Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Movie

The facts of Dr. Burzynski's cures have been carefully presented with doctors' records and patients' testimonies by filmmaker Eric Merola. This film, Burzynski, has won the 2010 Humanitarian Vision Award at the Newport Beach (California) Film Festival. < ref>http://www.newportbeachfilmfest.com/press/awards2010.pdf< /ref>

The film also details the Food and Drug Adminstration's attempts to discredit and shut down Dr. Burzynski's practice. < ref>Eric Merola (2010) http://burzynskimovie.com/ Burzynski< /ref>< ref>http://www.movieweb.com/movie/burzynski MovieWeb< /ref>

Moved from article. No reliable sources given as to the actual content of the movie. The claimed content of the movie might be interesting. That it won the award is reliable (but not necessarily notable), but we don't have any source as to the content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

To Arthur Rubin, who has a lot more time to spend in front of a computer screen than I have:

The movie "Burzynski" has been carefully put together by the author, Eric Merola. I doubt that you have seen it, or even the excerpts ("trailers" on the website), so your use of the word "nonsense" (on the Antineoplaston page) is extremely unprofessional. You can see the reviews in major publications if you web search a little bit. Or, better yet, contact the author yourself.

I'm not going to get into a revision war with you. The truth will come out.

Point of View disclaimer: I am a neutral, independent individual not connected with any clinic, film company, or agency in any way.

75.247.245.203 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of watching the movie. Even if I did, and I found the presentation convincing, it still couldn't be used in a Wikipedia article without reliable, secondary, sources. If you want to include the material, you must provide such sources, as I doubt they exist. If "facts" and "cures" are to be included, there must be a medical expert reviewing the film. The statements you wrote clearly violate WP:BLP, in that the individual FDA employees could probably be identified, and the movie is not an adequate source with respect to WP:BLP matters. I could accept "carefully put together", but none of the rest (and the film award). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem, Arthur Rubin. If you watched the movie you would quickly see that you are speaking out of turn. The movie includes testimony by a "medical expert" in a court setting, as well as testimony given in hearings headed by Senator Joe Barton. If secondary sources were provided, would they not need to be independently verified by tertiary sources. Am I not seeing thinly-veiled opposition to Burzynski, passed off as a WP:BLP argument? sugarfish (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me help settle this. I've seen (though, honestly, suffered through is more appropriate) the documentary. It is not reliable in any sense of the word; indeed, the person behind it has clear monetary incentive to promote the idea the the good Doc is a victim of a medical conspiracy. And, as Arthur points out, without reliable secondary sources or other reliable primary sources, there's no grounds here to include it as evidence. Karthik Sarma (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. However, "documentaries" not produced by "reliable" production companies are not reliable secondary sources, as the producer, director, and production company do not have an independent reputation for fact-checking. The movie is a primary source for its content, but, in any many cases, we would also need a reliable secondary source writing about the movie to include the information here.

Phase III clinical trial for progressive optic pathway glioma

This is to start the talk about whether the following sentence should be added to the lead of article: "Burzynski Institute is currently in phase III clinical trial for progressive optic pathway glioma, while the clinical trial is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) it is not yet active for participant recruitment. "

User Rhode Island Red has made two points against it as followed: "(1) see WP:LEAD; (2) not relevant to biography of Burzynski"

My answers:

1. The LEAD policy states that "the lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article."

As the LEAD currently stands we have mentioned:

"There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments" and that "this treatment as a "disproven therapy"".

While these are true, to adhere to the WP:NPOV, we need to also mention that Burzynski has brought his research to the phase III level of research by FDA approval. Otherwise, we are stating one side without stating the progress he has made. That is an example of "undue weight".

2. WP:ALIVE necessitates us to be even more careful about WP:NPOV. The point made by User Rhode Island Red seems to disregard that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively."

3. If you think this is "not relevant to biography of Burzynski" then why don't you delete the rest of material about antineoplastons from the lead? If you delete just this sentence you are introducing NPOV.

Would be happy to discuss this further to reach a consensus. But I don't see it constructive if you just simply delete well-referenced material. That is a form of vandalism. Farmanesh (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note I accepted a better wording by User:Rhode Island Red, and have fixed a reference issue, so now this is the sentence in question:

"Burzynski Institute has planned a phase III clinical trial to assess antineoplastons for the treatment of progressive optic pathway glioma, while the clinical trial is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) it is not yet active for participant recruitment as of December 2011." Farmanesh (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be good, if we could include the phase III trial "start" without implying the (false) claim that any of the phase II trials were "successful". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a multitude pf problems with the text that you are edit warring over, several of which I've mentioned already in my edit summary.

1. There is the issue of WP:LEAD -- you glossed over the key opening portion that states that the lead of the article should be "a summary of its most important aspects". The material in question isn't even mentioned in the article; hence it does not belong in the lead.

2. The sources cited does not indicate that the study is "approved by the FDA".

3. The proposed study in only that; a proposed study. It has not generated any results nor has it enrolled any patients. As such, it is trivial; and there are no secondary sources that suggest the mere existence of a proposed study is notable in any way.

4. Anything published on ClinicalTrials.gov is essentially a self-published primary source, as the information posted there is submitted directly by the study investigators. Merely being listed does not indicate that a study has been vetted or that it will ever even take place.

5. The article is about Burzynski, not antineoplastons, which has its own article. Discussion of antineoplastons in this article on Burzynski should be concise and limited to overviews from reliable secondary sources; not self-published primary sourced trivia.

6. It is grammatically incorrect to say that the "Burzynski Institute is currently in phase III clinical trial". This implies that institute itself is the subject of the study, rather than the treatment.

So kindly stop trying to jam this text into the lead, or for that matter the body text of the article, as it clearly does not belong in either place. Your edits have been reverted again. Since you seem to be a bit unfamiliar with WP policies, I suggest that you don't resort to edit warring again over this. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I agree with some of the points User:Rhode Island Red has made. You have added a good number of sourced material regarding the lack of acceptability of Burzynski's work (which are fine sourced material, no problem). But they are also only in the LEAD and not in the text, are you yourself adhering to what you say about what a lead should be or is it only for when you disagree with something?

As for your few un-pleasantries and condescending tone like "stop trying to jam this text", "you seem to be a bit unfamiliar with WP policies", and "you are edit warring over": Not sure why you talk like this, maybe a personality issue or maybe you are assuming I have an agenda. Anyhow, not a very decent or helpful attitude.

I think what Arthur Rubin suggest should work, bring this in, in a way which both satisfies the NPOV and doesn't misrepresent the truth. How about this:

"Burzynski Institute has planned a phase III clinical trial to assess antineoplastons for the treatment of progressive optic pathway glioma."

Would be great to hear from others too.Farmanesh (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

False accusation. I have added nothing to the lead that is not cited in the body text. I suggest you refrain from making any further comments about "personality issues" -- that is a direct personal attack. I assumed good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were merely unfamiliar with WP:LEAD (even after I directed you to it twice) rather than accusing you of ignoring it on purpose.

I don't see why you are so insistent on jamming this content into the article, especially after I already explained that at this point the trial, for all intents and purposes, exists only on paper, and the only source that refers to it is a self-published one. If a reliable secondary source mentioned it, I would more inclined to see it included in the article. But that's not the case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering the recent edits made by User:Rhode Island Red to the LEAD of this article, I am afraid we don't have a neutral view point here LEAD. There is mention of all the vice about him in the LEAD but not any mention of his patents or achivements.Farmanesh (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that if you have issues about edits unrelated to the topic of this thread, that you start a new thread so as to not derail this discussion (c.f. WP:TPG). Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time in editing this article. I have no personal problem with you or any personal interest in this article. My worry is the issue of NPOV for a living person. For now, I will be leaving this to others. Farmanesh (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi all... I'm not sure what current thinking is on the edits discussed above, but FYI, one reason you're not likely to find any source that says a clinical trial is approved by the FDA is that the FDA doesn't approve clinical trials--that's not how the system works.

In fact, pretty much anybody who wants to start drug trials can do it by setting up an Institutional Review Board that meets basic criteria set forth by the FDA. Once they do that, the Board can then approve trials on it's own, which are required to follow the rules the FDA specifies. FDA sometimes conducts audits to ensure institutions are following the rules--and in fact, according to the FDA, Burzynski has failed to follow a number of them--but there is no "approval" of individual trials. After an institution has accumulated enough successful trials that it believes the drug is proven effective, it submits the results to the FDA as part of a New Drug Application. My understanding is that in most cases, that is the first time the FDA passes judgement on the merits of a clinical trial or treatment. --DGaw (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In theory one might have trouble with an IND, and it's generally established that one should consult with the FDA before starting phase III... it's possible that this is what people mean by 'FDA Approval' though I agree it is tenuous... Karthik Sarma (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Phase III again

Another attempt to include the matter has been reverted, and properly so. It would need a reliable source, and even the Burzynski website can't be counted on for that! Take a look at the link on the index page, and then click it:

News Headlines

Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. Gets SPA Clearance from the FDA to Initiate Pivotal Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy. Read more

Surprise....nothing there. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue for me about the alleged/planned phase III trial is that such a trial is not notable until it has been completed and data are analyzed/published. The mere existence of a trial is not noteworthy, at least not unless a reliable secondary source establishes notability by writing about the trial in detail. I also noticed that someone (anon IPs as I recall) keeps trying to insert text saying something to the effect that this trial is "FDA approved". Such terminology is inappropriate because it implies FDA approval of the treatment itself (which is not the case) and there are no reliable secondary sources that clearly define the FDAs role (if any) in approving/overseeing the trial. If the FDA merely allowed a trial to take place, or perhaps even insisted that such trials take place, then that's a far cry from saying that the trial is FDA approved. Lastly, Clinicaltrials.gov shows that the trial description (NCT01260103) was filed by Burzynski in Dec 2010.[1] It is estimated to begin enrolling patients in Dec 2011 but won't be completed until Dec 2015. So maybe in 4 years we'll have something to write about, assuming the trial is ever initiated and completed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Scam alert

Shouldn't his non-medical clinic be mentioned in the first sentence, above his other job titles? The other titles seem superfluous and misleading given his current employ. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Which clinic would that be? Please provide a URL. His current clinic has problems with misuse, but I'm not sure it could be termed a "non-medical" clinic. It likely has many employees, many of whom no doubt are legitimate. If you have more details about it, we'd be interested in hearing them. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"a British newspaper that is the Sunday sister to The Guardian."

does not belong here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.55.15 (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree regarding "Sunday sister to the Guardian". The Observer is hyperlinked to the WP article which explains that it's the Sunday sister to The Guardian, so it's not essential to include it in the article on Burzynski. I deleted the text in question but if anyone disagrees, let me know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who added that phrase, as a gloss and a service to the reader. The Guardian is known internationally; The Observer, less so. I view them, and I believe I am correct in saying that most readers of British newspapers would view them, as very strong associates, if not the same paper, as with The Mail/The Mail on Sunday, The Times/The Sunday Times, the Sun/News of the World (oops, there appears to be a gap in the market...). The Guardian has some name recognition in the USA, where Dr B is based. And the Guardian has an article about the affair today, which puts the Observer in yet more context. However, if the phrase is deemed unuseful clutter to the article, so be it. I explain my rationale; I do not seek to reinstate the words myself. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for the reply. It did strike me as a bit cluttery but I think it might be a moot point now after the Guardian published the story today (which I cited in the WP article a little while ago). It might be worth mentioning the Guardian by name in the article, since it is a prominent source (as is Discover Magazine, also cited in the WP article). But since this seems to be a rapidly developing story, how about we see what comes out in the next day or two and then modify accordingly along the way. That's just my suggestion; you're free to edit as you wish. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing of publications

First off, I'm fairly new to editing wikipedia so I wanted to explain my reasoning for my recent edit (changing `more than 250 publications` to `many publications`. A search of google scholar should not be a method for counting the number of citations. Burzynski has a lot of controversy surrounding him due precisely to this issue. He has not published (or co-authored) 250 articles in peer or non-peer reviewed journals. If you search WorldCat (http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Burzynski&dblist=638&fq=dt%3Aart+%3E+ap%3A%22burzynski+s%22&qt=facet_ap%3A ), you find he has 26 articles. Several of these articles are opinion pieces in journals where he defends his views. So his total number of articles is <26. §Roaming capybara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaming capybara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, roaming capybara! You are correct in your analysis and in your edit. Note that you should sign your discussion posts by using four tildes. SineBot signed it for you since you did not. See more here: Wikipedia:Signatures Karthik Sarma (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice that edit in the revision history but I agree with the principle; the reason being that no reliable secondary source has commented that B has published 250 articles. The claim seems to be based on a WP editor (possibly one affiliated with B) doing a search and then including an observation about the results of that search in the article, which IMO qualifies as original research. I did a PubMed search for "Burzynski SR" and came up with only 45 hits -- far short of the 250 claimed -- and at least some (I did not go through them all) looked to be of dubious quality. So I agree; no need to quantify when "many" will suffice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems a bit tenuous to call a PubMed search WP:OR if you are only reporting the number returned... but maybe I'll just not get into it unless something actually comes up ;) Karthik Sarma (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the description of his publications should be reviewed more critically. BoingBoing have a new article linking to someone who has analyzed Burzynski's work. http://boingboing.net/2011/11/30/review-of-burzynski-clinics.html Basically, it seems like his work is absolute nonsense, and not published in anything reputable. It mainly consists of conference abstracts and a couple of review papers in journals of ill repute. http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/11/a-look-at-the-burzynski-clinics-publications/ and http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2011/11/more-damning-revelations-about-burzynskis-research/. I'm not sure what an objective way of framing that would be though. I do feel it is important not to add improper credibility to this clinic, as it sounds overall like a suspicious endeavor. I also realize what I wrote here is not very objective, so perhaps someone can suggest a good way of framing this with a little more distance. Roaming capybara (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I decided to make an edit to the structure of the sentences describing his research outcomes.Roaming capybara (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was compelled to revert that edit.[2] Citing blogs should be avoided except perhaps with the rare exception when the blog is from a highly reputable verifiable expert source. I don't disagree with the conclusion of the blog in question that some (perhaps many) of the journals in which Burzynski's articles have been published are low-tier, but this particular analysis is original research, and it's from a source that not reliable by Wikipedia's definition, even less so when it comes to reliability with respect to medicine. If we were to open the door to this caliber of source, it would be like opening Pandora's box. So, at this point, we can't make any claims about the caliber of the journals. As for the issue about "many" publications, I just fixed that and made a couple of other small tweaks to eliminate unnecessary quantifying.[3] Have a look at my latest edits and the summary. I can explain further if you have any questions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable decision. Is there some way of quantifying the quality of the work; perhaps discussing Impact Factors of journals elsewhere in the article? The Impact Factor is quite easy to reference from non-blog sources.Roaming capybara (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nope. It would be WP:OR. To do so would require that some other reliable source had commented on or performed an analysis of the Impact Factors of the journals in which B's work was published. That's not to say that I don't agree 100% with the observation that the journals are crap for the most part or that it's remarkable that the publications targets have been so limited in scope. Of B's 46 published articles, 23 appeared in Drugs Exp Clin Res; and of the 9 published in the past decade, 4 were published in Integr Cancer Ther. Those are both low-tier journals and it's remarkable (though not particularly surprising) that his articles have not been published in higher-caliber, more widely-read journals. Nonetheless, the point about WP:OR still stands. Until a reliable source comments on this, our hand are tied. What might be permissible for now would be to mention that half (many?) of his (recent?) publications were published in the journal Drugs and Aging, or "the majority of which were published in two journals (i.e., Drugs and Aging and Integrative Cancer Therapies)." You could also create a WP entry for the journal Drugs and Aging, including the Impact Factor, and then include a wikilink to it in the Burzynski article. Sound reasonable? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable. I'll make an entry for Drugs and Aging soon.Roaming capybara (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly disagree that including impact factors is a violation of WP:OR. I would even go so far as to say that including analytical statements (such as 'this is a low impact factor') is not WP:OR (especially with a link to Impact Factor -- otherwise you run into needing to cite almost every factual statement one might want to make. I'll defer to your expertise, but I'm really unconvinced. Karthik Sarma (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand your frustration. It sucks when policy gets in the way of telling a good story. But what I'm telling you is for your own good and is in the best interests of WP. You really don't want to open the door to this type of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because it cuts both ways; just like citing blogs. If we bend the rules for someone arguing one POV, then out of fairness, we have to bend them for the other side too. Do you want B's advocates to be allowed to include synthesized text in the article about things that were never mentioned by reliable secondary sources? How about blogs? And if we bend the rules and lose our objectivity on this article, why not every other article on WP? I think you can see where that would lead. I hate to invoke slippery slope arguments, but that's the reality. I don't see any way that you can get around WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with the impact factors, except perhaps under the scenario I outlined above. If you still disagree, propose some text and we can take it from there. Debating concrete proposals for text is usually more productive than hypothetical debates (although I'm more than happy to discuss these abstruse aspects of WP with you). Fair enough? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with following policy -- it's a good thing! That being said, I don't really think the consensus on the use of impact factors wrt WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is what you seem to think it is... that being said I don't really think it's a big deal here (at least for now), so I'll let it go :) Karthik Sarma (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if sounded sanctimonious there. I realize that the suggestions about using IFs were made in good faith, and far be it for me to stifle anyone's creativity. If you think there's a way to pull it off and want to propose some text, that would be great. We can then all have a look and reach a consensus. Fair? Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

Please add that in a book called "Knockout", Suzanne Somers' wrote about her interviews with doctors who are successfully using the most innovative cancer treatments--treatments that build up the body rather than tear it down. She wrote about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and how he has effectively treated more than fifty types of cancer.

Princess Freckles (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Somers book is not a reliable source on the efficacy of Burzynski's alleged cancer therapy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore:

"The American Cancer Society is concerned. 'I am very afraid that people are going to listen to her message and follow what she says and be harmed by it,' says Dr. Otis Brawley, the organization's chief medical officer. 'We use current treatments because they've been proven to prolong life. They've gone through a logical, scientific method of evaluation. I don't know if Suzanne Somers even knows there IS a logical, scientific method.' More broadly, Brawley is concerned that in the United States, celebrities or sports stars feel they can use their fame to dispense medical advice. 'There's a tendency to oversimplify medical messages,' he says. 'Well, oversimplification can kill'."[4] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Agreed. It's certainly true that she wrote it, and it might arguably be a legitimate part of an article on Suzanne Somers (although "innovative" is I think a WP:Peacock word here), but not here. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Finances

I know this blog is by no means a reliable source, but its author claims to be an accountant, and many links are made to official documents to do with tax and finances (e.g. published audited reports), so perhaps another editor would care to look at them: Should you invest in Burzynski stock? Also, from the Burzynski Clinic website, complete with typo [5]:

The Burzynski Clinic accepts monetary dontations toward the continuation of the Clinical Trials and Research. You donate by check or Money Order payable to: S.R.Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. Please note that donations are not tax deductible.

BrainyBabe (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was actually just reading through their SEC 10-K and a few other related documents yesterday and also noticed some interesting details regarding payment and research funding arrangements. It's still not clear exactly how the trials are funded, how Burzynski is compensated, and how "donations" are handled. That said, we'd have to do some very careful and very thorough research to include any information about this. The blog, as you correctly pointed out, is not WP:RS for our purposes. That leaves the SEC filings, which are WP:PRIMARY sources, and these would have to be analysed and interpreted with great care. Also, statements from B or his clinic regarding financial details could also be cited in theory. By the way, have you tried looking at older archived copies of Burzynski's website on the Wayback machine (very handy research tool)? There could be details on older versions of his website that are no longer listed on the current version. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't you mean "dontations"? (I mean, I make plenty of typos myself, but I wouldn't let any multi-million dollar business I was associated with get away without proofreading material intended for the public.) Thanks for mentioning the Wayback Machine. I'm not going to go down that route myself, but it is a useful resource for someone else, perhaps. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Balanced Analysis giving note of each side's resources & finances

Both Sides Now Equal Time Recorded Dialogues https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/1-both-sides-now-article is a standard research and conflict resolution technique from Indigene Community www.indigenecommunity.info which should be a standard for all Wikipedia articles and discussions. Readers have a right to know the resources and finances of presenters who are presenting their positions and arguments. When I read the article standing this 2nd December, 2011 on Stanislaw Burzynski, it give me no comparative tools to make my own assessment as a reader. Monologue arguments are made 100% against Stanislaw Burzynski's methodology. In the critique of Stanislaw Burzynski's body-health treatment, open statements of known-bias, relationships and influence of the various bodies such as the FDA, ACI and other bodies are not given, nor of Burzynski. A reader expects that funding and material relationships between corporations such as pharmaceutical companies and research bodies be made public. The scientific minded reader does expect a vacuum of relationships when reviewing data and suspicion is drawn to articles such as this one. It is universally understood that all activity must be funded and therefore we need statements of known funding and any codependent bias which may result. Some integral health practitioners make their living upon sharing human health, physiology, lifestyle, plant structures, ecological history of interventions and other information which they share with the citizen allowing for ongoing health to be achieved and maintained. The word 'doctor' comes from the root meaning 'to teach' or empower the citizen in self-knowledge.

The reader is placed in the unfortunate position of knowing that money talks, does and can pervert scientific, legal, economic and political process against human health interests, yet the main article is completely silent as though money and relations are not a factor. Wikipedia's process somehow is not allowing for both sides of the argument to appear. When Wikipedia allows for monologues to appear on its site, then the reader must turn elsewhere in order to make a balanced decision on the merit of each position. Readers expect dialectic (both-sided) presentation of positions. The responsibility of media is to present both sides simultaneously whereby the logics of each presenter are openly sequential in equal time or space formats. It is in this balanced sequential presentation that the reader is able to weigh the relative significance of various facts and the presenter's demeanor.

A major problem facing Wikipedia and other social organisations is a tendency for treating knowledge and information as separate from the livelihood of the whole person and community. Wikipedia is falling prey to corporate interests and their 'exogenous' (Latin = 'other-generated') practices, because of the financial clout they wield. Loss of truth is a consequence. In order to understand how to strengthen citizens as we are, we can turn to our heritage as First Nations and indigenous peoples from every place on earth. 'Indigenous' (Latin = 'self-generating') peoples organize themselves based on 'caucusing' (Iroquois means 'grouping of like-interests') into economies of scale or critical mass. The multihome housing in Longhouses and Pueblo clustered dwellings grouped typically 50, 100 and 150 people together.

Privacy as in apartment areas is an important part of their design, but so were common areas, resources and skill specialization in Production Societies and mutual aid accounted-for by the inclusive time-based string-shell tools. It turns out that half of the world's population presently live in multihome buildings such as apartment and townhouse structures. If Wikipedia wishes to transcend the corporate (pharmaceutical) economic control evidenced by this prejudiced article on Stanislaw Burzynski, it is important to include helping members group together in multihome buildings and thereby developing strengthening members in economies of scale. Truth (Satya) search (graha) can only be maintained through intentional and open economic culture and dialectic exchange.

--Douglas Jack (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Douglas Jack douglasf.jack@gmail.com

Your whole argument fails because of a fundamental flaw. It is revealed in an untrue assumption you make:

"It is universally understood that all activity must be funded and therefore we need statements of known funding and any codependent bias which may result."

At Wikipedia neither funding nor status matter, but adherence to policy. Yes, there are occasions when well-funded editors who are paid to violate policy are exposed, as in the case where the Koch brothers paid an agency to edit their articles and they were exposed. Otherwise most editors, like myself, do this as a hobby, without any funding. Your statements above are very poorly disguised accusations and as such violate our policy against personal attacks. Conspiracy theories aren't welcome here, and I suggest you stop doing it. Just stick to policy and you'll be fine. That is the great equalizer here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DJ's comment is suitable for framing at WP:SOAPBOX -- a stellar example. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I have added back Category:Pseudoscientists as it is appropriate given the criteria discussed in Pseudoscience. Karthik Sarma (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

and I have removed it again as inclusion in the category is most obviously no appropriate. I have been in contact with a brain tumour survivor Shontell Hiron in australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.33.51 (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And it looks like someone has added it back again -- see WP:OR Karthik Sarma (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it. Given the divide on the neutrality and creditably of this article and it's sources, it is not clear whether or not to label it as pseudoscience. --Garrett1312 (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Burzynski Movie is Not a Reliable Source

I checked media reports regarding Burzynski’s movie. The general consensus from those sources is that the movie is, essentially, shallow, poorly-produced, factually-flawed propaganda:

"Eric Merola, a former art director of commercials, is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement, or has an undisclosed relationship with the subject of his allegedly nonfiction first film. Consciously or not, Merola is shilling madly for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish-born physician who has run afoul of federal authorities and shown up on several quackometers for his claim to have cured scores of patients of a lethal brain cancer with a treatment derived from human urine. Burzynski's smooth patter and bad dye job don't clinch the case against him—though how he gained the trust of desperate patients is anybody's guess—but neither do they mitigate the powerful stench that rises from his plaintive cries of victimization by "jealous" government agencies. Narrated in a weirdly robotic voiceover, Burzynski violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking: Merola interviews only Burzynski's supporters, produces no patient records other than the doctor's own, and offers no credible proof of the drug's success and no data about its side effects, even as he slams chemotherapy and radiation. Who's the bigger charlatan—Burzynski or Merola—and why is this conspiratorial rubbish being released into theaters?"[6]

"The unfolding scenario displays all the tawdry, nightmarish qualities of a paranoid conspiracy theory. The paucity of doctors willing to defy the FDA (pictures of physicians alongside their recorded statements often substituting for direct interviews) and the film's general zero-budget look -- resulting from the picture's one-man crew (explanatory diagrams are often simplistic to the point of idiocy) -- nearly send "Burzynski" into National Enquirer territory. Interviewees are at pains to look calm, perhaps explained by one doctor's reference to the fate of the 19th-century physician who opined that washing one's hands after an autopsy could prevent puerperal fever (he was drummed out of the profession and died in an insane asylum)."[7]

"Merola apparently did not interview any critics of Burzysnki, and he declined an interview with us, explaining in an e-mail that 'based on your last article regarding Dr. Burzynski...[i]t seems that you are not educated enough, or perhaps motivated enough, to write an objective review of my film, much less conduct an objective interview with me'.

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. (Merola has also attacked critics who have dared questioned his film's objectivity. Commenting online to Village Voice reviewer Ella Taylor, Merola wrote "why is this movie review based on crystal ball fortune-telling rubbish even being published?" Merola also curiously pointed out that Taylor didn't mention that Burzynski has patented his antineoplastons; apparently Merola believes holding a patent is scientifically remarkable. Just so we can't be accused of neglecting this aspect of Burzynski's history, we'll point out that Dr. B. also holds a patent on cancer-fighting toothpaste, as well as patents on antineoplaston treatments for AIDS, Parkinson's disease and neurofibromatosis).

In the meantime, Merola has had help publicizing the documentary with help from doctors like Houston's Steven Hotze, who has raged against the Conventional Medicine Machine as well -- Hotze's unique approach to science includes the sale of anachronistic sideshow tonics like colloidal silver and the belief that "all disease and disability is caused by the sin of Adam and Eve."[8]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Burzynski threatened multiple bloggers

Burzynski has started threatening multiple bloggers both with legal action and with veiled threats of violence. There are some good original sources linked from the metafilter thread and various reddit threads. We should document the threats Burzynski has made in as neutral a way as possible before the Streisand effect really gets rolling and the page requires protection. There are good quotes from Burzynski's threats at the original sources rhysmorgan.co and quackometer.net. 75.139.158.156 19:04, November 28, 2011‎ (UTC)

Would be nice to add, but we have to follow our guidelines, namely WP:BLP; we will need better sourcing than blogs for this information. Yobol (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are both fairly well respected blogs but the reddit search has many online newspapers, like skepticnorth.com.

There are also various people looking into his publications, apparently many are simply abstracts from conferences without any actually results. And another blog entry has cast some doubt on his PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.158.156 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

More coverage:

Let's start with the ones normally allowed here as RS, especially on fringe topics like this one. Per the guidelines at WP:FRINGE, they are considered expert opinion and authoritative:

• Stanislaw Burzynski: Bad medicine, a bad movie, and bad P.R. David Gorski, Science-Based Medicine Nov. 28, 2011
• “Alternative” cancer clinic threatens to sue high school blogger. Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy, Discover Magazine, Nov. 29, 2011

Others:

• Burzynski Clinic Bullies Bloggers with Legal Threats (Major update). Sharon Hill, Skeptic Magazine's blog, November 24, 2011
• A P.R. flack from the Burzynski Clinic threatens a skeptical blogger. November 25, 2011 12:00 PM, by Orac
• Marc Stephens issues more threats on behalf of the Burzynski Clinic. November 28, 2011 12:00 AM, by Orac
• Streisand that clinic. Ophelia Benson, Nov. 28, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I just ran across a website that has collected links to this whole story:

• http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/burzynski-blogs-my-master-list/

Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Marc Stephens possibly "rogue"

According to this tweet by Martin Robbins, threats by Stephens not condoned by Clinic.--A bit iffy (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We'd best tread lightly with tweets and blogs for now. The story seems to be gaining traction and there are now some reliable sources to quote (see above) so I expect we might see more developments and coverage in the next few days. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal complaint from state of Texas

The text listed out 10 allegations, with a citation to the Texas Board of medicine (or whatever it is). I read that thing, and unless you're using pure original research, you can't list out 10 items. I think Burzynski is a snake oil salesman, don't get me wrong. But per WP:BLP, we damn well better get criminal or administrative complaints accurate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"I think Burzynski is a snake oil salesman" - Well, thank god you're not biased! Classic. I think Wikipedia is utter shit and full of hypocrites; but don't worry, I'm not biased either. 76.94.205.82 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he's a fraud. (See conviction for insurance fraud.) Whether he's a medical fraud is still open, although the evidence certainly leans that way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by throw-away editor Socrates250

I am surprised and offended by the offhand, and dismissive tone of this article, which is misleading in character and lacking in substance. It would be better if no article at all appeared in Wikipedia about Stanislaw Burzynski, than this propaganda piece that dishonestly represents the story and struggle behind Burzynski's cancer therapies. The writer included a few facts but left gaping holes in the story that might have lead the reader to understand the origins and dimensions of the controversy. It is as though the letters E and I were printed, and were then pronounced as being the alphabet. Socrates250 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Socrates250, Canada

There is no evidence, other than his own unreviewed writings, that he has been successful at curing any cancer. There is little evidence that he actually thinks he was successful.... I just don't see a "story" behind the cancer therapy (not therapies, there is only one.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting complaint filed against Burzynski

An interesting complaint filed against Burzynski. It's too early to use in the article, but might be relevant in the future, so keep your eyes open for more news about this case:

• Quinlan seeks punitive damages for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy. "All defendants conspired to defraud their customers, with an emphasis on defrauding the elderly and cancer patients," the complaint states. "Cancer Patient Says Doc Used Her as ATM." By Cameron Langford, Courthouse News Service, Jan. 19, 2012

Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources of Justifiable Bias

I propose inclusion of the following section in the main article to identify potential sources of bias. Comments are encouraged.

Let us consider what would be the global consequences of FDA approving an effective, cheap, novel treatment for cancer, having no side effects. Firstly, this would destroy the chemo- and radiation-therapy industry, making trillion dollars of equipment redundant, putting million of highly paid specialists out of their careers, collapsing the multi-trillion dollar biotech market sector, leading to a global economic collapse, social unrest and wars. Another detrimental effect would be increased survival rate of population at large, stimulating an unsustainable population explosion. Dr Burzynski clearly has no foresight to appreciate the potentially devastating consequences of his "cure". FDA must be applauded for their hard handed approach and understanding of the bigger picture, but as it is with all government agencies, not enough is being done to stop him. If we can overthrow governments, invade countries, assassinate popular leaders then there is no excuse for this dangerous individual to be allowed to continue his communist project. People need to get over their irrational compassion those dying and see cancer for what it is - an indispensable, natural population control device. We must look beyond individuals who by the fact of their illness are mere evolutionary (or economic) rejects, and focus on the health and survival of only the best specimens of the human race, so we may flourish.

comments re content:

After watching the film I have found the witness testimonies compelling (including patients, a former judge who was presiding over the initial proceedings, a police officer, members of the jury from the earlier Burzynski trials joining his supporters during later trials). I have seen no evidence that the Burzynski method is 'not safe', but there is plenty of evidence that chemo or radio therapies are incomparably less 'safe', in fact lethal. Completion of Phase I and proceeding to Phase II is a prima-facie evidence that the drug is safe. Any allegations that his treatment is 'not safe' (irrespective of its effectiveness) should therefore be dropped from the article as libelous. If anyone had made such a public accusation against Pfizer, he would be recalling it in a hurry or facing the court. Moreover, it is a non-argument that his research results are self-generated. All biotech companies conduct their own research and their drugs are approved without independent verification. FDA collects registration fees and makes sure that administrative guidelines are followed. If paperwork is in order, registration is granted - that's it. After registration, if a drug is reported by doctors to be suspected of undeclared side effects, the drug maker can be put on notice to provide additional research data, again self-verified. It is all about compliance with administrative guidelines, not about 'objective truth'. Also, peer reviewed articles are termed 'not of regulatory standard'. They are inconsequential in the registration process.

The heavy bias and willful misinformation in the existing article needs not only to be corrected but firstly, fully analyzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec: Monkyx rewrote the section while I was replying)

The satirical paragraph violates a number of Wikipedia policies, even on a talk page. As for the your next paragraph above, it contains some lies (not yours, necessarily) and a number of misstatements.

• The film cannot be used as a source for anything in Wikipedia, although it might conceivably be used to find sources.

  In fact, the commentary on the film here shows restraint in failing to report critics reporting that the film is fraudulent.

• Because the cancers that B claims to treat have a 90% or more fatality rate, "safety" is relative if there were any evidence that it might cure the cancers. In any case, if the accusations that the treatment is unsafe are from reliable sources, we should use them; if not, then we probably shouldn't use them unless the only evidence that the treatment is safe is from B.

  Phase I is not "safety"; normally, Phase I trials are primarily used to demonstrate safety, but, in this case, anything that usually doesn't kill within 6 months is probably of adequate safety. As you point out, all that's really needed is that it's as safe as the existing treatments, which is not particularly safe.

• I agree that it is not a significant argument that his research trial results are "self-generated". However, there have been questions about his methodology, even in the Phase I trials. In some of the Phase II trials, people shifted between the experimental and control groups for no apparent reason, and people were dropped from the experiment for no apparent reason, other than to improve the apparent result. We don't know how many such instances weren't caught.

  Normally, for a non-established pharmaceutical company, the FDA requests that an independent agency perform the tests, at first.

• At the present time, the section "Burzynski Clinic's legal threats to online critics" seems balanced, or slightly biased in favor of B.

In any case, there is no bias against B in the article. If you want to propose specific real improvements, justified from reliable sources, go ahead. You haven't yet done so. Your general comments about bias are just false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you specify exactly which statements you believe to be false in my paragraph. The term "lies" is off course not acceptable since it implies a willful intent to deceive and that requires evidence. Statement "the film cannot be used as a source of anything" is logically flawed without providing context - clearly it was a source of your last statement, and of this one. Regarding safety: there are only two reliable sources with the authority to define something as safe or unsafe, one is the entity responsible for research - first hand knowledge (in this case B) and FDA - regulatory authority. Neither of them claims the treatment to be unsafe, as far as I know. Safety , as defined by Phase I, has only one meaning and it is deemed proven until disproven by future clinical evidence and ratified by FDA. Regarding independent testing: that's what it is only in name. The responsibility for outsourcing testing is entirely bankrolled by the applicant in its own interest. But i agree, i would need to see evidence from other entity than B to provide verification. For now i am not convinced but curious about his treatment. "Your general comments about bias are just false." well, this is what i would like to discuss in more detail, and that is where the first paragraph is essential. It creates a picture of a mindset that I propose to analyze. I encourage you to rewrite the 'satirical' paragraph in any way or form you feel it would be appropriate and expressive of you conception of a "justifiably biased' mindset. Instances of bias have been amply indicated by other commentators. Regarding manipulation of control groups some evidence is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 06:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Lies" are appropriate — I meant to imply that B has a willful intent to deceive. We have some evidence from his fraud conviction.

The film cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles about B, antineoplastons, or even the film itself, except for some limited situations which I haven't seen attempted. Comments about the film, from reliable sources, may be used.

We had, at one point, in antineoplaston, a comment from a peer-reviewed paper that two of the Phase II trials had unexplained dropouts from the experimental group; there seemed to be no control group in those particular studies. I may have been wrong about moves between the control and experimental group, but dropouts for reasons other than death make analysis of the results difficult, even if not chosen to "improve" the results.

Other editor names have reported bias, although apparently only one at a time. We don't know, or even have reason to believe, that they are different people. Now, you don't have the same characteristics as most of the others, so I'm willing to believe that you are a different person. There has always been WP:CONSENSUS that any bias is minimal, and usually in favor of B.

I see no comment in either article that the therapy is unsafe, only that there is no real evidence that it is safe, either. The methodology of the Phase I trial was also questioned in peer-reviewed papers.

I see few phrases from your "satirical" paragraph that could be saved in a way that it could be used in the article, even if it did come from a reliable source. Please explain why you want it. Perhaps, if a source (even unreliable) could be found, it might find a place in conspiracy theories.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I spoke out because the tone of the article strikes me as heavily biased against B without much evidence, anyone can reference some blogs or disgruntled representatives of threatened interest group. For example, I stated nothing about B's financial affairs yet you argue his conviction proves the information i have contributed was lies based on conviction re insurance claim. This sounds like a character attack in order to discredit all statements. This alone is a proof of bias. As for reference re "justifiable bias" the book 'propaganda' comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays. Conspiracy is just another name for competition in business. It is not a theory but a pragmatic necessity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, WP:SELFPUB specifies when a person's statements can be used in his article. In the case of a conviction for fraud, even those statements should need further verification before they can be used. The movie falls under WP:SPS; it's not published by the subject, but by an individual with no evidence of reliability. I don't think his conviction, alone, means his research is fraudulent. The fact that no one has been able to reproduce his claimed results is evidence that he's mistaken or a liar. It's not conclusive, but it's adequate evidence for us to report it if reliable sources do.

For what it's worth, I've removed both B's self-aggrandizing statements and unsourced statements that B has no intention of developing a cancer cure. I believe everything in the article is sourced; if you feel it's biased, please provide reliable sources to counter the statements. Your satirical paragraph probably violates WP:BLP; and, even if the FDA were to attempt to suppress B's results, if they were reproducible, somebody would have reproduced them. Even if there were some truth to it, the ACA is a sufficiently dedicated organization that they would ignore the consequences of a simple (but extremely expensive) cure for cancer. (Has anyone else noticed that B's treatment is more expensive than "conventional" cancer treatment, at least if you compare what B is charging his patients to what conventional hospitals and doctors would charge, even disregarding the fact that if it's effective, it would used for a longer period of time?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the lack of convincing evidence controversial?

Over the last two days an IP editor has tried to change the lede from its current wording (There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer, [...] to According to the National Institutes of Health, there is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials [...]). While it is true that the NIH doesn't think there's convincing evidence, they're not the only ones coming to that conclusion, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary (after all, this treatment is not “new”, Burzynski has spent quite some time collecting data) this is a neutral statement of fact. I think attributing it to one agency when clearly this is how the medical community sees this treatment is biased (a positive bias is a bias, too). Thoughts? --Six words (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. There is no need for special attribution. It's a general statement of fact that is backed up by RS from others than the NIH. The IP needs to stop it or get blocked. Is there duck-like behavior shared with other IPs or registered users? If so, then an SPI/CU should be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They're making the same edit and they're both from Austin, TX so I guess the two IPs are the same editor, but that needn't be their fault - my ISP gives me a new IP every 24 hours and I have no influence on this; Yesterday's IP had a template on its talk page saying it was registered to an Austin based company and suggesting it could be used as a proxy, but to be honest, I'm not really sure whether the template meant it was shared by some of the company's employees or if this company provides a proxy server that many people (can) use. I don't see similarities with other IPs or Wikipedians and I wasn't really asking for any action on the IPs, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting the sources as I had reverted this once before. --Six words (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Stanislaw Burzynski (You KNOW why he is discredited)

The Information on this man is written quite crappy on Wikipedia. There is a lot of stuff written that discredits him. I would suggest looking at documentaries that talk about him. LISTEN TO THE REGULAR PEOPLE WHO PLEAD NOT TO SHUT HIM DOWN AND WHY. LOOK AT HOW AND WHY HE WAS BEING SHUT DOWN. Then you will understand why misinformation is written on here like this. Im sorry if Wikipedia has nothing to do with it... but it is my belief that this man is a Medical hero when it comes to cancer. As stated above "After watching the film I have found the witness testimonies compelling (including patients, a former judge who was presiding over the initial proceedings, a police officer, members of the jury from the earlier Burzynski trials joining his supporters during later trials)." There is NO other reason to have kept this man in court for sooooo long and the reasons are ludicris. THE MEDICINE IS WORKING... AND YOU GUYS WANT TO STOP HIM... THEN STATE LATER IN COURT ITS NOT ABOUT THE MEDICINE WORKING OR NOT. But in Year 1 in court IT WAS. Finally in year 11 they just happen to rig up an insurance fraud patch job on him. For what? Insurance fraud? NO! ESPECIALLY if the people he is treating are BEGGING the powers that be to STAY OUT OF IT!! My belief. THEY DIDNT WANT HIM TO SPREAD THE CURE FOR CANCER... To much money in cancer treatment. Why Cure it? Do your OWN research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.176.83 (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you're a doctor or medical researcher who's been published in reliable sources then your opinion doesn't carry any weight on WP (and neither does mine or any one else). WP reports what WP:RS say on a subject and all the sources say that SB is a quack. Please also note that WP is WP:NOTAFORUM to generally discuss a topic. Talk pages are there to suggest specific changes to an article based on reliable sourcing. And no, we specifically have a policy against our own research, you can read that policy at WP:OR. SÆdon^talk 04:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2012

This article is SICKENINGLY biased! There are MANY success stories from Burzynski, and his side of the story needs to be heard aswell! Please rewrite this as an unbiased article taking into consideration all the facts, including Dr.Burzynskis documentary .

Punkylemon (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Request is non-specific, and presumes facts not in evidence (for example, that B has a success story). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for review

I respectfully request a non-biased review of the cited sources (#7 is a good example) as used to support this article.

I further request that the article be shortened dramatically, until it can be rewritten in its entirety to common Wikipedia standards.

I would shorten it myself, removing obvious errors, inconsistencies, and bias, but I believe I will wait a bit until other contributors weigh in on this.

Joetho (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I request that you identify your affiliation with Mr. Burzynski. Unless there were some recent changes, the article is biased in favor of B, as the (reliably sourced) accusations of medical fraud, as opposed to insurance fraud, are not included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am an outside editor who, as far as I can remember, has never edited this article (though as I recall, I put it on my watchlist when there was a series of dramatics going on here last year-ish). I've looked over the article and sources, per Joetho's request here, and I don't really see any merit to the idea that the sourcing is biased or unreliable in any way. The sources are mostly scholarly works, medical resources, and news articles, all of which are very good sources for an encyclopedia article like this. Possible weak spots in the sourcing, such as they are, are the use of primary-source court documents (very reliable, but we encourage use of secondary sources rather than primary when possible) and blog posts (which are prone to unreliability as sources of fact, but are used in this case to represent a) what the bloggers claimed to be the case - as opposed to representing "truth" - and b)things that were confirmed by the Burzynski Clinic and reported on by the BMJ. As a result, the blog citations are part of a well-sourced section representing objective fact). It may be possible, and perhaps even an improvement, for someone to take time to re-source some of these less-perfect sources - to find a news article discussing the court documents, to adhere strictly to our preference of secondary sources, for example - but my feeling is that though it is perfectly possible to compress the blog sources into a section containing only non-blog sources and have that section contain the same gist, that would reduce the amount of information in our article, and it would be to the detriment of the article to do so.

Joetho, if you are aware of places where the article is actually in error, please do note those spots here on the talk page, and someone will fix them. I don't think, however, that the article reads as particularly biased or unfair, and I don't see that there's a lot of call to remove any of its encyclopedic information. If you feel it's warranted, you may want to spend time expanding the biography section of the article with more information about Burzynski, since that seems to be the weakest portion of the article, but I would counsel you to remove content only upon editor consensus here on the talk page. Undue weight does not appear to me to be given to any particular part of this article, and that would be the only reason for removing sourced, encyclopedic content. A wandering Fluffernutter (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

________ Like it makes any difference, I have no affiliation with any doctor anywhere, or any other involved party, either. I am just a plain old citizen who recognizes the comparative value of unbiased writing, from a neutral perspective (saving the fine distinctions between the two terms "neutral" and "unbiased" for another day, please). A quick example, start of second paragraph: "There is no convincing evidence ..." = Says who? How do I know what convinces you or not, and vice versa?? Those words appear to me to represent opinion, judgement, call it what you will but don't call it neutral or unbiased. Anyway, what were you saying? Oh. Those references: I wasn't kidding when I said obvious- read ref #7, actually go open it, and not just check to see if appears to be legit. See if the citation supports the cited part of the article. - Respectfully, Joetho (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I "actually read" reference 7 and it fully supports the 3 instances in which it is cited in the article. The quote "Burzynski's commercial speech does not concern a lawful activity" in the article appears verbatim in that citation. BTW, I don't appreciate all the unwarranted bluster about POV and being sent on a fool's errand to verify references. As for what constitutes "convincing" evidence, I would say that the working definition has been established and is pretty much universally accepted by regulatory authorities and those in the medical field -- i.e., well-designed phase 3 clinical trial results that have been peer-reviewed and vetted by multiple independent authorities. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove Category:Companies listed on the OTC Bulletin Board

This article is about a person, not a company. So it should not be categorized as Category:Companies listed on the OTC Bulletin Board. Because the template {{Otcbb}} autocategorizes, the template {{Otcbb2}} can be used instead.--Svgalbertian (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2012

The article provides with many misleading information; It overall focus and information created presents Dr. Burzynski in a negative light. It fails to mention very important fact that USA and FDA tried but failed to STEAL this idea from MR Burzynski. It also fails to mention the billion dollar FDA and pharmaceutical business that prevented this information from reaching to the public. Also, it does not state that the FDA has approved this treatment after a years of fighting. 71.194.241.180 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done. No statements in the above paragraph are accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  I should rephrase. None of the statements that the anon wants included in the article are accurate. It's accurate that they are not in the article.  :) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content from talk page

This is in regards to the removal of content from the talk page. To be clear, I don't agree with the content of the deleted message and just took the time here to point out a wrong norm being set here.

The reasoning which has been given are that the posted talk:

1. was WP:NOTAFORUM,

2. contains false statements about Wikipedia and specific Wikipedians.

Regrading the WP:NOTAFORUM, the deleted talk included suggestions on the improvement of the article. We could disagree with the suggestions but they do fall under acceptable talks in WP:NOTAFORUM as the policy describes: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles"

Regrading the "false statements", I think you need to rebuttal them in the talk page and not just simply delete the whole section someone has added. Such deletion is more an easy way out than constructive discussion. Farmanesh (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that 7000 kb rant discussing a "conspiracy between FDA, NCI, and big Pharma" is not here for improving the article but here to WP:SOAPBOX about the topic of the article. We are not here to argue for or against perceived conspiracies, which we have already done far too much earlier on the talk page. Let's not waste the precious limited resource that is editor time and patience on nonsense. Yobol (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I second that Yobol. WP:TPG outlines how the talkpage is to be used, and the deleted comments in question were not even remotely constructive. Removing them was the appropriate course of action. We've already had to indulge too much of this soapboxing and conspiracy theory-mongering already. After a while, it simply becomes a waste of time and resources to continue to address it, and it hurts the signal to noise ratio of the talk page. Clearly, this is not a forum for general griping; just a place to dispassionately present relevant verifiable facts and to provide specific suggestions and comments about well-defined editorial issues. What we've been seeing here instead is simply talk page abuse. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, someone else said it best:

Wikipedia is not a place for people with ranting agendas to come and smear people they don't like... Treating angry lunatics as if they are worthy discussants devalues people who really are worthy. Allowing vicious insults and/or rants from lunatics to stand, as if they need to be responded to on an equal footing with thoughtful objections, makes Wikipedia a less noble place.
— User:Jimbo Wales 15:15, 7 November 2008

... but I think that sums it up. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with everything Farmanesh said, even if the user added some unneeded content in the comments made, he was still adding constructive input on improving the article. I am also disappointed that the comments were removed and nobody contacted the user regarding the comments. Cheers,
Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 19:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Riley, you should familiarize yourself with those rules. This isn't the first time this user (or socks/meatpuppets) has added this exact same content. It's soapboxing in the extreme, with very little constructive content. When first added it has been discussed. When it gets repeated again and again, it gets deleted. The user knows what's happened to the content and doesn't need to be notified. They can start abiding by those rules and make constructive suggestions based on reliable sources, rather than conspiracy/profit driven sources backed by Stanislaw Burzynski‎. (They will get a hearing if they do so.) Instead, his institute has repeatedly tried to edit/vandalize/whitewash this article and bomb this talk page with complaints. Many of the IPs come from the same city as his institute! He even had a PR flack employed by him doing it. The history of this article is quite interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Riley, could you please point out the constructive things Farmanesh Wikibowler contributed? I've checked both his comments and I don't see a single reliable source cited, nor any valid criticism about the article. --Six words (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Six Words has said "please point out the constructive things Farmanesh contributed". I didn't provide any of the comments in question here for deletion. I just noted my concerns regarding the deletion policy in talk pages.Farmanesh (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it was Wikibowler's comment which had nothing constructive. Farmanesh just restored it after deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And Wikibowler placed it on his own userpage, which was then db'd and promptly blanked as a violation of our policies on several counts. Farmanesh should think twice about defending such junk. It's not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in userspace. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In my view, when we decide to delete someones talk (which translates in preventing his voice to be heard), that's when we should think twice or more.Farmanesh (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Farmanesh, my mistake. I changed it. Still, the original rant (there's no other word for that) and the comment following its deletion were not in any way constructive. Both Burzynski's own claims and the film have been discussed many times before and are mentioned in the article. Burzynski is a reliable source only for what his claims are, and using the film as a source would be akin to using “house of numbers” as a source in our article on AIDS. In my eyes, Wikibowler's comments aren't worth defending and I honestly want to know what parts you and Riley found constructive. --Six words (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comments from Arthur, Brangifier, and Sixwords. Merely complaining "the article is biased" (over and over and over again) is not constructive -- not by a longshot. WP does not have a magic de-bias button; what we do instead here on the TPG is make suggestions regarding specific text that should be added or removed, using reliable secondary sources (and a bit of commonsense) as the guide. The talk page is not a complaint department, a short-order window, or a platform for soapboxing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. My defense was one completely based on principle and not example. If we don't defend, or at least raise the issue with, when the case is weak (like the text under discussion here), then the door for deletion and potential censorship on even serious discussions will open. In my view, our sensitivity to delete material on talk pages should be very high, as constructive discussion and progress in WP quality comes out of deliberative discussions which are not always of highest quality, or agreeable to us, or even sometimes respectable in our view. Still I find it much more in line with the spirit of WP to archive such talks than to bluntly delete them.Farmanesh (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the threshold for deleting comments should be high -- and the threshold was met in this case. That's the point that several editors here are trying to make. A commonsense approach needs to be (and has been) taken here and one must be aware of the history and dynamics of this article. Initially, we had several anon IPs, SPAs, and editors affiliated with the Burzynski clinic making or arguing for various non-NPOV changes to the article (e.g., addition of unsourced conjecture and whitewashing of criticism). After review and discussion, other members of the editorial community rejected these changes/arguments, in accordance with WP policy.

Then the ranting on the talk page began (again from SPAs and anon IPS), and it was not constructive -- i.e., WP:DONTLIKE arguments, WP:SOAP, and conspiracy theories. Then began a wave of silly editing requests, which were reviewed and declined. Then there was this most recent WP:SOAPBOX attempt. And now the anon IPs and SPAs are citing these vague critical comments on the talk page (most likely their own comments posted under different usernames and/or comments posted by people affiliated with the Burzynski clinic) as evidence that the article is not balanced or NPOV.

I've seen this exact same strategy played out before on other articles where a COI editor(s) doesn't get his way, gets exasperated, and then resorts to tying up responsible editors with having to respond to a steady stream of vague nonconstructive talk page gripes. After a while it looks as though the offending editor is trying to (a) get payback and (b) discredit the article by creating the illusion that many people believe it to be biased and poorly written. That's not the way things are supposed to work around here; commonsense tells us when it's time to shut down the shenanigans (i.e., soapboxing) for the good of the project. The removal of the comment is fully supported by WP policy (WP:TPG). There is no policy or guideline I'm aware of that suggests that such conduct needs to be or should be indulged.

And now its getting a bit exasperating that the discussion of the removal of the distracting soapbox comments has become an issue of its own and a tertiary distraction. This defeats the purpose of removing the comment in the first place; i.e to preserve the signal to noise ratio and keep the discussion constructive and focused on specific content issues as per WP:TPG. Therefore, I suggest we put an end to this thread ASAP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Another patient dead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-18331017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.135.57 (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality (2)

Greetings, I would like to make the following suggestions as to how we can improve the neutrality of this article. The following is a list of ordinances that caught my eye when reading this article: Weasel Word

Since December 1976, Burzynski has administered peptides and their metabolites, which he calls antineoplastons, as treatments with alleged anti-cancer activity.

Given that these treatments are currently undergoing trials, I would suggest that "Theoretical" be used used to replace "Alleged", as "Alleged" tends to indicate a somewhat baseless assertion.

Dubious

"There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved these products for the treatment of any disease" [9]

• Which "scientific literature"?
• This citation does not come to any conclusion as to indicate, "There is no convincing evidence"; this is a supposition and an interpretation of the article.
• Lumping the FDA with "The scientific literature" is inappropriate, given the government status of this institution, and what is more, the allegations of bias surrounding this institution. see: [10]

I would suggest creating two sections to maintain the integrity of the facts presented:

• Issues and criticisms from governmental regulating or research agencies.
• Issues and criticisms from independent and private research institutions.

Irrelevant

"The American Cancer Society has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer and recommended that people do not buy these products since there could be serious health consequences to patients who use this therapy.[2][3] A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy".[4]"

What does this have to do with Stanislaw Burzynski? This would be more appropriate in an article about "Antineoplastons". I would suggest moving this statement to either section 2, "Antineoplaston therapy", or removing this statement altogether. This type of fact should not appear in the summation of Stanislaw Burzynski the individual.

Irrelevant and Weighted

"A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy".[4] Oncologists have described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as "flawed" and "scientific nonsense",[5] and independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[6]"

This again is irrelevant to a summation of Stanislaw Burzynski, and should be moved to a different section. Additionally, though the statement may be true and appropriately weighted based on the evidence, I remain skeptical as to the real lack of counter citations in support of his treatments and research. If there are effectively none, then I would suggest contrasting these opinions to his objections.

Weasel Word

"Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General,[7][8] and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result"

"Unapprove" is ambiguous, given that it could mean an "undone approval". I would suggest something along the lines of "A new therapy which had yet to receive an approval from the FDA"

Floating accusation

"These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of what he calls "clinical trials", that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.[1][16][17]"

This sentence indicates that it takes issue with Burzynski's use of the term, "Clinical Trials", but fails to justify why he used this term inappropriately.

Poor Wording

"Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[5]"

This sentence indicates that Oncology describes these studies as flawed. I would suggest using the word "Some", or "Many" before the word "Oncologists".

Weighted and unfair reviews

" The Village Voice commented that the movie "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" and that by interviewing only Burzynski's supporters, the film’s producer "is either unusually credulous, or doesn't understand the difference between a documentary and an advertisement".[23]" "The page "Ethical filmmaking" does not exist... " I would suggest removing this citation until a wikipedia page has been created for the term, "Ethical Filmmaking", otherwise this citation is rather meaningless. "Variety described the film as having the qualities of a "paranoid conspiracy theory" and likened it to the National Enquirer, adding that the film’s explanatory diagrams are "simplistic to the point of idiocy". The review concluded that "despite its infotainment look, Burzynski ultimately proves convincing."[24] Prior to the debut of "Burzynski", Houston Press correspondent Cory Malisow reviewed the pre-release press kit and, after being refused an interview with Merola, mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, calling it "a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism", and criticized it for presenting only Burzynski's side of the story.[25]"

All reviews presented are in a negative light, where as the critic review website (of which contains these citations) [11], gives him a 42 percent approval rating by critics, and an 88 percent approval rating by Non-critics. I would suggest the addition of some positive reviews by critics, and a highlighting of his positive reception among the public. Additionally, the Variety review cited is misleading, and I would suggest quoting the whole paragraph for better context: "Nevertheless, the public nature of Burzynski's predicament, the avowed sympathy of the media (represented in clips from a variety of sources) and several documented cures in "hopeless" cases grant a degree of legitimacy to the good doctor's ongoing struggles. Despite its infotainment look, "Burzynski" ultimately proves convincing."

Misleading Title

"Burzynski Clinic's legal threats to online critics"

I would question whether it is appropriate to label this section as such, as the "Legal Threats" were done from an employee that they have since disassociated themselves with.

--Kind regard, Akiva Avraham. 76.10.184.161 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

“Weasel word (1)” - It is a somewhat baseless assertion.
“Dubious” You won't find scientific literature that says “there is no scientific literature for X” - the lack of scientific literature is the proof that there isn't any (if there were scientific literature that “antineoplastins” are useful as a therapy against cancer that sentence would be wrong, but you'll have to show such publications exist). The FDA source verifies the lack of FDA approval.
“Irrelevant” The article has a (small) section on antineoplastin treatment, and the lede is supposed to summarise the whole article.
“Irrelevant and Weighted” See previous answer.
“Weasel Word (2)” Unapproved means not approved. With around 30 years of doing studies, it would be a lot more misleading to call it a “new therapy which had yet to receive an approval”.
“Floating accusation” 30 years of trials and no publications in scientific journals - I think the quotation marks are justified.
“Poor Wording” Are there oncologists who describe them as good trials?
“Weighted and unfair reviews” If we were only citing the negative reviews I'd agree, but we're citing one negative review (The Village Voice) and one positive (Variety).
“Misleading Title” A representative of the clinic made these threats in the clinic's name. The clinic disassociated themselves from him because of the way he threatened some bloggers (google maps shot of someone's home), not because of threatening to sue. In their press release they state that they'll contact the bloggers through their attorneys, indicating that they're still threatening to sue, so in my eyes the title is justified.
Hope that answers your questions. --Six words (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Are there oncologists who describe them as good trials?" Irrelevant. Your English is being corrected. The plural noun "oncologists" is a generalization about a group (e.g. "oncologists") which applies to all of the individuals in that group (all oncologists). Has every oncologist made such descriptions? See also: "Hasty generalization". Xkit (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How about almost all oncologists? "Many" is too weak a term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2012

Or how about doing a web search for: [oncologists opinion on burzynski]? The generalization doesn't hold. It's a hasty generalization, weasly, and based on a combination of "Appeal to Authority" and "Appeal to Popularity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 06:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Playing "I didn't here that" are we? I already addressed this below. The word "oncologists" accurately reflects the title of the source article: "Oncologists criticize methods of controversial cancer treatment" [12]. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I went ahead and changed it to the following, in keeping with the text in the source article:

Three prominent oncologists described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as being “so flawed that it cannot be determined whether it really works". One of the oncologists, Dr. Howard Ozer, director of the Allegheny Cancer Center in Philadelphia, PA characterized the research as "scientific nonsense"[5]. Furthermore, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[6].

Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

---

My replies to the OP follow:

Weasel Word

Given that these treatments are currently undergoing trials, I would suggest that "Theoretical" be used to replace "Alleged", as "Alleged" tends to indicate a somewhat baseless assertion.

Theoretical must imply a tenable theory, otherwise one could concoct any sort of random BS and call it theoretical. I think it’s fair to say that theoretical basis for AP therapy of cancer has been more or less discredited. Ultimately, “alleged” seems to be a far better choice than “theoretical”

Dubious

• Which "scientific literature"?

It is generally understood what "scientific literature" means. Am I missing something here?

• This citation does not come to any conclusion as to indicate, "There is no convincing evidence"; this is a supposition and an interpretation of the article.

Actually it does. It says the following:

"Randomized controlled trials give the highest level of evidence…No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

”These studies reported mixed results…other investigators have not been able to obtain the same results reported by Dr. Burzynski and his team…it is not known if responses and side effects were caused by antineoplaston therapy, the other treatments, or both. One additional independent report (a study from Japan) was completed but does not have the same findings as the Burzynski report.”

So we have the source saying two things: (a) there have been no randomized phase III trials -- “the highest level of evidence”; and (b) the findings in Burzynski’s reports were mixed and could not be independently replicated. Therefore, it’s not dubious to summarize this as “there is no convincing evidence”. Some could quibble about the word “convincing” versus other options like “valid” or “credible”, but that’s a pretty minor point IMO.

• Lumping the FDA with "The scientific literature" is inappropriate, given the government status of this institution, and what is more, the allegations of bias surrounding this institution. see: [13]

I would suggest creating two sections to maintain the integrity of the facts presented:

• Issues and criticisms from governmental regulating or research agencies.
• Issues and criticisms from independent and private research institutions.

And I will counter by suggesting that your conspiratorial innuendo about government bias against Burzynski (or in general) has no legitimate place in this discussion (see WP:FRINGE). I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt once and pretend you didn’t say that.

Irrelevant

"The American Cancer Society has stated since 1983 that there is no evidence that antineoplastons have any beneficial effects in cancer and recommended that people do not buy these products since there could be serious health consequences to patients who use this therapy.[2][3] A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy".[4]"

What does this have to do with Stanislaw Burzynski? This would be more appropriate in an article about "Antineoplastons". I would suggest moving this statement to either section 2, "Antineoplaston therapy", or removing this statement altogether. This type of fact should not appear in the summation of Stanislaw Burzynski the individual.

APs are Buzrynski’s sole basis for notability. Without that contribution, he wouldn’t merit an entry in WP. Actually, to be more precise, his sole basis for notability is the controversy surrounding his use of APs. I flatly reject your banner claim about irrelevancy.

Irrelevant and Weighted

"A 2004 medical review described antioneoplaston treatment as a "disproven therapy".[4] Oncologists have described Burzynski's research on antineoplastons as "flawed" and "scientific nonsense",[5] and independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[6]"

This again is irrelevant to a summation of Stanislaw Burzynski, and should be moved to a different section. Additionally, though the statement may be true and appropriately weighted based on the evidence, I remain skeptical as to the real lack of counter citations in support of his treatments and research. If there are effectively none, then I would suggest contrasting these opinions to his objections.

It’s relevant for the reasons I stated above. Furthermore, if the text in question is true and appropriately weighted, why should your continued skepticism be of any concern to the Talk Page? If you’re skeptical about reliable relevant sources that may exist but have not yet been cited, then don’t complain here -- go find them. The last sentence in your comment made no sense to me whatsoever.

Weasel Word

"Burzynski’s use and advertising of antineoplastons as an unapproved cancer therapy were deemed to be unlawful by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Attorney General,[7][8] and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result"

"Unapprove" is ambiguous, given that it could mean an "undone approval". I would suggest something along the lines of "A new therapy which had yet to receive an approval from the FDA"

The word used was not “unapprove” (verb); it was “unapproved (an adjective)”, and the latter word is in no way shape or form ambiguous. It is the term used by the FDA to classify drugs that have not been approved; not drugs that were approved but had approval revoked.[14]

Floating accusation

"These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of what he calls "clinical trials", that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas.[1][16][17]"

This sentence indicates that it takes issue with Burzynski's use of the term, "Clinical Trials", but fails to justify why he used this term inappropriately.

Potentially your only argument with a hint of merit. However, the type of studies Burzynski conducts are not really clinical trials in the classical sense, and that’s been a basis for criticism --- i.e., that they are not trials at all but rather a means of subverting FDA regulations that would otherwise prohibit him from administering APs to people with cancer. I think we could take you up on your suggestion to add details about why his use of the words “clinical trials” is controversial.

Poor Wording "Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[5]" This sentence indicates that Oncology describes these studies as flawed. I would suggest using the word "Some", or "Many" before the word "Oncologists".

It accurately reflect the title of the source article: “"Oncologists criticize methods of controversial cancer treatment" [15].

Weighted and unfair reviews "The page "Ethical filmmaking" does not exist... " I would suggest removing this citation until a wikipedia page has been created for the term, "Ethical Filmmaking", otherwise this citation is rather meaningless.

Are you seriously suggesting that the source, the Village Voice, should be removed because WP does not have a page about a term used in the VV article (i.e., “ethical filmmaking”)? Surely you jest!

All reviews presented are in a negative light, where as the critic review website (of which contains these citations) [16], gives him a 42 percent approval rating by critics, and an 88 percent approval rating by Non-critics.

Uhhhmmm…really? You’re bleating about weighted and unfair reviews and then you turn around with a straight face and suggest that we include these Rotten Tomato results in the article? Do you have even an inkling of what WP:RS means? It’s not an article; it doesn’t say anything; it’s not the opinion of Rotten Tomatoes – it’s an ongoing anonymous online poll, the results of which can be easily jiggered.

I would suggest the addition of some positive reviews by critics, and a highlighting of his positive reception among the public.

And again, I refer you toWP:RS and WP:MEDRS

Misleading Title "Burzynski Clinic's legal threats to online critics" I would question whether it is appropriate to label this section as such, as the "Legal Threats" were done from an employee that they have since disassociated themselves with.

These paper-thin arguments are very tedious and they eat up a lot of time and resources. The legal threats were made and they were made by someone who was employed by the Clinic to perform online reputation management. Media controversy erupted as a result of the inept manner in which that task was handled. The clinic subsequently fired the employee, allegedly. Dissociating from Stephens after the fact does not change the fact itself, and it’s quite absurd to suggest otherwise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)