Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive (Antineoplaston)

Archive of the talk page at Antineoplaston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), merged to Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Additional Questions on Antineoplastons/Burzynski Clinic

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)

Why, if so effective, are antineoplastons not approved by the FDA? Phase II clinical trials have been ongoing since 2004.

The Burzynski Research Institute is a public company traded under the symbol BZYR (SYMBOL: BZYR). It is a penny stock currently trading at 5 cents on the over-the-counter bulletin board market. Why doesn't a major drug company simply buy Burzynski's public company if the drug is so successful? Given the companies size, even a small group of investors could do this.

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)

The Burzynski Clinic claims to have treated over 3000 patients. If even half or a quarter of these cancer cases were cured, wouldn't these numbers grab media attention? Why not publish a list of people who survived due to antineoplaston treatment and have it independently verified?

Patient-doctor confidentiality? Would require obtaining permission from every patient. 62.78.240.7 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Burzynski staff editing content on this page? This seems very suspicoius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.178.82 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How does Wikipedia keep the antagonist of Dr. Burzynki like the FDA and the pharmaceutical corporations with their unlimited finance and resources from taking over this page and others for their own purpose? If there is no vehicle to safeguard big corporation and influential powers from taking over controversial articles then project Wikipedia is doomed. Wikipedia should be by the people for the people. Not who can afford an army of researcher to produce endless recitation to subdue inconvenient truth from an honest individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99to1 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of critical content by Burzynski's staff

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)

On a sidenote: I assume that Ixelles (Talk | contribs) is identical to the former user editing from the Burzynski Clinic as their similar edits occurred in the same close timeframe. Cacycle 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement of the Burzynski Clinic regarding recent modifications to this Article

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)

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)

I applaud the researching team using the wikipedia tools to get their experiences out, enter into an exchange of viewpoints and answering questions and their points of views/experiences on critics. I do understand it is easier to raise objections than it is to provide and research for the answers and I do understand the hierarchy pyramid to make an informed opinion. I wish that wikipedia helps speeding up the process from research findings, to trails, to debating the topic between specialists, having federations worldwide confirming similar results and insights etc. The whole planet would benefit if humans could life for a couple of hundreds of years in good health. It would allow smart people to network, accumulate and process knowledge at a much more efficient rate. It would give aging people courage to stay longer involved with new stuff, s.a. learning to work with computers, maybe even coaching youngster / younger adults. There's tons of research material and inventions that don't make it to the market because there's not enough people. We can't even imagine how the world could change for the better. Keep up the good work in a spirit of collaboration and smart sharing of benefits. --SvenAERTS (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Why the bad rap?

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)

Hi, I agree, that term pseudoscience is not the best of terms or names for a category, and the term pseudo-science is not well developed either yet. I thought pseudo-science was developing a claim on which the scientific consensus is that it is proven to be not true, to still continue developing theories and claims in a scientific alike way. This may give the impression that the developed thearies and claims are logical and solid, which they are not because the fundamental claims or research results are false, so all other claims and theories fall in like a card-house.

It It would be more valuable to put a tag or number or something, indicating how far the scientific consensus on the claims and findings has evolved untill now. It would also be usefull to indicate where the debate is taking place, like federation, federation of federations, AAAS, NAS, IPCC, ... Keep up the good work and proud to be contributing to the wikipedia. :) --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One reason for the bad reputation might be that the "Burzynski Movie" refers to an FDA report from 1998 on ANP which might not even exist. I've been trying to get more information about this report for a while, but have not gotten any responses. Supposedly, this phantom FDA report has at least 22 pages, and page 22 shows blood levels of antineoplastons that are far greater than those in a published NCI study. The only record I can find of this report contains only two pages, and the second page isn't even "page 22 of the report", but rather a table of values "Translated" from that page. If anyone involved in the controversy was serious, they would either charge the creator of that document with fraud, or else vindicate Burzynski by producing the original document. Dscotese (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

overhaul notes

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)

The term pseudoscience describes self styled studies that rely solely upon the researcher's experience and assertions for credibility. Genuine research produces objective data from 's m a r t' test processes: Specific Measureable Attainable Realistic Tangible processes. The claims of the efficacy of neoplastins are based on applications of the chemicals to desparately ill patients, patients that have not responded to state of the art medical treatments (such as those at MD Anderson Cancer Research Center).

That researchers outside Burzynski's clinic have been unable in two decades to reproduce or replicate his findings casts a serious cloud over his claims.

That none of Burzynski's articles and studies have been subjected to (much less withstood) the scrutiny of established cancer research teams undermines the veracity of claims for neoplastins.

If any product makes claims, especially regards medical treatment and cures, it should be able to be repeated AND REPLICATED by clinical researchers. If the product only works in the clinic of its producer, it is likely to be viewed with incredulity.

On a personal note, I recall an uncle's desperate efforts to find effective treatment for his stage iv cancer. His quest led him in his final weeks to a Tijuana clinic for treatments with chemicals derived from fruit pits. The expensive treatments did not give him any relief from the cancer.

As a man of science (BS in Technology, University of Houston, 1982) and two decades of R & D experience in the oil patch, I rely on verifiable data; data that can be produced in independent laboratories by technicians with no vested interest in the product tested.

The doctor's claims have not been subjected to independent scrutiny of peer review.

Thus the doctor's claims have no credibility in the realm of medical research, and merit no trust from the public at large.

It seems that the person who benefits the most from the doctor's experiments is the doctor himself, from the proceeds of the patient fees generated by the clinic. Like my uncle, these people are desperate and willing to latch on to anything that offers hope. But in my opinion this clinic and its founder are offering false hope based on the questionable science, the false science (pseudo science) propounded by the doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveironduffer (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

these constant attacks saying no outside data has verified the amazing reults of his studies are obviously revisions made by FDA influenced personel. He tried to have outside clinical trials, but they were intentionally made inconclusive with dosages so diluted they gave the patients water retention. There was empirical evidence showing the blood concentrations were ridiculously low on the only outside trials the FDA would allow, but of course this statement will get deleted by whoever is hired to monitor this page, so why try? 71.52.226.194 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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 accurately 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)

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)

Removed material

Seemed to be personal commentary not attributed to reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the trials (17) as of 2009-05-29 are in phase II. According to the National Cancer Institute's clinical trials search engine (http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search) all antineoplastin trials show start dates in the 1990's. The earliest start date is 1993-08-24. There are two 1995 start dates and the following 1996 dates: 2/26, 2/29, 3/6, 3/6, 3/8, 3/27, 5/2, 5/22, 5/30, 6/27, 7/23, and 9/16. And the last trial was listed way back on 1998-12-01. It is interesting that 11 years have passed since a new trial was opened. Every trial completion date is exactly the same, "2011-12-31 (estimated)". Phase II trials are generally small trials that accrue the maximum number of patients in just a couple of years or less. All 17 trials list accrual goals as, "A total of 20-40 patients ...". It is remarkable that these trials are still ongoing and have not met their very limited accrual goals by now. By Dr. Burzynski's self-reported estimated completion date, eighteen years will have passed, which by any standard is an unreasonable amount of time.

In September 2004, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of brainstem glioma. The FDA's orphan drug program is intended to encourage research, development and approval of products for treatment of diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 patients in the United States per year and provide a significant therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. This enables the Burzynski Research Institute to apply for assistance from the Office of Orphan Product Development in guiding the drug through the regulatory approval process.

Despite a number of presentations, peer reviewed papers, and ongoing studies, to date, Burzynski has not published any clinical trial results reviewed and accepted by the FDA for completed Phase II and III drug studies. In January 2007, one of the studies, Phase II trial on brainstem glioma was officially closed for enrollment. The results of the trial will be submitted for the FDA evaluation once the patients currently in the study complete the treatment. In December 2006 the protocol for the Phase III trial on brainstem glioma was submitted for the FDA evaluation. In a letter from March 2007 the FDA requested amendments to the proposed protocol. As of May 29, 2009, more than two years later, a phase III antineoplason trial has yet to be approved.

In a May 22, 2007 review article entitled "Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma", Dr. Burzynski is the sole author. He states regarding one of his childhood brain tumor trials on page 384 that, "The study is closed for accrual and the final results will be evaluated before the end of 2007." No peer reviewed medical journal article discussing the results has to date been published.

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)

I've already left them a note on their talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of factual topics (movie)

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)

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)

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)

ANP 2010 detailed edit response

Please hold up. I want to discuss what's wrong with each of your edits, but you need to stop editing so I have a target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Removal of " but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy. "
   • Requires evidence. I haven't checked to see whether you have any. (Actually, I have now. You haven't any.)
2. Addition of "Many state that (t)here is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials
   • Requires serious evidence, probably a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
3. Addition of

   However, Antineoplastons have successfully completed Phase II clinical trials in the United States (which validates both safety and efficacy based on the National Cancer Institute's scientific standards), and has also been granted permission to begin Phase III trials in the United States—the final Phase of clinical testing before reaching FDA-approval .

   • No evidence of any of the statements. www.burzynskiclinic.com and press releases are not evidence for anything. You attempted to link the the NCI's standards, but not to any evidence that the Phase II trials were complete, nor that NCI's standards were met.
4. Change of "states are active against" to "uses to treat"
   • Marginally acceptable, but may require a separate reference. "states are active against" can use his own site, "uses to treat" requires reliable sources.
5. Change of phenylacetic acid to phenylacetate.
   • Not referenced, but probably acceptable. Perhaps the patent can be referenced, here.
6. Addition of:

   however, Dr. Burzynski does not administer Phenylacetic acid to his patients, instead he administers Phenylacetlglutamine, Phenylacetate (AS2-1) and Phenylacetylisoglutamine (A-10).

   • Not referenced, requires source for both accuracy and relevance.
7. Addition of

   Dr. Burzynski holds the exclusive patent rights to produce and distribute his personally synthesized Antineoplastons. . The United States Department of Health and Human Services, along with a former contract scientist of Dr. Burzynsk's named Dr. Dvorit Samid successfully filed eleven duplicate patents of Dr. Burzynski's Antineoplaston AS2-1, for the treatment of human cancers, between 1991 and 1995.

   • First sentence is possible, but should referenced to the specific patents, rather than a search. Second sentence is a clear BLP violation, even if sourced.
8. Addition of

   however when you compare this annual cost to other gene-targeted cancer drugs such as Avastin the cost is essentially equal or less than most orthodox "standard of care" cancer treatments

   • A clear violation of WP:SYNTH, unless the article also mentions antineoplastons. (It's 6 screens, so I didn't check, in full.)
9. Proposed mechanisms paragraph
   • The version that was there before was adequately sourced. If you can provide evidence that there Japanese Phase II trials started or that the US Phase II trials completed successfully, it would need to be added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
   • Your source was a press release quoted in drugs.com. Not acceptable.

References

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.

SOURCE: PUB MED. You have used this source "PUB MED" on the wiki website. Therefore, please explain a reason for this not to be included: Quote planned to be added to Wiki. In Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials for patients with high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma, "Antineoplastons contributed to more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients". LINK/SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713 Acceptable for the moment. It should be noted that the result is not statistically significant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How does this sound Arthur?

"Although randomized controlled clinical trials have not yet been performed, in Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials for patients with high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma, "Antineoplastons contributed to more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients". LINK/SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ALSO: Regarding the documentary about Burzynski, here are some "reviews for you"

You said: 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)"

So, here you are: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/reviews/la-et-movie-review-burzynski-0604,0,453265.story http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914.html?categoryId=31&cs=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/movies/04burzynski.html http://www.drjoyreviews.com/Feature.aspx?ID=630 http://www.npaper-server.com/yes-weekly#2010/05/26/?article=882149 http://newsblaze.com/story/20100609161623kamw.nb/topstory.html

So, which one of the above reviews are not valid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) ANP 2010 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ALSO: to state "not statistically significant." - that is your opinion, not based on fact. It is statistically significant if the results of these trials have caused for Phase 3 trials to be allowed in the same type of cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC) ANP 2010 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

On the film. It's not about antineoplastons, it's about Burzynski. I added an accurate statement to that article. If you want to suggest improvements, go ahead.

On statistical significance. It's objectively not statistically significant. Also, if Phase III trials were started (for which you still haven't provided a shred of evidence), it wouldn't mean the Phase II trials were statistically significant. It would only mean there was sufficient evidence that the therapy was harmless, and there are few (if any) therapies which show any promise, that it wouldn't be unethical to test the matter further. But I now have no objection to your proposed addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Arthur, I will get better at this. I see you are willing to accept reasonable sources now. ANP 2010 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, I wanted to provide you with a link showing that Phase II trials in Japan have indeed been initiated, and how the Houston Press article was incorrect about that. Here is a link showing a Japanese study on Phase II clinical trials using Antineoplastons in 2003: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12579278

Therefore, the line should now read:

A 1995 Phase I trial by Japanese researchers showed promise, and Phase II trials were initiated. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12579278 ANP 2010 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Added two convenience links to a reference

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)

Antineoplastic

Is there a credible claim, other than B, himself, that Antineoplastons are Antineoplastic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:46, March 16, 2011

Revert on Antineoplaston

The following was moved from my talk page Yobol (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC):

The reason you listed does not make sense. I wrote that the correspondence was provided by Burzynski, making the veracity of the contents suspect but legitimately citable. Are you saying that Burzynski might not have provided the documents himself? --Jzbradley (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying allegations of misconduct against a highly prestigious research institution will have to come from a better source than a self-published movie. Yobol (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that. Burzynski alleges that the NCI defrauded him with respect to the parameters of the study, and I was reporting that. --Jzbradley (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would argue that not including Burzynski's objection to the study could be construed as bias. The documents may be fake, but they are there. --Jzbradley (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Burzynski's objections are relevant, but it needs to be made clear that it's B's interpretation of correspondence B claims to have had with NCI. It is also too prominent, and should be in a different section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying! --Jzbradley (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The NCI did not test the same substances in the same combinations used by Burzynski. They only teste Phenylacetate. Burzynski had shown years before that this substance alone was not particularly effective. This article is biased against Burzynski. Why do people do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.24.62 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cite? We still only have B's word. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a ridiculously irrational expectation on your part, Arthur. The only person who could confirm or deny whether a treatment was equivalent to Burzynski's is Burzynski himself. Who else are you going to reference to find out how Burzynski treats his own patients? Timeofmind (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. If NIH says the treatment tested was equivalent to B's, either they're right, or B didn't explain his treatment protocols completely. I tend to think both, but the latter should be confirmable by a reliable source.

However, even if you were correct that B is the only appropriate source, B is not a reliable source in this matter, per WP:SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a classical example of Moving the goalposts by Burzynski and his followers. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements from the American Cancer Society

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)

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[6]. Furthermore, a 2004 review by Vickers (reference #9 in the article)[7] 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[8]. 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."[9] Lastly, MSKCC's website[10] 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)

Additional sources

• 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)

LIKE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.192.191 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How to format references

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)

Movie References

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)

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. N^oformation ^Talk 10:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cancer-therapy.org

For others: See WP:MEDRS. For the original poster: See WP:GAB. NW (Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved from my talk page: You claim cancer-therapy.org makes no mention of it. http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/PDF/42._Burzynski,_379-390.pdf There's your link. cancer-therapy.org Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem Simple to google it. No you misunderstood. Cancer Therapy makes no mention of its peer review process on its website so that's nonnegotiable strike 1. Strike 2 is that it's not indexed by medline and is thus unusable here for any medical claims what so ever. Noformation Talk 08:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC) It also apparently has no impact factor so that's strike 3. Noformation Talk 08:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC) The rest of the sources: This is a WP:PRIMARY source and so does not pass WP:MEDRS - we need secondary sources. This article is not about Antineoplastons so not relevant here. All the sources suffer from these types of issues. Please take a look at WP:MEDRS and familiarize yourself with the quite stringent prescriptions for medical articles. Noformation Talk 09:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC) And what of the Oxford Journal? And the NIH index of integrative cancer therapies journal which is peer reviewed? is there a problem with their Peer review process? Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Impact Factor: 1.716 Ranked: 6 out of 21 in Integrative & Complementary Medicine and 134 out of 185 in Oncology Source: 2010 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2011) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713# Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.23.169.203 (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Again, these are primary studies. I don't believe that in the time since I posted you've read and understood WP:MEDRS, please do so. It will save us both a lot of time. Noformation Talk 09:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC) What about the article in the Peer Reviewed Integrative Cancer Therapies journal? http://ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.abstract A Peer Reviewed medical journal found the data was compelling enough to publish. Who gives you the right to say the data from a PUBLISHED peer reviewed medical journal is not good enough? This is what they had to say after reviewing the data. Tell me why a published peer reviewed article is not good enough. "This page in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." It seems to meet that guideline, which is why I have asked you now several times why the ICT published article is not good enough. You do realize people do NOT live to 5 years with diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas right? He submitted actual data that shows his patients have. There is no available treatment, which means he can't be pulling a bait and switch, there's nothing to switch with.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem_glioma#Prognosis Conclusion: Antineoplastons contributed to more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients. But hey, they just do it for a living. Independent peer review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_review Sounds a lot like what happened with the data I submitted. Did you read the policies I linked? Here they are again: WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:MEDRS. They should answer all your questions. Noformation Talk 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note on Neutrality

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)

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)

Why no mention of those who were cured?

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)

Is any of this documentation published in peer reviewed medical journals? If not, that's your answer. See WP:MEDRS for more info. Sædon^talk 09:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of clinical efficacy

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)

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)