Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 6 December 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burzynski Clinic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burzynski Clinic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Burzynski Clinic. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Burzynski Clinic at the Reference desk.

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about the Burzynski clinic.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: A1:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Burzynski Clinic was copied or moved into Stanislaw Burzynski with this edit on 12:03, 29 August 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Cancer is Serious Business Film Section

This section only presents criticism of the film but does not talk about its actual content, nor if there were critics who pointed out the film's positive aspects along with its negative. By doing so, the article is not a neutral point-of-view with respect to information about the controversial cancer treatment and should be modified. It should at least account for some of the facts raised in the film against the facts presented by the FDA and other critics. It should account for so many of the clients who pleaded with the FDA to allow Burzynski to continue his treatment against the opinion of critics. The issue here is neutrality, and it's easy to read bias in an article, even if there is no expertise on the subject. If there is controversy against the doctor, there should at least for the sake of neutrality (even "criminals" get a person describing their version of events, don't they?) be a section describing the doctor's side of the story. It might be appropriate at that point to talk about the content of the film. That way all sides are presented and the reader can make up his/her own mind, rather than be indoctrinated. I think it's that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:SOFIXIT. Shot info (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is some of fellow Misplaced Pages editors seem to believe they have a noble mission of "saving the humanity from the wrong", and perhaps believe they should openly brand what they believe is "wrong". It takes a lot of effort to explain to them that a lot of concepts in medical science (and elsewhere) are relative, not absolute, and are continuously being modified as our understanding deepens. Hence, all scientists that I have known were humble when discussing medical theories and therapies, always relativising them to the current level of knowledge. I saw a respected doctor commenting on the Burzynski therapy: "This therapy has not been shown to work". But these Misplaced Pages editors will twist it into a propaganda phrase: "All scientists agree that the Burzynski therapy is quackery". See the difference?

So, if you feel like going being bold and editing this entire article in the spirit of neutrality, you will have my full support. kashmiri 12:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"But these Misplaced Pages editors will twist it into a propaganda phrase: "All scientists agree that the Burzynski therapy is quackery". See the difference?"

Yes, I see the difference but what does it have to do with anything? Where exactly did someone make the statement "All scientists agree that the Burzynski therapy is quackery" and which editors are you referring to? Manufactured quotes and vague charges against fellow Wikipedians have no place in the discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"The practice is considered quackery by critics" – lead section of an old revision , followed by a reference not to a peer-reviewed article in accordance with WP:MEDRS but to some dodgy website, itself in the centre of controversies. The author of this edit is (Cacycle) who basically gave shape to the entire artcile back in 2008. Sorry I did not quote verbatim (I quoted from memory - my fault, I didn't take time to go through the long edit history), but anyway the sense is the same.

Anyhow, my intention was just to encourage 70.72.55.227 to go ahead and bring more neutrality to the text, and if you allow I see little point of discussing this further. kashmiri 18:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So in reality you were re-litigating something that hasn't been in the article since 2007. That seems counterproductive to say the least. I wouldn't be giving anon IP SPAs carte blanche to "bring more neutrality to the text". However, it would be perfectly reasonable to post suggestions and reliable sources here on the talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yikes! This is a hot topic. My whole suggestion is simply to account for the perspective of the doctor as well in the article. This can be done by stating facts about what Burzynski has said in return in his legal defenses, in the documentary about cancer, and perhaps by other sources. The writer need not take a side, but simply report the debate between Burzynski and the medical community. Right now, there is hardly anything in the article which shows Burzynski's reasoning for his medicine, the many who testified in favour of Burzynski to the FDA and in trials, etc. But there is *a lot* on what the FDA and others have said about his medicine, and let's be honest, critics are not hard to find. I don't know if the article is blocked, and if trying to modify the article will be "frustra." But I hope the editors do change it, simply for the sake of good internet scholarship! hehehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't proposed any text for inclusion, nor have you brought forth any references, so it's impossible to know what you think should be added to the article already that has not already been covered. The goal of an encyclopedia isn't to present every single POV but rather to develop a cohesive NPOV narrative based on reliable sources and proper weight (see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). Burzynski seems to be of the opinion that APs are a cure for cancer and that he has been unfairly persecuted by unnamed conspiratorial forces that are hell bent on suppressing cancer cures. Neither of these positions are supported by reliable evidence or expert sources. The amateurish self-serving lopsided movie about Burzynski, a primary source that does not meet WP:MEDRS for any type of medical/scientific claim, is unlikely to offer anything at all that would merit inclusion. If you have concrete text proposals and reliable supporting sources, then make a proposal -- we're all listening. Nebulous general complaints, however, will likely be given short shrift. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri, I looked over your latest comments again and it seems that you are making a thinly-veiled attack on the integrity of the editor Cacycle based on the inclusion of a reference that you referred to as "not a peer-reviewed article" and "a dodgy website". The reference in question was posted on Quackwatch, which is a long way from being dodgy, and the article posted on Quackwatch was a courtesy copy of a publication from The Cancer Letter, which is a respectable publication that does in fact appear to meet WP:MEDRS. It has been in print for 35 years, it has editorial oversight, and it is cited by other highly reputable publications (like Science magazine).

So aside from the fact that you made a sweeping indictment about Cacycle's integrity based on a single sentence from 5 years ago, your charges against the source he provided are pretty far off the mark. There's no need to continue re-litigating this non-issue from 5 years ago, but an apology wouldn't be a bad idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What would be a correct, probably sourced, statement is that all reputable scientists believe that Burzynski's beliefs are not supported by evidence. Not quite the same as he's a quack, but it is all. We don't need to have that in the article, but we certainly shouldn't have anything which contradicts it, with a clear source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Arthur, any universal quantifier would be incorrect - which was the entire point I was trying to make. Unless you ask ALL the reputable scientists their opinion on this therapy you have no right to say so. Instead, you are free (and perhaps correct) to say, for example, that "no published independent studies have found any evidence in support of this therapy".
• @Rhode Island Red, your interpretation of my "character indictment" goes a bit too far as I did not mean anyone specific; later, I provided an example of what I regard as an unfortunate edit. I accept that the words I used were not very fortunate either (blame the emotions stemming from my recent POV-related discussions in other articles).
• I tried hard to see whether The Cancer Letter was ever discussed in WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because on its own, for not being peer-reviewed, cannot be counted among scientific journals or medical journals in WP:MEDRS understanding. I did not succeed. I also noted that the tone of the quoted article was somewhat inconsistent with scientific publications and resembled more of investigative journalism. So, I fully stand by my assertion that opinions in The Cancer Letter do not represent scientific consensus and are not consistent with MEDRS. Besides, I insist that Quackwatch is a dodgy and absolutely unreliable website - there already was a discussion about this very topic on this Talk page (see archive) and as a result, the majority of references to Quackwatch were removed from the article.
• That said, I also personally believe (although this matters least) that the whole antineoplaston therapy has very little to do with actual science, despite claims by Burzynski et al. However, considering the existence and verifiability of placebo effect; the fact that many therapies in official use lack theoretical base and/or are not replicable in different population (see medical anthropology) while many therapies approved for use in modern medicine have efficacy equal to placebo and still doctors prescribing them are not called "quacks" -- hence, all I am asking for I would ask for a bit of humility and a less of judgemental tone in the article. Yes, there is no scientific evidence of efficacy whatsoever. Yes, in experiments, most patients died with no improvement. But yes, some people claim that "antineoplastons" have helped or cured them. Now, let's present the facts and leave it up to the reader to form a final judgement. This is what is neutral point of view. kashmiri 23:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY regarding QW. Sædon 00:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri, what I gather from your comments is that you think the article has some broad POV problem (the details of which you did not elaborate) and that you are attributing the alleged problem to other editors’ ignorance/bias/or lack of humility. I also see quite a bit of soapboxing, but what I don’t see are any tangible suggestions, with the possible exception of expressing mild disdain for The Cancer Letter as a source.

However, as I already pointed out, that publication is cited by high-caliber publications like Science magazine (and many others,) and it has received various awards.. Furthermore, the statements in the WP article based on The Cancer Letter (an independent review of APs conducted by 3 prominent oncologists) are properly attributed and reinforced by a secondary source, so I think you’ll have an extremely hard time creating consensus that it has been used inappropriately.

Moving on, I hear alarm bells when I see comments such as the following: “Some people claim that antineoplastons have helped or cured them. Now, let's present the facts and leave it up to the reader to form a final judgment. This is what is neutral point of view.” What does that mean exactly? I hope you weren’t suggesting that we should include unvetted testimonials in the article, because I’m pretty sure that will never happen.

Lastly, Quackwatch is most definitely not an “absolutely unreliable website”, and I have a pretty clear picture of how WP regards the site because I reviewed the extensive discussions that took place about it in various RFCs and DRs for the main article pages on QW and Stephen Barrett. The site has received numerous awards and is currently cited 233 times on WP. It seems that, for the most part, the only people that malign it are those very same pseudoscience practitioners that are featured in QWs reports. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me this offer you quotes: "Oncologists have described Burzynski's studies as flawed". This sentence suggests some sort of consensus among oncologists while, as a matter of fact, it was only three oncologists that have expressed such an opinion in press. "The consensus among the professional community is that... the Burzynski clinic is expensive": I hope this is not a joke - I would love to see any evidence of a consensus on therapy costs, esp. between US and UK. "Independent scientists have failed to reproduce the benefits reported by Burzynski" (repeated three times across the article): correctly, two independent attempts of reproducing... failed. "In January 2012, Lola Quinlan... sued": I would definitely drop this out, anyone is free to sue anyone and IMHO as long as there the responder has not been found guilty this information does not serve any purpose in an encyclopaedia except maligning. Etc.etc.

Being quoted by another non-peer reviewed source still doesn't make The Cancer Letter a source compatible with WP:MEDRS, although I agree Science tends to be an interesting and high-calibre publication.

Do you have problems with patient reports? Knowing the existence of the mentioned placebo effect and the fact that diseases (including tumours) can undergo ] I would not necessarily question the authenticity of patient reports. See, this is exactly WP:bias: exonerating a website that openly admits to an agenda (Quackwatch) but depreciating first-hand reports. We don't take a stance on Misplaced Pages, we are here to present facts, whether they fit our own understanding of the world or not.

Fox News has been mentioned 25 times as much (don't know about the awards) - does it bring more credibility to it? Please. Citation ranking applies to research articles but not to arbitrary websites. Quoting Quackwatch's opinion in science-related matters is for me like citing the Flat Earth Society in geography articles - so let's better stay with WP:MEDRS. kashmiri 13:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch would have a notable (although not that high) citation index, even by the standards of WP:MEDRS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me this offer you quotes: "Oncologists have described Burzynski's studies as flawed". This sentence suggests some sort of consensus among oncologists while, as a matter of fact, it was only three oncologists that have expressed such an opinion in press.

It’s grammatically correct and perfectly defensible from an editorial perspective. The sources are quoted and it’s clear which oncologists are being referred to. If I’m not mistaken, the article used to say “some oncologists” but the word “some” was viewed as an unnecessary qualifier. Check the Talk page.

"The consensus among the professional community...” I hope this is not a joke.

You left out that part where the statement was attributed: “as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK” This seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Do you have problems with patient reports?...I would not necessarily question the authenticity of patient reports.

Yes, as a general rule, I do, but regardless, I haven’t seen any patient reports in relation to Burzynski that would come anywhere near close to qualifying as WP:RS. If you know of any exceptions, you’re free to post them here for discussion.

Quoting Quackwatch's opinion in science-related matters is for me like citing the Flat Earth Society in geography

(1) That's a blatant straw man argument. Quackwatch is not quoted; merely linked under external links. (2) Your opinion about the veracity of QW is not widely shared. The Flat Earth Society is clearly WP:FRINGE; QW is clearly not. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to stress that someone would ever regard two local charities as representative of the professional community (= global community of oncologists and researchers).

No, patient reports will not fulfil all the WP:RS criteria, and they should not be cited or given unnecessary weight. However, their existence should be acknowledged. BTW, linking to discussion boards is allowed AFAIK. Links have been quoted here before, I will copy them in a free moment.

Pars pro toto is hardly defensible outside of poetry and propaganda.

It's irrelevant whether FES is fringe or not: enough that it promotes a particular agenda and fights everything that offers differing views. I hoped it would be clear from my example. Let's agree that we disagree on QW's worthiness.

As for me, I feel the discussion is going nowhere and would be happy to signal EOT if you agree. kashmiri 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Request by Didymus Judas Thomas

In the interest of Neutrality, I am requesting that the following additions be made re the reviews of this film since the reviews are about 33 words of negativity versus about 4 positive. I reviewed Steven Spielberg's Article and am basically just requesting the same Neutrality that has been afforded his films. This includes the filmaker's reply to the critics; specifically The Village Voice, so i have included the Voice again to include other statements in it. It is said that the Author had to revise her review after her initial publishing on-line.

• 3/25/2010 The B Plot, The Coaster, Asbury Park, NJ: ""Burzynski,” the story of a physician and PhD biochemist who many believe has discovered the genetic mechanism to cure various human cancers. This discovery has terrified the pharmaceutical industry – The film details how the industry has done everything it can, in any way, to quash Dr. Burzynski and his treatment."
• 4/1/10 The B Plot, The Coaster, Asbury Park, NJ: "Judging from the passionate response to the documentary “Burzynski” – about a physician who many believe has found the cure to a variety of cancers and his amazing war with the government and FDA to bring the treatment to market – which screened at the Garden State Film Festival last week, it should have won the “Feature Length Documentary” award."
• 5/26/2010 Yes! Weekly, Mark Burger: “I just became obsessed with the story,” said Merola in an exclusive interview with YES! Weekly, “and the more time I spent with Burzynski, his patients and his story, the more obsessed and excited I became.” Even more encouraging, “I haven’t had a single audience member approach me after a screening and criticize or question the validity of the information in the film,” he said. “There is nothing in the film that is ‘assumed,’ ‘theoretical’ or not backed by the highest of documentation and forensic evidence.” Thus far, Merola has not received any reaction from the opposition about the film. If someone at the FDA has seen the film, he doesn’t know about it. “I have trouble seeing what, if anything, the FDA can possibly say about the film to discredit it,” observed Merola. “The only thing perhaps they can do is discredit me — which is usually what happens to directors like me. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens. I am prepared for anything.”
• 6/1/10 The Village Voice, Ella Taylor: "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."
• 2010 Rotten Tomatoes: "42% of critics liked it. 88% of users liked it. Average Rating: 4.6/10."
• 6/3/10 TrustMovies, James van Maanen: "TrustMovies can sometimes be too credulous. He admits this. He would like to think it is part of his charm, but it is more likely related to his stupidity. And if he is being credulous again in his passionate plea that you seek out and view the new documentary BURZYNSKI, so be it. Better credulous in the cause of something you believe worthwhile than suspicious to the point of an ignorance that approaches fundamentalism. (For the latter, see the "review" in this week's Village Voice, full of snarky innuendo and near-complete misrepresentation of what the film contains.) Because I was so impressed with this documentary, and because the Village Voice review is such a shoddy piece of journalism, I contacted the filmmaker and asked him pointed, specific questions about the content of the Village Voice review, along with some of my own. What follows is Trust Movies in bold and Eric Merola in standard type. I believe, if you read Mr. Merola's very good answers, you will be covinced, as am I, of his honest intentions and so will want to see his film. 'I found the Voice review nasty from the get-go: calling you "a former art director of commercials" -- as though someone like that certainly can't be trusted to make a real documentary. That's typically snarky innuendo. "I'm not really sure how to respond to that one. I made a living in advertising, never really enjoyed it. I sort of got stuck in it, while always wanting to be in TV & Film. This is obviously an attack on my character, while ignoring the subject matter. Since Ms Taylor mentions the possibility of an “undisclosed relationship,” I think this needs to be addressed. How did you come to make this documentary? As I stated in my press kit, I have always been interested in documentaries that delve into hard truths, I'm a huge fan of "The Cove," "Food Inc," "Why We Fight," "No End In Sight," and so on. I had originally included many of the opposition in the film, but I cut them for the final running time. For instance, Dr. Keith Black, a famous neurosurgeon in LA was on Larry King last fall sitting right next to Burzynski and waved around those invalid NCI trials as "proof" the treatment doesn't work. I had planned on calling him out on it. Second Dr. Black also claimed that the brain tumor patient he sent to Burzynski died shortly after. Well, the reality is, Jodi Fenton, who is the first patient in my film consulted with Dr. Black before going to Burzynski. Dr. Black told her he was a fraud and a quack. 30 days later - Jodi was cured of her brain tumor. Dr. Black fails to acknowledge this. As Jodi said in the film "he just wrote it off". I did have the film packed with "opposition", but between running time and meeting the goals I felt I had to meet plus just looking at how absurd the "opposition" is, I decided to cut it. Again, anyone can spend hours reading the opposition. However, I also think that I do show some opposition in the film."
• 6/3/10 Variety, Ronnie Scheib: "Eric Merola's documentary concerns Stanislaw Burzynski, the controversial doctor who purportedly developed a significant breakthrough in the treatment of cancer. "Burzynski" sometimes plays more like a dossier of depositions than a film, with its parade of medical records, X-rays, cured patients, talking-head experts and Senate hearing coverage. Instead of crafting a nice-if-it's-true advocacy piece for alternative medicine, such as "A Beautiful Thing," Merola has opted for a dramatic expose of the FDA and its incestuous relationship with Big Pharma as it seeks to first discredit, then co-opt Burzynski's discovery."
• 6/3/10 Film Threat, Phil Hall: "As filmmaking goes, “Burzynski” is fairly elementary stuff: talking head interviews, old news footage, and images of letters and documents with highlighted text. Dr. Burzynski and his supporters speak at length, but equal camera time is not given to those who questioned his work and results. (Even the film quietly admits that most of Dr. Burzynski’s patients have not achieved cancer-free results.) Nonetheless, the film offers a jolting examination of the hideous collusion between federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. In their partnership, profits and ego massaging takes priority over the treatment of the terminally ill. Furthermore, the testimony of Dr. Burzynski’s patients – particularly the tragic testimony of a San Francisco policeman whose child died from the ravages of chemotherapy even though her cancer was cured by the doctor – provides a stirring contradiction to the empty boasts about the quality of the American medical system."
• 6/4/10 The New York Times, Jeannette Catsoulis; "Plain, plodding and relentlessly expositive, “Burzynski” tries to wrestle medical clarity from a snarl of science and human suffering. The price paid, however, is a documentary as visually arid as it is topically fertile."
• 6/16/10 EurPublisher: "Excellent (4 stars)"
• 6/17/10 Los Angeles Times, by Kevin Thomas: "Merola unleashes a barrage of information, including much testimony from grateful patients, but he could have made an even more effective film had he paused to summarize each phase in Burzynski's long ordeal. Even so, the film makes the case that big pharmacy holds the FDA in its thrall, that the National Cancer Institute perversely refused to follow Burzynski's protocols in its clinical trials and seemingly has violated Burzynski's long-held patents."
• Science Guardian: "The fine, illusion busting, investigative cancer documentary “Burzynski”, whose limited, one week Oscar-qualifying run just ended at New York’s Cinema Village and in LA, is a must see for any intelligent observer of the politics of medicine in the US."
• 6/24/10 Dr. Joy Browne: "Burzynski is a really terrifying documentary. It's about a Polish physician 40 years ago who discovered some sort of cure for cancer. Since then he has been refining his procedures and his protocols and according to the documentary, his techniques work ten times better than any techniques that combine radiation and chemotherapy. This is a huge indictment of the medical community, the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, and if all my colleagues in talk radio were really interested in changing the world, this is the story that they should be focusing on. This documentary should be shown at every medical school in the country, and probably to everybody, because all of us are terrified of cancer, even though most of us are going to die of heart disease, not cancer. But this is still a huge indictment of a system that cares a lot more about profit than people. I know you're saying, duh. I'm a little nieve, but this is a very powerful documentary. Five stars. Joy meter: 5"
• 11/19/10 The Movie Film Show: Rated A. Mr. Movie rated 6th best film of 2010. Mr. Film rated 8th best film of 2010. "It will give you goosebumps and bring tears to your eyes. Heroic and inspiring. The movie will enrage you and inspire you." —Mr. Movie. "Measured, balanced and relentlessly clear." —Mr. Film.

Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12

Didymus Judas Thomas — please indent properly, use paragraphs and sign your name when adding to talk pages. Your contribution is difficult to read.

Balance is not obtained through having a equal numbers of "opposing" views, but by fairly representing verifiable high quality sources. I'm not sure if you are offering anything new in this regard which merits a change to the article. Please propose a concrete change you would like to see, and then editors here can discuss it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexbrn is right, neutrality isn't achieved by giving all positions the same number of words or references. We try to summarise what reliable sources have said about a subject, weighting them appropriately. Thus, if all high quality sources say this film doesn't deserve to be called a documentary, that's what the Misplaced Pages article should say, too.

If you're suggesting that the wall of text you posted here should be added to the article, the answer is no. The film is only one small facet of this article, we cannot dedicate almost half of the article to reciting film reviews. We might add some of the sources if they were reliable and sufficiently prominent.

Blogs can only rarely be considered reliable sources, and it doesn't look like 'The B Plot' is an exemption from this rule.

The 'Yes! Weekly' link is an interview with the film's director, so we can only use it as a source for his claims; it's also (going by its Alexa rank) not a very prominent source, so if we use it we risk giving it undue weight.

'Village Voice': good circulation (also a good Alexa rank); used in the article.

'Rotten Tomatoes': 42%, = "rotten". I don't really see the point in adding it to the article.

'Variety': good circulation (also a good Alexa rank) used in the article.

'Trust Movies': another blog. btw: why did you reference Variety every time the blog mentions The Village Voice?

'Film Threat' is (again, judging from Alexa rank) not a very prominent source.

It might be worth taking a look at eurweb (it's got a decent Alexa rank), but I notice that despite saying "review" in the title, it's not much of a review.

'LA Times' via www.burzynskimovie.com? Sorry, I'm not going to visit this website. I searched the LA Times' website for this review but didn't find it.

'Scienceguardian' is a blog (and it's a creepy one - AIDS denialist creepy).

Dr. Joy Browne via burzynskimovie.com - see above.

'The Movie Film Show': a blog.

What you've shown here doesn't convince me that the section in question is biased, i.e. that there's undue weight on unflattering reviews. --Six words (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12 I suggest you add the following to the Variety review & cite the doctor. www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31

• "Interviewees are at pains to look calm, perhaps explained by one doctor's reference to the fate of the 19th-century physician (Ignaz Semmelweis) 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)."
• Please add:
• Winner! National Audience Award and Warsaw Audience Award, HumanDoc Festival, Warsaw, Poland, 2011
• Newport Beach Film Festival, California, Humanitarian Vision Award, 2010 and/or
• Moondance International Film Festival, Feature Documentary Film Semi-Finalist, 2011

1. http://thebplot.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/is-there-a-cure-for-cancer-garden-state-film-festivals-burzynski-film-may-know-exclusive
2. http://thebplot.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/burzynski-documentary-demonstrates-human-life-commoditized-audience-reaction
3. www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-9521-winston-salem-filmmaker-makes-waves-with-award-winning-medical-documentary.html
4. www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-01/film/quack-quack-goes-burzynski
5. www.rottentomatoes.com/m/burzynski_2010
6. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
7. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
8. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
9. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
10. http://trustmovies.blogspot.com/2010/06/seek-out-bursynski-documentary-and.html?m=1
11. www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
12. www.filmthreat.com/reviews/22302
13. http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/movies/04burzynski.html?scp=1&sq=burzynski&st=cse&_r=0
14. www.eurweb.com/2010/06/eur-film-review-burzynski
15. www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/Press_Media/Burzynski_latimes_BW.pdf
16. www.scienceguardian.com/blog/burzynski-alternative-medicine-pioneer-conquers-tumors-fda.htm
17. www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/Press_Media/Joy_Brown_review.pdf
18. www.moviefilmshow.com/movies-films/about/burzynski_the_movie
19. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/Ignaz_Semmelweis
20. http://festival.humandoc.net/25?lang=en
21. www.kpfa.org/events/burzynski-movie-fda-big-pharma-fight-doctor-who-has-cancer-cure
22. http://blog.bigmoviezone.com/docs/awards2010.pdf
23. www.moondancefilmfestival.com/02_festival.winners_film.html

Neutrality of the Article

I have no idea why my comment for change to the article was posted above, so I made a "new topic" to make it clear.

Regarding my proposals for change to the article: To "Rhode Island Red": I have made very clear comments regarding the neutrality of the article, even if specific content for change itself has not been proposed. That's perfectly valid according to Wiki rules and criticism for encyclopedic entry. It is not impossible to know what I'm thinking regarding what should be added to the entry. I was very clear that Burzynski's own defense both in trial and according to other sources like the movie have not been addressed nor described explicitly. This is not presenting "every single point of view." There are basically two: those (including Burzynski and his lawyers) who are for his treatment/medicine and those who are not. Right now, the article does *not* adequately account for Burzynski's point of view, and it is crucial for a fair and neutral encyclopedic entry. Without it, the article basically does what it accuses makers of the documentary of doing: being one-sided. What you said yourself could be added to the encyclopedic entry in much greater detail: "Burzynski seems to be of the opinion that APs are a cure for cancer and that he has been unfairly persecuted...." Then the article could go to explain the very content of the movie, what his lawyers argued, the testimony given to FDA officials by clients, etc. The writers need not choose a side, but simply present the reasoning of both parties involved. Simply because editors or you yourself do not like the documentary, that does not mean it is a poor source. There are many, many documentaries that make an argument simply for one side. So, these are my "concrete proposals," and I'm glad you're listening. Perhaps next time you could do so with less antagonism and with a greater spirit for proper scholarship--although I do understand that this is the internet, not an academic journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Law Suits

Hi Editors:

I would like to propose some changes for the sake of greater neutrality for the entry. Right now under "law suits" it says:

"In 1994, Burzynski was found guilty of insurance fraud for filing a claim for reimbursement by a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment."

It would be good for the sake of neutrality to state what Burzynski's lawyers argued in defense. This is typical in other cases where someone has been accused of a wrong but where a person maintains that he is innocent. So there is no harm in putting it here either.

"In 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards. An appeal against the advertising restrictions on the grounds of free speech was denied on the basis that this was commercial speech promoting an unlawful activity. In December 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards."

This may be true, but it is also true that Burzynski responded to these complaints, and it is not described what he said. Just as it is a fact that there were complaints, it is also a fact that there was a response. Neutrality calls for presenting both sides crucial to the controversy.

"In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski for using false and misleading tactics to swindle her out of $100,000. She also sued his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court. She sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy."

Again, this is a fact. But it is also fact that he was or was not found guilty, and it is also a fact that Burzynski had a reasoned argument in response to this law-suit. For the sake of neutrality these two crucial facts to the very controversy must be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

FDA Warnings Section

Hi Editors:

I'd like to propose some changes to the article in this section.

It says: "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, and limits on the sale and advertising of the treatment were imposed as a result."

It is also a fact that Burzinski replied to these charges. Neutrality demands that not just the FDAs point of view is shown but Burzinski's as well. His point of view is crucial to the controversy, so it is appropriate.

"In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Burzynski Research Institute, stating that an investigation had determined the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB) "did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects." It identified a number of specific findings, among them that the IRB had approved research without ensuring risk to patients was minimized, had failed to prepare required written procedures or retain required documentation, and had failed to conduct required continuing reviews for studies, among others. The Institute was given fifteen days to identify the steps it would take to prevent future violations."

Again, Burzynski replied to this as well. Neutrality calls for his point of view that is also at the heart of the controversy. Right now this reads like an FDA commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Neoplaston Therapy Section

Hi Editors:

I would like to suggest some changes to this section.

This part of the article does mention what the therapy is, but it quickly states that it disregarded by the FDA. If you're going to write about how it is disregarded right away upon describing the therapy, you should also include those testimonies that show the medicine works for the sake of greater neutrality. This does not mean that you pick a side but that you simply present both sides in describing the therapy, just as you would present both sides when presenting evolutionary theory against creationist theory. Gathering from the movie (although some research via legal documents and testimonies at trial might show the same thing), there were many who have seen from their own experience that his therapy works. This is at the heart of the controversy, and the article does not account for these experiences.

Thanks! Happy writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The issues raised by this edit request, and the two posted immediately preceding it, have already been dealt with in the Neutrality section of this very talk page. WP:NPOV policy does not mean collecting every viewpoint, and for medical topics WP:MEDRS also applies. In particular, this page should not contain claims requested since they have been disproven (the fraud defense), discredited (the claims of treatment efficacy), or are extraordinary (the testimonials), without good reason. If there is something specific needed which doesn't violate policy, please suggest some specific wording. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

When an article deals with a controversial topic, then NPOV demands that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" are presented. Discussion on selection of sources to represent these varied views is pretty much admissible - and even encouraged - on talk pages.

Your mention of "disproven" or "discredited" claims is unsourced; and even disproven claims do have a place in an encyclopaedia – an encyclopaedia should not be mistaken for a therapy manual. kashmiri 10:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If a case is lost in a court of law it is, in legal terms, "disproven"; if an overwhelming scientific consensus agrees medical claims are in fact "scientific nonsense" then it is discredited. Yes, this article should include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", but it should not (as the edit requestor seemed to want) include all kinds of view (no matter whether significant or reliable). In any case, the pattern here is repeated over and over that there is a vague request for unspecific changes — it would be very helpful for editors wanting changes to draft some text, as otherwise it's hard to discuss the request meaningfully. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If only courts were to decide whether a therapy is effective or not... please. In science, to prove or disprove a theory or proposal you need to carry out unbiased research or, in medicine, double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials. You don't just ask a judge.

I feel this is perhaps not the right place to go into details, but let me give you an example of a proposed therapy that illustrates the problem: the use of valproates as a treatment in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Following three or four basic research articles, in 2007, an Italian team conducted a clinical trial with 15 patients that showed valproate to be an effective treatment in SMA (). Similar results were obtained that same year by a team in Hong Kong (). However, a subsequent US study was inconclusive (), and a large 2010-2011 US trial (carried out by the same research team) concluded that valproic acid showed no benefit whatsoever in the selected patient group (, ). However, a 2011 Brazilian study again indicated benefits of valproate treatment in SMA patients ().

As of today, I am not aware that any of those studies would have been called a "quack" or "scientific nonsense".

In Burzynski case, we also have a certain number of publications (by the Burzynski team) in peer-reviewed journals describing efficacy of their therapy; on the other hand, we have two independent trials that do not confirm efficacy. We do have to consider the conflict of interest in the Burzynski publications (acknowledged by the authors anyway). We have to consider, also, that a mere two studies, be it "independent" or not, are not able to establish the "truth". Maybe one day we will get a Cochrane meta-study that will review all antineoplaston trials and give credence or disqualify any. Until then, arguing about antineoplaston therapy by quoting some "Quackwatch", an amateur film, or court cases is childish to say the least.

I can't stop myself from noticing that with just three court cases the Burzynski Institute fares quite well: several US hospitals face hundreds of lawsuits over treatment (). kashmiri 13:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The legal case in question centres on insurance fraud. The treatment claims in question have been discredited by many reputable medical sources, as detailed in the article. Of course one may speculate about whether new human knowledge in future will adjust our view of the world, but it's reasonable to exercise some judgement when engaging in such speculation - some people today believe the Earth is flat. Again I ask, is any actual text being proposed for an edit? … I'm not seeing any. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, it' obvious that the writer(s) has/have a bias against the doctor. It is clear that neutrality would call for not all viewpoints, but the two in question,to be described. Simply because it has been discredited by the FDA or a court of law does not mean that Burzynski's own account is worthless and should not be narrated. Furthermore, your comments miss the fact that NOT ALL lawsuits against him were successful. In fact, the FDA dropped numerous charges against Burzynski, showing that Burzynski is not completely discredited de jure. As for the science, let's be realistic. The fact is that Burzynski is up against the scientific political status quo, so of course you will not have the legitimacy of that status quo to prove Burzynski is correct in his treatments. That's like asking Galeleo to prove his theories by the approval of the catholic Church. Additionally, Dr. Burzynski is a doctor in medicine, not just a physician, but a PhD. Surely this grants him some legitimacy de facto and de jure, which is not at all discussed in the article. In other words, he's not simply proposing witchcraft as a cure for cancer. This article removes his view-point, and in doing so it is clear the writers have no interest in providing a neutral perspective. That's fine, no one said Misplaced Pages had to be scholarly. But let's not pretend to provide an unbiased perspective when what we're doing is helping to endorse the agenda of the FDA. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that no one not associated with the Institute has written a positive (or neutral) article in a peer-reviewed journal. That strongly suggests that the positive reports either escaped peer review or were fraudulent. It's not proof, and we can't say that it the article, but we can act on it. (Furthermore, Burzynski's "PhD" is disputed, possibly because of translation problems.) We could present his perspective, in his voice, without claiming there is evidence behind it. 06:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)~

It appears to me that you are confusing peer-reviewed journals with tabloids. Unlike the latter, peer-reviewed journals are not about "positive" or "negative" opinions but about (in this case) molecular mechanisms or trial results. Two independent clinical trials of antineoplaston therapy did not confirm earlier trials conducted by the Burzynski Institute – that's all, there's nothing positive or negative about it. Differing results of different trials is everyday bread for medical scientists. It is not up to you or Misplaced Pages authors to judge whether trial results were fraudulent or not, nor to speculate whether Burzynski's Ph.D. is a "translation problem" unless you have a relevant source. kashmiri 09:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a reliable source that his degree is the equivalent of a Ph.D.; actually, to be precise, we only have one source (perhaps reliable) that he has the degree, and another source (perhaps reliable) that the degree is the equivalent of a PhD. And the IP seems to be confusing peer-reviewed journals with the Institute's own publications. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "As for the science, let's be realistic. The fact is that Burzynski is up against the scientific political status quo, so of course you will not have the legitimacy of that status quo to prove Burzynski is correct in his treatments. That's like asking Galeleo to prove his theories by the approval of the catholic Church."

Yes I agree, let's be realistic. The reality is that Burzynski is not going "against the status quo" any more than anyone else who claims to have a treatment/cure for cancer. There's a mechanism for proving therapeutic/curative claims (positive phase 3 clinical trials) and there is a mechanism for FDA approval of drugs that make such claims (the FDA's drug approval process). Furthermore, the expectation that Burzynski should prove his claims is comparable to asking Galileo to prove his theories to fellow astronomers, not the Catholic Church. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Burzynski is going against the status quo, if the status quo is the FDA. There is a mechanism, but that mechanism is established by the FDA, NOT science alone. There are many things in science which are NOT proven by clinic trials, so that Burzynski did not prove his cure for cancer by clinic trials is not proof that his claims are not science. Why should the FDA dictate how things are done? Don't forget, it is a political entity, not purely a scientific one. As for Galileo, the FDA acts like the Catholic Church because it is the established power determining what is and is not science. However, like Galileo, Burzynski is doing science which is NOT accepted by the FDA in the same way that Galileo was doing science that was not accepted by the Catholic Church. You forget that the Catholic Church was itelf involved in science at that time. It was not separated as religion and science are now! So, I say, don't pretend to provide an unbiased article when it clearly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this article is not for discussing the competences of FDA nor its policies or independence. Misplaced Pages has a set of policies as to what constitutes a reliable source in medicine (WP:MEDRS), and generally FDA approvals are considered highly. This should not be debated here. The problem with this article is that a few editors here have a strong desire to publicly discredit the "antineoplaston therapy" and the science/reasoning behind it (without actually referring to this science or even mentioning the main ingredients of the "antineoplastons"), and they try to achieve this by attacking the Burzynski Institute or Dr Burzynski himself (by focusing on lawsuits, therapy costs, putting his academic credentials to doubt, etc.). This precisely is in violation of NPOV and constitutes a bad writing style. kashmiri 00:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

His academic credentials are in doubt. When there were two articles (Burzynski and Antineoplastons), the doubt was restricted to the first article. As for focusing on lawsuits, therapy costs, etc., what else is there to focus on. There was a phase I study (safety), and a dozen or so phase II studies which never completed. There's no evidence that therapy (or therapies) work, other than the word of researchers at the Clinic. (I thought there was something on Antineoplastons here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri, please comment on specific content issues rather than what you perceive to be the desires and motives of other editors. There is no POV violation that I can see, nor do I agree that the article represents “bad writing” as you alleged. Sweeping generalizations like that are not helpful. Several credible sources have largely discredited the therapy and recommend that cancer patients not subject themselves to it. The fact that there is no credible supporting data after 35 years of Burzynki’s alleged research efforts is very telling; and damning. In the words of Andrew Vickers, the “therapy” is not just unproven, it is essentially disproven. I see no instances of misinterpretation or improper weighting of sources, nor have any of the Burzynski defenders offered up any reliable sources that haven’t already been considered. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri is right. The therapy has not been disproven. In fact, it's very difficult to disprove any therapy because the proof often would rest on inductive premises, and induction is impossible to prove. It doesn't matter, if the writers don't want to provide a well-written, neutral article on Burzynski that's there fault. To anyone reading it, the bias is very obvious. Lastly, if Burzynski is soooo discredited, why then is he still practicing without being sent to jail? Check the website, his clinic is still open and he still offers the therapy the FDA derides. Were his credentials in question, he would not be allowed to practice medicine at all. There's no winning with the writer(s) of this article. They are not interested in good scholarship. PS I understand sources are important, but you can find sources to prove just about anything, so continually making reference to some source against Burzynski isn't good enough for determining whether Burzynski is an outlaw or providing medicine that doesn't work. 70.72.45.98 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, right or wrong, Kashmiri is not a WP:RS by WP standards, and there has been a WP:RS that did refer to the therapy as disproven, so that settles that issue. The rest of your comment is simply not constructive from an editorial perspective. Merely shouting "it's biased" accomplishes nothing. You have to prove your case by providing details and referring to specific text and sources. BTW, saying that editors here are "not interested in good scholarship" and that they "don't want to provide a well written neutral article" is not only not constructive, it constitutes a personal attack. You might also want to read WP:TPG to get an idea of what constitutes a constructive talk page comment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are also other WP:RS studies (ones published in renowned peer-reviewed journals) that show that the said therapy is effective . See, it is very common in medical science that a drug or therapy appears effective in certain clinical trials and appears ineffective in others (see my example of valproates in spinal muscular atrophy above). The fact that a therapy did not work in one experiment means only that... it did not work that experiment. An interesting article (a blog, therefore not a WP:RS) suggests, between lines of Burzynski bashing, that the "antineoplaston" therapy in fact uses common FDA-approved compounds (butyrates) that might – just might, because unfortunately little research has been made – help in certain types of tumour, and are only marketed and sold at exorbitant prices by Burzynski. The point is, the editors writing about medical science need to be very humble and not jump to a general conclusion based on published results of a single clinical trial conforming or denying efficacy of a compound. To reiterate: results of one clinical trial mean actually nothing, and should only be reported on Misplaced Pages as "results of one clinical trial". kashmiri 00:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost positive it's been pointed out to you in the past that WP:PRIMARY studies should not be used to contradict secondary studies. I'm also almost positive you know that we're not going to use studies publish by Burzynski himself in order to contradict what other scientists have concluded about his work. You people are arguing for a TJ doctor; this is simply ridiculous. Sædon 00:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to break the news, but I have pointed out very carefully what is biased and what is not. It is you who after anyone presents a well-reasoned argument with details simply says they are not part of Misplaced Pages standards. Kashmiri pointed out very specific details about clinical trials, and all you can simply say is that it is not the case. When I offer specific suggestions on what is biased, you simply say that that means representing all view-points, when in reality, it's absurd not to present the TWO view-points in question. I am not simply shouting that the article is biased, it clearly is for the REASONS already described in detail. The sources that I have pointed out, such as the documentary or the legal proceedings from Burzynski's defence are to you not good enough. What you want is an FDA approved source, and you are NOT going to find one because the FDA has a political interest in not approving the therapy. You yourself have made unsubstantiated claims about the therapy not being science, when all aforementioned reason points out that science need not be simply what the FDA says it is. But for every point raised by others, you don't actually address any of the points, you simply shout, "No, this is not Misplaced Pages Standards," or "No, it is not because I say it is not." You haven't answered the question I raised: If Burzynski is so discredited as you say he is, why then is he still practicing as a doctor and providing the therapy without being sent to jail or without any further legal proceedings from the FDA? He could not do this were he not a real doctor. I suggest you stop quoting Misplaced Pages standards when it is clear that you don't wish to abide by them but simply use the in an ad hoc fashion to suit your own views. The article IS biased for all the reasons I CAREFULLY articulated. If you don't want to change it, that's fine. But don't talk about scholarship and rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Every argument that you raised has been addressed already. The Burzynski Movie is not a credible source as per WP:MEDRS. The court transcript is a WP:PRIMARY source and any testimonials given therein as part of Burzynski's defense are not scientific evidence; again, refer to WP:MEDRS. Burzynski's few case studies are also primary sources and are superseded by reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the text in the article referring to the therapy is based on solid sources as per WP:MEDRS, so given that you are repeating arguments that have already been discounted and still repeating that the article is biased, it is fair to say that you are refusing to get the point. Your allegations about the FDA and questions about why Burzynski is still practicing medicine are off-topic (see WP:TPG, WP:SOAP, and WP:EQ). FYI, flatly rejecting scholarship and WP rules is unlikely to win you any arguments around here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not every point was addressed. Why is he practicing if he is discredited? You have said nothing about this. How can something be disproved scientifically when a disproof rests upon inductive premises? You have said nothing on this. Why are the two view-points not discussed when clearly they are at issue. All you've said is that this means every view-point is discussed, and that's not true--only two crucial ones! Who says the film is not a credible source? All you have done is point to another source that says the film is not credible. But that just means there are two conflicting sources, not that yours is right (that's your bias showing again, and you don't even realize it!). No one can claim that a few case studies are superseded by secondary reliable sources. Your own claim to that is that no FDA EVIDENCE has been generated. That's a bias. My comments about why he is still practicing are COMPLETELY relevant because YOU claim that his credentials are in question. My comment shows exactly that this is absurd if he is still practicing. That's an obvious point, but you and your bias for the FDA do not allow you to see that. For you, anything that is a counter-argument is not according to Wiki rule or is off topic, or is simply wrong because you say that it is. Finally, it is YOU who are using Wiki rules in an ad hoc fashion whenever you hear something you don't like. In fact, NOTHING of what I said or suggested breaks WIKI rules. I hate to break the news, but court proceedings also included scientific evidence, and if your claim is that the doctor has been discredited and is not doing science, then the case argued for him in court which contains scientific evidence for his case counts as scientific evidence and a credible source. What you want is an FDA source. And without it, you think you are right in arguing that everything the doctor does and who he is as a professional is bogus. That's simply untrue. Look at the facts. Why is he practicing if he is a quack? If he is discredited, why is he still providing the treatment against FDA approval? Why do people claim that his therapy works? A GOOD article would account for those things, rather than just screaming that without the FDA, nothing the doctor does is legitimate. I suggest you have a look at the evidence and the facts of this commentary as well as the Wiki rules so you can make an argument that holds water, rather than just reiterates your bias in an arrogant way. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So apparently my guidance on WP:SOAP, WP:NPA, WP:TPG, and WP:MEDRS fell on deaf ears. Too bad. I'm tuning you out until such time as you start respecting the talk page guidelines and focus your comments on specific text, reliable sources, and actionable editorial suggestions. Time for you to hop off the soapbox. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You see? You can never respond appropriately. Everything is about everyone breaking the rules, but if you have something to say, you NEVER break the rules. It's obvious you try to use the rules in an ad hoc fashion when you hear something you don't like, or when you can't respond. NO ONE is breaking the rules, we're talking about the article, you just can't make a proper case for rejecting what people say. I made actual editorial suggestions, but you can't respond to any of them because all your views resort to is slander of the doctor and misinterpretation of the rules. You lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

To 70.72.45.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - please:

• See the message I left you on your talk page in the section NPA.
• Remember to sign your additions to talk page by appending 4 tildes (~), like this ~~~~.
• Use an edit summary for each of your edits.
• Indent your talk page comments by preceding each paragraph of your response with one more colon (e.g., 2 colons or :: should you respond to my comment here) than the preciding comments.

Continued tendentious editing on your part will inevitable lead to either your IP address being blocked or this article's talk page being semi-protected to disallow anonymous editing.

Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Reproducing the results?

Reference 11 is cited to support the sentence "In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies." The reference is an article on the National Cancer Institute, which refers the reader to a "Human/Clinical Studies" section for more information (on the inability to reproduce?). However, the Human Clinical Studies section has no mention of the failure of any indenpent researchers to reproduce the findings. i.e. There is no meat in this reference. We either need to find a better reference for this (an example study that couldn't reproduce the findings) or remove the reference and the related article sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.75.10 (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, reading the "Human/Clinical Studies" section in question it does support the article's conclusion by describing, for example, an inconclusive Mayo Clinic activity. In any case, this article should report what reliable sources (such as National Cancer Institute) have stated, and not try to re-interpret, second-guess or editorialize around them. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Credentials

Something needs to be added about Burzynski's claim to a Ph.D. That has been widely disputed, but he still uses Ph.D. in his movie and in his clinic. See http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/587-audio-archive.html#episode_25 and the previous skeptics reports that are already linked to in the article. Burzyski claims to have received a Ph.D. in the same year that he actually received his D.Msc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.34.149 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning to editors watching this page.

Apparently there is a group of Burzynski supporters that are crowd-sourcing others to come edit this page. Some reference that we have been using quotes out of context and other claims. Here is one "the issue is, they block any new or old users from editing it, and Wiki has no way to police it. It's a brick wall. The article also breaks all sort of Wiki rules, such as posting quotes out of context, etc. especially in the "review' section of this film. They even used a quote from the Houston Press "reviewing" my film, when the linked article/source for this review clearly states that I refused an advance copy of the film to the writer—meaning the "reviewer" never actually viewed the film at all. The list is endless." If we are in error then we to clean up these problems.

Here is another post from someone ready to bring it on. "Merrill Aldighieri I don't have accurate stuff to fill in. If you want to send me some preferred text, I will paste it in whenever i have a free minute to spare. I am not a pro at coding though, i can only cut and paste raw text. Don't know how to make bold headers or add footnotes, etc."

Just want to bring this to the attention of everyone. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151240453868442&id=318281183441 Sgerbic (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where we state Malisow reviewed the film. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess watch out for meat puppets as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Malisow stuff (last words of the article) does have a couple of problems. First, the article makes it seem as if he is criticizing the film itself, rather than (more precisely) the nature of the film-making project which would inevitably end in a biased film (which he had not seen). Secondly, he is called "Cory Malisov" when his name is in fact "Craig" ... I have tried to correct/tidy this with an edit. Alexbrn (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New source

Not sure if there's anything to integrate but here is a new secondary source commenting on a critique of the Burzynski clinic/treatment/etc. Sædon 09:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the link, above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas 12/5/12

• Please add an Awards section:
• The Academy of Comprehensive Integrative Medicine. Lifetime Achievement Award, 2012 and/or

Science vs. pseudoscience

A few editors keep insisting that this article belongs to Category:pseudoscience. I revert these changes since we should not blur the distinction between a rightful scientific theory and (unethical) business practices.

To all those who are not much familiar with medicine. Certain medical disorders have more than one theory that try to explain its mechanism, each theory valid on its own. For example, spinal muscular atrophy has been proposed to be a disorder of neurons, neuromuscular junctions, or a result of system-wide oxidative stress. These different theories give rise to differing therapeutic approaches, and respective experimental therapies are developed an trialled in patients. Even if ultimately only one approach proves correct, no one will label the other ones as "pseudo-science".

The entire "antineoplaston theory" is one of such theories proposed in support of an experimental treatment. The problem is not with the theory itself. The problem is with unethical marketing; with U.S. patent laws that block others from using the patented compounds; and with the resulting lack of independent studies confirming or denying efficacy. We shouldn't fool ourselves: one independent study means next to nothing – a theory needs dozens of independent studies to be proven or disproved: earlier (above on this page) I mentioned the history of valproic acid proposed as treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, thank you to read it.

Until now, Burzynski has successfully blocked independent studies. But this does not render "antineoplastons" a pseudo-science like astrology! kashmiri 12:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I noted there has been a to-and-fro edit on whether this article should be categorized as pseudoscience. Misplaced Pages's definition of pseudoscience is that it is "a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status". Taking this definition, and looking at subcategories and other inclusions in Category:Pseudoscience (e.g. homeopathy, shiatsu and reflexology) it seems to me that this article most definitely should be categorized as pseudoscience. Alexbrn 12:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In the article, antineoplastins have been characterized by relaible sources as "disproved" and "scientific nonsense". That is a solid reason for categorizing the theory as pseudoscience. Kashmiri's argument has no merit at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just ONE source, be precise please. kashmiri 13:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are direct quotes from the article. And they are sourced. There's plenty of other sourced statements which back it up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't argue that the antineoplaston theory is just a "claim, belief, or practice"? Research on antineoplastons has been published in respected peer-reviewed journals, also by research teams other than Burzynski's (over 80 results on Pubmed ), and that includes studies that support further research (e.g., Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s12282-007-0015-y, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s12282-007-0015-y instead.). See, the theory itself is not at fault; the problem is with the way it is sold to gullible patients as a "miracle treatment". By analogy, vitamin C itself is not "pseudoscience", even as selling it as a miracle anti-cancer drug is unethical. kashmiri 13:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, "antineoplaston therapy" as practised by the Burzynski Clinic (i.e. the subject of this article) is most certainly a claim, a belief and a practice and is – I think – also well-described by the rest of the Misplaced Pages definition, in that it is "presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status". The fact that a number of articles un-related to Burzynski happen to mention antineoplastons does not validate the particular "therapy" promoted by the Burzynski Clinic. Alexbrn 14:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri, quit calling it the "antineoplaston theory." This isn't a scientific theory in any way shape or form. There is no consensus of scientists. There is no evidence supporting it's use in the way Burzynski has. This is pseudoscience at its worse, since it is pseudoscience used to bilk people out of money and not actually do anything. It meets all of the standards of what is considered pseudoscience. Do we need to tick off each point that makes it a pseudoscience? And do we accept reliable sources that claim its a pseudoscience. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

ScepticalRaptor, I hope you are joking about a "consensus in scientific community"? There is no consensus on thousands of other theories and treatments, why singling out antineoplastons? Just use Google, here is one of first results: Dispute Over Tumor Suppressor Gene Runx3 Boils Over - which of the theories described there is pseudo-scientific? Pity many editors here see science, esp. as complex one as medicine, in black and white. But I give up as long as there are no researchers editing here kashmiri 15:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, read scientific theory. You didn't, or you wouldn't have made your comment. You are misusing "theory", and misusing it badly. And you dump a strawman on us. Further conversation with you will not be productive. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I also see no point of discussing the matter with those for whom Misplaced Pages's exists "to save souls from charlatans". BTW, go through Talk:scientific theory to see the problems with its current Misplaced Pages definition. Anyway, you call call it a "hypothesis" as well, it makes no differences whatsoever to the core issue. EOT for me. kashmiri 17:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointing to a talk page and claiming it shows there are issues with the article in terms of how it defines a scientific theory is a bit pointless and vague. Read scientific theory, it will be informative. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A film released in 2010 called, "Burzynski" provides an in-depth history of events surrounding this very controversial subject of a private physician dedicated to curing cancer fighting the cancer establishment.

Liquidtruth (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Happily, that film is already well described by this article, so no edit is required. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

1. www.acimconnect.com/Resources/Awards.aspx
2. www.acimconnect.com/Resources/Awards/StanislawBurzynskiAwardPage.aspx

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics