Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive (Antineoplaston)

message: I cannot for the life of me, in good conscience see this article and not want to puke. There is evidence which comes from peer-reviewed journals that shows the efficacy of Antineoplastons.
Heyazzo (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because the BRI might not own the patents and therefore be useless from an acquisition perspective? 62.78.240.7 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Patient-doctor confidentiality? Would require obtaining permission from every patient. 62.78.240.7 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  Because other parties are editing it to discredit him as much as possible because his drug isn't marketable. It's made from donations of blood and urine, and would put a lot of expensive chemo drugs and radiation machines out of sale. Items heavily profitable to certain parties. But they eventually stopped after realizing how quickly these other people kept reverting everything back to slander. 71.52.226.194 (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't there a note in the article (or probably B's article) that they are no longer made from "donations of blood and urine", but are, in fact, synthesized?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical corporations to keep Burzynski's amazing discovery from the public!!! Congratulations you just earned 40 points on the crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html. Dr. Morbius (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Questions on Antineoplastons/Burzynski Clinic 

message: Recently critical content has been removed by User:216.201.132.178 (DNS lookup). This IP address belongs to the Burzynski Clinic. The edits were made in violoation of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Guideline and the user has been warned. Cacycle 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of critical content by Burzynski's staff 

message: In regards to the recent modifications to the content of the articles about Stanislaw R. Burzynski and Antineoplastons, we would like to clarify that the Burzynski Clinic chose to make editorial changes to both articles, using the caution required by the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Policy and the Neutral Point of View Policy, to officially and explicitly dispute certain claims that we consider false or outdated.  
Certain recent modifications to both articles seem to be an attempt to discredit the validity of scientific research and harm the reputation of Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD.
Burzynski Clinic will submit to the Wikipedia Information Team an official document addressing each of the false and unverifiable claims included in both articles and provide verifiable references to each disputed point.
Burzynski Clinic requests an objective review of the provided references by the Wikipedia Information Team, in line with its Neutral Point of View Policy, and objective decision as to which content should be removed from these articles.
Public Relations Office, Burzynski Clinic
--216.201.132.178 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please feel free to add missing information or corrections (including reliable sources) on the respective discussion pages of the articles. Thanks, Cacycle 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that there is no scientific evidence, including the "results" of the trials, that antineoplastons are effective.  As far as I can tell, the only reason trials are proceeding is that the FDA (and possibly regulatory agencies in other countries) have come to the conclusion that it's almost certainly harmless, so the trials can proceed without evidence of effectiveness.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of the Burzynski Clinic regarding recent modifications to this Article 

message: Why is a treatment that is undergoing FDA-controlled trials in the "pseudoscience" category?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.120.227 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the bad rap? 

message: Please reference the previous edits and discussion at Stanislaw Burzynski and Talk:Stanisław Burzyński during Jan-Feb 2008.
The drug company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals...  used an inappropriate screening test and failed.
No scientific coauthor... sounds like malicious OR. Need a current reliable source, that will still be subject to WP:V.
Despite years of... Neither WP:V, RS currently sourced nor NPOV.
According to...'  NCAHF is not a technically reliable source in general at WP and Green's points have been repeatedly & specifically been shown to false, extremely partisan if not malicious, and/or grossly misrepresented. 
At this point in my research & review, I consider all Green papers on Burzynski that I have seen, to be extremely partisan, unreliable and (probably disreputable) gross misrepresentations. The WP:V story with the Cancer Letters versions is not much better, either.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia deals with many controversial subjects up to and including religion. Wikipedia specifically avoids determining "truth" or who is right. Instead Wikipedia's standard is to <B>accurately</B> reflect what outside reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not going to attempt to determine whether any trials were "intentionally inconclusive". Wikipedia is not going to attempt to evaluate your criticisms of those trials. Wikipedia will accurately reflect such issues only if&when independent reliable sources publish those things. To the extent you allege an FDA or other conspiracy exists, you only confirm those sources exist and that Wikipedia shall accurately reflect what that conspiracy says. Wikipedia does not care whether a conspiracy exists or not. Wikipedia's only concern would be to accurately reflect independent sources if and when they expose that conspiracy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsee (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the thrust of Alsee's comment. Furthermore, making an accusation, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, that people here have been "hired to monitor the page" is a scurrilous personal attack and it will not be excused again. I'm getting more than a little suspicious about the attacks and whitewashing being initiated by all of these anonymous, unregistered single purpose accounts. Given that we've just included new information that's breaking today about the Burzynski Clinic having hired someone (Marc Stephens) to do precisely that (internet damage control and reputation management), I suggest that these anon SPAs tread VERY lightly from here on in, and that they become very familiar with WP's policy on editors with conflicts of interest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  overhaul notes 

message: Seemed to be personal commentary not attributed to reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be possible for the editor to rewrite this in an encyclopedic tone with adequate references. Cacycle (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already left them a note on their talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed material

message: To Arthur Rubin, who has a lot more time to spend in front of a computer screen than I have:
The movie "Burzynski" has been carefully put together by the author, Eric Merola.  I doubt that you have seen it, so your use of the word "nonsense" is extremely unprofessional.  You can see the reviews in major publications if you web search a little bit.  Or, better yet, contact the author yourself.  
I'm not going to get into a revision war with you.  The truth will come out.  
Point of View disclaimer:  I am a neutral, independent individual not connected with any clinic, film company, or agency in any way.  
75.247.245.203 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Burzynski nor Merola is a reliable source, nor is the Newport Film Festival (which seems to be the only secondary source of information about the films; the IMDB and allmovies entries are identical) a reliable source.  If an independent, established critic were to comment on the film, it might be appropriate in Burzynski's article, not in this one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

text: If you wanted to add reviews of the film from major publications, it might be appropriate to note that the film was made about Burzynski, but not the phrasing.  In particular, "facts", "cures", "carefully presented", and "attempts to discredit and shut down" are all opinions, which could only be included if an expert or a true news article were to comment on the film.  "facts" and "cures" could only be used if a medical expert were to comment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of factual topics (movie) 

message: I added two references only as convenience links since the first reference establishes the criteria for including a reference. These additional links merely make it convenient for someone to actually see the referenced film for themselves.
The references were:
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Burzynski/70140534
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632703/
I know that these two sources are not classified as reputable sources. However, these references are not included for any reason other than convenience. Considering that this film is likely not going to be found in every movie rental outlet, and that people probably won't buy the DVD just for the sake of curiosity, I think that leaving these links in the article are quite beneficial to the readers of Wikipedia.
Wisepiglet (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added two convenience links to a reference 

message: There is currently a line of text which claims that "The American Cancer Society has stated that there is no evidence that these products have any beneficial effects in cancer and have recommended that people do not buy these products.[8]" Upon inspection of source 8, it appears there are a few concerns. First, it was published in 1983. Second, the article about Antineoplastons on the American Cancer Society website contains no such claims. It appears that such assertive claims from the ACS would be widely publicized if they existed outside of a 28 year old journal publication. So, is this statement suitable for publication on Wikipedia (which is supposed to maintain neutrality), or is it simply cherry-picked information which supports the negative representation of antineoplastons? 86.52.54.208 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly cherrypicking given that there are no reliable sources that support the use of AP therapy, and all credible sources discount the therapy altogether or point to the lack of evidence of its safety and effectiveness. The 1983 ACS review article, although perhaps a bit old, was published in a reputable scientific journal, which lends it scholarly authority (more so than the ACS website); however, even the ACS website currently indicates that evidence supporting the use of APs is lacking. Furthermore, a 2004 review by Vickers (reference #9 in the article) suggested that AP therapy is not only unproven; it is disproven -- and note that this article was published in the journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, which is in fact published by the ACS. The gist of Vickers article is also consistent with the 1993 review published by Saul Green in JAMA. In addition, the website of Moore's Cancer Center at UC San Diego reiterates the position of the ACS as follows: "until there is documented evidence from carefully controlled studies of the efficacy of antineoplastons, the American Cancer Society urges cancer patients to treat their disease with proven methods of treatment." Lastly, MSKCC's website included a similar conclusion: "There is no conclusive evidence to support the antineoplaston theory. Cancer patients should be cautious when seeking unproven treatments as they delay conventional therapies and can be detrimental." So again, this is clearly not cherrypicking -- the consensus in the medical community does not support the use of APs for anything. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements from the American Cancer Society 

message: *General Information
*History
*Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies
*Human/Clinical Studies
*Adverse Effects
*Overall Level of Evidence for Antineoplastons
*Further Reading
Here's a good information set from the National Cancer Institute that can be used for finding additional sources.   — C M B J   03:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional sources

message: The text of the article is filled with full-form citations. This makes it very difficult to edit. Try this: Have two sections at the bottom of the article, one called References (already there), the other called Sources or Bibliography. 
Put the full-form citations in the Sources section (meaning these: BRACKETS cite journal |first1=Shannon |last1=Brownlee |first2=Gary |last2=Cohen |title=Trials of a Cancer Doc: Experimental drugs and a 20-year fight with the FDA |journal=US News & World Report |pmid=10186429 |url=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981005/archive_004873.htm |year=1998 |volume=125 |issue=13 |pages=28–30, 32, 35 CLOSE). 
In the text of the article, replace the full form with the short form, like this: BRACKETS Shannon |1998 |pages=28–30, 32, 35 CLOSE BRACKETS.
That will make it much easier to edit. PiCo (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to format references 

message: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v25849868KGfXdCzx
Skip to time index: 3hrs, 8mins, 54secs.  Watch.  Learn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.136.239 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I could make a movie showing the efficacy of eating cat poop so long as I didn't have to actually present evidence for peer review by other scientists.  Not an RS. Noformation Talk 10:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie References 

message: Since this still seems to be an active area of research, it would be unscientific to write this article as if the matter is closed. Reputability does not equate to accuracy, and if there is still a degree of contention, this article should reflect that uncertainty. There seem to be many articles demonstrating ad hominem attacks on the man which should point to resentment among the cancer research community. Wikipedia should not reflect this resentment. Words like 'nonsense' in regard to scientific research should not appear in articles intended to be scientific.
:Neutrality means we reflect what our reliable sources say, not what individual editors want them to say. If the medical community finds these ideas to be nonsense, neutrality requires us to say so, rather than whitewash the errors and problems with these ideas against our policies for neutrality.  Yobol (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me that this is an "area of active research". There appear to be exactly zero clinical trials of antineoplastons active, according to clinicaltrials.gov. There also appears to be little or no current independent scientific interest in the topic (outside the Burzynski Institute). I don't see anything at all published by anyone (Burzynski or not) on the topic since 2009 (based on a MEDLINE search for "antineoplaston"). MastCell Talk 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Neutrality 

message: There is plenty of documentation and congressional testimonial of those patients who were cured of otherwise deemed incurable cancers. Why no mention of them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.205.28 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is any of this documentation published in peer reviewed medical journals? If not, that's your answer. See WP:MEDRS for more info. Sædontalk 09:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of those who were cured? 

message: The National Cancer Institute has on their website evidence of clinical efficacy: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/Table2. At least one complete response in the National Cancer Institute's clinical trials demands that the following be removed from the antineoplaston wiki: "there is no evidence of clinical efficacy of these methods."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogden76 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence of clinical efficacy in that table.  People have "remission" of cancer with or without treatment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of clinical efficacy