Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

A type of chemotherapy?

Is antineoplaston therapy a type of chemotherapy? If so, what makes it so different from the other types of chemotherapy? My informed judgment is that it is NOT, and this article is misinforming the readers.

I see a big contradiction in this Burzynski article: In this article, the antineoplaston therapy is mentioned as a "chemotherapy" - which seems to contradict the main claims of antineoplaston therapy as a different approach which avoids the use of chemotherapy. Please get your act together, or the house of cards that is this Wikipedia article will crumble. I guess that prohibiting the Burzynski Clinic's website from mentioning antineoplaston therapy altogether is part of the orchestrated misinformation plan. I'm glad I got informed about this therapy before the authorities forced the Burzynski Clinic to stop informing the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniblum (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to have any success in editing this article, then drop the antagonistic attitude or your comments will be deleted. You also risk getting blocked for using Wikipedia as a battlefield. Discussion pages do have rules of conduct.

Now, try starting over again and let's see if you have a good suggestion for improvement based on reliable sources. We work by collaboration here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We have been discussing this subject above, but I appreciate you adding a new heading. I was asking someone to please source that antineoplastons are a form of "chemotherapy" as I cannot find a source that confirms this. I was trying to add the definition of an antineoplaston from the American Cancer Society, but my changes have been removed when I try to do so. 71.213.14.57 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the chemotherapy categorization is sourced to a David Gorski piece. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the David Gorski piece on Science Based medicine, referenced below, it is not a neutral piece. I think Wikipedia would appreciate a more reliable and neutral source like the American Cancer Society's definition. I am sure this is a great piece to illustrate the controversy involved, but Gorski gives two definitions of antineoplastons in his piece without even sourcing his information. So I disagree that this is the best source for the definition of an antineoplaston in an Encyclopedia. 71.213.14.57 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

ACS does not say it's not chemo. The lede needs to summarize the article body, as it is at the moment. I don't see a problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so are you saying that you want both definitions then in the lede?Docia49 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we are saying that the lede is OK as it is, and needs neither definition. Your ACS definition isn't very good, as it does not mention the fact that antineoplastons is in fact sodium phenylbutyrate which is an HDAC inhibitor, which is a class of chemotherapy drug under active research by many university laboratories and pharmaceutical companies. I don't think any more discussion of this is worthwhile. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society is an excellent source for a neutral definition of a medical cancer term. I think your mention of the fact that antineoplastons are "sodum phenylbutyrate which is an HDAC inhibitor...." would make an excellent addition to the Burzynski Clinic article under "Antineoplaston Therapy," especially with a reliable citation! Thank you for your input!Docia49 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't understood my point that the ACS definition is a poor one, and we shouldn't use it as we know it to be so. If they bring their definition up to date to include the chemotherapy data, then perhaps it would be useful, but not necessarily in the lede. My other point, that we don't really need to put this in the lede also seems to have passed you by. Again I say I don't think any more discussion of this is worthwhile. Roxy the dog (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think I do understand your point. Now, why is the American Cancer Society's definition of an antineoplaston a poor source? Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, see my comments passim. Roxy the dog (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Clinical Trials Section

Am adding a clinical trials section to the article. I've been reading quite a bit about this topic and think the page is ready for this section. As I know this is a controversial page, I'm totally open to changes that continue to improve this page.Sgerbic (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you intend to populate this new section with? After all, we have already got sections on publications, Phase I and Phase II trials. Seems a bit redundant to me. Roxy the dog (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Information on clinical trials is probably going to run afoul of WP:MEDRS. Could you please provide the detailed text you wish to add here on the talk page first, together with the relevant sources? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure this is what I was planning on adding.

Prior to 1997, patients on antineoplastons had simply been treated by the clinic without external monitoring. Following an agreement with FDA that limited Burzynski to administering antineoplastons only to patients in clinical trials, Burzynski designed a large clinical trial that incorporated all of his current patients into a large single trial, as described by his lawyer, Richard Jaffe:

[W]e decided to hit the FDA with everything at the same time. All of his current patients would be covered in a single clinical trial which Burzynski called “CAN-1.” As far as clinical trials go, it was a joke. Clinical trials are supposed to be designed to test the safety or efficacy of a drug for a disease. It is almost always the case that clinical trials treat one disease.

The CAN-1 protocol had almost two hundred patients in it and there were at least a dozen different types of cancers being treated. And since all the patients were already on treatment, there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial. It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment. The FDA wanted all of Burzynski’s patients to be on an IND, so that’s what we did.

Jaffe further reports that in order to “make sure Burzynski could treat new patients,”

[...] Burzynski personally put together seventy-two protocols to treat every type of cancer the clinic had treated and everything Burzynski wanted to treat in the future. [...] We heard that the FDA had to put together a fifty-person task force to review all of the protocols Burzynski submitted.

Of these trials, only one has been completed, and that one has not been published.

03:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've read a lot about Stan in the last couple of years, but I don't remember the stuff from Jaffe. I like it Roxy the dog (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At what point is this okay to put in the article? I've waited a couple days, if your okay with it as is, please just add it in. I have more to add as well, reading through a lot right now.Sgerbic (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's worthy content - I wonder if it can somehow be merged with the preceding material on clinical trials? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

An interesting article mentioning Jaffe: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-the-early-years-part-1/#more-27638 -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing and adding sourced material

I edited the first paragraph about the Burzynski clinic because it was not sourced at all. It stated, "The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." None of the information was sourced, but yet when I changed it to sourced information, twice, it was changed back to unsourced information above. I was told on my talk page that Forbes and the American Cancer Society are unreliable sources. Here is what my change to the first paragraph was: The Burzynski Clinic is a cancer treatment clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1977 by Stanislaw Burzynski (Forbes) The clinic offers “personalized cancer therapy”(Burzynski clinic) but it is best known for its investigational "antineoplaston therapy" which is described by the American Cancer Society as a "complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease."[(American Cancer Society webpage)Docia49 (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just edited the first paragraph of the Burzynski clinic, but less than 10 minutes after, it was deleted. I just added the information back in because the material I added was sourced from the American Cancer Society and Forbes, which I believe are reliable sources. Please feel free to comment with your opinions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docia49 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That was ok, thanks for trying to bring new information to this article. The Forbes entry you quoted does not seem to be a WP:reliable source here as it looks like acopy of a biographical note submitted by Burzynski rather than an independent research. Burzynski Instiute website cannot be a source (it is neither independent nor WP:secondary). You should also not use academic titles with names (WP:CREDENTIAL). Other than that, this article is quite contentious and took a lot of debate to reach its current form - some editors might be more inclined to revert changes that do not conform to the spirit of the consensus reached. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 05:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and help. The Burzynski Clinic already has a source listed in the reference section, so I am not sure why it can be sourced in one place and not another. I put the information from the Burzynski Clinic in quotation marks so the reader would understand what the Burzynski Clinic is saying that they do. I would like to know why the section from the American Cancer society was deleted also, as I believe that is a totally reliable source. Thanks AgainDocia49 (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, an article lede does not need to be sourced in itself, but accurately summarizes the article content beneath (which of course must be sourced). The ACS is a good source, but a problem with the proposed edit is that it makes it appear that the ACS in some way endorses Burzynski's offerings as a credible treatment, when in fact the ACS treats them as unproven; omitting this crucial detail is a kind of cherry picking. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed edit was giving a definition of an antineoplaston. A medical definition by the American Cancer Society would give credibility to the article, and giving a definition would be neutral. I don't believe a definition would lead anyone to believe that the American Cancer Society is endorsing Burzynski's treatment.71.213.7.26 (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think the readers would be confused by what the ACS says when they continue reading the article. There has to be some kind of neutrality here.Docia49 (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The article lede should have inline citations - WP:LEADCITE and it should be neutral - WP:NPOV so I propose we change the first paragraph to a neutral one. There is plenty of information in the following sections to show the clinic as being controversial.Docia49 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, ledes may exceptionally have citations (as determined on a case-by-case basis). The current lede is neutral, I think, and selective incorporation of material from an ACS page will not improve it. Neutrality requires that the mainstream medical/scientific view (that Burzynski's offerings are unproven) is front and centre in the lede (and throughout the article). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) As the editor who reverted you, I would like to add that I also appreciate your efforts, but the material already there is sourced later in the article. Information in the lead needs either to be sourced there or to be a summary of sourced information later in the article. Previous discussions have questioned whether the ACS statement is current, and whether Burzynski actually has a Ph.D.-equivalent. I accept the possibility that you are not a Burzynski employee, but we have had a number of those editing the article to include information which, if sourced at all, could only be attributed to Burzynski himself. The question of when the Institute was founded may be an interesting one, which may have more reasoned discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We can question whether any information is current, but I hardly think that the definition of an "antineoplaston" would change and if for some reason it did, I am sure the ACS would update their information. The definition of an 'antineoplaston' is a neutral statement so I still believe it should be included in the article.Docia49 (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

okay, this is what I changed the lead paragraph to: he Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 that offers cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its investigational "antineoplaston therapy" which is a "complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease."[1] Docia49 (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that my change has been removed again. I changed the first paragraph and removed the source from Forbes that you didn't like, but the paragraph has been changed again. Your paragraph gives the definition of an "antineoplaston" as "a controversial chemotherapy," but according to the American Cancer Society, an antineoplaston is:"a complementary/alternative cancer treatment that involves using a group of synthetic chemicals called antineoplastons intended to protect the body from disease"http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy Please stop changing it back, or please source that an antineoplaston is a "controversial chemotherapy"Docia49 (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned Forbes; however we can't have a lede that omits the critical stance of the mainstream: that would not be neutral. The current lede seems to me to be both neutral and a fair summary of the article body. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want the stance of the lede to be neutral, then you cannot put the "stance of the mainstream" in it, because that is not neutral. You cannot source the "stance of the mainstream." Docia49 (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, officially everything that I have now added to the Burzynski Clinic article has been removed. I noticed that my last standing addition, which was to add that Burzynski is a member of the Texas Medical Association, complete with source from the Texas Medical Association has been removed (http://www.texmed.org/Search/Detail.aspx?UserId=0) Does anyone have an explanation for this one? thank youDocia49 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to inform all of you that I have posted to the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Docia49 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why the information that he is a member of the TMA is relevant to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, of course it's relevant! You are doing your utmost, it seems, to paint a biased and unfair picture of a living person, which is against the rules! The fact that he is a member of the TMA has lend credibility to what he does. Is that why you "don't see"? If the TMA has not removed him, who are you to make that judgement? The "member of the TMA" part must be returned to the article, unless you can provide an actual reason (more than "I don't see") why it is not relevant. Lifeboy (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reason why it is relevant. Without checking, there are two possibilities as to membership of the TMA:

1. It's automatic to any doctor (in good standing) in the state of Texas.
2. It's automatic to any doctor (in good standing) in the state of Texas who pays his dues.

In either of these cases, Burzynski's membership in the TMA or AMA is not relevant, except as to providing evidence that he is (or has been) a doctor in good standing in Texas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly the point. He's in good standing. If there is really substance to the claims in the case brought against Burzynski by the TMA, then let the results speak for themselves. If not, the implication is that there is no wrongdoing and thus it strengthens the case that he and his supporters have: The results he has with cancer patients are amazingly and unbelievably better than the classic chemo approach has, according to Robert Burdick, MD, University of Washington Medical School: "Thus the response rate here is an astounding 33%, with a complete remission rate of 15%. Such remission rates are far in excess of anything I or anyone else has seen since research work on brain tumors began." and "It is very clear that the responses here are due to antineoplaston therapy and are NOT due to surgery, radiation or standard chemotherapy." Examination of 17 Burzynski case records for a Grand Jury trail in 1997 Lifeboy (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. The movie is almost certainly misquoting Burdick; there is no published report of any success rate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have included the source document reference, which just happens to be linked to the movie website, but it still the scanned original. The quote comes from the second last paragraph on page 7 of the letter. The assistance in the analysis by Dr Dieter Schellinger is also stated in par 1, pg 1. Actually, the whole movie transcript is available online so anyone can avail themselves of the facts and refute the claims should they wish and be able to. Mostly though, ad hominem attacks are the order of the day.

I see you are of the opinion that my comments are interpolated. I disagree. I'm saying that the article is misleading in its representation of B's Clinic and stating that he is a doctor in good standing is important in this context. Also, the fact that the FDA blocked B's efforts to run clinical trials (as documented extensively), is sufficient cause to provide good reasons for the lack of published reports of success. While there is ample documented statistical evidence, which far surpasses that of the industry, this is not mentioned in the article, just because it is not proven (by clinical trails, yet blocked by the FDA), yet there are sufficient sources for this. When these are added, they are removed by yourself and others. This is questionable conduct by yourself. Even the insistance of calling anteneoplaston therapy "chemo" is false and it is clear for the cited source. Lifeboy (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a false claim. Antineoplastons is in fact sodium phenylbutyrate which is an HDAC inhibitor, which is a class of chemotherapy drug. If you had read the page, you would have seen this.Roxy the dog (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did read the whole source actually. However, after looking up the formal definition of chemotherapy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemotherapy), I do agree that it may be defined as a chemotherapy. In the mainstream however, chemotherapy is associated with very serious and often lethal side-effects, which is not the case with anteneoplastons, so referring to it in this manner is, as I have argued before, mischievous & misleading. If there is insistence on the term "chemotherapy" (which is highly debatable and unnecessary in the first place), then it must be stated as "a type of chemotherapy that has very little harmful side effects" Lifeboy (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski's own patient consent forms dismiss the idea that there are few harmful side effects. Also, according to an SEC filing, there is a partial clinical hold--a suspension of all new patients--because of an investigation into whether or not a child died on the chemotherapy: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465913045361/a13-13348_110k.htm. In fact there is a case to be made, I believe that ANY side effect is unacceptable when there is no clear evidence of any benefit to being on the drug. Just my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.250.146 (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

1. If he's a doctor in good standing (and I don't seriously doubt it, although he may be blocked (not payable) by Medicare and some insurance companies), TMA or AMA membership is still not relevant. What we should say is that he is a doctor in good standing in Texas (quote the Texas State website, not the TMA).

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, that would be in order. Lifeboy (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

At a glance, perhaps some of the information in the article doesn't seemed biased, but I was hoping to add a little to this article to show both sides of the story here. Adding factual information about Burzynski, such as that he is a member of the Texas Medical Association and American Medical Association helps to balance things out. I noticed that the article states, " that Burzynski received the "James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award, which is bestowed each April Fool's Day on frauds." Although this man has been called a quack, he is also a medical doctor with some credentials, which I feel the readers have a right to know.71.213.7.26 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

James Randi is not a medical doctor and his "award" only shows his organisation's biased opinion on the matter. If anything is irrelevant in this article, it is this. Lifeboy (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

James Randi is an expert in fraud, and his organization probably includes medical doctors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That may of may not be true. However, if repeated court cases and an unusually large number of Grand Jury trails have not come up with anything in all these years, it is clear the Randi is not being objective and thus including his award here is not just irrelevant, but mischievous & misleading. Lifeboy (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Docia49 - you need to understand a little better what neutral means here. As a new editor myself, WP:NPOV is always useful. The "stance of the mainstream" actually is the neutral balanced view. Roxy the dog (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are joking.[1] Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, not the mouthpiece of "the mainstream", and, consequently, we use consensus, not the majority view. kashmiri ^TALK 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about "mouthpiece" ... but generally, and in fringe and biomedical topics in particular, the mainstream view must be prominent and the minority contrary view contextualized in relation to it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't use the words "mouthpiece" or "majority" - Alexbrn has expressed the point well. (and no, I wasn't joking) Roxy the dog (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The little amount of information that I added to this article was my attempt at creating some balance(WP:BALANCE). It looks as though Wikipedia would like both sides of this issue to be shown since there is conflicting information from the reputable sources. However, when trying to edit the article, I changed very little. I was trying to give the first paragraph a neutral point of view (WP:MOSBEGIN)and add some factual information about Burzynski with sources.71.213.7.26 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no conflicting material from reliable sources on whether Burzynski's offerings are "unproven": they all agree they aren't. Therefore, removing this information from the opening paragraph (so that, incidentally, it doesn't show up in the extract text which accompanies Google search results) is not a neutral edit; it is an edit which fails to represent the neutral mainstream view (and probably the most important single aspect of this article) at its start. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is conflicting information. For example, the American Cancer Society is referenced at the bottom of the page as reference number 26. But yet when I tried to reference it, I was told that it was biased. Actually as I said before, the item I was sourcing was just the definition of what an Antineoplaston is. In the lead paragraph it states that antineoplaston therapy is "a controversial chemotherapy" I cannot find anything that gives the definition of an antineoplaston as such, hence the reason I changed the definition in the lead paragraph and sourced it. Since you won't let me make a change to this, Would you please add a source to that because I am unable to find it anywhere(WP:CHALLENGE).71.213.7.26 (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The ACS states: "there is no convincing evidence showing that antineoplastons actually work" in their "Overview" section. That is the crucial information we must convey in our lede (our equivalent to their "overview" section, if you will). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And as for "controversy", we cite an entire scholarly article (The Burzynski Controversy in the United States and in Canada: A Comparative Case Study in the Sociology of Alternative Medicine) on this topic (though "controversial" is in itself a fair summary of the Clinic's activities given here, I'd say). Remember this article is on the topic of the Burzynski Clinic in particular, and not antineoplastons in general. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so why can't we change the definition of the antineoplaston in the lead paragraph or add a source that an antineoplaston is a "controversial chemotherapy?" Also, I am sure the reader will get the point that it is an unproven treatment since the first three paragraphs mention that it is an unproven treatment. Also, would you please source the founding date of the clinic. I cannot find the source for 1976. I am only finding 1977. thanks Docia49 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Also, you have made my point again. You just quoted from the American Cancer Society to illustrate that antineoplastons are controversial, but you won't use the same source to give the definition of an antineoplaston in the first paragraph.Docia49 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the date. The sentence "The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." might be slightly better as "The clinic is best known for the controversy surrounding its "antineoplaston therapy", a chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." Since the mode of treatment is established as controversial, and the treatment is established as a chemotherapy, this is a good summary I think. I'll adjust and see what other editors have to say. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this needs to be in the lead, isn't it covered well enough in the whole section entitled "Antineoplaston Therapy"? - Roxy the dog (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There is redundancy between the second sentence of the first para, and the second paragraph (which more-or-less restates what that sentence says). I wouldn't object if the second sentence of the first para were removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but my problem with the first paragraph is that I cannot find a source that states that antineoplastons are a form of chemotherapy. If you are going to leave it as such, please source it, or change it. Also, please change the word, devised, as antineoplastons are not devised by anyone because they are "naturally-occurring peptides in the human body" http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy. Thanks Docia49 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I support Alexbrn's new version; would still prefer unproven or experimental therapy instead of "chemotherapy", though. Nearly all drugs are "chemotherapy", this word brings hardly anything - while (I took "chemotherapy" in wider sense, but it can also have a more narrow sense) it is important to indicate that antineoplastons are NOT one of well-tested and approved (chemo)therapies in cancer. kashmiri ^TALK 18:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Docia49: "devised" does not have to mean "invented", it can just mean here "devised as cancer treatment". kashmiri ^TALK 19:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The categorization of B's therapy as chemotherapy is sourced to a David Gorski piece[2]. He is an established expert in the field, and for a therapy categorization I'm happy this is a strong enough source (though perhaps it should be attibuted in the body of the

I read Gorski's piece cited as a source and it does *not* say that antineoplastons are chemotherapy. It does say that B *also* uses chemotheraphy, which he doesn't dispute. However, to say that David Gorski says antineoplaston therapy is chemotherapy is false. The article lede needs to be corrected to read something like The clinic is best known for the controversy surrounding its "antineoplaston therapy", invented by it's founder Stanislav Burzynski, but it also uses conventional chemotherapy. Lifeboy (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't have read the source very carefully - he says "despite all of the attempts of Dr. Burzynski and supporters to portray them otherwise antineoplastons are chemotherapy". --Six words (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we can't use the American Cancer Society's definition of an antineoplaston. It is a reliable source. I actually believe it is more reliable than the piece you just sourced. He states, "At the risk of annoying some colleagues I know, I’m going to point out that I never really liked the term “personalized cancer therapy” or its many variants, for the simple reason that it always struck me as more of a marketing term than a scientifically meaningful description"http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/. He is saying that it is called gene targeted medicine, but that he doesn't like the term. It doesn't matter if he likes the term or not, the term is the established term. The American Cancer Society is a neutral source. I am just asking to have some type of neutrality with sources in the beginning section. The items I proposed are neutral, with sources. So I am proposing again, Why can't we change the Burzynski Clinic's opening to 1977, when it has been established with sources? And, why can't we use the American Cancer Society's definition of an antineoplaston, when the American Cancer Society has already been sourced elsewhere in the article? I am not arguing the fact that this is a controversial subject. Is there a problem with changing this?174.52.157.182 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead is, amongst other things, supposed to be a synopsis of the rest of the article. I cannot see the need to start fitting in all this extra detail into the lead when it is adequately covered in the rest of the text. Can you provide a source for the 1977 opening? Roxy the dog (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to fit in extra details. I cannot find a source that states that antineoplastons are a form of "chemotherapy" as stated in the article. I have asked for someone to please add the source if you will not let me add the American Cancer Society's definition, as they are a neutral source. And, like I stated previously, the American Cancer Society is already being used as a source in the article. Further, I cannot find the date of the clinic opening in 1976, but I have only found 1977. I believe that needs to be changed or sourced (WP:UNSOURCED)Docia49 (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't know that the ACS definition of "antineoplaston" resembles Burzynski's; there is some evidence that there are significant differences. All we know is that there is no evidence that Burzynski's antineoplaston treatment for cancer works. There are other problems with the (fair and) "balanced" additions. When there was an "antineoplaston" article, I brought up the fact that we don't know that antineoplastons are antineoplastic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see that you are really passionate about this subject, and I appreciate that. However, I am not arguing whether antineoplastons work. I am just concerned with adding sources to the first paragraph and to either have someone source that "antineoplastons are chemotherapy", which I stated before, I cannot find a source, or change it to a reliable sources definition. .It doesn't matter whether we know what antineoplastons are, somebody does and we can source that definition with a reliable source which is the American Cancer Society.71.213.14.57 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm informing everyone that I added the word "allegedly" to a lawsuit about Burzyinski to keep with Wikipedia guidelines.Docia49 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know which guidelines you are referring to. I have removed the word as an unnecessary tautology. As she was suing, we already know they are allegations. Roxy the dog (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN,WP:BLPCRIME,WP:BLPDocia49 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

None of those support you adding the word "allegedly." You have had some good advice from SilkTork - perhaps it would be wise to pay heed to that advice? Roxy the dog (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Where it says his therapy is "unproven". That is a lie. He has thousands of patients that he treated with FDA approval and he cured most of them. It was when the FDA took over the studies and altered his regimen that they where not working. But then again if you read this site "articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/01/fda-budget-increase.aspx " you will see why the FDA is not working for the Public but for the hand that feeds them. Big Pharma!!! I knew that from years ago when they did a bogus study on Stevia Extract. They extracted the Stevia themselves in their study and did not say what chemicals they used to do so then turned around and claimed Stevia Extract can cause cancer. This whole article is probably written by someone from the FDA or the Big Pharma Industry. It usually is when it lies like this. Sad but even these forums are packed with their propaganda as this one is. He had initially FDA approval to test on humans and he did so and proved his cures work but like all cures they get squashed by the powers that be and in this case the FDA themselves who are suppose to protect the public according to their mission statement. We all know that is not happening. They are barely even funded by the federal government. They get all their funding by the industries they are suppose to be policing. It will not be much longer and the people will fight back. That day is almost here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNo1 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is unproven; there have been a number of apparent "cures", but there have also been a number of deaths attributed to the "therapy". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Vickers goes further and says the appropriate term for B's therapy (as for some other dubious treatments) is "disproven". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Burzynski Clinic

To whom it may concern:

I just finished reading the Wikipedia exposé on Dr. Burzynski's ANP treatment.

I have several questions:

Your article cites the Cancer Is Serious Business movie as “one sided and biased”...I failed to see any argument in favor of ANP and/or any of Dr. Burzynski's successes....has he had any? How has he been able to withstand years of being indicted by the FDA and still be in business? Why am I in touch with several people who have had success with ANP, and why are there patients who participated in Phase III Clinical Trials prior to 2012 still allowed (by the FDA) to have ANP therapy? Most importantly, if these patients (Bay Area's Noah Stout for one) are still alive because they were allowed access to ANP therapy, why isn't that reported?

I've read countless articles in newspapers, books and online lauding ANP as a promising treatment for cancer.

Here's an excerpt from Dr. Ralph Moss' book, "The Cancer Industry" :

There was at least one scientist at the NCI who had found that Burzynski’s antineoplastons worked. On May 24, 1993, the NCI’s Chief of Neuroradiology, Dr. Nicholas Patronas, testified at a hearing that was contemplating suspending Burzynski’s license that “antineoplastons are the most effective treatment for brain tumors I have ever seen.”(p363) Patronas was severely reprimanded for supporting Burzynski and later withdrew a paper he was going to give about antineoplastons at a conference in Sweden. 

I'm not interested in politics or conspiracy theories....just appreciate a "level playing field!"

Thank you,

David Lauser Dlauser (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ralph W. Moss (writer) is hardly a neutral commentator. Is there any significant independent third-party source that goes against the grain of what the article here says? I suspect not - but if there is: bring it forth! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it also seems disingenuous to call someone "Dr. Ralph Moss" in a medical article when their PhD is in the classics, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Most importantly, if these patients (Bay Area's Noah Stout for one) are still alive because they were allowed access to ANP therapy, why isn't that reported?" The children Amelia Saunders [3] and Billie Bainbridge [4] are dead, and dead children don't talk. Your approach of counting those that haven't died because of, for example, spontaneous remission etc would be problematic and suffer from confirmation bias. What we require are reliable independent sources to put emphasis on something. That is absent from your proposal, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? The Burzynski movie was made by an advertising art director whose previous work includes Truther conspiracy-fest Zeitgeist. Nobody thinks it's unbiased. Well, maybe David Icke does, bit nobody rational. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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."

[5] 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)

Questions of expense

Allegations of expense have been raised, but no sources indicate what the actual costs were, nor do they give any comparison to existing cancer treatments, which could also be considered, "Expensive". It also should be pointed out that the clinic's treatments are not subsidized, nor have the same public backing as other cancer treatments, and are considered new technologies which implicitely have higher costs. I suggest that better sources are provided that detail expenses as they compare to other cancer treatments, whether they are covered by health insurance or other subsidies.

Akiva.avraham (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Original Quote:

"The consensus among the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society[29] and Cancer Research UK[30] among others, is that antineoplaston therapy is unproven, the Burzynski clinic is expensive, and the overall probability of the treatment turning out to be as claimed is low due to lack of credible mechanisms and the poor state of research after more than 35 years of investigation."

Suggested Replacement:

"The consensus among the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society[29] and Cancer Research UK[30] among others, is that antineoplaston therapy is unproven, its estimated cost is $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more, and The overall probability of the treatment turning out to be as claimed is low due to lack of credible mechanisms and the poor state of research after more than 35 years of investigation."

Reason for replacement:

Neither the American Cancer Society nor Cancer Research UK, the two citations provided, cite his treatment as being "Expensive". The citation in the sentence that follows does,

While the antineoplaston therapy is marketed as a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy, it is, according to David Gorski, a form of chemotherapy with significant known side effects.

however he fails to qualify what "Expensive" means, and no where in his blog does he cite actual numbers or how they compare to other kemotherapies. It is thus suspect to being a pejorative truism, and not helpful to a reader anyways.

Edit: However, The American Cancer Society, the source already provided for the quote in question, does claim the expense to be "$7,000 to $9,500 per month or more". Additionally, current prices of Chemotherapy indicate higher costs of around $10,000 - $12,000 per month on average. This does not include radiation treatment and all its associated costs, which Antineoplastines supposedly circumvent.

Writing in an op-ed in the New York Times in October 2012, three physicians at New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center noted that “the typical new cancer drug coming on the market a decade ago cost $4,500 per month (in 2012 dollars); since 2010 the median price has been around $10,000.”

This is particularly the case with cancer, where the cost of drugs, and of care over all, has risen precipitously. The typical new cancer drug coming on the market a decade ago cost about $4,500 per month (in 2012 dollars); since 2010 the median price has been around $10,000. Two of the new cancer drugs cost more than $35,000 each per month of treatment.

According to Cancer Bulletin of National Cancer Institute, the average cost of initial cancer therapy per patient increased by $4,000 to $7,000, depending on cancer type between 1991 and 2002. A larger number of patients receiving chemotherapy and the high average cost of chemotherapy are some of the most significant factors leading to increased cost of cancer treatment.

Akiva.avraham (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more >= expensive. Also, numbers change, and as such are more subject to being "inaccurate", however, it is unlikely that this therapy will ever be "cheap". Blogs are not reliable sources either, and I see no cite-able source claiming $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more, so, marking as not done for now. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"$7,000 to $9,500 per month or more >= expensive."

Of the 12 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for various cancer conditions in 2012, 11 were priced above $100,000 for a year of treatment. Writing in an op-ed in the New York Times in October 2012, three physicians at New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center noted that “the typical new cancer drug coming on the market a decade ago cost $4,500 per month (in 2012 dollars); since 2010 the median price has been around $10,000.”

It is thus disengenuous to cite it as "Expensive" without pointing out how it compares to other treatments. Compared to other treatments, it is on par, if not less.

Also, numbers change, and as such are more subject to being "inaccurate", however, it is unlikely that this therapy will ever be "cheap".

Why is it unlikely?

Blogs are not reliable sources either, and I see no cite-able source claiming $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more

You are then arguing for the change. It is the blog, "ScienceBasedMedicine.com" that cites the treatment as being "Expensive". Neither American Cancer Society nor Cancer Research UK cite it as being expensive, and those are the sources given for that sentence.

and I see no cite-able source claiming $7,000 to $9,500 per month or more

That quote is directly lifted out of the American Cancer Society citation.

So once again, to clarify: "Expensive" SUPPOSEDLY comes from two citations: American Cancer Societyand Cancer Research UK. However, neither source cites it as being expensive. The term "Expensive" actually comes from a later citation for the next sentence, of which that citation is the blog, "ScienceBasedMedicine"..

Ergo, if "Blogs are not reliable sources", and "Expensive" is cited ONLY by a blog (Which as pointed out, lacks actual numbers or comparisons to back it up its claim), then "Expensive" should be replaced by the, "$7,000 to $9,500 per month or more" line, which is sourced in the American Cancer Society.

Akiva.avraham (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

SBM is not simply classified as a "blog". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is a new daily science blog dedicated to promoting the highest standards and traditions of science in medicine and health care.

Either way, blogs are discouraged, but not irrelevant according to wikipedia standards. Each blog entry will have to be weighed on its own merits. Science Based Medicine even by its title is implicitly zealous and pejorative, which seeks to bully what it claims to be evidence based medicine. It is free to do that, and is probably useful to society in many respects; I do not oppose their advocacy, and will accept each quality article for the quality it provides. However, it simply does not receive the sort of pass that Cancer Research UK and the American Cancer Society do, as it is in fact, a self proclaimed blog.

In this case, the irony here is ludicrous, because I never claimed that SBM should not be sourced because it was a blog; User "Technical_13" did, and yet he refused to make the change from "Expensive" (Which is only sourced by the blog), to the actual prices cited by the American Cancer Society.

The simple matter of fact is, that the blog post cited, is of poor quality, particularly because it credulously [Providing no numbers or sources] and unqualifiedly [It does not compare it to costs of other kemotherapies coupled with radiation, poison, or surgery costs] states that his treatment is "Expensive", when in fact, the numbers provided by the American Cancer Society show it to be on par with current kemotherapies, and without the added expense of radiation, surgery, or poisoning.

Akiva.avraham (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The SBM post is by David Gorski, who should know when a cancer treatment is "expensive". This is fine. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Poisoning? Really? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Some chemotherapies could be and are described as attempting to poison cancer cells.

As to David Gorski, here are some issues:

- Appeal to authority is at best a weak inductive argument, and a non argument when used deductively. Because David Gorski at no point to which I can find, even searching him in google, has ever cited actual cost, providing no data or qualification whatsoever, then accepting his word for it is a deductive exercise, and thus a logical fallacy.

- David Gorski is not an authority on expense; he is an authority on oncology.

- The argument implied as it is presented is a logical fallacy. ie "Patients should avoid this therapy because it is expensive, ergo, they should instead use more expensive therapies.

- "Expensive" is subjective, and only meaningful when compared to the cost of other services of its class. As pointed and sourced, other cancer treatments are on par and more often significantly exceed the cost of the Burzynski Clinic.

Akiva.avraham (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 Partly done – I removed "the Burzynski clinic is expensive," as the section title implies that this section is devoted to discussion of efficacy, and not cost, of the treatment. This was mixing general discussion of the treatment with the amount charged by a specific provider of the treatment. Discussion of costs could possibly be more fully developed elsewhere in the article. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

wow!

I just started watching a documentary starting with congressional hearing witness talking about his daughter, and then came here to see wiki article. After the lead sentence I stopped. So much credibility this Wikipedia article provides that I have no desire to read it. Please correct the lead sentence. 212.200.213.54 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly, is wrong with the first sentence? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

word unproven. even cancer.org site writes: A number of patients claim to have been helped by antineoplaston therapy, but these kinds of reports are not considered evidence of effectiveness by the medical community, either for this or for any other type of therapy. So maybe this statement could be modified to state that although a number of patients claim success, this subjective claims are not considered evidence by medical community. Because proof for some is not proof for others, and both sides represent important sides of NPOV. 212.200.213.54 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at all wrong with "unproven." Stan has been doing "Clinical Trials" for about thirty years and hasn't published any proof that it works yet. I think that until there is some proof, we should leave "unproven" in the first sentence. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, leave 'unproven' by medical community standards, and add "a number of patients claim to have been helped" by people who read this article standards. 212.200.213.54 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that is covered well enough in the body of the article. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

shouldn't lead be balanced, for the sake of NPOV? 212.200.213.54 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by balanced. The rules under which we work here do not mean we should give equal weight to all points of view on an issue. So we go with the mainstream scientific and medical view, and the result is, I feel, quite reasonable. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

But you see, sites like cancer.org state a number of patients claim improvement, and yet i don't see where such a statement is in the article.

Also, isn't patients' view relevant as well, even if it is placebo, it still lead to improvement. I think without any such statements about patients this article is quite biased, not NPOV, especially as those statements can be found on medical sites, so why exclude them from this article? 212.200.213.54 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the rules and guidelines under which we operate are these ... wp:V, wp:RS, wp:MEDRS, wp:NPA, wp:CON. You ought to familiarise yourself with the basics there, as they cover the points you make quite well. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

cancer.org passes WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS (it is already cited in the article). WP:NPA i don't see the relevance now. WP:CON is exactly something we are trying to do here at the moment. How about WP:NPOV? 212.200.213.54 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree - "unproven" is NPOV. We shouldn't give equal validity to uninformed counter-claims. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

not sure we can say patients were uninformed! they were first hand informed! :) 77.46.180.8 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But there's no need to bludgeon the word into reader's heads. The word "unproven" is used three times in the first three paragraphs. It is definitely a violation of WP:NPOV to tell readers what opinion they should have. I have changed the first occurrence to "controversial", which is definitely true, but more neutral and doesn't sound opinionated. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Undid. Clearly not NPOV. Let's not imply that this is efficate per WP:MEDRS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How does "controversial" imply efficacy? The word "controversial" is hard to dispute by anyone. Alternative would be "not medically accepted". The point is, we don't need to use "unproven" three times in a row. The word is already used two more times right after that.

As indicated by Alexbrn, myself, and others, there is no consensus for including the word "unproven" here. The WP:BURDEN for using this word has not been met. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Try something more substantive a bare assertion that has no policy backing. What, exactly, is nonsense? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Amatulic (talk · contribs) - you might want to familiarise yourself with WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, WP:GIVAL, etc. Some basic understanding of evidence-based medicine is usually required for WP:COMPETENCE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Err, I don't agree at all: as I wrote "unproven" is NPOV (i.e. neutral). The word should stay. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me. I saw the statement "unproven" is NPOV-violating, with your signature. Looking at the talk page history, I see now that Barney the barney barney edited your comment in this diff.

And, I am highly familiar with WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, etc. Substituting "unproven" with "controversial" in no way violates either of them. My suggestion to change the word was also one of style, to eliminate the monotony of seeing the same word over and over in succession. Not really a big deal, at least "unproven" is better than "disproven", but still not as neutral as "not medically accepted" or "controversial". ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Best if we just mirror RS, like this. There is no problem with "unproven". For a promoted cancer treatment, its unproven nature is a chief characteristic and should be prominent here, as it is in the sources with comment on it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That film is not a documentary. It is a propaganda film. It was made by Eric Merola, who was art director on his brother Peter's film Zeitgeist: The Movie - it is similarly styled, and every bit as misleading. There is an actual documentary about Burzynski, made by the BBC Panorama team. It is rather less flattering to Burzynski, so needless to say he complained to the BBC about it. The complaint failed.

As to whether patients are uninformed: no, they are mis-informed. For example, there are dozens of cases where a patient is suffering ischaemic necrosis, and Burzynski tells them this is a good sign, the tumour "dying from the inside" due to his treatment. It is not a good sign. They usually die very soon afterwards. One of the findings of the FDA inspection was that he routinely miscategorises patient response, even according to his own criteria. Burzynski is the centre of a cult of personality. All failures are attributed to someone else, all survivals are attributed to ANPs even though every survivor I know of previously had conventional therapy and a good prognosis. Liz Szabo's piece in USA Today explains in some detail why the patient anecdotes are not what they seem at face value.

Burzynski's problems are down to only one person: Burzynski himself. In his zeal to keep all the credit and all the glory, he effectively excluded any collaboration from scientists and doctors who might have prevented the litany of ethical abuses. As it is, we now know what AS-2.1 and AS-10 are, both are common compounds that were tested for anti-cancer activity in the 1950s and found not to be clinically useful, with a weak possible effect offset by substantial toxicity from the high sodium levels. A scientifically rigorous researcher might have been able to tease this apart and find a class of tumours for which there was some clinically useful effect, but Burzynski deliberately excluded any chances of this because he believes his own hypothesis; he has been pursuing pathological science since departing Baylor. And as we know, it is vitally important to the clinic to skew the Wikipedia article in their favour (or have it deleted) in the brief window before their pipeline dries up. They are cynically using a small number of desperate terminal patients right now, but the FDA has rightly said that any further investigation of ANPs must be conducted by an oncologist independent of the clinic and overseen by an IRB that is not conflicted, as Burzynski's is. I think this is a cynical ploy - the chances of them finding such a person are negligible.

This article is accurate: there is no credible evidence that "antineoplastons" work, everything Burzynski has done since being forced to administer them only under clinical trials has been, on the admission of his own lawyer, an artifice. I cannot think of any good reason why anybody who had an effective treatment would choose to behave this way, since it is more or less guaranteed to ensure that the treatment dies with its inventor if not before. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

CSI

See [6]. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz Szabo article

This seems relevant. Probably should go under the USA Today area. There is a part 2 coming out. I'll try to get to this if someone else does not. http://www.reportingonhealth.org/2014/01/12/qa-liz-szabo-braving-legal-threats-investigate-medical-folk-hero Sgerbic (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sgerbic. I encountered the same article. I can give it a go and add this to the USA Today session...User:BrainDad (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BrainDad, I see that there is going to be a part 2 you might want to watch out for also. Sgerbic (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sgerbic. Added some quotes from the interview (both part I and II) User:BrainDad (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

FDA agrees to let patients get controversial drug, Liz Szabo, USA Today, March 23, 2014 -- Brangifer (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

and some comment from David Gorski on SBM. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

They did a smart thing. Any oncologist can administer the treatment as long as they are (a) independent of the clinic and (b) have IRB approval. The reasons for this are of course that the clinic's IRB is deeply conflicted and the clinic's staff have behaved unethically. Thus, the FDA insists that the treatment is used only in a context where the two sources of problems (the IRB and the cult of personality around Burzynski) are not present. While there may be doctors who would prescribe this treatment, the chances of finding an oncologist who would do so seem remote to me, and the chances of finding an IRB that would sign it off, is smaller still.

It's still disappointing, though. The treatment is fraudulent. We don't allow Bernie Madoff to sell stocks to terminal patients on the grounds that they will never live to find out they were robbed. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think it's funny that the FDA approves drugs with VERY dangerous side effects that are produced by huge pharmaceutical companies, yet claims Burzynski's drug is dangerous? As for the USA today story, notice that they themselves let slip that their information comes from sources that Burzynski is competing against (Not to mention that USA today is owned by Gannette - one of the worst, most biased media conglomerates in this country). 75.106.123.39 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because those treatments have been shown to have benefits that exceed the risks in well designed clinical trials. And around 90% of oncology drugs that enter clinical trials don't get approved by the FDA, so I'm going with the FDA. Stan has not done anything at all to provide evidence that his junk medicine works. So, unless you have something more than a lame strawman argument, it's hard to see anything here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Toxic or Common Metabolite?

I have noticed that the article uses the word "toxic" three times, the word "harm" twice, as well as "significant known side effects", etc, but the active ingredient mentioned in the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylacetylglutamine ! Now this seems to be contradictory to the overall tone of the page since Phenylacetylglutamine is "a common metabolite that can be found in human urine!" 67.206.184.214 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction - metabolites can be toxic and thus harmful. Take formaldehyde for example: it is a very common metabolite, yet it is toxic. Ingesting, injecting and inhaling (large doses of) formaldehyde is harmful, and our article on it says so. --Six words (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The dxose makes the poison. Water is toxic in sufficient quantity, ANPs are described as toxic because of the number of documented incidents of toxicity, at least one of which was fatal. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Who ever is writing this article is completely completely biased toward the FDA. An example can be seen in the "legal issues" section, where evidence is presented against Dr Burzynski by the FDA, for his failure to comply with their protocol. But I do no see any mention of the FDA guided Phase II clinical trials that were run external to Burzynski, in which Burzynski's protocol was completely broken and likely altered to produce flawed results. Wikipedia is a place where I come to be educated, not where I come to be mislead by the false, biased, malicious opinion of the people who write an article. This is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes 932 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Those who have contributed to this article have been guided by published sources. Do you have a reliable published source for your claim that "Burzynski's protocol was completely broken and likely altered to produce flawed results"? Maproom (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I could find a reliable source for "Burzynski's (single Phase II) protocol (for multiple conditions) was likely to produce flawed results." (Except that it hadn't produced any published results.) But I don't think that's what any of you are looking for.

I don't think you, (Wes 932, can find a source other than Burzynski, himself, for the statement in question. It is, of course, possible that it is accurate. It is not possible that Burzynski's Phase II trial(s) could produce a useful positive result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a letter from the NCI to Burzynski regarding trial changes. http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/1995-01-31_NCITrialChanges.pdf

Letter from Dr Burzynski to Dr Freedman, Associate Director of Clinical Evaluation, NCI. http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/1995-03-29_DrBResponsetoNCIchanges.pdf

You may choose to flag the "reliability" of such sources, however it will be hard for you to convince anyone that the NCI, the FDA or any other Pharma company would make such documents readily available to the public. And of course, they would not have been "officially published" anywhere. Wes 932 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it's possible, although "photoshopping" was possible even in 1995, to the extent of gluing a signature to another document. Reliable sources would have to weigh the probabilities. Whether:

1. Dr. Burzynski (or someone on his staff) forged Dr. Markin's letter. (Whether or not we consider Dr. Burzynski likely to have committed fraud, he was convicted of fraud at one point.)
2. The change of protocol was reasonable.
3. Dr. Burzynski was correct, and the external protocol was compromised.
4. As stated in the letter, if the protocol weren't changed, it could not have produced a significant result because of the minimal number of patients available.

I don't know enough to determine which is most reasonable, and, as far as I can tell, no one associated with the film other than Dr. B would be qualified determine whether #2 or #3 is correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2014

2605:E000:8442:8000:E6CE:8FFF:FE1C:F3D0 (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Unlock this page - FDA reopened clinical trials, allow democracy to function.

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)