Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Quote grossly taken out of context. Breaks all ethical rules of Wikipedia.

"Prior to the debut of "Burzynski", Houston Press correspondent Craig Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, characterizing it as "a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism", and criticized the project for presenting only Burzynski's side of the story.[53]"

This breaks all ethical rules of Wikipedia. Craig Malisow never watched the film—ever. he states so in his own article: ""If anyone out there has seen the movie, please let us know your thoughts."

The grossly taken out of context quote says: "... we don't necessarily think its a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism of a documentary's subject is a truly horrible thing, as long as viewers understand they're just getting one side of the story."

source: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/06/burzynski_movie.php

76.94.58.224 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This only confirms that at least some of the authors of his article were engaged in an anti-Burzynski crusade, even at the cost of NPOV. Sad to see this on Wikipedia. Feel free to remove the entire sentence from the article as it brings nothing new except for more rant. kashmiri 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the quote is, "We're not sure which dictionary Merola has consulted for his understanding of the word "objective," but hey -- we don't necessarily think a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism of a documentary's subject is a truly horrible thing, as long as viewers understand they're just getting one side of the story." Way to misquote the quote. Your addition of the word "its" in that quote that actually isn't there completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Oh, the irony. Yobol (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done A pretty poor misrepresentation of a source, and accusation of bad faith above (kashmiri – did you check the source before responding thus?) — come on people: please raise the standard! Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No I haven't, I assumed WP:good faith, thanks for pointing out. On the other hand, it's hard to avoid an impression that the selection of reviews has been done here somewhat one-sidedly. kashmiri 10:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri — I think, to be fair, you assumed good faith from one quarter, but not from another. Alexbrn (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks a bit WP:personal. Nevertheless, it has been repeatedly pointed out here that the article contains many unverified or biased edits; yet, editing attempts were promptly being reverted. It seems ok to include a detailed list of legal charges against Burzynski Institute but when someone added that BI had been cleared of the charges this was immediately removed as "biased". Sure, in "good faith"? kashmiri 11:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hope you personally recognize that assuming good faith means assuming it from all quarters, otherwise there's not much point, is there? As to your points of substance, what in the article is unverified? If there is such content either remove it, tag it, discuss it here or (best of all) find a source! On legal cases, is there a case described here where the charges are mentioned but the result not? We should include results of legal actions (when known) if the action is mentioned. Alexbrn (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you lecturing me again, Alex. As to unverified claims, just go and read this Talk page carefully from the beginning, I don't feel like copying and pasting things that have been written above. As to the administrative complaint against Burzynski Institute, see this recent edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burzynski_Clinic&diff=527085071&oldid=527062868. kashmiri 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Kashmiri. On unverified material, I see some complaints above that fail to appreciate that introductory/summarizing content doesn't need to be sourced if the content is sourced in more detail later. Why not stick "fact" templates on things you consider to be unsourced? Quite apart from anything else, it's a good deal quicker than typing stuff on the talk page. For the edit, I'm not quite getting your point ... I see the edit; I see the revert ... is there any follow-up discussion? or is that what you are initiating now? If so, I suggest starting a new section here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested addition of "Burzynski Clinic" Section, edit/removal of non-referenced/sourced material

I do not see a Section titled: "Burzynski Clinic." Please add one so suggested changes may be posted. Main Article has: "While the clinic does offer conventional chemotherapy and (via an associate center) radiotherapy," yet cites no source for these claims. I suggest they be removed if no referenceable source. Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

The article itself is entitled "Burzynski Clinic", so no section is required. I shall check sources for the claims of conventional therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything, although the wording here is too specific to seem like it is invented; for the meantime this content can be removed — it is hardly essential to the article in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My issue is that if you go on the Mobile site the 1st Section is "Burzynski Clinic," & the 2nd is "Stanislaw Burzynski," but if you go on the Desktop version & look at the Left side Table of Contents, there is no link to add Talk issues about the 1st Section of the "Burzynski Clinic" Article. On here the 1st Section is about the film. I should also state that when I've tried to use the Edit function I've received a message to

the effect that it was vandalism so they removed it, which I then had to repost in Talk. Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus John Thomas 12/10/-2

Article don't put opening paragraphs in their own section (a stylistic error, but who am I to argue?). See WP:LEAD. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If I am understand your above post correctly you are leaving the incited chemo/... statement though it has no cite & if I understand correctly, WP does not access the site. I have it from good authority that that is not what they do.

The 1st Section of the Burzynski Clinic has: "... but none has been published." Please change to: "which are listed at PubMed.gov." (link) —Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much false. The studies are listed, but the results are not published. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much incorrect: [1], [2], [3], etc. – not mentioning that the entire sentence (in the article) is illogical. kashmiri 14:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I write this jokingly, but I was hoping WP was not going to put me in the position of having to do additional quoting of additional sites, since if the use goes to the PubMed.gov site, they can follow links to the publications from there; since some of these are published in different publishing sources. Also, I am not sure what you mean about the sentence structure since my request would be to make it:

"Some sixty phase 2 clinical trials have been registered by Burzynski since the mid 1990s, and one phase 3 trial, but none has been published. (changed to)

"Some sixty phase 2 clinical trials have been registered by Burzynski since the mid 1990s, and one phase 3 trial, which are published here.

Please note the majority of these require payment to read & I only saw 1 free one.

Also, Burzynski is cited in these publications from 2010 (2) & 2012 & the last 1 from Japan: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

"...a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit...."

But that was not what the study concluded. See below:

.::"CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy."

"Conclusion

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy."

In the interest of Neutrality, please revove the referen e to MYo entirely or change to;

"...a Mayo Clinic study found that "the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy."

Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

How is "found no benefit" not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study's summary? Alexbrn (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the "Fair & Pithy" reason I was provided. I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post. Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/18/12

In the interest of Neutrality, please add before the pithy Mayo Clinic study reference, after "patients," & before "and":

"a 1998 study at Kurume University, School of Medicine, Japan, concluded that "Antineoplastons...exhibit growth inhibition of cancer cells by diverse modes of action. We observed antitumor responses within 2-3 weeks of a combination treatment of chemoradiation therapy and antineoplastons...in phase I clinical study...." "We reviewed 3 clinical cases of advanced cancer...in which we believed antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 may be contributing to the rapid antitumor response."

Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

That is the first study other than by Burzynski which appears not to have produced a negative result. Perhaps it should receive some mention. For what it's worth, B's publications were before the official end of the studies (all phase 2 trials were still in progress in 2012), so they don't qualify as publication of the results of the studies, only publications about the studies. But, perhaps, something could be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of Neutrality, please add before the fair & pithy Mayo Clinic study reference & my previous 1998 request:

a 1997 study at Kurume University, School of Medicine, Japan, concluded that "Antineoplaston AS2-1 exhibits cytostatic growth inhibition of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro and showed minimum adverse effects in a phase I clinical trial. We reviewed two clinical cases of liver cancer...in whom we believe...Antineoplaston AS2-1 may be effective and useful as a maintenance agent after TAE and MCN in patients." "The two patients...continued to be in good condition for more than two years without limitation of their normal activities."

or consolidate the 1997 & 1998 comments so that the University is not mentioned twice.

Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

and please add "another 1998 study stated"

"Antineoplaston A10 injection...exhibited cystostatic growth inhibition of human hepatocellular carcinoma...cells in vitro and showed minimum adverse effects in a phase I clinical trial." In "2 cases of advanced HCC treated with antineoplaston A10 I....[b]oth cases showed interesting responses to antineoplaston A10 I. One showed massive coagulation necrosis of tumors after intra-arterial infusion of antineoplaston A10 I and the other showed resolution of portal vein tumor thrombosis with systemic infusion of antineoplaston A10 I.

Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

In the interest of Neutrality, please add after the Mayo study:

"a 2002 study stated that"

"Antineoplastons are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives that control neoplastic growth. Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 are chemically identified and synthesized antineoplastons proven to inhibit cancer cell growth by arresting the cell cycle in the G1 phase and inhibiting tumor growth by reducing mitosis. These agents are thought to be good candidates for clinically easily applicable non-toxic p53 gene activators. Our cases of advanced cancer responded well to combination treatment using chemotherapeutics and irradiation with antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in clinical trials being conducted..."

Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

In the interest of Neutrality, please add after the 2002 study:

"in 2003, at Kurume Daiichi Social Insurance Hospital,"

"We designed a phase II clinical trial..." "Ten patients were enrolled in this trial, 2 in stage I, 6 in stage II, 1 in stage III, 1 in stage IV-B at initial diagnosis. Ten patients experienced 35 recurrence-free intervals. Recurrence-free intervals during antineoplaston AS2-1 administration were significantly longer than those without antineoplaston AS2-1." "Patients who experienced recurrence-free intervals with and without antineoplaston AS2-1 showed longer intervals during antineoplaston AS2-1 administration than those before and after antineoplaston AS2-1 administration Two patients in stage I showed longer recurrence-free intervals than those in more advanced stages. "[A]ntineoplaston AS2-1...prolonged the recurrence-free interval between regional treatments and improved survival rate of these patients."

Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

In the interest of Neutrality, please add after the 2003 study: I requested be added:

"in 2005 a study showed that"

"Antineoplaston...AS2-1 inhibited KM12SM cell proliferation through G1 cell arrest and, at a higher concentration, induction of apoptosis...showed significant reduction in lung metastasis at 5 weeks after cecal removal. The survival rate in the...group was significantly higher than that in the control..." and "showed an antimetastatic effect against post-operative lung metastases from colon cancer through G1 cell arrest and the subsequent induction of apoptosis."

Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

In the interest of Neutrality, please add after the other 2005 study I requested be added:

"Another 2005 study showed that"

"Antineoplastons such as A10 include naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives that control the neoplastic growth of cells." "Our findings indicate that the antineoplaston A10 antitumor effect could be utilized as an effective therapy for breast cancer patients.

Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/10/12

I oppose the addition of any primary studies that are not discussed in a secondary source, per WP:PSTS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, for all the same reasons. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree as the above 2 request cite no evidence that either poster reviewed any of the cites to support the claim that these cites are not discussed in a secondary source (see below):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9769368 (141 cites)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15706406 (125 cites)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16012735 (109 cites) Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/12/12

Please add after "Italic textantineoplastons" link as this National Cancer Institute, at the National Institutes of Health link provides valuable information re AntineoplastonsDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/12/12

Please remove "but none has been published." in re Burzynski's clinical trials as I have shown in my request for a Phase I section to be added. Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/12/12

Please remove:

"There is no conclusive evidence to support the antineoplaston theory."

"No conclusive evidence" has no source. It is also Not true. FDA wouldn't have given permission for Phase 3 trials if this were true.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465909002283/a09-

Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/12/12

• You appear to be taking extreme liberties with the number of citations you claim the papers have received. The one you claimed as "141 cites" appears to have maybe 3 for example, and it's an in vitro study (I don't have access to the full paper, just the summary). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, not quite sure what you mean since when I accessed those links, for example, & scroll down to the bottom where it has "Related Citations," & I select the "Show all" option, that's the # of cites those brought up.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk),Didymus Judas Thomas 12/14/12 —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Related citations are just articles which the search engine thinks might be related. It is not a measure of the impact of the article, nor of the number of citations. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add: "Research and clinical studies on antineoplastons have been conducted in Japan since 1988 and successful Phase I Clinical Trials have been done starting in 1994 on Antineoplastons A5, A10 & AS2-1, and A101." Thank you very muchDidymus Judas Thomas (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

These are primary sources. --Six words (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This has been discussed here in the past. The issue is covered under WP:MEDREV and WP:MEDSCI. Primary sources, like phase I and II clinical trials, are always trumped by secondary sources and must never be used to contradict scientific consensus. This has already been addressed on the Talk page in the past and need not be re-litigated. ----

Below are links for Burzynski Phase II Clinical Trials which consist of the (1) link I initially provided, (2) PubMed link, (3) actual publication link, (4) link re cites, & (5) cancer . gov link at the end:

Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/23/2012

• It's like this. Burzynski has registered 60 Phase II and one Phase III trial with clinicaltrials.gov. Not one of the phase II trials has been published and the phase III trial has yet to accrue a single patient. Like it or not, ANPs are firmly linked to Burzynski personally, and the major problem has always been his failure to produce any compelling evidence. We don't go wading through primary sources such as those you list, instead we refer to secondary sources. These are, as far as I can tell, in unanimous agreement that Burzynski's treatment is unproven and of little evident promise. We have the American Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, the FDA and numerous other sources for exactly that and no reliable independent secondary source for any promising outcome. We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

JzG, I'm not sure what relevance your above comments have re WP: NPOV. Burzynski's Phase I & II Clinical Trial data has been published as indicated on cancer . gov National Cancer Institute, at the National Institutes of Health, as indicated on the Antineoplastons: Human/Clinical Trials page where it states: "Publications have taken the form of case reports, phase I clinical trials, toxicity studies, and phase II clinical trials."

Additionally, it then states: "Table 2 summarizes the following clinical trials and appears at the end of this section."

It then cites, at the bottom of the page," References" for Burzynski's Phase I & II Clinical Trial publications.

Above I included Secondary Sources as indicated in "(4) link re cites," which consist of 8, 11, 4, 6, 16, & 19 Secondary Source references respectively.

Additionally, below are links for Burzynski's Phase I Clinical Trials which consist of the (1) link I initially provided, (2) PubMed link, (3) link re cites, & (4) cancer . gov link at the end, where (3) = 16, 7, 23, & 29 Secondary Source references respectively:

Additionally, below are links for Japanese Phase I Clinical Trials which consist of the (1) link I initially provided, (2) PubMed link, (3) actual publication link, (4) link re cites, & (5) cancer . gov link at the end, the (4) consisting of 15, 12, 11, & 2 Secondary Source references respectively:

I think it's premature to state that no Antineoplaston research is ongoing in China, Japan, or Egypt, since publications have been done up to 2009 & Burzynski has published re ongoing work which includes this year. Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/25/2012

What you are doing is presenting a novel synthesis from primary sources. The consensus of reliable independent secondary sources is that ANPs are promoted primarily by Burzynski, that his science is far form rigorous, and that they do not represent a particularly hopeful line of inquiry. And that's before you get to the outright lies told by Burzynski and his supporters, e.g. that it is "non-toxic" and "not chemotherapy", routinely claiming that tumours which have outgrown their blood supply are being cured by ANPs (these patients usually die shortly afterwards) and so on. There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

JzGIGuy, I'm not sure what relevance your above post has to do with WP:NPOV since the independent Japanese Phase I & II clinical trials are actual Clinical Trials as opposed to opinion, conjecture, theory, etc.

Please add per WP

NPOV that a Japanese Phase II Clinical Trial which consist of the (1) PubMed link & (2) link re cites, the (2) consisting of 9 Secondary Source references; in order to show independent trials show success:

"A Phase II clinical trial in Japan of 10 patients; 2 in stage I, 6 in stage II, 1 in stage III, 1 in stage IV-B, experienced 35 recurrence-free intervals during antineoplaston AS2-1 administration, which were significantly longer than those without antineoplaston AS2-1" Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012

If you read WP:MEDRS you should come to realize that continuing to post links to these primary source phase I and II trials is a wasted effort. What matters is what reliable secondary sources have said about the research as a whole. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? WP:MEDRS says explicitly that primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia if used "with care". The above-listed reports of clinical trials have not (yet) been summarised in a reliable secondary source; hence, in order not to skip valid information in this article, one has to resort to quoting primary sources. Sure, it has to be done very carefully and without jumping to conclusions that do not exist in these articles. But repeat: primary sources are allowed as per WP:MEDRS. kashmiri 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording is "reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature" (my emphasis). Which is a bit different. Alexbrn (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RIR, thank you for your above post pointing out that I was wasting my time posting Primary Sources. Please note that my above post mentions Secondary Sources I provided. Below is a specific Secondary Source from that Google Scholar Link for Burzynski's 2006 Phase II trial, from the: Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology (2008) Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012

RIR, thank you for your above post re Primary Sources. Please note that my above post mentions Secondary Sources I provided. Below is a specific Secondary Source from that Google Scholar Link for Burzynski's 2005 Phase II trial, from the Journal: Cancer (2012) Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012

RIR, thank you for your above post re Primary Sources. Please note that my above post mentions Secondary Sources I provided. Below is a specific Secondary Source from that Google Scholar Link for Burzynski's 2004 Phase II trial, from the Journal: Chemical Research in Chinese Universities (3/2006) Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012

RIR, thank you for your above post re Primary Sources. Please note that my above post mentions Secondary Sources I provided. Below is a specific Secondary Source from that Google Scholar Link for Burzynski's 9/2004 Phase II trial, from the: Canadian Journal of Neurosciences (8/2007) Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012

I've just checked the last two sources and neither one is a secondary source, and as far as I can tell neither discusses Burzynski.

"Chemical research in Chinese Universities (3/2006)" is entitled Expression of RNA Editing Deaminase on Human Glioma Cell Lines and, as the title tells us, is a study on cell lines. ADAR2 and ADAR3 are not "antineoplastons", they're enzymes that our body produces. I don't have access to the full text, but the abstract doesn't make it look like Burzynski is more than one of various citations.

"Canadian Journal of Neurosciences (8/2007)" is entitled Coincidence vs Cause: Cure in Three Glioblastoma Patients Treated with Brachytherapy - brachytherapy is a form of radiotherapy. It only uses Burzynski as a citation for the following statement: "Very long term survival after glioblastoma has been described in individual cases" - we know that Burzynski has described such cases, but (very much like this source, which concluded that while there were 3 long term survivors in the treatment (brachytherapy) group versus no long term survivors in the control group it was unlikely that the longer survival was due to the treatment) he hasn't shown that the treatment helped them survive.

You don't seem to understand what a secondary source is. It's not any study that cites another source, it's a study that evaluates and combines multiple sources to see if their individual outcomes are due to a real effect or likely just chance findings. A review article is a secondary source. A meta-analysis is a secondary source. The articles above aren't.

A secondary source for Burzynski's treatment would be an independend review or meta-analysis of his studies, or of the studies using his treatment finding that they are effective - I have searched pubmed for such a source but haven't found one. --Six words (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Six words, thank you for suggesting that I "don't seem to understand what a secondary source is." WP:MEDRS references: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals...", "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, ...", "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, ...", "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, ..." & "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study, for example: "A 2009 U.S. study found the average age of formal autism spectrum diagnosis was 5.7 years." (citing PMID ________)"" Maybe your definition of "general review," or "summarizes" in a Secondary Third-Party Source medical journal is different than mine. The Chinese research cites much of the same terminology Burzynski uses re glioma & is cite [11].Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012

Oh, you're welcome. Great copy pasta, now you only need to start understanding what these statements mean. Even if it was OK to use this study (you know what occasionally, with great care, as an adjunct means, right?), there'd still be one little problem: this study is isn't about "antineoplaston treatment". --Six words (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Six words, I see nothing that indicates that the medical journal review has to be about "antineoplaston treatment". WP:MEDRS "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, ... to combine the results of several studies." It does not indicate that the review can't combine the results of several studies about different forms of Cancer treatment.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012

Since you cited a passage that says (I paraphrase) 'under very special circumstances primary sources may be admissible' I thought you understood that these sources are primary sources - if you don't understand it, there's no point to continue this discussion, as I won't be checking new "secondary" sources you provide until you're able to tell apart primary and secondary sources. And of course a study needs to deal with the "antineoplaston treatment" if you want to claim it supports this treatment. Everything else would be synthesis. --Six words (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As Six words pointed out, the articles listed above by Didymus are primary sources, not secondary (see Definitions under WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDREV addresses the broader issue raised by Didymus quite clearly:

"Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources...primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field...If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials...then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted...When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study...because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources." Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RIR, the following are irrelevant: (1) American Cancer Society &(2) Cancer Research UK, are both Private organizations with nothing re Antineoplastons on PubMed & their motivation can be questioned as Competitors of Burzynski. (3) Memorial Sloan-Kettering has 1 PubMed article re Antineoplastons but are also a Private organization whose motivation can also be questioned as a Competitor of Burzynski. (4) The FDA's opinion is also irrelevant since Phase II studies were promising enough for them to authorize Phase III Clinical Trials re Antineoplastons. Additional, the Mayo Clinic study in this article had the "CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy. ..." & the NIH Phase II Clinical Trials were reported in 2004 – "Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons," "[T]hese studies were stopped before it was possible to determine the effectiveness of antineoplastons." "[T]o determine why this study failed to be completed," there was "a detailed analysis of the conflicts that led to the study's closure. The intent was to understand the social dynamics surrounding this failed study" Are you indicating that the following medical journals are not medical journals within the meaning of Secondary Third-Party resources? (A) Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, (B) Cancer, (C) Chemical Research in Chinese Universities, & (D) Canadian Journal of Neurosciences?Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012

• Please add, to dispute "that antineoplaston therapy is" ... "of little promise in treating cancer."

"In 2002 Japanese clinical trials, cases of advanced cancer responded well to combination treatment using antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1, proven to inhibit cancer cell growth and tumor growth."

• Citing Secondary Source Medical Journals: Oncology reports (8/2005) Integrative Cancer Therapies (3/2004) Journal of Chemical Research (12/1/2003) & Medical Hypotheses (4/2003) Thank you very much.04:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/28/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs)
• Please add, to dispute "that antineoplaston therapy is" ... "of little promise in treating cancer."

"A 1998 Japanese phase I clinical trial exhibited cystostatic growth inhibition of human advanced hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro and showed minimum adverse effects. One showed massive coagulation necrosis of tumors after intra-arterial infusion of antineoplaston A10 I and the other showed resolution of portal vein tumor thrombosis with systemic infusion of antineoplaston A10 I."

• Citing Secondary Source Medical Journals: Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry (Part II) (4/15/2009) Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry (Part I) (4/15/2009) Oncology reports ( 2005 ) Integrative Cancer Therapies (3/2004) Il Farmaco (9/1/2001)

Thank you very much.06:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/29/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs)

• Please add, to dispute "that antineoplaston therapy is" ... "of little promise in treating cancer."

"A 1998 Japanese phase I clinical study observed rapid antitumor responses within 2-3 weeks of a combination treatment of chemoradiation therapy with antineoplastons A10 & AS2-1, and growth inhibition of cancer cells."

• Citing Secondary Source Medical Journals: Oncology reports (8/2005) Oncology reports (3/2005) Medical Hypotheses (4/2003)

Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/29/2012

• Please add, to dispute "that antineoplaston therapy is" ... "of little promise in treating cancer."

"In 1997 Japanese phase I clinical trials, 2 cases of liver cancer were reviewed where Antineoplaston AS2-1 exhibited cytostatic growth inhibition of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro, showed minimum adverse effects, and may be effective and useful as a maintenance therapy. The 2 patients continued to be in good condition for more than 2 years without limitation of their normal activities."

• Citing Secondary Source Medical Journal: Integrative Cancer Therapies (3/2004)

Thank you very much.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/29/2012

The rational re my above posts re Japanese clinical trials/study is based on WP:MEDRS: [T]he results of an early-stage clinical trial might—in some cases—be appropriate for inclusion in an article dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly if citing a secondary source, might also be appropriate for a well-documented section on research directions in an article about a disease." "Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that the reported findings necessarily hold true in humans." Re the 2002 entry, I have indicated the # of the references that cite Burzynski & the antineoplastons referenced. The 5 Secondary Source Journals abbreviated after that, list the # of the reference cite to the 2002 publication & the antineoplaston(s) referenced in the 5 Journal articles: 2002 - Burzynski References 8, 13, & 15 - A10 & AS2-1; Or - A10; ICT - 71 - A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A10, A10-I, AS2-1, PB, & PN; JoCR - 1 - A10; & MH - 38 - A2, A3, A5, A10 AS2-1, AS5, & PB.23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/29/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs)

Re the 1998 phase I clinical trial entry, I have indicated the antineoplastons referenced. The 5 Secondary Source Journals abbreviated after that, list the # of the reference cite to the 1998 publication & the antineoplaston(s) referenced in the 5 Journal articles: 1998 - A1, A2, A10, A10 I, & AS2-5; B&MC (II) - A1, A2, & AS2-5; B&MC (I) - A10 & AS2-5; Or - 6 - A2 & A10; ICT - 70 - A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A10, A10-I, AS2-1, AS2-5, PG, & PN; II F - A10.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/29/2012

Re the 1998 phase I clinical study entry, I have indicated the antineoplastons referenced. The 4 Secondary Source Journals abbreviated after that, list the # of the reference cite to the 1998 publication & the antineoplaston(s) referenced in the 4 Journal articles: 1998 - A10 & AS2-1; Or - A10; Or - AS2-1; & MH - 36 - A2, A3, A5, A10, AS2-1, AS5, & PB. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/29/2012

Re the 1997 Japanese phase I clinical trials entry, I have indicated the antineoplaston referenced. The Secondary Source Journal abbreviated after that, lists the # of the reference cite to the 1997 publication & the antineoplaston(s) referenced in the Journal article: 1997 - AS2-1; ICT - 69 - A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A10, A10-I, AS2-1, AS2-5, PG, & PN. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/30/2012

• Please add, to dispute "that antineoplaston therapy is" ... "of little promise in treating cancer," re this 1996 Japanese clinical experience entry, I have indicated the # of the references that cite Burzynski & the antineoplastons referenced. The 4 Secondary Source Journals abbreviated after that, list the # of the reference cite to the 1996 publication & the antineoplaston(s) referenced in the 4 Journal articles: 1996 - The Kurume Medical Journal - Referencing Burzynski 1-4 & 6 - A10 & AS2-1; Journal of Cancer Therapy (2012) - 13 - A10, AS2-1, PB, & PN; Il Farmaco (9/1/2001) - ANP A10; Cancer Letters (8/31/2000) - 31 - A10; & Cancer Letters (7/3/2000) - A10. "A 1996 Japanese clinical experience found antineoplaston A10 & AS2-1 had an antitumor effect in tissue culture study and an inhibitory effect on human hepatocellular carcinoma." Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/30/2012

MEDRS indicates that "the results of an early-stage clinical trial..." "might—in some cases—be appropriate for inclusion in an article dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers ... involved in it." "Such information, particularly if citing a secondary source, might also be appropriate for a well-documented section on research directions in an article about a disease."

Therefor, there is NO indication that "the results of an early-stage clinical trial..." are REQUIRED to cite "a secondary source."

Therefor, per WP:NPOV, please create a new section titled "Disease treatment," & put any phase I clinical trial/study/experience in that new section.

Please do not include any reference to any secondary third-party source which does not meet WP's reliable medical journal criteria. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/31/2012

• Per WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS please add at the end of the Burzynski Clinic section; based on "Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls," "Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology" (which can be reviewed in HTML or PDFs at pg. 5 of 9 & reference at pg. 9 ):

"A 2008 medical review stated that Burzynski "discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again." "In the solitary phase II study" of "Antineoplastons" [consisting of A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections], "the overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%. Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients." &

• based on "The Oncologist," "Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer" (which can be reviewed in HTML or PDFs at pg. 4 of 10 & references at pg.. 7 ):

"A 2004 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center medical review stated that antineoplastons therapy "research at the Burzynski Institute was permitted under an Investigational New Drug permit. The group’s preliminary report from a single-arm phase II study of 12 patients showed a 50% response rate." Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/13/2013

• Please advise when what I requested 12/12/2012 will be done; since it is stated on the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov site

In the interest of Neutrality & accuracy please change "clinical trials at the Burzynski..." to:

Nonrandomized clinical trials investigating the anticancer efficacy of antineoplastons are underway at the developer's institute.Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/12/2012

Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/14/2013

• Please advise when what I requested 12/5/2012 will be done:

Please add an Awards section: "The Academy of Comprehensive Integrative Medicine, Lifetime Achievement Award, 2012" and/or Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/14/2013

It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.)

By "[w]e shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources," are you indicating that the "Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology" (Oxford University Press ) & "The Oncologist" (AlphaMed Press ) are "poorer-quality sources?" And if so, what relevance is that?

A search of Wiki re JJCO & TO show that these 2 medical journals are cited as sources on Articles at least 500 times each.

WP:MEDRS "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in RELIABLE, third-party, published sources, such as REPUTABLE medical journals..." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.)

I do not see "poorer-quality sources" listed in WP:MEDRS.

If you are unwilling to comply with the above WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies, I will be happy to proceed to WP:DR Dispute Resolution. Please advise of your intentions. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/14/2013

The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is your intent to ignore WP:NPOV & "ALL significant views..." & to ignore WP:MEDRS "[i]deal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in RELIABLE, third-party, published sources, such as REPUTABLE medical journals..." & instead rely on your "poorer-sources" & "consensus" statement which does not override WP:NPOV "[t]he principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES..." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.) Therefore, I will proceed with WP:DR. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/16/2013

Use of primary sources (moved from the section above)

Hey, all this is getting slightly off-topic, to be very diplomatic. The bottom line is, there are no published secondary sources on antineoplastons conformant to WP:MEDRS, so we can only use primary sources with utmost care and without jumping to conclusions. In particular, it's okay to mention that certain trials were reported by the researchers conducting these trials as having such and such efficacy, adding that one or two third-party studies were not able to establish the efficacy. Definitely, it's not okay to paraphrase any of the study conclusions (that including the one by Mayo Clinic). Also, any sources like "Quackwatch", etc., are not covered by "reliable secondary sources" as understood by WP:MEDRS. To stress again: antineoplastons have not been confirmed effective (we have no independent confirmation) but have not been confirmed ineffective, either (again, for lack of third-party studies), while the actual problem with the Burzynski Clinic (not with chemical compounds!) has been their ethically doubtful marketing of these chemical compounds as "cancer therapy". Please may someone edit the article in this spirit, I am sort of fed up with all this beating a dead horse... kashmiri 23:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS has "reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature" (my emphasis). Doesn't that put an end to the matter? (And isn't Quackwatch established RS on questions of quackery?) Alexbrn (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS advises further: "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly". Which is more than clear that edits based on primary sources alone are admissible. Did you skip this sentence on purpose? It is common sense that where secondary sources are not yet available (as is the case with many recent discoveries), editors may resort to relying on primary sources. That's the end of the matter, isn't it? If still not convinced, I suggest to ask at Wikipedia Talk:MEDRS. kashmiri 23:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're citing that as if it overrode the requirement that Alexbrn mentioned, but to me it reads as if it is meant to further limit the use of primary sources. MEDRS also advises to use secondary sources to determine due weight, so no, it's not like we are allowed to use primary sources whenever secondary sources are not yet available. Did you check the sources Didymus Judas Thomas is unloading here? Most are on cell lines or case reports, and some don't even deal with Burzynski's treatment. I don't think that's the sort of primary sources that's admissible, but just to be sure I'll add a request at WT:MED. --Six words (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No primary sources should be used. We have secondary sources as per "The consensus among the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society[28] and Cancer Research UK[29] among others, is that antineoplaston therapy is unproven" We should not be using primary source to refute secondary ones. WP:MEDRS is very clear about this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither ACS nor CR offer sources compliant with WP:MEDRS. We are talking about review articles published in peer-reviewed journals, not about opinions placed on websites of societies and associations. Personally, I would even rephrase this unfortunate "consensus among the professional community" as there is hardly any consensus in medicine as regards cancer treatment. We have here primary sources (with all the deficiencies of them being primary) vs. other primary sources and a bunch of sources non-MEDRS compliant. It's a difficult task to balance the section on "antineoplastons" in lack of secondary sources on their efficacy. Just we have to come to terms with this fact: there are no secondary sources as regards efficacy of antineoplastons. None. Period. (The reason perhaps being too few independent studies of these compounds to warrant a review).

Hence, I suggest:

• to stop using the word "therapy" with "antineoplastons": this use should not be called a therapy unless it is formally approved and recognised as such.
• to stop making any claims in this article as regards efficacy (either way) of these compounds: there is no reliable proof to confirm or deny it. We only can - and should - mention the diverse views in both Burzynski's (and Japanese) primary sources and the views of those who claim to represent the "scientific community" (also, as regards lack of plausible, scientific explanation of the mechanism of action as well as lack of independent studies).

As regards the question whether primary sources alone can be used - yes they can, WP:MEDRS nowhere prohibits their use. There has been a couple of discussions on the matter (see e.g. here: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_4#A_situation_when_primary_sources_can_be_considered_secondary_sources, the discussion makes a few interesting remarks). Still, this should be discussed and clarified on the policy level, not here. kashmiri 09:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS allows the use of statements from "medical and scientific organisations"; you're also wrong to claim no (independend) review deals with this treatment. There's an older one that only focusses on this "therapy" - Saul Greene: 'Antineoplastons' An Unproven Cancer Therapy (JAMA 1992), and a newer one that discusses the treatment amongst others - Andrew Vickers: Alternative Cancer Cures: “Unproven” or “Disproven”? (CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2004). We're using the latter in the article. MEDRS clearly states that we cannot use primary studies to contradict reliable secondary sources, so yes, primary sources can sometimes be used but no, they can not in the way you seem to imply. --Six words (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Six words/Doc James, I am not sure what relevance these alleged "reliable secondary sources" and "consensus among the professional community" have re WP:MEDRS considering my previous post re the American Cancer Society & Cancer Research UK, & the 4/2004 JAMA article which relies on; as I posted above, a "failed study" that was "stopped before it was possible to determine the effectiveness of antineoplastons." Since 4/2004, at least 16 ANP articles; 15 in PubMed, have been published in the U.S., Japan, & China (2004-2009) & since the "failed" NIH studies ended 12/1995, 33 ANP related articles; 28 in PubMed, have been published in the U.S., Japan, Egypt, Poland, Korea, & Great Britain (12/1995.-4/2004); which have included phase I & II clinical trial publications. When ANP research has been done in at least 6 countries, I feel it is presumptuous to claim a "consensus among the professional community" based upon 2 countries out of 6, & claim "reliable secondary sources" based on where a "study failed to be completed."Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/29/2012

Agree with Six words/Doc James, we have multiple secondary sources noting antineoplaston don't work. Should good secondary sources state otherwise, we can add them, but to use our own personal opinion (i.e. WP:OR) to try to overturn multiple high quality sources is folly, no matter how many poor quality primary sources are produced. Yobol (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly that. The consensus of reliable independent secondary sources is that ANPs are of little promise, and that Burzynski has not published useful data. Pointing to the (actually very small for 30 years of such apparently assiduous work) primary sources of Phase I studies does not in any way change the fact that 60 Phase II trials have been registered, millions charged for participation in them, and not a single one has been published. The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack, and Wikipedia is not the place to fix that because we are here to reflect reality not to influence it. This discussion is circular and should probably stop now. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yobol & Guy, thank you for getting on your Soap Box WP:SOAP.

Are you indicating that:

Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahimachi, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan

Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken, Japan.

Department of Radiology, Kumabe Hospital, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurumeshi, Fukuokaken, Japan.

Kurume University, School of Medicine: Department of Surgery, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Radiology, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan

School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Shandong University, No.44 WenhuaXi Road, Ji'nan, Shandong Province, PR China, &

Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

are NOT "reliable secondary sources" but are "poor quality primary sources" &/or "low quality primary sources?"

Because they are Universities which have done antineoplaston research &/or phase I & II clinical trials based on Burzynski's research, & I want to contact them & let them know that they are "poor quality primary sources" &/or "low quality primary sources" & request that WP post that on their WP articles if that is what you mean.

Guy, I can understand why you would suggest "[t]his discussion is circular and should probably stop now," since you got your 2 cents in.

On cancer . gov, the National Cancer Institute, at the National Institutes of Health, has indicated on the "Antineoplastons: Human/Clinical Trials" page: "PUBLICATIONS have taken the form of case reports, phase I clinical trials, toxicity studies, and PHASE II CLINICAL TRIALS."

Additionally, it then states: "Table 2 summarizes the following clinical trials and appears at the end of this section."

It then cites, at the bottom of the page," References" for Burzynski's Phase I & II Clinical Trial publications."

Are y'all indicating the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health is a "poor quality primary source" &/or "low quality primary source?"

I want to request that WP post that on their WP articles if that is what you mean.

"[N]ot a single one has been published. The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack ..."? WP:OR -- such baseless conspiracy theory nonsense merits no consideration.

I am here to reflect reality. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/30/2012

If we were in the 1980s you might actually have a point, it was a "new treatment" back then. This, however, is the year 2013, and the independent secondary literature is clear. Primary sources, even if they were excellent, wouldn't outweigh secondary sources - it's as simple as that - and that's what everyone here is saying, so don't put words in people's mouths. --Six words (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So you have a problem with me changing their meaning but not them changing mine. So much for WP:NPOV, but then again, Burzynski's work is still being referenced: 5/2011 BMC Chemical Biology, as References 4 & 31

& the research I am referencing has been published up to & including 10/2010 Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 166.205.55.43 (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/2/2012

When will you understand that it's not enough that Burzynski's research "is referenced"? You need to cite articles that discuss this treatment in detail. Secondary sources.

BMC Chemical Biology: (Research article) Chemical modification of L-glutamine to alpha-amino glutarimide on autoclaving facilitates Agrobacterium infection of host and non-host plants: A new use of a known compound.

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry: (S)-2-((S)-2-(4-(3- [18F]fluoropropyl)benzamido)-3-phenylpropanamido)pentanedioic acid labeled with 18F

Neither discusses the treatment in detail and neither could be used to refute the secondary sources our article is citing. --Six words (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When will you understand that the USA is not the only country in the world & that research has been done in Poland, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China referred to Burzynski's work 6/8/2012 in conjunction with the Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Shands Cancer Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. So you can pretend you're back in the 80's all you want while independent researchers in other countries verify Burzynski's research; including Phase III Clinical Trials in breast cancer, NSCLC, & primary hematoma reported 6/2005 by China/Taiwan in the Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/8/2013

Is it just me

Or is this Talk page becoming difficult to use because of one WP:SPA's additions to it? I left a message on the editor's Talk page a while ago asking for better formatted contributions ... but to no avail. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is the SPA's apparent thinking that trying to overwhelm the discussion with a high number of poor quality primary sources will change anything here. It won't. I agree, their formatting makes it difficult to follow and makes it less likely anyone will properly respond. Yobol (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed -- chaotic and counterproductive. The intent of the SPAs main argument is to counter the prevailing POV of reliable secondary sources with a slew of low quality primary sources -- clearly prohibited by WP:MEDRS. The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski's "competitors" -- such baseless conspiracy theory nonsense merits no consideration whatsoever. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Topic ban time per WP:FRINGE. This is a waste of effort: the SPA is a True Believer and is using the usual filter that such people employ in order to view all sources as saying something the reliable secondary sources indicate they don't. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yobol, Rhode Island Red, & JzGIGuy, thank you for getting on your Soap Box WP:SOAP, & RIR, thank you for misrepresenting the "facts" about what I posted 12/28/12.

I think the much bigger problem is individuals on WP who ignore "facts" & misrepresent what people post.

Yobol & RIR, are you indicating that

Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahimachi, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan

Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken, Japan.

Department of Radiology, Kumabe Hospital, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurumeshi, Fukuokaken, Japan.

Kurume University, School of Medicine: Department of Surgery, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Radiology, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan

School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Shandong University, No.44 WenhuaXi Road, Ji'nan, Shandong Province, PR China, &

Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

are NOT "reliable secondary sources" but are "poor quality primary sources" &/or "low quality primary sources?"

Because they are Universities which have done antineoplaston research &/or phase I & II clinical trials based on Burzynski's research, & I want to contact them & let them know that they are "poor quality primary sources" &/or "low quality primary sources" & request that WP post that on their WP articles if that is what you mean.

RIR, re your "[t]he other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski's "competitors" post, that is NOT all I posted.

I posted that the: "(1) American Cancer Society &(2) Cancer Research UK ..." have "nothing re Antineoplastons on PubMed ..." & "(3) Memorial Sloan-Kettering has 1 PubMed article re Antineoplastons ..."

I did NOT post that the FDA was a competitor of Burzynski.

JzG, I can understand why you would suggest "[t]opic ban time ..." since you got your 2 cents in.

On cancer . gov, the National Cancer Institute, at the National Institutes of Health, has indicated on the "Antineoplastons: Human/Clinical Trials" page: "PUBLICATIONS have taken the form of case reports, phase I clinical trials, toxicity studies, and PHASE II CLINICAL TRIALS."

Additionally, it then states: "Table 2 summarizes the following clinical trials and appears at the end of this section."

It then cites, at the bottom of the page," References" for Burzynski's Phase I & II Clinical Trial publications."

Are y'all indicating the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health is a "poor quality primary source" &/or "low quality primary source?"

I want to request that WP post that on their WP articles if that is what you mean -- such baseless conspiracy theory nonsense merits no consideration. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 12/30/2012

One of us is a single-purpose advocacy account for a doctor with a poor reputation, the other is a long-term member of the Wikipedia community, an admin with tens of thousands of edits to thousands of articles. Guess which is which, and why that might be significant? Guy (Help!) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

One of us is biased & promotes their bias as an editor on WP & could care less about WP:NPOV because of their bias & has no explanation as to how a doctor with an alleged "poor reputation" continues to be referenced 6/8/2012 in work done in China & the USA by independent scientific researchers as noted in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/8/2013

Yes, at least one of us is biased. Time you were gone. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cancer curing Dr. Burzynski case dismissed

I have found another article that, although seems to be reflect a favorable position, needs to be placed here for the sake of truth and fairness in an investigation of Dr. Burzynski. I submit, in it's entirety the following article: [Cut-and-paste of spam-blacklisted article removed] Obamanator1793 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the massive cut-and-paste from your post. I assume you cut-and-pasted the article because you realized that the source you cited (examiner.com) has been blacklisted by this site due to spamming. We can't link that source, nor should we, since it doesn't meet this site's sourcing criteria, not by a long shot. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And if you read the actual sources you find that he got off by the supremely classy move of not taking responsibility for his own staff in his own clinic. What a prince. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2013

It is stated in the article that "In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment.[38]" The doctor cannot be "found guilty" in a civil case. There is no "guilt" or "guilty" in a civil case. It should say that he was civilly liable, responsible, found liable or something similar.

75.95.34.39 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Being found liable requires being found "guilty", in the sense of finding the defendent did something which violated someone else's rights. I think this is only a technical issue, but I would have no objection to the change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Not sure this is required. Vacation9 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this passage, it was using a primary source; I've upgraded to a secondary, expanded the wording and (in the process) addressed the concern above. See what you think ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the reference has really been "upgraded" here, has it? This section previously contained a link to the actual court judgement in which Burzynski was found to be fraudulent. Surely that's a better source than the secondary source now included, in which I couldn't actually find any mention of Burzynski? AdamJacobs (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wikipedia is not to carry out independent analysis of primary sources but to rely on secondary sources whenever possible. See WP:RS. kashmiri 14:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias

If you aren't willing to point out the perceived issue, don't create a new section. IRWolfie- (talk)
This article is biased and should be removed. It needs to be replaced with a completely new article with a neutral point of view. ---Dagme (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Repeated comment without even a pointer to specific text or evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Another warning about possible edits

Don't know why I'm the one that seems to keep running into this, but someone just forwarded this to me.

10. Why is "Wikipedia" not listing any of this information? Good question. The Wikipedia editors refuse to allow anything that show these medicines in a positive light to be allowed to be included in the "Burzynski Clinic" Wiki post (they have also managed to delete the "Antineoplastons" Wikipedia posting as well as the "Stanislaw Burzynski" Wikipedia posting). Feel free to try to add something that is truthful to that post, with a verifiable source, and watch your addition disappear within an hour. This issue will be covered in great length in the new 2013 "Chapter 2" documentary showing in real time how the editors at the Burzynski Wikipedia page refuse to allow any information that displays Antineoplastons in a positive light—including independent peer-reviewed clinical trial data—all of which is also cited by America's own National Cancer Institute.

From the FAQ at http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75&Itemid=55

Sgerbic (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Should something about this be added to the article. Seems to be an exception to WP:SUBJECT. It really should be in an article about the movie, but that's here, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If we really fail to use relevant sources I think we should rather try to include the sources (or maybe I misunderstand your suggestion?). I'm not sure what these sources are, though, as our article seems consistent with the NCI's position (No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.). --Six words (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That http://www.burzynskimovie.com comments about Wikipedia (and Quackwatch) might be appropriate for this article as per their view, as might other comments might be appropriate about their view, not necessarily indicative of fact. Nothing from http://www.burzynskimovie.com should be considered indicative of fact, unless quoted from reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. AFAIK the film has only been shown once so far and won't be released until July, so there's not very much to say about it yet (I got this information from a biased third-hand source though). I also got (from this biased source) the impression that despite announcing to cover Wikipedia in 'great detail', the version of the film that was shown only mentioned it as one of "The Skeptics'" many plans to hurt Burzynski (or his business). Should we mention other claims "Burzynski II" makes (death lists, harrassment of patients) as well? It seems wrong to mention only the part about Wikipedia, but it also seems undue to give a film that hasn't had much impact so far (the only hit I get on news.google is the film's own website) more than a sentence acknowledging its existence. --Six words (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it would be undue. I wasn't sure what the film's (or films') web site actually said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

About Wikipedia it only says what Sgerbic cited above; it also makes nasty comments about Stephen Barrett (that, even if they were true wouldn't prove Barrett wrong because they're ad hominem) and claims that the NCI ″acknowledge[s] the clinical efficacy of Antineoplastons″ when the NCI's own statement on the matter (see above) reads quite differently. The best claim (in my eyes), however, is that Burzynski doesn't charge hundreds of thousands, just 20,000$ upfront and then 7,500$ every month - meaning as long as you are on the treatment for less than a year, it's under 100,000$ ... These are all claims that are at least as interesting as what they say about Wikipedia. But again, as long as the film isn't covered by reliable sources (which it most likely won't be until its release) it would be undue to give them much attention. --Six words (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The parents of Amelia Saunders needed to raise $200,000 for two years of the purported trial: [4]. IRWolfie- (talk)

Eric Merola, who made the Burzynski movie, did the art on Zeitgeist, which was made by his brother Peter. He is a Truther and an outright crank who is heavily vested in Burzynski (apparently he almost bankrupted himself making Burzynski II) and is running a hate campaign against people like David Gorski, an oncologist (unlike Burzynski) who has written a lot of rather penetrating analysis of the clinic and its activities. He repeated the nonsense about Wikipedia at a Q&A at the premiere of Burzynski II. Should we include paranoid ravings? I think it just makes him look bad so would be inclined not to. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL. You are warned. You are also misusing the Talk page which serves discussion on how to improve the article and not to run a campaign about the article's subject. kashmiri 11:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am an admin, I am well aware of policy. Merola is a crank with a vested interest. Check the discussions of his behaviour on sites such as Science Based Medicine or look him up on Twitter (@BurzynskiMovie). Mind, he's not half as bad as "Didymus Judas Thomas" above, now banned, who has had half a dozen similarly-named Twitter accounts terminated. Basically he's a True Believer.

I was directly addressing a point made by another editor, specifically in relation to Merola's false claims of bias in Wikipedia. Merola himself acknowledged that he nearly went bankrupt making the movie. This article reflects the scientific consensus, and Merola's characterisation of Burzynski as a "brave maverick doctor" suppressed by the "cancer industry" is simply wrong. A lot of people will be driven here by the false claims Merola makes, it is reasonable to discuss them and why they should not be taken at face value. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Were we still collecting cites to how much treatment costs? If so here is another one. "But the Bowers have to have funds ready in advance to be eligible for a consultation, which is $1,250. The clinic will review her case and if it feels it can help, the first month’s treatment is $13,500." http://www.madison-press.com/2013/04/helping-wendy/ Sgerbic (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? The idea he did not charge for trials is a fiction. It has no plausible basis in reality. The "antineoplaston" trials seem to have been shut down anyway (no mention on the website) - now it's all "Personalized Gene Targeted Therapy For Dummies" [(c) David Gorski] - though amazingly this personalised therapy always seems to include phenylbutyrate, a precursor to "antineoplastons" used off-label by Burzynski and .... er... er... er... well, I can't find anyone else. I suspect Slippery Stan will retire before he's shut down, the question is what Son of Stan will do after that. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re the FAQ comment above about clinical trials being done (posted by sgerbic), that may be the case, but no results have been published. In response to the claim that “there are public SEC filings of interim data on 14 clinical trials available for you to analyze.” Keir Liddle (of Edinburgh Skeptics) stated "So have all the critics and skeptics of Burzynski and ANP been grossly unfair in saying that the clinic hasn’t published trial result in peer reviewed journals? No. Far from it. Given a SEC filing is is a financial statement or other formal document submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and not, as you may have already guessed a peer reviewed medical or oncology journal." See his blog http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/dolcefino-burzynski-has-published-but-has-he/. Perhaps anyone updating this page to include 'clinical trial data' should double check their sources first. Joolzzt (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013

A showing of Burzynski by CPT12 generated a large number of complaints to the PBS Obmudsman, who concurred with earlier reviewers of the film that the movie displays a serious lack of objectivity. Some CPT staffers were also criticized for failing to ask Eric Merola any of the hard questions.[65]

Obmudsman is a typo and needs to be changed to Ombudsman. Aesclepius 01 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski documentary (BBC)

This evening in the UK the BBC will be airing a documentary on Burzynski and his clinic. In case it contains any useful material for this article, the programme will be available for a few days more on the BBC's web site, and so that material can be transcribed for inclusion. I suppose it's likely this will generate some extra attention for this article, so editors may want to be extra-vigilant to ensure things are kept orderly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It pretty much reflects the current article, which is a useful benchmark. Obviously we currently have the balance about right. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - considering the article's content here, the one thing that struck me as new in the programme was the reporting of how what would normally be seen as symptoms of cancer worsening were reported by the clinic as signs of improvement. However, I'm not sure if on its own that merits inclusion here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is one of the repeated features of the clinic' MO. See http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/ for some examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.97.168 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that (quite the opposite), but blogs usually aren't good enough sources by Wikipedia standards, so we can't include it in the article based on the blog. I've read about similar misreadings of MRI images(?), too, but so far there's no definitive proof that this is deliberate and a common occurence. While as individuals we can speculate that there's method in this, we cannot say so in Wikipedia's voice as there's no source to tell us how often this kind of mistake happens. After all, Burzynski claims to have treated thousands of patients. --Six words (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)