Talk:Burzynski Clinic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles
Four groups

November 2015 court stuff[edit]

Unfortunately, the latest edit to the lead is inappropriate in all sorts of ways. Per WP:LEAD this edit was not a summary of the body text (it isn't covered, yet) and therefore shouldn't be there. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE are self explanatory. I have removed it for the time being, pending comments here.

I see no reason not to move that text in its entirety to the legal issues section, suitably copy edited. I'll make a suggestion shortly. I do think this should be included, just not in the LEAD. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the removed text ...
"In November 2015, the Texas Medical Board has taken Burzynski to court in Houston, Texas. They are accusing Burzynski of bait-and-switch tactics, improperly charging patients, not informing patients that he owns the pharmacy they are required to fill their medications, and of prescribing drugs "off-label". Burzynski's former attorney Richard Jaffe has filed suit in Federal Court claiming unpaid legal fees of over $250,000. Burzynski through his current attorney denies all charges. ref>Szabo, Liz. "Controversial Texas doctor Stanislaw Burzynski goes before disciplinary board". USA Today. Retrieved 29 November 2015. </ref>"
My suggestion, with changes in italics (to go into a section in "Legal Issues" but I'm not sure which?) ...
"In November 2015, the Texas Medical Board took Burzynski to court in Houston, Texas. Burzynski is accused of bait-and-switch tactics, improperly charging patients, not informing patients that he owns the pharmacy they are required to use to fill their medications, and of prescribing drugs "off-label". Burzynski's former attorney Richard Jaffe has filed suit in Federal Court claiming unpaid legal fees of over $250,000. Burzynski through his current attorney denied all charges. ref>Szabo, Liz. "Controversial Texas doctor Stanislaw Burzynski goes before disciplinary board". USA Today. Retrieved 29 November 2015. </ref>
Thoughts? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The changes you've made might be a good followup in the Legal issues sub-section (following "...the hearing was set to begin in November 2015."). Jaffe's withdrawal from the case is mentioned, but the USA Today source that you've added might also help consolidate some of that information. Nmillerche (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Roxy. You are completely correct, it needed to be in the article but I should have added it to the body, don't know what I was thinking. Still I do think that something should be in the lede about the court case, it just seems odd, like we are ignoring it by hiding it in the body of the article. It is extremely important. Maybe something like "The TMB and Burzynski are currently in court about specific allegations" (of course better written than that) but some mention should be in the lede.Sgerbic (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I've edited the article to reflect comments above, and changed the refs above to tidy this page. The legal issues over the years are well covered in the body of the article, and are mentioned in the lead. Perhaps now is the time to give this more prominence there, per Susan. I'll attempt something, but feel free ! -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I tried a couple of times, but having read the lead and the legal section again and again, I think the lead covers it. I know, I think that each time another legal event happens we should give it prominence in the lead, and each time I think that the Americans will do the job this time, and each time slippery Stan wiggles out of trouble somehow. Maybe this time? -
The current proceedings against Burzynski are in Austin, Texas. Not Houston. The lawsuit against him by his lawyer has been settled out of court, which I take to mean that B settled like a bitty baby when it was clear what was liable to come out when Jaffe claimed in a legal filing that B had not disclosed all of his debts, including debts to patients and insurance companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:5D50:80B:E98D:563E:25A (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

POV problem reported[edit]

By email at WP:OTRS, someone reported that the article has a point of view problem and ought to include information from these sources:

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What information exactly? Neither of the sources are WP:MEDRS and no proposal has been put forth regarding the inclusion of any specific content from these sources, so there is insufficient basis for a POV tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red This is not my issue and I cannot continue this conversation, but the request was for use of those sources.
This article is mostly not MEDRS because it covers a range of legal and social issues. I confirm that those sources are not MEDRS, but it does seem to me that they present a complementary social perspective which might not be included. Leaving medicine aside, to what extent do you feel that those sources are unreliable for their social perspective? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no point in discussing the sources when no content has been proposed for inclusion. Make a specific content proposal and then the validity of those sources can be discussed in their proper context. One cannot reasonably argue that there's a POV issue in the absence of a specific proposal for text to include in the article. That being said, the hyper-partisan Cancer Tutor website makes a variety of dodgy medical claims, postulates FDA conspiracies, etc. Even in the abstract, this source would apparently fail to meet WP's reliability standards. And WP:MEDRS would be the standard for most of the content in the article. It's unclear what you are referring to when you mention "social issues"; I see no sign of such issues in the article or how these two proposed sources would be pertinent in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Note[edit]

In spite of all of the back-and-forth strong opinions, much of this article is a borderline attack on Stanislaw Burzynski, his clinic, and the debates that have ensued around it. It would be in the best interests of anyone hoping to acquire information about this clinic, ANP treatment, or any other alternative cancer treatments if there were much more factual articles and statistical numbers. It takes no more than 16 words before the term "unproven" is inserted into the description of this clinic, and "unproven" is up for debate depending on who you are and whether or not you have received treatment from this clinic. Somebody please, at the very least create and cite a direct link to Antineoplaston therapy and any available empirical data that exists to be reported. If even one person has been cured by Antineoplaston therapy, even if the reason is because their body was too toxic to support reproduction of cancerous cells, it deserves to be accounted for and reported in a scientific manner without regards to it's creators character or a lack of ethical guidelines. The FDA will tell you he's a hack, he would tell you the FDA is a fraud, both could be simultaneously true; I doubt any of it matters to someone dying of cancer if there is a possible treatment. Mycaptchawasbeeberefer (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but no, that is not how any Wikipedia article is written. Everything in Wikipedia depends on what we call "reliable sources" and for information about health, those sources are defined here: WP:MEDRS. Also please make sure that comments you write here are focused on making concrete changes to the article, again, based on what reliable sources say, not your opinion (mine doesn't matter, either) If you continue just offering opinions, those posts will be removed. Please do read the talk page guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you've noticed, but he is up in front of the Texas Medical Board yet again for gross ethical violations, his IRB was found to be grossly inadequate and conflicted by several FDA reports, his own lawyer admits that his clinical trials are a scam designed to let him continue selling his unproven treatments, his trials are incompetently run and the results worthless with crucial records destroyed, he has charged vast sums to participants in these worthless trials, and at no point has he ever published any meaningful results in a journal that is worthy of the name (partial publications in predatory open-access journals is about it). The article accurately reflects the fact that the real-world sources unambiguously show him to be a charlatan. This is not our problem to fix.
We do not include cases he has "cured" because there is absolutely no credible independent evidence that he has cured anybody. All reported results are fully consistent with the outcomes of prior therapy and the natural course of disease. It's also notable that the vast majority of his patients die within the original prognosis, albeit usually much poorer and with massive side-effects from his toxic therapies. You could also talk to a "cured" patient like Laura H, featured in his first propaganda film, except that she died of the cancer he "cured". The benefit of the doubt gets extended until the doubt evaporates - with antineoplastons that was about 15 years ago. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016[edit]

Please included the following at the end of "Clinical studies":

To date (May 19th 2016) 62 different clinical trials are registered under the Burzynski clinic (new Ref). Only one of them are completed, two are terminated (due to slow enrollment), eight are withdrawn prior to enrollment, and as many as 50 trials are listed with unknown status (some of them verified many years ago). Finally, none of the 62 clinical trials report any data (new Ref).

New Ref:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Burzynski&Search=Search

Moroks (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done, the section in question already mentions that over 60 trials are registered and that as of now, no new trials are allowed due to FDA agreement and current trials are all paused. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent coverage[edit]

Reading between the lines, the Burzynski PR machine is revving up ready for the verdict of the case brought by the Texas Medical Board, and a few journalists are smelling a very ripe rat. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ph.D claim[edit]

The citations and quotes about this do not have any publicly viewable content that indicates he graduated with distinction or top of his class or anything else. As far as I can tell, all claims to that effect source back to statements he's made. The existence of his Ph.D has been challenged in at least one article: http://www.labspaces.net/view_blog.php?blogID=304 .

I've seen him on camera and he's completely charming. Given the extreme contrast between his apparent personality and his actions, I don't think lying about something like that is something he would lose sleep over. Then there's the whole "wunderkind" aspect of the story: he Doogie Howsered his way to the top of the class without even studying cancer and invented a revolutionary cure..

I find that difficult to believe, frankly, and I think it should be better sourced at least. I emailed the school to ask about it, and I'll post here if I get a response. I know that's original research, but I think it could be grounds to remove a sentence or two that aren't usably cited. The site I linked did claim that the school's records are inconsistent with what's written here.

Also, the "prolific publisher" claim comes up a lot, but the he's counting "presentations", unpublished papers and a lot of published papers in the Journal of Cancer Medicine, which is one of those Chinese junk publications which consist mostly of plagiarized papers from 10 years ago, and exist for the sole reason of allowing shady researchers to inflate their publication count (http://www.improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academic-journals/).

The first three sentences in the bio are the least critical in this article, that's true. But the obligation is to be objective, not "balanced", right? There is reason to doubt their accuracy. ...dissimilar username... (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, interested to see what you find out from the school.Sgerbic (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, I just looked over those two citations and don't see the word "distinction" or anything like that used. It sounds too peacock and I've removed it. If the school verifies this then fine we can add it back in, until then it remains removed.Sgerbic (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burzynski Clinic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Texas Medical Board[edit]

The Board hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as proposed by the ALJS and ORDERS the following:

1. Respondent's Texas license is hereby REVOKED; however, the revocation is STAYED and Respondent is placed on PROBATION under the following terms and conditions.

2. This Final Order shall constitute a PUBLIC REPRIMAND of Respondent, and Respondent is hereby reprimanded.

And so on. I expect it will be in the press soon. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Guy.Sgerbic (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
[1]. $360,000 fine, largely related to the billing irregularities I think. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Now in press. ]. Yobol (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017[edit]

[1]

ON MARCH 3, 2017, THE BOARD ENTERED A FINAL ORDER AGAINST STANISLAW R. BURZYNSKI, M.D., SUSPENDING HIS LICENSE, IMMEDIATELY STAYING THE SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE PLACING HIM ON PROBATION FOR FIVE YEARS UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: PUBLICLY REPRIMAND; MONITORING OF BILLING PRACTICES; ETHICS COURSE; 72 HOURS OF CME, IN THE FOLLOWING TOPICS: 15 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF INFORMED CONSENT, 14 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF MEDICAL RECORDKEEPING, 14 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF RISK MANAGEMENT, 15 HOURS IN SUPERVISION AND DELEGATION, AND 14 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF PATIENT COMMUNICATION; SUBMITTING INFORMED CONSENT FORMS FOR REVIEW; SUBMIT AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM; PASS THE MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE EXAM; AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $40,000; AND PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000. THE ACTION WAS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AT THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS (SOAH) INCLUDING: FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMED CONSENT TO THE TREATMENT PLAN; FAILURE TO SUPERVISE RESEARCH ASSISTANTS WHO WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE; UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF MEDICINE; FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIS OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN SOUTHERN FAMILY PHARMACY; IMPROPERLY CLASSIFYING A MINOR PATIENT'S DEATH AS A LESSER ADVERSE EVENT FOR PURPOSES OF FDA REPORTING; AND FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE MEDICAL RECORDS TO SUPPORT CHARGES. THIS ORDER RESOLVES A FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AT SOAH. DR. BURZYNSKI HAS 20 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER TO FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING. BrianPrince (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Already done Content about the 3 March 2017 ruling is already in the article. Stickee (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)