Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Ph.D claim

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Also, the "prolific publisher" claim comes up a lot, but the he's counting "presentations", unpublished papers and a lot of published papers in the Journal of Cancer Medicine, which is one of those Chinese junk publications which consist mostly of plagiarized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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401213135/http://richarddawkins.net:80/articles/534614-praise-for-rhys-morgan-15-over-miracle-cure-alert to http://richarddawkins.net/articles/534614-praise-for-rhys-morgan-15-over-miracle-cure-alert

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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

Texas Medical Board

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928111650/http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=847 to http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=847
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://richarddawkins.net/articles/534614-praise-for-rhys-morgan-15-over-miracle-cure-alert

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

Drandroidgh (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

there are video proofs showing results from clients around usa on a daily basis big pharma doesn't want the world to be free

This is not an edit request. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Treatments and Compounds Patents Issued

Dr Burzynski's Compounds were patented (surreptiously) by The United States Government as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Dr Samid)under:

US005605930A US005635532A US005635533A US005654333A US005661179A US005710178A US005843994A US005852056A US005877213A US005883124A US006037376A

214.8.164.60 (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• No patents or patent applications with such numbers exist. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

x

2600:387:B:9A2:0:0:0:60 (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed

First paragraph of efficacy section states “ While the antineoplaston therapy is marketed as a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy, it is a form of chemotherapy”

The citation provided does not support this claim. It does support the subsequent claim of toxicity.

There is not, from what I’ve seen, anywhere other than this article that antineoplaston is considered a form of chemotherapy. 98.151.73.86 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, well spotted. An editor who added this passage more than 10 years ago [2] clearly did not check the source, so feel free to go ahead and rework it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a citation. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• • • CITATION FAILURE> The following citations are deficient of any meaningful information and the sources are not professional and should be removed. David Gorski and Sharon Hill are not notable or remarkabe for any opinion on cancer research and nobody would ever care about their opinions.

David Gorski for Science-Based Medicine. December 12, 2011 Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, antineoplastons, and the selling of an orphan drug as a cancer cure Quote: " it’s not the concept of "personalized gene-targeted therapy" to which I object. It’s how Burzynski does it and how he corrupts the very concept through his "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to throwing "targeted" therapies at cancer patients willy-nilly without a systematic rationale for picking them or, it seems, any concern for potential adverse reactions due to combining drugs that have not been tested adequately in combination." Sharon Hill for The Skeptical Inquirer. January 10, 2014 Burzynski Clinic: A Scientifical Year Of Fail184.151.230.113 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand our sourcing requirements. There is no problem with those. - Roxy the dog 18:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Edited. Hope you all agree the edit follows the sources more closely. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, David Gorski certainly is an authority on cancer therapies. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Patients’ Complaints

Seems there are no cited patients’ complaints. If there were complaints from any patient, surely the high institutions who claim quackery could cite at least one. 209.188.121.236 (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The dead cannot complain. Sometimes the families do.[3] Bon courage (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No - families DO complain for unlawful deaths and not one has appeared here! There are NONE shown.

BTW - Efficacy is never “proven.” It is shown either as statistically evident or not. Statistically, we could look at all of Burzynski’s patients and learn how many were healed and how many were not given certain conditions & stages of cancer. Simple - just do it! Historically stored data is valid to use for such stats of evidence. JanBlueCoco (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources are clear: it's harmful quackery that doesn't work. As I understand it, there are no reliable figures and the clinic is cagey about them. Bon courage (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No Bon courage, you are wrong. There is NO evidence against this clinic & that is why it is still open and thriving. There are reliable figures and the clinic is NOT cagey about them. If they did not have the numbers to show the evidence of efficacy, they would have closed years ago. Quackery exists in your inability to admit the truth of what happens when a viable cure emerges outside of large pharmaceutical companies’ lucrative reach. JanBlueCoco (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does have the complaint from Lola Quinlan. But perhaps OP is on to something in that this article should have more complaints from the patients. US News and USA Today have both chronicled complaints about the Burzynski Clinic. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be wary of detailing individual complaints for the same reason as I'd be wary of individual testimonials. If there was a review covering complaints in general though ... Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Lola Quinlan had stage 4 cancer. Newer alternative findings about turkey tail cancer may have helped her. Of course without knowing all the details on this one case, we do not know where the truth lies. JanBlueCoco (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Statistically, the evidence of successes versus failures could be done on historical data. JanBlueCoco (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It could be, but no good data exists, and in any case it would not be for Wikipedia to do that. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The article discusses a number of evidence assessments regarding the Burzynski treatment. But we could probably afford to add more, such as the review by Canadian cancer experts Drs. Blackstein and Bergsagel in the early 1980s. They wrote, "We were left with the impression that either he knows very little about cancer and the responses of different cancers to chemotherapy or else he thinks that we are very stupid and he has tried to hoodwink us." Also I can't immediately find a reliable source for the entire quote but, "We believe that it is unethical to administer unproven agents such as Antineoplastons to patients without satisfying the requirements of the FDA and an ethics committee, that the minimum standards for human experimentation are being met. We also believe that it is immoral to charge patients for this unproven, experimental treatment." ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It'd be better to quote academic sources about these supposed therapies rather than personal attacks on the founder in popular media. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with Kashmiri, criticism needs as much of a foundation in facts as statements in support. Eluxides (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias

This page is incredibly biased: Zero effort to present any information on the successes of this doctor's research and treatments. And how incredibly unsuccessful the FDA, Texas Medical Board, et al, have been in their claims against him. This page smells like astro-turfing and that's apparently allowed because it "comes from the community." That's where Wikipedia has no integrity. See Cheryl Attkinsson's TedX talk, "Astroturf and manipulation of media messages." Just wondering how much Big Pharma pays "the community" for their input. 2601:404:C67F:ED50:9410:D529:9F67:4531 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I need some clarification here: your first statement implies that people are intentionally not making an effort to contribute to the article, but then you wonder if people are getting paid. If folks are being paid to not contribute to the article, I'm outraged; I can not-contribute to a ton more articles than I'm currently not contributing to. Is there a recruiter I can talk to?--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree! Where are the success stories? Any credible institution (government or not) will show ALL sides of a case. Slanderous statements with no credibility appear as if authoritative - yet, just sloppy bullying. JanBlueCoco (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The consensus among all relevant experts and expert bodies is that this is worthless therapy being used as a basis for quackery. Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. You made it sound as if there existed strong evidence on antineoplaston's (in)efficacy – yet in reality there's none: no reliable studies of antineoplastons have ever been conducted and/or published. Expert bodies don't call unproven therapies "worthless" but say: "Please generate evidence." Burzynski's fault is not that he uses antineoplastons, but that he promotes them as an effective therapy when there's no evidence, and additionally charges absurd money for it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

From the article: Since the mid-1990s, Burzynski registered some sixty clinical trials of antineoplastons and, in December 2010, a Phase III trial which did not open for patient recruitment. Burzynski has not published full results for any of these. That is strong enough evidence on antineoplaston's inefficacy for a consensus among all relevant experts. If it worked, he would have published by now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. No peer-reviewed publication = no evidence. Note that Class I evidence is normally expected.

However, no evidence of efficacy ≠ evidence of inefficacy! — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We have a failure to find evidence in a situation where finding evidence was to be expected (if efficacious), and we have a consensus among experts. On the other hand, we have anecdotes. The things on the first hand belongs in the article, and the other does not. Then you start talking about mathematical logic. This is pointless nitpicking unrelated to article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand that no "expert consensus" exists about the treatments' (in)efficacy – precisely because a consensus needs scientific data. Yes, we can make an assumption (which may actually not be far from truth) that the failure to generate data after so many years of clinical practice, and involving such a high number of patients, may well mean that the treatments are worthless. But in science, we can only say that there's no supporting data; not that they're "proven" to be ineffective. In science, any assertion requires evidence – see evidence-based medicine.

The expert consensus is, more or less, that Burzynski's treatments cannot be recommended in treating cancer.

It's always worth discerning medical science from public health advocacy. Wikipedia is the former. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Still unrelated to article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a direct response to your claim of "strong enough evidence on antineoplaston's inefficacy". Unless you don't want other editors respond? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

All I did was respond to your tangent However, no evidence of efficacy ≠ evidence of inefficacy by pointing out that it was enough to generate a consensus among all relevant experts. Later you swapped "evidence" and "proof": not that they're "proven" to be ineffective. Can you please stop doing that - depicting me as a sort of simpleton by arguing against obviously false strawmen as if I had promoted them, and claiming that I fail to understand? I don't need this, and I will stop responding now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the chronology, as yours was not a "response" to mine but preceded it.

If my scientific writer conflated lack of evidence of efficacy with evidence of inefficacy, they'd be losing their job. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There most certainly is bias when zero effort was made to share the successes on this page!!! Don’t muddy the very clear and correct statement about BIAS, NapoliRoma! JanBlueCoco (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There are no independently authenticated successes. Only claims made by a man with a financial stake in the outcome and a long history of ethical violations. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023

The intro to this article contains a lot of bias, can the wording please be seen to to be more informative and less destructive? 2607:FEA8:5CE0:C800:52D0:F104:BA91:5B64 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing Patents

This page is missing all patents that Dr. Burzynski obtained for antineoplastons. GenericUsername9000 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:PATENTS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Quackery 2

The reference used from the “Antineoplastons: When is enough enough?” Published in the The Lancet Oncology has the below paragraph directly after the author uses the term “Quackery”.

“The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the United States government.“

Why is the term quackery used to describe this doctor in the first sentence of this Wikipedia article when the source being used is an opinion by the author? 2601:240:E500:58C0:709D:54C0:1AF8:1C57 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed, as it was based on a single opinion piece. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not advocacy

@ScienceFlyer: Please note that Wikipedia is not advocacy. Your efforts to add every single instance of negative coverage are making the article rather biased than balanced. Are you running a personal crusade against Burzynski? — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. 171.252.188.69 (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)v00n2000

Partisanship By Way Of Lacking Significance/Missing Sources

"Legal cases have been brought as a result of the sale of the therapy without regulatory approval."

The guy lives as a result of drinking water, but that does not rise to significance in the context as to why he's seen legal cases.

For the given wording to stand there has to be a demonstration as to how lack of regulatory approval didn't just make him more vulnerable to legal cases. Given he appears to have every right to sell without regulatory approval as far as that segment of the wiki article itself is concerned if you read carefully. That should be made explicit (e.g. with wording such as "opened him up to") or a source should be added that substantiates that it isn't just profit motives masquerading as self deception and concern trolling of the parties bringing cases because the first instinct of the reader is to assume significance. "Where there's smoke there's fire" which is a fallacy.

This extends to wordings such as "The clinic has been the focus of criticism primarily due to".

You'll want to ask sociologists or other experts on intent and unconscious bias when it comes to what is people's reasoning, what is a primary cause. Especially if no demonstrated wrongdoing can be used for soft inference of evidence somebody may or may not have (even with that it'd still be lackluster wording).

I think the section could be fixed by referencing who makes what criticisms, who brings what cases, so that we don't need to worry about "primary reasons" but rather take (and give) people's words, for better or worse.

Or again maybe there is a source that substantiates on the reasons for criticisms, as opposed to there being criticism which is obviously not synonymous with (motivational as opposed to stated) reasons for criticism. But probably more plausible to just fix the wording and not invoke the need to go to sociologist sources that probably don't exist and so on. RaoulTheWok (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether these particular lawsuits were related to the regulatory status of his treatments, but certainly, placing unapproved drugs on the market is illegal both in the US and in most of the world, and can certainly be valid grounds for a lawsuit.

Burzynski apparently tries to game the system by pretending these are all "clinical trials". However, it's illegal to charge trial participants for participation (to the contrary – often people are paid to participate). So I understand that Burzynski claims the hospital charges are for other services, not for antineoplastons.

This is all quite a contentious practice, and no wonder that when treatments fail, US courts tend to admit lawsuits.

So I see no problem with the initial statement. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Burzynski

You make note of the FDA going after him with fines and such, but nothing positive about his treatments.Why?. Maybe posting the people and percentages of people that have been cured. WIKIPEDIA is very biased, and I will not make any type of donation to this organization, since it most likely has made enough from the FDA to put what they wanted into this article. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

nothing positive about his treatments.Why? Because we need reliable sources for that. See WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no compelling evidence that antineoplastons work for cancer, even after 45 years. Unfortunately, a false and misleading video on Youtube (id = rmxUsAI29fw) (by Eric Merola) seems to have gotten some attention, with nearly 1.5 million views in about a week. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the uptick in interest. - Roxy the dog 13:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You're basically saying we are biased; not "wikipedia". It is the community that makes these calls. I'd like you to point out a specific instance where we are being unfair with sources, rather than a nonspecific cry of bias. As I see it, you're just mad that the community disagrees with you. Democracy means sometimes you don't get what you want. Cartossin (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Every online community must be standing behind some entity, which in return is moderating its activity. If the community stood by itself, it would be on the "dark web". This web is centralized and every public IP has its legal owner. If Wikipedia allows your activity then it agrees to your biases. QED Donaastor (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the biased observed by many of the people interested in this matter stems from the need "for evidence" when there are dozens of video testimony from patients of the doctor, but you allow slanderous terms like "quackery" to be used to label his treatment with no such requirements. In addition, several statements of "facts" supporting criticisms of the doctor's work with "citations" refer back to either irrelevant pages or pages that do not contain the text it says it does. It's quite disconcerting the amount of disinformation on this page and people are right to point it out. If you believe in democracy Cartossin, I'm afraid you're going to find more people that observe this bias on the page and call for it to be changed going forward. Eluxides (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Anecdote does not equal evidence. All the evidence supports the article. Unsupported testimony is worthless. - Roxy the dog 09:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not even a democracy. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Anecdotes does not equal evidence. Correct. Since when does experimental treatments with numerous documented successes from a licensed medical doctor equal 'quackery'? I'm aware Hob, I was referencing the previous statement. Eluxides (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Published case series are considered class IV evidence – interesting to read and documenting a clinical practice but virtually worthless in establishing a treatment's efficacy.[4] Do you have anything else to offer beyond case series? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

missing source

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

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

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

Case series have very low evidence value; in other words, technically they prove nothing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics never PROVES anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quackery

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

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

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

Negative Bias

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

Whitewashing

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

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

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

Subset of proposed edits

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

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

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

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

Hi @ScienceFlyer,

My edits explained:

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

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

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

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

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

ChatGPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good point about the promising results!

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

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

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

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

"No evidence?!" SMEAR CAMPAIGN

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

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

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

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