Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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and the Neutral Point of View Policy, to officially and explicitly dispute certain claims that we consider false or outdated.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 21:44, 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)

Wow

The QW POV is running amuck here. Let's try a little more balance folks. There's a difference between discussing scientific controversies and controversial figures in a frustrating field like experimental oncology with patients classed as terminal and outright participation in personal attack. Cancer treatments have long been considered pretty harrowing, the writing here seems to be personal sniping about methodolgies that may not be so bad by comparison (I have talked with residents while they were doing rotations in oncology who were mature professionals from other fields, and beyond their fatigue and disappointments, I thought I could see them turning green at the gills - definitely not an area for the faint hearted)--TheNautilus (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing a "Pseudoscientist" category placed upon this article is outrageous. So this is what Wikipedia has turned into? Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead version was based on partisan sources, not technically reliable, given undue weight, and look problematic under WP:BLP and NPOV. ...clinical efficacy of these treatments has not been be demonstrated and several fatal side effects have occurred. The practice is considered quackery by critics. This is a very one sided POV where, in fact, a number of MD investigators, conventional, NCI and altmed, have said that Burzynski's antineoplastons showed impressive effects, rather that Phase II & III clinical trials to establish "proven" efficacy have not been accomplished. Burzynski himself says that advanced cancer is still risky business with his treatments. Several fatal side effects is undue weight where for conventional oncology using long approved "proven" treatments that might mean a not too unusual week or month at the office.

I found the comments in THE BURZYNSKI SAGA, from Ralph Moss' Cancer Chronicles interesting.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the QW comments belong in the article, although not in the lead. And, if better sources for his research methodology failures are provided, those should be in the lead. (FWIW, his claim that the specific antiplasmons need to be matched to the specific strain of the disease, although plausible, makes it unlikely that clinical trials would produce positive results even if his theories are correct. This is WP:SYN, so cannot be placed in the article, but....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to discuss FDA etc-QW POV very carefully, both here and in the antineoplastons article, watching WP:V, NPOV and BLP closely. A number of books and the public records do show there *are a lot* of irregularities and seeming incest in the cumulative actions of / with state (AG, TMB), federal (USPS, NCI, FDA, DoJ, DEA, ATF), insurance (RICO cross complaints), pharmaceutical competitor(s), revolving doors, harassment, collusion and then federal 9 patent filings (13 total) & licensing of "borrowed or inspired" science by Burzynski's former employee, simultaneously with the June 1995 armed raid. I have seen or heard clearly prejudicial comments from AMA members on some of the most parochial bases (e.g. snickering dismissal over Burzynski's original large scale peptide extractions - think analogs to Premarin production, Texas Pride, & deuterium fractionation with the Urban Cowboys participating, literally). The QW article's author, Saul Green, is stated by Burzynski to have been a paid consultant of Aetna and Grace Powers Monaco (QW, NCAHF boards, "Aetna's consultant on their suit"[1]) during the fiercest litigation assualts on Burzynski, without any complaints or challenges that I have seen yet from that direction after several year publication. Several authors, including Kauffman, dissect Green's article as a largely partisan attack with poor fact control and it does appear overharsh and defamatory in nature.

On the specific genetic/disease matching, if I infer what is going on correctly, Burzynski's 78 phase II trials with ~40 patients each, are roughly some kind of matrix for organ/tissue/genetic damage type, I presume titrated for dose and chemical combo. The small, brief NCI trials sound pretty technically meaningless, the monitored blood levels, reported in the Mayo review and compared to Burzynski's results, were less than 2% of Burzynski's achieved blood levels, so that NCI really has no credibilty as an honest (or meaningful) reproduction of Burzynski's work (there are other observers, the patients & families, on record about NCI trials, too).--TheNautilus (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

new sources

This book, Surviving "terminal" Cancer: Clinical Trials, Drug Cocktails, and Other Treatments..., by an experimental psychologist, frmrly dept chair at UCSD, who took a hands on science review approach for choosing combinations of conventional, alternative and experimental therapies to become a rare long term survivor of Grade IV brain cancer ( GBM) using combined methods. He discusses Burzynski pp. 32-33, 186-193 from an uncommon, independent, highly informed, experimental sciences view. See also his online paper Treatment Options for Glioblastoma and other Gliomas, pp70-71, 2007, revised & updated periodically.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And another, from Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care and Prevention: Foundations And Evidence-based Interventions (2006) Dr. Marc S. Micozzi (Editor) '"...was a Senior Investigator for the National Cancer Institute" pp. 387-389--TheNautilus (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

also I found this recent paper interesting: "Urinary Proteomic Biomarkers in Coronary Artery Disease", Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, 7:290-298, 2008. "...the polypeptide pattern was able to predict the presence of [CAD] disease 83% of the time (95% CI 51.6-97.4), with a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI 89-99)..."--TheNautilus (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"an American immigrant of Polish origin"

Perhaps this should be changed? I do not think this sounds right at all. I mean, he is Polish after all, not just of polish origin. And definitely not an "American immigrant". He could be considered as one if we was actually born in the USA and emigrated from the US. Norum (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Elias's book

I removed:

In a book called The Burzynski Breakthrough Thomas D. Elias described the "government's decade-long effort to suppress information", writing that Burzyński has faced ongoing institutional resistance at many junctures in his development and clinical experimentation with anti-neoplastons, including from the FDA, National Cancer Institute, insurance companies, medical associations, the state medical board, and pharmaceutical competitors.< ref name="breakthrough"> Thomas D. Elias (2000) The Burzynski Breakthrough, Lexikos, ISBN 0938530666< /ref>

It appears to be a self-published book, with no evidence that Elias has any credentials. Green, of QuackWatch, at least has legitimate credentials. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Links to the film

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) 07:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Change article header from Stanisław Burzyński to Stanislaw Burzynski (no polish letters)

The heading spells Stanisław Burzyński. Considering this is wikipedia.org and not the polish version; wikipedia.pl, the heading should not include the polish letters ł and ń. I don't know how to change the article header but suggest that the heading is corrected to read "Stanislaw Burzynski". Hopolander (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as Stanislaw Burzynski redirects here, I see no problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hopolander. A google on "Burzynski" shows that this is the only site in the upper layer of search results using the Polish letters. Indeed, Burzynski does not use Polish letters on his own site. While some may find the letters "cute", others may view their use here as a form of ethnic disparagement.(99.89.252.108 (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)).

You may be right. The relevant guideline seems to be at WP:UE, and it seems (to me) to say to use the name most commonly used in English. (The name used by the subject is irrelevant.) However, the "google test" doesn't work correctly with non-Latin characters, for two reasons:

1. Capitalization of non-Latin characters is not handled well by Google.
2. Many web site creators wouldn't know how to create the non-Latin characters to put them on the site.

It appears I misread the guidelines. Still, it might be the case that the version with the Polish characters is more common among those who know how to generate those characters. More research is needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your research will find that use of Polish characters is most common amongst native-speaking Poles using Polish keyboards.99.89.252.108 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste the change from one spelling to another. To preserve the edit history, you need to move the pages, using db-g6 if necessary to move over an existing redirect. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am a wikipedia greenhorn. With a little searching, I found this page Wikipedia:Requested moves which describes the proper procedure. Not sure I have the experience or authority here to do this, would be delighted if somebody else picked up this ball and runs with it...99.89.252.108 (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, I think this is the more applicable wiki-guidance: Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. We need to ditch the mindset that the man is a foreigner. He has been working in the USA for over 40 years. I suspect he became a US citizen years ago. The date he became a citizen should be researched and posted to his article...99.89.252.108 (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, I searched Wikipedia for names beginning Stanisław (w/ Polish character) and found that it is a common Polish name with many entries in the English Wikipedia. However, most of them lived their entire lives in Poland or nearby. One exception was a WWII general who died in the UK. Our subject has lived over half his life in the USA. So you are indeed correct in that Polish characters are commonly used in the English Wikipedia, to a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.252.108 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Subject has a page in Polish Wikipedia. Google Chrome has a toolbar which will translate it to English. Note his middle name Rajmund translates to Raymond. 99.89.252.108 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stanisław Maczek (Polish character in English Wikipedia entry)- the most accomplished Polish tank commander of World War II, his division was instrumental in the Allied liberation of France. Lived in exile in the UK after he was stripped of Polish citizenship by the Communist government of the People's Republic of Poland. As he was not considered by the British to be an Allied soldier, he was denied combatant rights and a military pension. As a result, until the 1960s he was forced to do menial work, working as a bartender in the 1960s in an Edinburgh hotel. He died in 1994 at age 102. Subject of this article has lived voluntarily in the USA, where he was living at the time of most of his notable activities. 99.89.252.108 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

On the other hand, Stanislaw Ulam was born in what is now western Ukraine, but in the past was eastern Poland, whose notable work was on the Manhattan Project in the USA. English article is not titled with Polish characters. Closest match in general to subject of this article that I've seen so far. I noticed that the Ulam article may have had similar discussions Nov 2006 - Jan 2007 and was moved from Stanisław Ulam to Stanislaw Ulam. 99.89.252.108 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia No established usage guideline: It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.). Can anyone credibly argue that Dr. Burzynski has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world? 99.89.252.108 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Stanisław Burzyński → Stanislaw Burzynski — Change Polish characters to English. More discussion in prior section on subject talk page. 99.89.252.108 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just the facts

I've noted that in Stanislaw Burzynski#Antineoplaston therapy, there are some pejorative interpretations of the clinical trials. More disturbing, however, is that none of the information on the trials appears in the article Antineoplaston. The fact that the trials were started in 1993–1998, and all have the same proposed closure date, should also be in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Article should be revamped for greater objectivity

Dear Moderator(s),

I am a lawyer by training and I refer to the documentary "Burzynski, the Movie: Cancer Is Serious Business".

Having watched the documentary, it is apparent that based on patient testimonials and past court judgments on the said "Dr. Buryznski", there is sufficient cause for wikipedia to re-examine the facts of the case and provide an objective account of Dr. Buryznski and his treatments. This includes several options which I propose:

1) Wikipedia should not discount the possibility that government agencies such as the FDA may have discriminated and undermined the research of Dr. Buryznski in omitting important evidence of his research in their reports, or changing protocols not in sync with Dr. Buryznski's recommendations within scientific journals - Refer to court judgments and jury acquittals in the documentary. Whatever the reasons for the government or the FDA, such facts should be stated to uncover possible negligence on the part of US government, especially since Wikipedia operates on a public domain and hence has a substantial impact on Dr. Buryznski's image. The article reference should not subjectively select reports mainly from government related sources, but from other sources as well.

2) The article should be expanded to include more detailed facts, as the current impression it renders Dr. Buryznski is mostly negative. Information about his treatments, published results from both government sources and the scientific community must be included, so as to give an objective account of Dr. Buryznski's treatments. Testimonials of others who underwent treatment should be included.

3) The purpose of any Wikipedia article should not be to defame or exhort anyone, but to provide objective accounts based on substantial evidence. When the sources of evidence are in dispute (such as the FDA, or ICR) due to possible negligence, court disputes and testimonials, the article should state the facts by quoting third party, independent sources and not solely quote primary or affiliated sources.

4) Lastly, there are many court judgments with acquittals from the jury on Dr. Buryznski's treatment issues which are not stated in this article. As such, the impression of the current state of the article is that Dr. Buryznski is a fraud without any FDA approved trials. Let us be fair to this gentleman who has put time and effort into medical research and state all the court documents pertaining to this article on his acquittals, congressional hearings, court judgments, and testimonies to his treatments.

5) Moderators of Wikipedia should move to remove any bias within this article. A wikipedia article should state the facts from all sources and provide an objective account. It is not up to the wikipedia community to give unsupported opinions on Dr. Buryznski, omit any other primary sources or evidence, or write about his treatments without consulting first hand testimonials given by his patients, all whom have undergone treatment under Dr. Buryznski.

6) I have good faith that we will shed new light on this issue.

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artizen 2349 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have specific text to propose and reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) to back it up? You might want to spend some time reading WP's policies and procedures. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

Reading through WP's policies and procedures, I noted that this article indeed contains elements of bias, which should be brought to attention. In particular, the "Legal Issues" section of this article needs to be re-looked as it excessively quotes primary sources and court documents in violation of WP's standing policy on biographies of living persons.

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.''

This raises a few issues:

1) If court documents are to be cited, why are there only a few court documents cited in this article? I note that there are other legal documents, and acquittals, that are blatantly omitted from this page. How can this be an objective account when only one side of the story is stated?

2) I advise that legal sources should not be interpreted or evaluated solely from persons without any legal training as this clearly violates WP's standing policy.

3) Furthermore, why are most of the sources in this article primary sources? WP's policy is that we should not base articles and material entirely on primary sources.

4) The lack of secondary source citation is troubling, as this cast serious doubts on the credibility of this article and the intentions of those who created the article based on primary citation. There is clearly a lack of objectivity.

5) I hope that we can research more into this person and provide credible secondary sources for citation.

I am arguing on grounds that this article lacks objectivity, and I am not making any claims about any persons nor stating any factual points. We should be open to the possibility of discounting the validity of government related sources due to its close affiliation with the case. Quoting a government related source does not mean it is entirely true. The lack of secondary sources proves my point. It is not in the interest of WP's standing policy that other relevant sources should be omitted. I hope that more credible sources can be put up in due time to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artizen 2349 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, no one has provided a source which supports Burzynski except his own articles. and a few personal opinions from people considered fringe even among alternative medicine practitioners.

WP:BLPPRIMARY does provide that primary sources should not be used unless unequivocal, and the underlying material reported by other reliable sources.

1. Can you see any other possible interpretation of the court documents? You said you had legal training. One thing you need to realize about Wikipedia is that the "rules" more resemble common law than statutory law.

   The only possible problem interpretation I see in the "legal" section is that the last "illegal" should be "unlawful", or possibly removed entirely, as it involves a Federal court in Texas interpreting Oregon law in regard an action taken in Texas.

2. On quackwatch, I found courtesy copies of a reliable source reporting the fraud. I would be surprised if there wasn't a newspaper reporting the fraud; but if there isn't the proper remedy would be to delete the article (except, now, that cannot be done, without deleting antineoplaston, as I merged some material from this article over there.)

One thing you need to realize about Wikipedia is that the "rules" more resemble common law than statutory law.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Artizen's post above constitutes a WP:LEGAL threat? Shot info (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. More like WP:LAWYER. Perhaps he is Burzynski's lawyer? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOAP too. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. I am not disputing the validity of any court documents posted on this Wikipedia article. What is in dispute is 1) There are not enough secondary sources to improve objectivity of the article 2) The article may not adequately reflect other legal cases dealing with this man with regards the use of Antineoplastons, as only a few legal cases have been cited.

I am in no way affiliated to Dr Burzynski nor am I here to credit or discredit him. I am merely stating ways in which this article should be improved to avoid any misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artizen 2349 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have any good secondary sources to suggest, please do so (but please read WP:RS first). The talk page is for specific recommendations to improve content of the article. So far, your comments have been vague. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If any of you guys are serious about wanting a more balanced article you could start by researching articles about Burzynski which have been published in the New York Times and Houston Chronicle. I am in full agreement with the points made by Artizen 2349 and find nothing vague about them, and find the pejoratives (WP:LEGAL, WP:LAWYER, WP:SOAP) being hurled at him to be offensive). 50.13.110.37 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that WP editors are volunteers and not short order cooks right? If you have any proposals for textual additions to to the article, bring them forth. That's what the talk page is for -- see WP:TPG. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I only found 2 articles at NYTimes on Burzynski. One was a movie review. The other had a couple of interesting comments though:

"for nearly two decades he has eluded prosecution by both state and Federal authorities, because of the slowness of the legal system, his persistent and determined use of apparent loopholes in Texas law and the pressure exerted by his many supporters."

"To obtain antineoplastons for treatment in Houston, he originally isolated them from urine -- his own, his wife's and even urine from public urinals."

"The indictment claims that his gross income from 1988 to 1994 was $40 million, and that he took home $1 million a year. His practice is solely devoted to antineoplastons."

"Dr. Green reviewed Dr. Burzynski's claims…He said in an interview that the theory and chemistry behind antineoplastons are "gobbledygook." First, he said "there is no evidence that the body has a natural biochemical surveillance system against cancer, AIDS, and other diseases." Beyond that, he added, Dr. Burzynski's chemistry "makes no sense" and antineoplastons are not even peptides, as Dr. Burzynksi claims."

"Dr. Burzynski's treatment has been questioned by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Government, the Texas Board of Medical Examiners and individual researchers who investigated his claims."

"The agency began its warnings to Dr. Burzynski in 1978, informing him that he was violating Federal law by providing antineoplastons to patients outside of clinical trials. In 1984, the Justice Department obtained a permanent injunction to prevent him from shipping antineoplastons across state lines. But it was not until 1995 that the Justice Department finally brought Dr. Burzynski before a grand jury, requesting, and receiving, a 75-count indictment for mail fraud with intent to commit insurance fraud, shipping an unapproved drug across state lines and violation of F.D.A. regulations."

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/24/us/to-the-hopeless-a-cancer-cure-beckons.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Which of these portions should be included in the quest to make this a "more balanced article"? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You missed a few articles:

Where the Unorthodox Gets a Hearing at N.I.H. Published: March 16, 1993

One is a class of drugs developed by Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski of Houston called antineoplastons, compounds initially isolated from human urine and since synthesized in the test tube. Antineoplastons are supposed to work by spurring cancer cells to stop dividing and instead to differentiate. Dr. David R. Parkinson of the cancer institute said one of those antineoplastons seemed effective enough against childhood brain tumors to merit formal clinical trials.

His Nemesis, U.S., Indicts Texas Doctor Published: November 26, 1995

Critics say Dr. Burzynski has preyed upon the most vulnerable of the ill in making unsubstantiated claims for an unapproved drug. His supporters, on the other hand, have testified before Congress on his behalf and say he has been singled out for persecution by a zealous Federal agency.

"It is extraordinarily rare for a grand jury to fail to indict at the request of a U.S. attorney," (Congressman) Barton wrote, adding that "a grand jury failing to indict some three to four times on essentially the same base of facts is virtually unprecedented."

Age Busters Published: December 15, 1996

Doctor Who Offers Untested Cancer Drug Is on Trial in Texas Published: January 8, 1997

Michael Clark, an Assistant United States Attorney, told the jury that central to the case is the fact that Dr. Burzynski had his day in court in 1983, when a Federal judge issued an injunction against his distribution of the drug in interstate commerce. "He disobeyed an order of the court and he did so willfully," Mr. Clark said. "That's the reason we're here today. Everything else stems from that order." He took the jurors through a brief chronology of the doctor's legal battles, including lawsuits by the State of Texas in 1988 and 1992 and a Federal civil case in 1992.

Trial of Houston Doctor Linked to Unapproved Drugs Goes to Jury Published: February 22, 1997

Telling jurors that the Government had tried to use innuendo to impugn Dr. Burzynski's character, a defense lawyer, Dan Cogdell, said there was never any effort to hide things from insurers or patients through deceptive billing.

Mistrial Is Declared For Texas Cancer Doctor Published: March 4, 1997

A mistrial was declared today after a Federal criminal jury deadlocked 6 to 6 ... After his ruling, Judge Lake issued a directed verdict of acquittal on the mail fraud counts, saying the Government had not presented sufficient evidence on those charges. The Government announced that it would go forward with another trial on the remaining counts.

All Charges but One Dropped Against Doctor Published: May 19, 1997

Federal prosecutors will drop all but one charge against a doctor accused of selling an unproven cancer treatment, when his retrial begins on Monday, his lawyer said. A jury deadlocked in Dr. Burzynski's trial in March. Judge Lake acquitted him of 34 fraud counts. The 41 remaining charges include 40 counts of violating F.D.A. regulations.

Unorthodox Doctor Goes on Trial Again on Contempt Charge Published: May 21, 1997

Doctor Cleared in Trial on Unapproved Drugs Published: May 28, 1997

A doctor who has battled the Federal Food and Drug Administration for 14 years for prescribing unapproved cancer drugs was acquitted today by a Federal jury of the last remaining charge against him: violating a judge's order banning shipments of the drugs across state lines. "I just don't think that the state proved their case," said one juror, Stephenie Shapiro, who is a lawyer. "There was enough ambiguity in the document that they weren't willing to have a criminal finding against someone. And it was very unanimous from the beginning. It's not like anybody had to be talked into it."

Suzanne Somers, Cancer Expert February 25, 2011

50.13.110.37 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post also ran a series of articles on B. Much seems to parallel the NY Times coverage, but maybe something useful there too. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the article could use a better summary of the chronology and nature of the federal indictments (and contempt charges) against Burzynski. Looks like the legal battle culminated in some restrictions being placed against Burzynski in 1998. Not sure that the Age Busters or Suzanne Somers articles above have anything to offer. The article would however benefit by mentioning the opinions of the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Government, the Texas Board of Medical Examiners, and Dr. Green (see my previous post). Those seem to be the most authoritative expert positions on antineoplastons. I also found these expert sources. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How did we miss this one? It's a gem. http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/news/cancer-doctor-stanislaw-burzynski-sees-himself-as-a-crusading-researcher-not-a-quack/ Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, do you seriously think that Craig Malisow, a reporter who in the lead paragraph of [this story] on Burzynski, used the phrase "Texas media blowjob", is a neutral point of view source? 50.13.110.37 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. There is no WP:NPOV policy that would preclude using a relevant article from a WP:RS newspaper simply because the author used the term "blowjob" in a different publication? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Different publication??? Huh? Both stories are on the same site. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article to which you referred is not cited in the WP article on Burzynski, and even if it were, the word "blowjob" appearing in an article does not preclude it being a WP:RS. There's no basis for excluding the article I cited (a different article from a RS by the same author), and it's a moot point for now because no text has been added or proposed for addition to the WP article. However, there is nothing precluding future additions based on this article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Quackwatch is not a NPOV 3rd party source. I'm not saying that quackwatch references can't be in included in a balanced article, but that any article which relies on a high percentage of Quackwatch sources is not NPOV. You might persuade me otherwise if you can point out where Quackwatch warned about any of the drugs listed in List of withdrawn drugs before they were withdrawn from the market. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Quackwatch is not an ideal reference because they are controversial. Does Quackwatch ever find "methodological flaws" in Big pharma research? If they do, then maybe they might be a NPOV source. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not supported by WP policy. QW is a respected source on quackery and pseudoscience in medicine and has been used often in this context on WP. There is no policy that I am aware of that would preclude citing QW in reference to Burzynski and antineoplastons. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I am not objecting to citing QW in this article. I am objecting to citing the QW POV without balancing it with the alternative medicine POV. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you said specifically is that QW "is not a NPOV 3rd party source". If that were true, then it would preclude citing QW. But it's not true. If the thrust of your argument is that the prevailing opinions of experts should be better reflected in the article, then yes, I agree with that. The majority of those opinions however are not favorable to Burzynski or the validity of AP therapy. As such, opinions to the effect that AP therapy is effective are unsupported, not based in science, and an extreme WP:FRINGE POV. And once again, I am awaiting your proposal for specific text to add to the article (as per WP:TPG). Theoretical discussions like this are not particularly fruitful in the absence of concrete proposals for text to be included. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How did you miss these?

Controversial cancer doctor, patients have celebration: 500 honor Houston cancer specialist TODD ACKERMAN, Houston Chronicle, Monday, March 12, 2001

They gathered from around the world Saturday night in Houston, a community of survivors who don't care one whit that their hero is some people's pariah. To mark the 25th anniversary of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's alternative cancer treatment -- treatment the federal government did its best to stop four years ago -- the Houston doctor and some of his former and current patients and their families threw each other a party. The doctor become a cause celebre for those who saw him as a hero. But many saw him as a scam artist.

FDA OKs experimental therapy: After long legal battle, parents permitted to use treatment of their choice on sick son TODD ACKERMAN, Houston Chronicle Science Writer, April 28, 2001

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted a family's request to let a controversial Houston doctor treat their 5-year-old son's brain cancer, ending a 1 1/2-year battle over who decides the boy's treatment... The Navarros' plight has attracted national attention since January 2000, when six Republican presidential candidates, including former Ambassador Alan Keyes and then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, called on the FDA to let the parents choose their child's treatment. Burzynski said he is worried that the FDA's approval in the Navarro case comes too late because the antineoplastons must be started at a low dosage and be gradually increased to the optimal level. He said that takes a few weeks, an amount of time Thomas might not have, given his latest MRI.

Houston on alert for couple on run with son: Boy, 12, needs chemotherapy TODD ACKERMAN, Houston Chronicle, August 23, 2003

Utah authorities have asked Houston officials to be on the lookout for a couple charged with kidnapping after they fled that state instead of following a court order to treat their 12-year-old son's cancer with chemotherapy. The family, believed to be heading here for alternative medical treatment, was in phone contact with the office of controversial Houston doctor Stanislaw Burzynski earlier this month. The couple became fugitives Aug. 8, when they disappeared from their home in a suburb of Salt Lake City. They left to avoid a juvenile court's order that their son receive chemotherapy for Ewing's Sarcoma, a rare and potentially fatal form of bone cancer that generally strikes adolescents. His parents refused chemotherapy because they were concerned it would leave the boy sterile and could stunt his growth, prosecutors said. His doctors contacted Utah's Division of Child and Family Services to say the Jensens refused a possibly lifesaving treatment.

50.13.110.37 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The media appearance that Malisow disparaged as a "Texas media blowjob" may have been one similar to this, where Burzynski appeared on a KHOU talk show program:

Great Day Houston today is "Medical Monday" so it seems these promotional programs are a regular feature on this program, I suspect that they have on a lot of "conventional" doctors as well as "alternative" doctors like Burzynski. Given that Burzynski sponsored the program, it is reasonable to take it as promoting a positive viewpoint of Burzynski. However, given that Big pharma sponsors a large portion of the evening network newscasts, one might expect that positive media bias of given medical treatments is far from limited to Burzynski. It is reasonable to use some of these types of sources on Wikipedia as long as they are balanced by "Quackwatch" or other negative viewpoint sources.

Part 1 Part 2 Part3

50.13.110.37 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to try readjust the silly indentation. Nonetheless, although I would tend to agree that Quackwatch is biased, they are reliable in determining the weight to be given to other sources reprinted on the site. All the QW links used as sources are reprints. And almost of the links you describe are not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem w/ bringing the indents back out to the left margin. However, if you think the New York Times, widely regarded as a National newspaper of record, and the largest paper in the largest city in Texas, are not reliable sources, then "Houston, we have a problem." And some of the QW "reprints" are of press releases, not stories independently reported in third party publications. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

QW reprint of an official Texas AG press release should be an adequate secondary source to support the primary source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree. QW reprint of an official Texas AG press release is an adequate copy of a primary source source to support the primary source. Though some might question whether QW may have fabricated the PR, I'm not going there. I do find it curious that your "QW team" has not provided a reference for the TX AG's action published by a reliable third party newspaper, radio or television station. The apparent lack of third party media reporting of this PR does call into question the relative importance or significance of the PR and by extension the relative weight it should be given in this Wikipedia article (i.e. a prominent mention in the article lead versus 'burying' it in the final paragraph of the article- or somewhere in between. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific fact that you are disputing? If so, what is it? It's quite possible that other sources can be found if it turns out additional citations are needed beyond QW. BTW, QW is not "my team", whatever that was supposed to mean. Tread lightly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous related discussions

It should be pointed out that this is not the first time that this issue has been discussed on this talk page. Earlier discussions are still relevant: Neutrality and Wow.

In particular, I find the Ralph Moss site to be interesting: THE BURZYNSKI SAGA Article on Burzynski Trial by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. (3/9/97)

Of course this site is not on a par with the NY Times or Houston Chronicle as a quality source, but arguably it is on a par with QuackWatch. Balancing QW sources with this Moss source seems like a reasonable approach to me. Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. is the author of eight books and three documentaries on cancer-related topics. He is an advisor on alternative cancer treatments to the National Institutes of Health, Columbia University, and the University of Texas. His credentials may be roughly comparable to those of the guy who runs QW, albeit not identical of course. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Merely saying that Moss's article is "arguably on par with QW" as a source is not the same as actually presenting an argument to support that position. QW has been identified by many major medical and consumer groups as a an excellent reputable source on the areas of medical quackery and pseudoscience. Moss's article is self published on his own website -- it would fail to meet WP's RS criteria. I'm hoping that the quality of your arguments will improve soon or I'll be inclined to tune out. Can you make any specific proposals for text to be included in the WP article? If not, then this exercise is unlikely to bear fruit. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it probably is not neutral—or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The specific action I am proposing is to give heavier weight to New York Times and Houston Chronicle coverage of Burzynski, especially but not limited to coverage of legal matters. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Heavier weight" is not an actionable suggestion. Proposing specific text is an actionable suggestion. Do you understand how writing works? Translate "heavier weight" into "I propose adding the following verbatim text...". Because you have not done that, you have no reason to put up a driveby NPOV tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Documentary films may be reliable sources

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states: "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited."

Is Eric Merola a reliable third party, and is the 2010 film, Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business a reliable source? How about Michael Moore, producer of Sicko? Would he be a reliable source for this article if he happened to feature Burzynski in a film? Is Sicko a reliable source for issues it covers? How is the reliability of a third party established? 50.13.110.37 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That would depend entirely on what statement the source is used to support. The purpose of talk page is not to debate hypotheticals. Do you have any specific text to propose? Refer to WP:RS and WP:TPG. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, a (TV) documentary on the Discovery channel or National Geographic Channel would be generally reliable, one broadcast on the History channel, not so much, and one broadcast on National Enquirer TV, almost certainly not.

D.Msc.

See Doctorate#Poland. No mention of that degree. In some places in the US, a D.Msc. is a non-academic "doctorate" in metaphysics. A real source, other than Burzynski's own statements, is needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to pin an "unreliable source" tag on your Ph.D.? Have you developed amnesia over the sworn statement from Poland which used to be here before it was pulled or moved? In this case, primary sources are OK for establishing basic facts such as higher education degrees. 50.13.110.37 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC).

Primary sources, such as the institution, are perfectly acceptable for degrees; the individual, not so much. I think we're allowed to assume that the Texas Medical Licensing Board verified the M.D. (or equivalent) before allowing him to practice medicine. And I don't recall the "sworn statement from Poland", although also probably not reliable.

As for my doctorate, the Mathematics Genealogy Project and the note from the LA Times stating I was the (then) youngest Ph.D. from Caltech should be adequate. One might say that the word of a person convicted of fraud is less reliable than one not accused of fraud, but I'd rather not go there, as that would require removing most of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you related to ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, which heard the case UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. BURZYNSKI CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, et al.? 50.13.110.37 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, in you last 2 posts you threatened to vindictively tag an editor's user page and then attempted to out his identity. Such behavior is unacceptable and in contravention of WP policy. Play nice or play elsewhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have gone a bit over the line. But I find it a bit disingenuous when he says he does not recall the sworn statement from Poland when I went out of my way to locate it on B's website and post a reference link to it (several months ago), in response to a cite-needed tag which I believe he posted. Since he's so concerned with a reference for the Ph.D. and has been following this article for a long time, I thought he would have bothered to look at the reference that I went to the trouble of posting. But anyway, I have found a better secondary reference which I will be add to the article in a little bit. If he doesn't want to be "outed" he should ask Wikipedia to delete the article on him. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That "sworn statement" has never, itself, been published. All we have is B's word and your assertion that JAMA received it. Speaking of that last, you might provide a reference to where JAMA comments on it (and not in a "letter"). That might be a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but let's keep it civil from here on in eh? I reverted the edits you made regarding the claims about Burzynski's degree. The publication Scientific Exploration is not WP:RS. It also seems highly inappropriate to link to an attack piece on Barrett (which is what the article struck me as) merely to support a very brief statement about Burzynski's credentials (in addition, the comments from Kaufman about the degree are hearsay and don't serve our purposes). If the information you are attempting to craft is notable and accurate, then there should be better sources available to back it up. You also removed 2 unreliable source tags without explanation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One source is non RS; the other may also be, but regardless, the claim can't be verified. Also, why was the JAMA article not linked?

Which is not a reliable source and why? Why is it necessary to link the JAMA article? Please provide a link to it. Which claim can't be verified? Why is it necessary to verify a claim when the text he worded: "He claimed that..." or "He said..." 50.13.110.37 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We cross posted there. There was no need to start a new thread[9] (especially not with another editor's user name in the title; see WP:TALKNEW) so I moved your comment here (above). My reply is above yours. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(pulling back indents) You could have made it easier by starting the conversation here. It should be obvious by now that I would object. Why is Scientific Exploration not a RS? Why is JAMA a RS? Obviously (or I thought it was obvious) if I pulled the questioned source down to "further reading" it was no longer a reference for the article... I was assuming that Phillips was reliable. Are you suspicious that Phillips is a liar? He is misquoting B? 50.13.110.37 (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC) And isn't the Saul Green webpage (reproduced in the Scientific Exploration not an unreliable attack piece, then? 50.13.110.37 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Why is JAMA a RS? You will find the answer at WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Am I suspicious that Phillips is a liar or misquoting Burzynski? The issue is more fundamental than that. The source is Indymedia, which is an open publishing source. It’s not a WP:RS. As for Saul Green, he’s not cited anywhere in the article (yet) so why not cross that bridge when we come to it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are being less than helpful by being evasive and not answering all my questions. What is "Indymedia", is it Independent Media Center which is what Wikipedia rediects to? I am not familiar with it and offhand see no obvious connection between Journal of Scientific Exploration and Independent Media Center. Journal of Scientific Exploration is a RS keep your focus on telling me why it is not. If JAMA refused to publish Burzynski's rebutttal to Green's attack on his reputation (and I don't know whether they did or not) then JAMA comes into question as a RS on this matter. And stop just pointing me to the WP: articles, what is important is how you interpret the guidelines, tell me in your own words please. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC) OK sorry I see Indymedia is where Phillips' interview is. Let me get back to you on that, but please do repond in further detail to the other questions. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As A.Rubin said in the previous section: One thing you need to realize about Wikipedia is that the "rules" more resemble common law than statutory law. meaning that pointing me to the statutes is not really responding to the issues: you need to give your common law interprets of the statutes. Have any "case law" examples from other Wikipedia pages? Though I'm beginning to feel like the law here is more like the wild west, whoever has the biggest and fastest guns wins ;) 50.13.110.37 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues. "Indymedia" just quotes B, and JSE is not only WP:FRINGE, but beyond the fringe, per their charter. (Furthermore, the article you reference contains a clear copyright violation by quoting the Quackwatch page in full, even if for the purpose of discussion; hence, we couldn't use it even if it were in a reliable source.) JAMA is a reliable source, but Green's article was published (although we could use a specific citation), and Burzynski's "rebuttal", even if published, would still only be his word, as reliable as the interview in "indymedia".

The closest we have to a formal discussion of case law are the policy and guideline talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Arthur for your clear and to the point response. Right, let's postpone discussion of the "Indymedia"/"just quotes" issue and focus on the original topic of this section which is B's Ph.D. Thank you also for steering me to research JAMA articles. I went to their site and found several issues which seem to have articles on this topic, starting with: Greenhouse, S. (6/3/92, Vol. 267 Issue 21, p2924, 5p) Abstract: Comments on antineoplaston therapy and its discoverer Stanislaw R. Burzynski MD. Review of materials on the subject of this therapy for cancer; Burzynski's background; His hypothesis of antineoplastons; Critique of Burzynski's claims; Burzynski'spublications between 1964 and 1990 and a lack of objective experimental evidence supporting his postulate; More. ISSN:00987484 Accession Number:9206223087. Followed by letters from Burzynski, Robert G. Houston and Saul Green. Unfortunately the full articles cost $30 each, *4=$120 just to research this one issue. My public library has online access of some sort, but I can't tell if I can get full access through my library. Will go ask a librarian. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One more point before I go to the library. Just because JSE publishes fringe theories, which I believe it clearly identifies, does not make it a fringe publication. The specific matter of whether B. has a Polish Ph.D. equivalent or not should be provable one way or the other and is not a fringe theory. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That strikes me a bit like saying the Flat Earth Journal is the most definitive source on the Earth's flatness. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it's not necessary to inform everyone on the talk page about your daily agenda (visiting the library, grocery shopping, etc.); the talk page should only be used when one has something concrete to say about specific content for the article; anything else creates a signal-to-noise problem. Again, I refer you to WP:TPG; please read it this time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Back again. In his Special Communication, June 3, 1992 JAMA, Saul Green does not dispute that B. received a "doctorate in medical sciences" in 1968 (not a non-academic "doctorate" in metaphysics as A.R. speculated at the start of this section), quoting a written communication from the current (March 1987) chairman of the Dept. of General Chemistry at Lublin, who wrote that to the best of his knowledge B. did not do any independent research while he was at the Academy. Green says B's bibliography and c.v. don't include a dissertation. B counters with a sworn statement from the president of the Lublin Medical Academy that B. earned a Ph.D. and says that his dissertation is always listed in his bibliography: Investigations on Amino Acids and Peptides in Blood Serum of Healthy People and Patients with Chronic Renal Insufficiency. Green has a written communication from the International Education Research Foundation, Credentials Evaluation Service, Los Angeles (June 1991) that says the Medical Academy of Lublin doesn't offer a PhD program. So the dispute seems to be over whether a "doctorate in medical sciences" is "equivalent" to a PhD in biochemistry, and whether this paper B. cites is truly a doctoral dissertation. Seems no journalist has traveled to Poland to get to the bottom of this, I don't know whether JAMA editors fact-check "special communications" or not. Wouln't be surprised if most U.S. media punt on the issue by avoiding mention of it. How should Wikipedia handle it? 50.13.110.37 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the link Arthur posted at the top of this section, I think you were looking in the wrong place. Go to Doctor_of_Medicine#Equivalent_degrees_in_other_countries:

In Poland the title of lekarz (physician, medic) or "lek." (previously lekarz medycyny or "lek. med.") is granted after completing a 6-year Master's medical program (although students apply to it directly after graduating high school).[19][19] In contrast, a higher doctoral academic research degree in medicine resembling a PhD is named "dr n. med." or doktor nauk medycznych (Doctor of Medical Sciences). Specialization is valued similarly to a specialization in the English system and is a pre-requisite for a "dr. n. med." which is usually defined within the same field.

Hey that's making some sense now! 50.13.110.37 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Doctor_of_Medicine#Equivalent_degrees_in_other_countries is that the information on Poland, which was added just a couple of week ago, is based on a bad source (not WP:RS) and misquotation of the content in that source. The source doesn't even mention anything about doctorates in medical sciences and nothing about equivalency to a PhD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

How does "dr n. med." resemble "D.Msc."? And I would lean against JAMA fact-checking "special communications", although I don't know for certain. We could ask them.... 21:52, 1 October 2011 (User:Arthur Rubin)

doktor nauk medycznych abbreviates to "dr n. med." and translates to Doctor of Medical Sciences, which abbreviates to "D.Msc."

(how did your post slip in without either a 4-tilde or auto-bot signature, Arthur?) 50.13.110.37 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's go to Poland for more clarity: e.g. pl:Marek Grabowski: He completed his doctoral studies at the Medical Faculty of the Silesian Medical Academy in Katowice. In 1992 he defended his doctoral thesis devoted to the incidence of viral hepatitis in the province of Czestochowa, receiving the title of doctor of medical sciences. A simple search of Polish Wikipedia on "doktor nauk medycznych" finds several more similar biographies. Use Google Chrome automatic translation to translate Polish to English. Health Sciences or Medical Sciences in Poland are divided into several disciplines, including Medicine and Medical Biology, and biochemistry is an area of specialization in medical biology. The Doctor article covers training of doctors in Poland: Diploma is equivalent to a doctor with a degree in Master (Magister (degree)). Two-stage system of specialization in Poland was introduced after World War II because of the huge shortage of medical personnel and the need for short training of specialists as soon as possible and the desire to "improve" the statistics on the number of specialists (in the statistics given the total number of information professionals without a degree). In this last aspect, Poland modeled on the Soviet Union , where there were even 3 degrees of specialization. The mostly two-level system used the principle of a three-year specialization degree and two years of secondary education. Note that Medical University of Lublin offers an American program through Hope Medical Institute which offers programs for high school grads, 2- or 4-yr college grads with or without pre-med background, and advanced training and education in post graduate study and specialization in various fields of medicine. To be admitted to this program the student must have a degree in medicine with a good academic record. What exactly was offered in 1968 needs more research. 50.13.110.37 (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 50.13.110.37 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

More clarity? I'm really confused after that. can you summarize your point succinctly and with the supporting references? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I have formally requested permanent semi-protection of this article since it has always been a magnet for IPs who add POV edits, whitewash it, or add promotional material. This needs to be stopped permanently. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I second that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

We only got one month. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Stage III

The clinical trials are now in stage III, according to several sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.160.138 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All the sources presented (in the past, anyway) were Burzyński's organisations or press releases; nothing from the FDA (or other national regulatory agencies) or peer-reviewed journals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How could FDA comments in its own abuse of power? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.155.21 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted. There still needs to be someone other than B or people quoting B. (And, if it were in stage III in the US, it would be recorded at the FDA.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 19 October 2011

Who ever is protecting this document is providing misinformation to the general public. You are also jeopardizing individuals and family members from finding proper treatment for their devastating disease. A treatment Dr. Burzynski has found and was stolen away from him!

Rodrgabr (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Or you can also post here the information you would like added/removed/changed with WP:Reliable Sources and someone will look at the request. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The movie mentioned in the entry is available in full length at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac

68.40.60.83 (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a legal copy? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no indication to show that the "videogangstar" YouTube channel is in any way official, so I cannot add that at this time, in accord with external links policy. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  08:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

Please mark the following as "citation needed" or remove. "Data supporting the efficacy of Burzynski's treatments are lacking and his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies."

Please mark the following as "citation needed" or remove. "The clinical efficacy of antineoplastons combinations for various diseases have been the subject of many such trials by Burzynski and his associates, but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy."

Mbellopede (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The basis for the statement in the lead is the text and citations in the body of the article, which do in fact support that data showing the clinical efficacy of APs are lacking and that the treatment has generated controversy among medical and regulatory sources. At most, all that would be needed is to cite these same sources in the lead, rather than removing the text or marking it as citations needed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Your first request is not referenced because it is in the lede section, which summarises the contents of the article and as such is generally left uncited because it is cited more in depth in the article (as is the case here). Your second request is indeed referenced, though in the following two sentences which back up the preceding sentence. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagreed with User talk:Steven Zhang when above he said "Your first request is not referenced because it is in the lede section." As stated at WP:CITELEAD the policy in this regard is: "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement."

Considering that the current sentence is contentious/controversial and is about a WP:ALIVE, I request specific in-line citations to be added here or the sentence in question to be removed.

As we are dealing with a WP:ALIVE, it is justified to delete the unreferenced sentence in question fast. Farmanesh (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure about the second clause ("his use of antineoplastons has generated considerable controversy among medical authorities and regulatory agencies"), but the first is adequately sourced in the body, without a doubt. I'm not marking this "answered", as I've also been active in editing the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Please note the language of the policy: "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement."

It doesn't say "cite if there is not enough citation in the text", it says "must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned". Farmanesh (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. page is unprotected, this request template is no longer necessary. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 1 November 2011

The movie mentioned in the entry is available here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S81PXHwjMAQ The first 36 minutes of the movie are available. (in a legal copy Mr. Rubin)

The clinical efficacy of antineoplastons combinations for various diseases have been the subject of many such trials by Burzynski and his associates, but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".

Just a few articles listed below on the clinical efficacy of Antineoplastons, and I didn't even have to dig deep for these articles. There appears to be a lot of bias in this wiki article.

• http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/patient/page2
  
• Targeted Therapy With Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of High-Grade, Recurrent, and Progressive Brainstem Glioma Integr Cancer Ther March 2006 5: 40-47,
• Long-term Survival of High-Risk Pediatric Patients With Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumors Treated With Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 Integr Cancer Ther June 1, 2005 4: 168-177
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls Jpn J Clin Oncol August 5, 2008 0: hyn066v1-9
• Emerging Treatment Strategies for Adrenocortical Carcinoma: A New Hope J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. January 1, 2006 91: 14-21

Mcothran (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Baseball Watcher 01:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

precipitous Ca

As mentioned above, I have moved the QW, NCAHF references here for discussion. QW and NCAHF are not considered technically reliable sources and in this case there are serious authors and information that these articles' opinions go beyond mere bias, are substantially speculative & factually wrong, and quite possibly defamatory. The Cat:PsS, which is long recognized for abuse potential, is absolutely wrongheaded here, a flagrant BLP violation, and legally dangerous, especially given the previous statement and request from the Burzynski office. INAL but on the Cat:PsS I have concerns about actual libel on something stated as a fact where the person has made biologically plausible statements, has two doctorates, 70+ Phase II trials in progress, and has survived the combined assualts of state, federal, medical, and major insurers, all while being hijacked on 13 technical-medical patents by "opposed" federal research groups. Pls do not restore the Cat:PsS, it is a serious BLP problem.^{--TheNautilus (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC), split comment [10]}

It is no surprise that those who are debunked and criticized by Quackwatch do not like the site and try to question its reliability. But that does not make it an unreliable source. Quackwatch is clearly a widely respected source and certainly more reliable when it comes to criticizing quacks than their own website or interviews given to devotees.

It is clear from the article and the removed references that the reason for his permanent phase II-only clinical trials is a legal loophole that allows him to treat patients without having to demonstrate efficacy. As for the "biologically plausible statements" I can tell you that from a scientific standpoint the whole idea is more or less nonsense. From a medicinal standpoint this would not matter as long as it helps patients, but he has so far cleverly avoided any evaluation of efficacy, despite having treated thousands of patients over more than twenty years. Сасусlе 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You apparently are unfamiliar with Arb com statements that Quackwatch *is* not a reliable technical source, dispite the efforts of its stalwarts at WP to promote it as such. Quackwatch itself states that it doesn't even try to be balanced. The Kauffman content I linked directly addresses, with verifiable references (more in his book), Green's comments, and separately, the severe conflict of interest as lengthy paid participation in litigation and supporting losing adversarial positions is quite relevant to WP:RS. Prof Kauffman is quoted at length by David Hufford, professor of sociology & bioethics at Penn State College of Medicine & U Penn Med School: [QW & SRAM] two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias in "Evaluating complementary and alternative medicine: the limits of science and of scientists." from J of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Summer, 2003. Quackwatch has other authoritative critics, like Finnish Cochrane Collection author & public health authority, Harri Hemilä (MD + 2 PhD), who discussed examples of bias, error and misrepresentation by Quackwatch principals at some length pp 23, 36, 76-77 using peer reviewed articles, including previous articles on his individual points. Quackwatch has other personal attacks (often times on conveniently dead people) & deprecating whole areas of medical science where (despite expert efforts to educate) QW has based its opinions on extremely poor (fradulent) tests whose long (easily) identifiable (but embarrassing) errors are now acknowledged even by PNAS, CMAJ and NIH where Quackwatch ignored or attacked those that have the best data with " ... incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kauffman's conclusion on his 8 QW examples).--TheNautilus (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the LEAD intro which appears to closer to NPOV - there *are* science and political controversies. The inclusion of adversarial extremists with *known, specific financial conflicts of interests* like Saul Green, as well as extreme personal views with scurrilous, speculative statements in the article, is a severe BLP problem. In the Foreword to the Burzynski Breakthrough, investigative reporter Elias explictly says that a number of major conventional bodies dismissed the "quackery" description of Burzynski and his antineoplastons work and that they said this was a dispute in experimental biology, Elias' statement including the FDA and the American Cancer Society. The most accessible single discussion online of Green's surrilous polemic may be Prof. Kauffman's 2002 "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch" article online. In Kauffman's book, Malignant Medical Myths (2006), in chapter 10 (pp. 247-258), he uses the 2002 article in toto, expands it some, adds numerous references, and a list of reviewers, This chapter was critically reviewed by Frances E. H. Pane, MSLS, ALice Ottoboni, PhD, Fred Ottoboni PhD, MPH, William A Reinsmith, DA, Alayne Yates, MD, and Charles T. McGee, MD.^{--TheNautilus (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC), split comment [11]}

You are right about not adding the controversy about the legitimacy of his Ph.D. title to the article. However, your ad hominem attacks are a classical logical fallacy and do not address the critical arguments. You might also want to check the reliability of these sources. Сасусlе 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

see above reply. Green's COI is a WP:RS problem, the article is obsolete and voided by subsequent WP:V fact checking on his erroneous statements and speculation by independent authors.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

According to an FDA analysis in 1998, Buzynski's therapy contributed to the deaths of at least seven people through hypernatremia [7] caused by the enormous ammounts of sodium ions in his treatments [8] This is an unbalanced view with undue weight and with respect to conventional cancer therapies. My previous edit[] was more informative with the antineoplaston introduction including by this part: the highest [antineoplastons] usage levels carry a very high sodium load that require careful attention to fluid and electrolyte balance. Also according to Burzynski's observations, a major part of the problem is home patients, who could be not be as closely monitored and getting less local medical support, going off-protocol on their hydration. Many conventional neoplastic agents are far, far more deadly with great risks, even if "FDA approved", especially if improperly used.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)^{end of split comment [12]}

Comparing risks is always a cost / benefit consideration. On the one hand you have proven cancer treatments that are aggressive, but save more lives (or days alive) than no treatment (proven in clinical studies). On the other hand you have Buzynski's therapy that has killed several people with no documented benefit whatsoever. Mentioning the risks involved in his cures in a neutral tone does clearly not put undue weight onto this fact. And you do hopefully not question the reliability of an FDA analysis.

Please let me share a personal anecdote: I came across Burzinky when I saw a (not cancer-related) scientific poster from his clinic at a major scientific congress. The content was utter nonsense from a scientific perspective, but their printouts were professionally color-printed on glossy paper (usually you can be happy if you get a photocopy) and it looked great with all these cool computer-generated images on it. I took it as a good hoax ("you don't fool me..."). After a few weeks I got curious and was surprised to find that the Burzinsky Clinic actually exists. I read Burzinski's website and noted his meticulous listings of memberships in professional societies, the number of patents he holds (both does actually not mean anything, all you have to do is to pay for it), and the number of publications (it is not the number that counts, it is the content and quality). His ridiculous poster presentation fit well into the bigger scheme to fool lay persons into thinking that he is a serious and respected scientific or medicinal authority. (Unsigned comment 03:00, 18 November 2011‎ Ella Plantagenet)

Oh please, people PAY his institute to get a treatment against cancer, you don't say? What kind of ridiculously cheap attempts at slander are you trying on us here? 86.93.250.232 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nautilus: you are selectively removing critical content and replaced it whitewashed formulations (at least partially taken from Burzinky's website and uncritical interviews with him). This violates Wikipedias neutral point of view policy and I urge you to stop this. Сасусlе 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

...has killed several people I really don't want to play "good doc - bad doc" with you, this is a purely prejudicial statement. Unnecesary death in medicine happens *a lot* in gross numbers, it is acknowledged within the profession that there are lot of structural problems in the area of service control in hospitals as well as the real personnel problems. Oncology to this point in time has ongoing controversies over net benefit broadly, large scale experimental protocols' designs. B might look like a boy scout in comparison to some incidents I am personally familiar with nary a word. B got most of his patients precut, fried, and/or thoroughly cytotoxified with zero hope. B pointed out that 2 of those 7 might be more accurately said to have died *with* numerical hypernatremia rather than from it, and that his patients offsite sometimes have trouble staying on hydration protocol whether due to discipline or lack of adequate local medical support (also sometimes because of bias).

no documented benefit You mean no FDA certified Phase III "proven" benefit with class III evidence. In experimental science areas, it is important to recognize what class I and class II EBM there is. Burzynski is an experimental oncologist, where you can join an existing Phase II trial, or if you have no conventional options left, you can try for the special FDA exception. There are a number of independent doctors, including federal, who have gone to bat for some of Burzynski's results as unusual, dramatic, multiple recoveries where death, intrinsic to specific diagnosis, was generally considered 99.x+% certain, that corresponds to Class II evidence in EBM. Here is a more recent summary of the available evidence, NCI. It is important to always realize in altmed discussions that conclusions for "approved Medicine" vs recognized Science in progress can be two much different things.

...question FDA Certainly others have, citing many forms of bias in this specific case, as well as institutional biases, judicial reprimands and orders, and directed congressional action. Of course there have been FDA officials or employees that did their jobs with as much integrity as possible, just overshadowed by the politicos. Every FDA action here is subject to WP:V, WP:RS rebuttal, sources and scrutiny.

Please let me share a personal anecdote...The content was... sounds like OR, sometimes useful for establishing common points of view. I have my own stories during foreign 5* hotel stays with the then latest in (US) VD technology on nice glossy 8 foot tall poster boards filling the lobby, thankfully gone in a few days, making claims that apparently didn't hold up so well (or long) on the frontlines of medicine.

I read Burzinski's website and noted his meticulous listings of memberships in professional societies... I gather that B is fairly effective as a self promoter and perceives listing these memberships as a positive, but understand professional societies can and do kick out members that are embarrassing or go beyond some limit, without too much ceremony, or make life extremely uncomfortable.

the number of patents he holds (both does actually not mean anything, all you have to do is to pay for it) although I will agree that patent quality in the US has deteriorated in the last dozen years, especially with the business & software hijinks, I think (bio)chemical related patents in the 70s and 80s were a little less than trivial to get when many PhDs couldn't even get one, resorted to unethical or "me too" tactics, "big boy" stuff, such as Burzynski complained about on the NCI using his former employee. Perhaps you don't have any such patents during the time period more than a dozen years ago.

Nautilus: you are selectively removing critical content I have moved some duplicated links and duplicated material with questionable material to Talk for discussion, per normal editing practices and there is the externeral link to this same material still present in the article which is mutually exclusive (either it goes or the references would).

This violates Wikipedias neutral point of view policy and I urge you to stop this. I am willing to discuss the controversy, but given some of the edits you have made previously, including material that Burnzynski office appears to cite as false and harmful, and which I believe to be false and extremely defamatory (e.g. "Cat:PsS"), I will likewise caution you, but I would rather spend our time finding and discussing better sources collaboratively.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[10] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[11] In his movie, "Burzynski, the Movie - Cancer is Serious Business", Dr. Burzynski explains the flaws in these studies, stating that the protocols that were used by these independent scientists were developed for a patient population different than the one that was actually selected for the study.

source: http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

Juliusmagnus17 (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done, because that doesn't appear to be a reliable source. If you disagree, I suggest discussion on WP:RSN or below.  Chzz  ►  04:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well well, ain't that a convenient cop-out? Leave in the slander, for which there has not been given any truly reliable source, and then claim something very special is required if someone posts the truth about this slander. Yet another wikipedia page discrediting WikiPedia as a whole as something remotely trustworthy. I sure as hell will refrain from paying up if Jimmy starts begging again. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

You allude to lack of peer review of findings on efficacy of Dr. Burzynski's gene targeted therapy by peers. The following link provides video testimony of same: https://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126 Specifically, Eric R. Carlson, D.M.D.,M.D., F.A.C.S. Professor & Chair OMFS Residency Director, Uni of Tenn Med Cntr and Ali Hachem, M.D., Oncologist, Cancer Centre, Huntsville, Alabama discuss their revised opinions concerning The Burzynski Clinic after their patients experienced complete cures; together with references to two documents published by the The Journal for Cancer Therapy http://www.cancer-therapy.org/ With your clear bias on this issue I fear you will only give notice of the impending trial and fail to provide this link which explores the legal issues being examined in this Kafkaesque trial. The papers are filled daily with high profile individuals who have succumbed to cancer after employing conventional treatments, Steve Jobs immediately coming to mind, but none of their doctors are being tried for the abject failure of their treatment regimes. Susanne McAllister 109.77.19.73 (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is the "you" to whom you are referring? More importantly, please keep in mind that the talk page is to be used for discussing suggestions regarding specific text in the article -- you did not make any such proposals, so your comment falls into the WP:SOAP category. You might want also to review WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)