaston A-10 and AS2-1 are less toxic than conventional chemotherapeutics and they were useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients."

[1] 173.228.34.207 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The linked source is a phase I clinical trial paper, and therefore a primary source. We rely on secondary sources, such as a review article written by an expert with the necessary background to identify the strengths and weaknesses of primary sources. Even as a non-expert myself, I see issues: a small number of participants; patients were also treated with "other anticancer agents or radiation"; "The maximum doses of A-10 and AS2-1 injectable formulations (40 and 30 g/day, respectively) are lower than those used by Burzynski". The trial, along with many others, is summarized in this article, which concludes with the following comment:

To date, no randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. Reports originating from Japan on the effect of antineoplaston treatment on brain and other types of tumors have been mixed, and in some Japanese studies the specific antineoplastons used are not named. In many of the reported studies, several or all patients received concurrent or recent radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or both, confounding interpretability.

— National Cancer Institute, NIH

Given the assessment in this review, and lacking any high-quality secondary sources arguing otherwise, the requested addition does not meet WP:MEDRS and WP:VERIFY. Maralia (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Maralia is correct. IP 173... I suggest you read the links in the two previous sections. Burzynski isn't an honest researcher, and his lack of ethics is catching up with him, after costing many lives. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

USA Today article...

There are some grammar/spelling issues that jumped out at me in the USA Today section. That is all.

MrStapler (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've done a basic copy edit. --Stfg (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

At note 42 in the text, I think it needs to be indented or in quotes or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.250.146 (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski charged by Texas State Medical Board

Burzynski charged by Texas State Medical Board with advertising that is false, misleading and violates Federal law.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1003370-tmb-case-against-burzynski-2014.html

Just for info, awaiting developments. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This was on my to-do list to insert into the article. Haven't seemed to get to it. Add it in Roxy.Sgerbic (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/08/texas-charges-controversial-doctor-with-making-false-ads/4373163/

Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Confusion over missing information

I'm a little unclear why you only allow secondary sources, that isn't typically what real scientists use when citing material. Also, the NIH materials have legitimately been called into question due their studies having been conducted by individuals who were applying for patents of his medicine while intentionally conducting failed experiments with it. Very confusing. But obvious that the writers of this article aren't interested in doing any actual research on this topic, while probably considering themselves (incorrectly) to be skeptics. True skeptics dig until they find the truth, no matter what side of the fence they have to dig around on. Burzynski's methods are now being taught in basic undergrad cancer biology classes, because they have made it into textbooks. Try quoting that sort of source, peer reviewed by an army of researchers, not studies by someone trying to steal a patent to keep it's funding Pharma companies from kicking them out of a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.164.26 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are aware of a reputable textbook that supports Burzynski's claims, then go ahead and cite it. Maproom (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Astroturfing alert

Following the FDA smackdown, the closure of the trials, and with the commencement of another action by the Texas medical Board, the clinic is in damage limitation mode. As last time, they have hired Capitol Hill lobbyists and are pressing for some "legislative alchemy".

They've also set up an astroturfing site, anpcoalition.org (domain registered by the wife of Richard Edgar Schiff, a Director of the company, WHOIS privacy now applied). On this site they specifically target the Wikipedia article:

Email Wikipedia at; info-en-o@wikimedia.org and demand removal of the “Burzynski Clinic” webpage, since it has been high jacked by a paid group who identify themselves as “The Skeptics”, and is no longer open for public contribution. The Wikipedia page on “Burzynski Clinic” is filled with untrue statements, statements taken entirely out of context, cherry-picked information, sources that do not qualify as sources under Wikipedia rules, fake sources—you name it.

So this is a message to two audiences.

To those encouraged here by the "ANP coalition" website:

Welcome, you will need to register an account in order to edit the article because anonymous editing has been disabled due to long-term vandalism. Please discuss any proposed edits here - as the archive show, we have probably seen them before. Please note that you will get nowhere at all trying to argue form primary sources that the article is wrong. In order to change the tone of the article's coverage of ANPs and the clinic, you first have to get reliable independent sources to back your proposed content. Sites sucj as the Alliance for Natural Health are not reliable (see our guide to reliable sources for article son medical subjects).

Rather than wading straight in trying to Right Great Wrongs, I recommend you look instead at articles in areas away from alternative cancer treatments. Otherwise I am afraid you are in for a frustrating experience at Wikipedia.

And please don't bother emailing as per the request. It will be a complete waste of your time and will only annoy the email response team. I am on the email response team and have already alerted them to the call to action; it is framed in terms which are, I'm afraid, a mix of misunderstanding and outright nonsense. We understand why the clinic promotes this message, but it's simply not accurate.

To long-time Wikipedians

Please be prepared to help new editors, but also be on the lookout for sockpuppets. The clinic has used Twitter sockpuppets before now, as have its supporters, one of whom has dozens of abuse-terminated Twitter accounts to his name.

The claims in the quoted section are tropes straight from Eric Merola, art director on Zeitgeist: The Movie and director of the two equally fantastical Burzynski movies. Merola seems to think that there is some sinister group called "the skeptics" who were founded in order to undermine the clinic's pioneering work, and are in the pay of "the man". Merola is, by all accounts, a Truther. Enough said.

The tone of the article predates the formation of "Guerrila Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSoW), and is founded, as you can see from the archives, on the consensus view of reliable independent sources such as the FDA, ACS, NCI and others. I'm not aware of any conflicted or paid edits, "fake sources" or cherry-picking, other than from the clinic and its supporters. I completely understand why they believe what they do and feel the need to present a narrative of suppression, but the problem remains theirs not ours. The biggest problem for "antineoplastons" has always been that Burzynski does not seem to think he needs to go through all the tiresome business of clinical trials and marketing approval: as far as he is concerned, it's true, he believes it, and everybody else ust needs to start believing it too. That is, needless to say, not the way it goes, especially given the current evidence of large scale abuse of the clinical trials process by other drug manufacturers (and yes, burzynski is running a pharmaceutical company).

For the clinic, a life or death fight is approaching. It is reported to be suffering badly from adverse publicity and the suspension of the ANP trials, which does not look set to be lifted any time soon given the fact that the principal investigator is in receipt of warning letters and his lawyer has basically admitted they are a fiction anyway. It seems likely that his approval to use the orphan pro-drug phyenylbutyrate will also be restricted or withdrawn, and the TMB hearing may go badly given that he came off a ten year stayed suspension of his medical license and immediately resumed the behaviour that earned the original suspension. In the absence of its signature treatment the clinic is left only with existing patients (a rapidly dwindling band, as tends to be the case with patients of "alternative" cancer doctors) and unproven cocktails of conventional chemotherapeutic agents branded "personalized gene-targeted therapy". I think this is not selling well because the clinic has very few actual oncologists, even Burzynski is not an oncologist, and anyone looking for gene targeted therapy is much more likely to go to one of the research centres that actually understand it. Former defender Dan Burton is retired, I doubt Joe Barton will want to be played for a patsy again - Liz Szabo of USA Today indicates that they are running out of friends.

There is a world of hurt in Houston, and they are pretty desperate to do anything they can to make it go away.

The tone of the Wikipedia article is absolutely correct according to our policies, and as long as it remains so, it is a risk for them. Legislators and staffers will and do check Wikipedia, and I have heard of legislators referring letter-writers to Wikipedia for balanced information. It's great that they trust us, it's important that we maintain that trust, however sympathetic we might be to the plight of patients, or of a business that is probably suffering very badly right now and has no real way out mainly due to decisions made two decades ago. It's way too late to conduct the trials properly, most of the patients enrolled are already dead and the records not kept properly or even (if the FDA reports are correct) destroyed or falsifed. The clinic desperately need to get politicians onside, and this article is materially unhelpful to that agenda.

Needless to say we can sympathise, but to accede to their demands would be antithetical to our mission. The world says the Burzynski Clinic is behaving unethically and selling a drug that almost certainly doesn't work. That is not our problem to correct. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)