Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

It's "emigrated," not "immigrated [sic]."

From meriam-webster.com:

em·i·grate

to leave a country or region to live elsewhere

intransitive verb

to leave one's place of residence or country to live elsewhere <emigrated from Canada to the United States>

Autodidact1 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit reverted.[1] The sentence in question refers to his coming to the U.S., so the correct term would be immigrate (i.e., "he immigrated to the U.S."). The sentence: does not refer to his leaving Poland, in which case it would have read "he emigrated from Poland". Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

He was still in Poland in the previous sentence, so Poland is the point of reference. To me the sudden switch to "immigrate" is illogical, and I support the editor in question who also spotted this. kashmiri ^TALK 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ungrammatical, and a subtle but common error. As a quick check, using emigrate with "to" is always wrong. More at grammarerrors.com and on similar sites etc. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say so? To the best of my knowledge you can definitely emigrate from the UK to Spain, just as Burzynski emigrated from Poland to the US. kashmiri ^TALK 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, you can emigrate "from". But not "to". There's some lassitude for understood elisions, but the bad edit I reverted just said "Burzynski emigrated to the United States in 1970 ...". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, if "emigrated" then "from Poland" should have been added. Anyhow, he just migrated. Relocated, moved countries. Or, moved homes/houses across continents. The whole "immigration" concept is very US-centric and stained with political discourse. Do we say in normal speech that, for instance, Johnny Depp immigrated to France? kashmiri ^TALK 20:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I love these wonky style discussions. No disrespect intended Kashmiri but, it's US-centric to frame immigration as a US-centric concept (stained by political discourse). Immigration is a hot button political issue in France, the UK, Spain, and Scandinavia to name just a few places off the top of my head. But getting back to the style question, the most authoritative online source on this issue that I could find online was the NYT Manual of Style, which states:"

Emigrate/immigrate: Emigrate refers to departure from a homeland; immigrate refers to arrival in a new country. Either word can be followed by from or to, depending on the context: When focusing on life or conditions in the old country, write, She emigrated from Sweden or She emigrated to Canada. When focusing on life or conditions in the new country, write, She immigrated from Sweden or She immigrated to Canada." [2]

But I agree that the simplest solution is to simply say he moved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed that discussion on immigration is not limited to US, although nowhere (except perhaps for Australia) it is as a politically divisive issue as in the States. Anyhow, thanks for the guidelines, they confirm what I think all of us know. Basically, the logical flow was as follows: Burzynski was born in Poland, grew up there, did his studies from Lublin Uni and then emigrated to the United States. Poland was the logical place of reference of the preceding sentence, so emigrated was better suited IMHO. Anyhow, I am replying because it's a pleasant Sunday evening and at this moment I have nothing better to do. Will have a glass of mulled wine in a little while, though :) Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Publications section - source review

This was spurred by the WP:FTN post earlier today. In general, nothing really caught my eye except for the comment in the Publications section that "The papers frequently caused academic controversy, with reviewers disputing the design of the trials and scientific validity of the published results" with 3 sources. I've got some concerns about the last source in that the comment is short and made by a skeptic, Robert Blaskiewicz, not a medical researcher. The second source was a bit iffy in that it was more of a general comment about papers on alternative treatments in general, not specific to this one. I think it is somewhat viable for the "academic controversy", but it's a bit iffy. Would someone mind reviewing this? Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Blaskiewicz's comments' inclusion in Child's Nervous System is fairly indicative of a controversy, but if we were to further expand the description of the controversy, I think it would be better to base any major content on reviews by medical researchers. Another published review I have not seen mentioned in the article, but might be a good source to describe medical researchers' criticisms is:

Massimino, Maura; Clerici, Carlo Alfredo (July 2014). "Commentary: The response and survival of children with recurrent diffuse intrisic pontine glioma based on phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma, by Burzynski G, et al". 30 (12). Child's Nervous System. doi:10.1007/s00381-014-2511-7. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Massimino and Clerici more specifically address the paper in question, if that's more helpful. Nmillerche (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I also note, as Ravensfire pointed out, some of the review commentaries appear much more brief than they actually were if linked to the paywalled version of the article. Springer is a Green Open Access publisher, so it is permissible for pre-/post-print archive copies to be made available and archived elsewhere, so I have attempted to link to no-cost copies of the full text, which include much more specific criticisms and FDA responses. Nmillerche (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bob Blaskiewicz is exceptionally well informed on this and the publication of his views is not a surprise. He usually has his commentary fact-checked by experts like David Gorski. It would be debatable as a sole source, but it's an informative supporting source for a statement with other sources, which is how we position it.

Amusingly, Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola attacks Bob in Burzynski II: Cancer Boogaloo or whatever it's called, including a supposedly "racist" clip from Bob calling Burzynski "my little Polish sausage" - which, of course, is bullshit, since Bob is also very obviously of Polish extraction, so Merola blanked the name. So: the Clinic evidently take Bob's criticism seriously enough to smear him in their propaganda. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Medical Board Section

I notice that the TMB section seems to reverse the order of two distinct actions by the TMB. The first ended with Burynski being acquitted because he did not sign the orders. The more recent is the 202-page one (which has been modified...the charges are the same, but the length has changed.). I am mentioned in the article so have no business actually editing, but I thought I'd give you a heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.248.214 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He threw his staff under the bus and walked first time, but he's back in front of the TMB now, and so is his son Greg. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Biased article

No specific suggestion for article improvement with support from reliable sources. If sources are found, please start a new section.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

General comment: This article is so heavily biased it is not only obvious but IMO an insult to intelligence. I've never seen a WP article so skewed with POV before (though, I've heard from others there are; I've just never bothered to read them so don't know first hand). This article is a joke and really needs a complete re-write. But I'm not going to attempt that solo. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific as to what constitutes the bias you are talking about? (I am not saying there is none, but let's start with your observations if you don't mind). kashmiri ^TALK 20:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I purposely said "general" for a reason. I won't fall into the trap of attempting to respond with specifics in this single sec. There are simply too many. The article is literally drenched in POV. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a trap, it's only to show you what I was made to realise long ago - that the balance between consensus and neutrality does not always favour the latter. There are a few editors here who seem to believe that Wikipedia should form the reader's opinion on things, and certainly should warn people against harm. Years ago, I tried to work on balancing this article, but as you can see in the archives, I did not succeed. kashmiri ^TALK 23:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the purpose of the WP:TPG is to discuss specific editorial issues related to improving the article. This is not the place for vague complaints along the lines of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, in the absence of constructive suggestions. Off topic comments that serve no constructive editorial purpose should be archived or deleted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh bull, quit your attacks, this is not the insect world and you can't gang up and feast on me. The positive suggestion for article improvement is clear--the article needs a complete rewrite. If you have to censor that suggestion for needed improvement by deleting it, go jump. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no "attack", but rather pointing out that your vague complaints tend toward a violation of WP:TALK, so please get specific, because you are not presenting any useful "suggestion for needed improvement".

You also need to determine if any bias (and there should be some properly sourced bias here) is related to unsourced editorializing (not good!), or is simply the presentation of the bias found in RS (very good). If it's the later, that's as it should be, as required by NPOV. NPOV refers to editors staying neutral. They must not censor bias and opinions found in RS. They must include the spirit and words which carry that bias, all the way into the wording of the article. If an unscientific form of quackery, as we are dealing with here, is criticized, that bias will be present in the article. Since mainstream medicine, the FDA, and the law is unequivocally and consistently critical of Burzynski, you will find that here. We don't engage in whitewashing or presentation of sources so they create a false balance.

So, do you have specific suggestions? Start with one, quoting the exact wording you see as problematic, and present an alternative which is an improvement. We'll work with you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"The positive suggestion for article improvement is clear--the article needs a complete rewrite" Not sure what you meant about "positive suggestions". I referred to the absence of "constructive suggestions" contrary to the purpose of the talk page. The talk page is not a compliant hotline or a soapbox. It's a place for editors to discuss specific editorial issues so as to improve the quality of an article. It's not constructive to say something like "I don't like this entire article...it's biased". Constructive use of the TPG is specifying particular text that's problematic and explaining why it is so according to WP policies and guidelines; and ideally offering solutions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: Talk pages are places to discuss articles, and it will be most appreciated if you stopped lecturing other editors here. If you have a complaint about them, take it to their Talk pages. kashmiri ^TALK 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, that comment is not helpful. RIR is in their good right to instruct an editor who should know better on how talk pages should be used and ask for constructive suggestions we can use. Vague and general complaints aren't what this talk page is for. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: See, over the last years this article has been a subject of heated debates, edit wars, and POV pushing. I really do appreciate that an editor who feels that the article needs a major copyedit, first probes the ground - say, in order to check whether there is consensus for or against a major copyedit. I would perhaps do the same. Somehow nobody noticed that @Ihardlythinkso: offered to start working on improving the article. So, instead of discussing the details people started hounding him for ever daring to claim that the article needs improvement. An example of WP:OWNERSHIP or what? kashmiri ^TALK 16:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I hardly think is reading a different article to me. This one is great. Well done wikipedia. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

“So, instead of discussing the details people started hounding him for ever daring to claim that the article needs improvement.”

Not true. The editor’s vague complaint has been duly noted; however, the editor provided no actionable details, and in that regard, it is not constructive. I am issuing reminders to focus on specific content (as per WP:TPG) so that if improvements are in fact necessary, they can be made accordingly. The editor in question has essentially stated that they are not going to elaborate on their concerns about the article’s quality, and hence it boils down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and that’s not helpful. We now have 12 comments under this thread and have not moved one iota closer to identifying any actionable issues with the article. If an editor feels an article needs a major rewrite, the onus is on them to demonstrate why that is so, or alternatively, to be WP:BOLD and make any needed improvements themselves. Simple enough. It's counterproductive to drown TPGs with white noise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

burzynskipatientgroup.org

Don't think we want a WP:EL to this; it adds no encyclopedic value. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This EL adds to this article an important way and in more than one way: Burzynski Patient Group. Please specify which point at WP:ELNO justifies your revert. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Points 1 and 2 at WP:ELNO seem to cover this adequately. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS#External_links is more applicable here. kashmiri ^TALK 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your first suggestion - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#External_links - is quite good:

"Don't use external links: 2. to web-based or email-based support groups for patients, professionals, or other affected people (even if run by a charitable organization)"

That very specifically excludes that EL. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Section "Legal threats to online critics" is too long

The section "Legal threats to online critics" is inappropriately long. It was an embarrassment to the Burzynski Clinic, yes. But they apologized and let go (presumably) the employee responsible. (The significance to this article?? Judging by the section's size, wow -- it must be VERY significant. Who is being kidded? It was a minor incident; the length of the section is undue length. [Oh gee and why does it have such length? No attempt to bias and exaggerate faults of the Clinic for sure! Give me a friggin' break. And I don't appreciate the previous lectures from editors complaining about claim of article bias is hollow w/o specifics given. There are many. Look at the documentary review subsection on "Burzynski - Cancer is Serious Business" (2010). All negative reviews. As though there aren't any positive reviews?! There are many more examples [some little ones I've corrected already], and it's impracticable to enumerate them all in a single Talk section.)

Help by summarizing this section to a "due (weight)" length. (It seems written in a way to counteract summarization, since it's not immediately apparent how to do it. But it needs to be done.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The incidents got a lot of coverage in RS, for example in the BMJ. I suppose we should mirror that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies notwithstanding, when one's attempts to silence online critics gets coverage by a source as prominent as the British Medical Journal, it's highly significant and noteworthy. I see no issue with undue weight. And please stop editorializing. Just focus on content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Pigasus Award

I know this "award" is probably deserved, but I do have doubts about using it here (in its own subsection!) without secondary sourcing. I think using it looks a bit desperate - there are stronger & more serious arguments against B and his clinic after all - and weakens the overall impact of the article. Without stronger/secondary sourcing I propose we remove mention of this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but briefly and not in its own section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

agreed. let me know what you think of what i did. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep the Burzynski section about Burzynski

From top of this Talk page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons." The Burzynski section should be about Buzynski's life and career and s/b free of outside opinions about same. (Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a potted biography treating his life, work, and reception thereof. I don't see any problem with policy. What does "Duh" mean here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It means "obviously". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

IHTSO, you "obviously" don't understand BLP. Citing "BLP" as if that means it must be a hagiography is not right. Only if the negative content isn't properly sourced is there an issue. The award was given to Burzynski, not to the clinic, so that content belongs in the section about Burzynski because it's "about Burzynski". Any and every conceivable thing about Burzynski belongs there. That's the difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. Our biographies include far more than anywhere else. We document the sum total of human knowledge, including whatever is known about him found in RS.

We could just eliminate the "criticism heading", since such sections are generally (but not always) discouraged. I'll try that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. (It is not a fact about Burzynski--either about his life, career, or practice. It is an org's opinion about one or more of those. Duh.) Keep it out of the sec devoted to BLP info on Burzynski. p.s. You are wrong about other things as well. Just because something is verifiable, does not mean it warrants inclusion (your mistaken "every conceivable thing"; "whatever [...] RS" you can find). But that is not the issue at this time (inclusion) I'm talking location. Regarding a separate sec "Criticisms", I don't care where that content goes--just not in the Burzynski sec for reasons already explained. Your argument that "Criticism" secs are not enjoyed does not warrent tainting what is the only BLP essence of this article that is to be treated like a BLP--the Burzynski sec. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, what do you mean by "tainting" and "BLP essence"? Please explain. It seems like you have your own special definition of BLP. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No special definition. I think I've explained this clearly already ... BLP info should consist of facts about the subjects life, career, practice; not opinion. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

When a reliable source expresses an opinion about a person, it is a fact that that that opinion has been expressed. As long as it's reported as such, attributed properly, and not given undue weight, such opinions fall within the realm of suitable BLP content. WP:BLPSTYLE states "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects" and "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Outside opinions about Burzynksi clearly fall within the boundaries of acceptable BLP content, so let's avoid trying to re-interpret the rules according to whim. Going forward, it would help if you would focus on specific content and not argue generalities that are essentially non-actionable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well put. The only thing BLP does not allow is "unsourced" negative content. Obviously properly sourced negative content is allowed in BLPs. Negative content does not "taint" an article. It is necessary content, because without it, NPOV is violated. We don't write hagiographies here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhode Island, the Pigasus Award was commentary by an org on Burzynski. No one argues that commentary didn't exist. But it is not a BLP fact about Burzynski's life, career, or practice; it is commentary (opinion) on one or more of those. You're debating whether the Pigasus Award is allowable in a BLP article. But you're debating with yourself, since I never challenged it. (Just the location of it.) p.s. It doesn't mean I agree it is suitable for inclusion in this article. But I did not aim to debate that in this Talk section. Sorry you misunderstood that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I never even mentioned the Pigasus award. It is you who is misunderstanding. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's you who misunderstood. This Talk thread had a narrow focus--the location of the Pigasus material within the article. From there you started discussing what is/isn't includable in the article per BLP. (I never raised that issue here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I think part of the problem here is one of confusing terminology. You keep citing BLP, but we usually only cite it when there is a violation, IOW "unsourced" negative information. The rest of the content is just content, regardless of whether it's "info", "facts" or opinions, so constantly referring to "BLP info" and "BLP fact" immediately raises the specter of a violation, but if the "info" or "fact" is properly sourced, there is no need to mention BLP. It just needs to see good editing. You're constantly raising a red flag at times when it's not appropriate. That alarmism immediately slants the discussion and makes it unnecessarily adversarial and makes editors defensive when it's counterproductive to do so. We may actually be on the same side at times, but this makes it hard to know.

That you even question the inclusion of the Pigasus Award reveals your failure to understand BLP and many basic policies and guidelines, especially NPOV and FRINGE. There is no BLP issue here.

Since your aggressive comments and some of your edits are obviously aimed at whitewashing, this overshadows the fact that many of your copy edits are actually minor fixes which improve the formatting, and they are good. Some of your other edits are indeed obvious whitewashing, possibly based on your failure to understand BLP, and that needs to stop. Otherwise keep improving article content with those minor formatting fixes. Some of them are good, and they won't get you blocked again. I notice that your block log is absolutely HUGE! I'm surprised you're still around. You apparently have a huge sword hanging over your exposed neck all the time, and only a nudge will get you indeffed (lots of admins are ready and waiting), so be careful with your aggressive actions and remarks here. Tendentious pushers and defenders of fringe POV don't last long here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should cease with the personal derogatory comments about an editor here!? (Do you know the purpose of article Talks? Do you know about commenting on content, not editors? Do you need the Teahouse?) You can take your derogatory, patronizing, and baiting personal commentary and just piss off.

You introduce your long post with "part of the problem here" on March 14, but there hasn't been any problem since this edit on March 12. (The Pigasus material was relocated out of the Burzynski sec then--the only problem and sole reason I opened this thread--and has remained out since then. But that didn't stop you from finding a soapbox to climb on to lecture, berate, accuse, defame, and condescend, did it!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Media sources

In addition to the Panorama documentary, one episode of BBC's famous Great Ormond Street documentary series has doctors talking about Burzynski therapies in negative terms. Might be worth including. kashmiri ^TALK 12:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any content from the source or are we supposed to just guess what it said? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"We", that is pluralis majestatis, Your Majesty? kashmiri ^TALK 19:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Word "customers" → "patients"

User Alexbrn reverted me for changing "some of the clinic's customers say they have been helped" → "some of the clinic's patients say they have been helped". (Duh. When you buy at Walmart you're a "customer"; when you hire an attorney you're a "client"; when you receive treatment at a medical facility you're a "patient". So what kind of knee-jerk & biased basis reaction to revert me?? [Not only that, but the article already contains at least 19 uses of word "patient" to refer to people treated at the clinic. The only occurences of word "customer" are in the Pigasus item listed under 'Media and awards' sec {which I don't intend to change}.] Here's an idea ... WHY DON'T YOU FUCKING GET OFF MY BACK??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Customers" is better. MOS:MED has a downer on the word "patients" and since it's in doubt whether these folk are being really treated (though they are being charged for sure) the term is a good one. Angry edit-warring is not the answer. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. My first instinct would be to use "patients" but Alex raises a valid point with respect MOS:MED. What I can't condone is all-caps profanity-laced bellowing about a simple editorial style issue. It's hostile and disruptive. Cool it please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's no biggie; I'll not scale the Reichstag for "customers". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A few words of clarification

Another edit war.

Let me state a few points that I believe are cardinal to safeguarding this article's neutrality and should be respected by all editors. Thank you to comment on them.

Efficacy of antineoplastons is unproven.

No study confirmed their efficacy (despite Burzynski's claims). But no study proved that they are not effective. To have any meaningful conclusion on efficacy, a controlled phase 3 study is necessary according to FDA/EMA guidelines. Which has not been properly done in any of the cancers Burzynski claims to study.

Until such a study is conducted and has published results, efficacy of antineoplastons should neither be described as "fringe theory" nor as "cancer treatment/therapy".

Especially, this is not a therapy, and no reader should have impression that this has anything to do with treating cancer. These are chemical compounds / compositions that are given experimentally to relatively small numbers of patients; additionally, with debatable clinical oversight. However, they are not a "theory": this is how a large number of approved drugs start - by experimental dosage in patients.

Burzynski's "clinical trials" deserve criticism - both as regards their design and enrolment criteria - but based on WP:MEDRS and not on personal blogs, opinion pieces, quackwatches, etc. Not even on letters published in medical journals. Letters do not comply with MEDRS.

The fact that patients are expected to pay for their participation deserves strong criticism. This seems to violate international standards of conduct in clinical trails which in some countries (but not in the US) are mandated by law.

FDA issues on average two warning letters every single day. The letter re. Burzynski does of course merit mention, but care needs to be taken not to give it undue weight. Unless, of course, you plan to elaborate on all the dozens of FDA warning letters issued to AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, etc., in their respective articles.

kashmiri ^TALK 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the bulk of your opinions but there's no point arguing about abstractions. Make specific suggestions about specific text instead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

My idea was to agree on the key points, or ways of presenting facts, in the article first. Otherwise, it will be constant POV pushing between defenders and opponents of Burzynski. Can you be more specific what you disagree with? kashmiri ^TALK 10:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree w/ Kashmiri, especially the decrepit state of this article using blog references, where I've found opinion pieces referring to Burzynski as "the piss-peddling doctor", and statements like "I don't know about him but if he had a cancer cure he'd already have won the Nobel Peace prize so certainly he must be a quack", and other wonderous examples of higher education on display. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"But no study proved that they are not effective." Eh? It's in the article. Independent scientists saw it didn't work: [3] (and no you don't continue to a phase 3 study when all your initial group a ll die because that would be absolutely insane). It's depressing when people don't read the article and blab away as if their ignorant opinion matters a damn. Second Quantization (talk)

No, what you linked is not a study or a metastudy but a review of existing studies which does not, in itself, disprove anything. And yes, you do continue with later phases irrespective whether phase-1 patients survived or not. Efficacy is never an endpoint in phase-1 studies. kashmiri ^TALK 08:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Did you even read it before you replied? They stopped the trial because everyone died. What part of that do you not get? Second Quantization (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS says such review articles are among the best sources we can use for content here, of course. (Tellingly you described it as a mere "personal essay" at first[4], apparently putting POV before fact-checking, and not for the first time here). Far from giving a "few words of clarification" your contribution is of no value to article improvement, and is borderline disruptive ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a valid source of information about the outcome of Burzynski's phase II study. But you present it as a "definitive proof of independent scientists that antineoplastons don't work" which is not there in the text. Dr Vickers did not review the design, methodology, patient selection, endpoints, blinding, etc, to question Burzynski's study. Only, he reported that it had negative outcomes. I can quote you a number of phase-III studies where all patients died and still big pharma is going ahead with further trials of the same compound for the same condition. Believe me, that happens and a failure of a single study is not always a proof of drug's inefficacy. kashmiri ^TALK 09:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake corrected moments later - I expected an "independent research" of the topics, as you suggested, whereas the author focuses on linguistic matters. kashmiri ^TALK 09:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr Vickers did not review the design, methodology, patient selection, endpoints, blinding, etc, to question Burzynski's study.

He did not review Burzynski's studies because they are "of a rather unclear design". Since Vickers is a research methodologist at MSKCC, I think he is more than qualified to make this judgement.

No, he did not review any studies he mentioned because his article is not a metastudy. Doubtless he would be perfectly qualified to make such a metastudy, but it's not there in this article.

Only, he reported that it had negative outcomes

He did not just report negative outcomes; he also pointed out that all patients died before the study concluded. Is that not a good reason to end all all future trials before more lives are lost?

No, unless patients die because of the study. FDA guidance is clear. Studies in a lot of terminal conditions risk that many patients won't live through the trial.

I can quote you a number of phase-III studies where all patients died and still big pharma is going ahead with further trials of the same compound for the same condition.

Which trials are these? I do not remember any single trial mentioned in Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma where all patients died and future trials were still allowed. I think that is unheard of in the whole of medicine.

Not read that book, it's not "bad pharma" anyway. Valproic acid was studied in SMA1 babies[5], shown ineffective, babies are likely all dead by now (that's what SMA1 is...) but further studies are underway[6]. Drisapersen recently failed a phase-3 study in DMD, where patients won't live but a few months longer, but further trials are on the books. Plenty of examples like this.

The valproic acid study you linked to was (a) not a phase III study (it was phase I/II) and (b) did not report any results, let alone that it was ineffective or that all the subjects died. Even when straying off-topic, your examples are erroneous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

-A1candidate 10:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

- kashmiri ^TALK 11:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you OK A1c? An accurate observation, and realistic conclusion? This isn't like you at all. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Watch out, Alexbrn might ban you for non-TPG-compliant remarks ;) kashmiri ^TALK 11:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's just say I was right to hat the section as "not going anywhere". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is only starting, don't kill babies. The page is watched by 138 watchers, should wait a couple of days to see where it goes! I am rather worried that the article itself is going nowhere when an editor removes all mention of international film awards but writes long paragraphs about some sort of annual "award" by a comic, only because it's negative of the article subject. That's what I try to discuss here. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 12:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sour grapes much? The mention of the film awards was removed as dictated by WP:BLP because no sources had been provided. Someone subsequently came up with sources to support the addition, and now the awards are mentioned in the article. See how easy the process works? An award given to Burzynski himself from the James Randi Educational Foundation is more relevant than an award given to a movie about Burzynski by attendees at an obscure Polish film festival. Not sure why you'd complain so loudly about one and avidly support the other. Simply looks like POV pushing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:

With Burzynski's treatment for glioma, median survival is no longer than duration of the trial and two-year survival rate is zero percent because all subjects died.

With standard treatment, median survival for adults with an anaplastic astrocytoma is 2-3 years and for adults with more aggressive glioblastoma, treated with concurrent temozolamide and radiation therapy, median survival is about 14.6 months and two-year survival is 30%. [7]

Do you see the difference?

-A1candidate 12:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@A1c. Two reasonable comments in just over an hour! May I recommend a homeopath? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@A1candidate:. What about comparing glioma to glioma and not glioma to anaplastic astrocytoma? Because now you are comparing apples to oranges... kashmiri ^TALK 12:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the proper conclusion of the study is: "The drug did not work in the studied population". You can sometimes (esp. after ph-3 trial) extend it to "the drug is likely not effective in all patients with a similar condition". However, you cannot say that "the drug does not treat any condition whatsoever". Just two weeks ago I was at a research meeting where one of most famous neurologists in the world commented on a clinical trial in a rare disease, complaining that studying a few hundred of patients is not actually a strong proof to a drug's efficacy. To be sure, according to him one would need to study "thousands". And you, here, in this article, argue that a drug is not effective because it failed a study with TWELVE participants... kashmiri ^TALK 12:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

e/c Do your homework Kashmiri. Also, it would help if you didn't fisk comments here, as it makes them unreadable. Please refrain from doing it again. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:Kashmiri, please don't using fisking in the manner you have done above. You have placed comments in the middle of another editor's comment(s), making it hard to follow who said what. We don't do that, so please fix it. --

i've been reviewing the article and is sourcing... seems ok now and i see no concrete proposal from kashmiri. will be happy to provide feedback if some proposal is made. any claims about efficacy need to complete with WP:MEDREV - must be secondary - reviews or statements by major medical/scientific bodies, as they are now. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

'See also' item name

Rhode Island Red reverted me twice after I changed 'See also' item from List of ineffective cancer treatments--a REDIRECT name--to its article name Alternative cancer treatments. The editsum arguments Red has given to revert are: "reason for previosuly changing this not clear" (after I'd made it clear via "how about the actual article name instead of a cherry-picked biased REDIRECT !?"; in other words, the REDIRECT name is an innuendo & conclusion handed to the reader but isn't supported by the article), and "antineoplastons are specifically listed among the list of ineffective treatments" (an invalid argument since this is using Wikipedia as a WP:reliable source; the Burzynski topic placed under that secname at that article is a separate issue; the debate for that belongs at that article's Talk, not this one).

In addition, the article body states "Antineoplaston is a name coined by Burzynski for a group of peptides, peptide derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment." (Red, if you feel so confident in your reverts of my change, then how about you showing your confidence equally by changing that text to: "Antineoplaston is a name coined by Burzynski for a group of peptides, peptide derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an ineffective cancer treatment."??

That said, since the article is already wlink'd perhaps the 'See also' item is redundant and not needed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:ALSO states that the "'see also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body", and since the article body already includes a hyperlink to alternative cancer treatments, it should not be added again to the "see also" section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the guideline that was why I suggested possibly removing the item. (Looks like we agree; I'll remove it now ...) Ok, IHTS (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple support issues w/ article assertion Burzynski "markets antineoplastons as 'personalized gene-targeted therapy'"

The article states: "Since 2011, the clinic has marketed antineoplastons as 'personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy' which stirred further controversy as the treatment bears no relationship to gene-targeted therapy and only superficially incorporates elements of personalized medicine" with supporting ref of an article by Gorski dated Dec 5, 2011.

First, how can an article dated Dec 5, 2011 be supportive of a statement about what has occurred "since 2011"?? Second, the statement is the final statement in its section, implying that Burzynski currently "markets antineoplastons as 'personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy'". Where is the supporting ref for that implied assertion? (There is nothing stating that on the Burzynski Clinic website, on which Gorski's article is partly based. Gorski states the website asserts as much, but, it certainly doesn't today. Gorski also bases his article partly on a telephone interview with a Clinic representative, who is quoted in Gorski's article, but again, there is nothing the representative said which supports this contention in the article. On the Burzynski Clinic website, and in the interview with the rep, FDA-approved gene-targeted drugs are referred to, as complementary treatments offered in conjunction with other Clinic treatments for patients receiving prescribed plans tailored to their personal needs, but no assertion of "personalized gene-targeted" in relation to antineoplastons, like the article asserts, is found anywhere.) Third, Gorski gives disclaimer to his article that it expresses only his opinions. Those opinions are based on several assumptions he names in the article and surmizine what he could from the Clinic website at that time, and his telephone intereview with a Clinic rep.

The article shouldn't be making an assertion that is 1) not supported by the ref due to respective dates, 2) has no current ref, 3) an opinion based on several confessed assumptions by the ref author, and 4) a personal opinion of one M.D. IHTS (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I addressed this, in this dif Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Refocusing on the dispute

This is the edit that is causing all the agita. Could someone briefly describe the issues with that content in a dispassionate way? Could someone briefly justify the content in a dispassionate way? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hipocrite. I opened the Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#Blaskiewicz section above to try to get IHTS to articulate the issues clearly and he is already complaining there that he is being asked to repeat himself. But I am making a little progress... i don't think this additional section is helpful at this point. It will be, in a bit, if IHTS continues to talk above. i am about halfway there, i think. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I declared that section shitty when it devolved into worthless personal attacks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

i hear you on that.Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Issues

Justification

S. R. Burzynski at Library of Congress and WorldCat

Primarily concerning section 1 Stanislaw Burzynski:

S. R. Burzynski at Library of Congress, with 0 library catalog records (that is, "Browse this term in ... the LC Online Catalog" generates 0 hits)
Works by or about S. R. Burzynski in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

--P64 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry what do you want to do with that?Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors of this page may be able to improve it by using such authoritative information. Library of Congress either holds no books by S.R. Burzynski, yet, or its online catalog is incomplete or makes some linkage or search error. (Note. I didn't find anything at all for "Stanislaw Burzynski"). WorldCat provides bibliographic data from other libraries for works about or by Burzynski.

If the page were not protected I would have done the minimum only: add those External links without visiting this talk page. --P64 (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think to check for Stanislaw at WorldCat. Here he is, all Polish language and not useful to us here, right? FWIW i infer this mixes the correct Stanislaw with one who translated H. Rider Haggard from English to Polish. [8] (redirect from http://worldcat.org/identities/np-burzynski,%20stanislaw/). --P64 (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Blaskiewicz

Ihardlythinkso please explain why you are making this deletion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh? (Unlike most of the editors reverting me on this article, I try to include substantive rationale in my editsums. [Can't you read the editsum? Additional ratoinale is explained in the WP:RPP Talk sec above.])

While were're taking a break, to whom it may concern, how about we 1) stop w/ the ad hominem personal attacks, 2) stop w/ the knee-jerk reversions & reversions w/o substantive rationale, 3) stop w/ the trolling at my user Talk (threats & aggressive templating), 4) stop w/ the absurd Notice Board filings, 5) stop w/ the blatant bias (gee didn't an editor instruct me that Burzynski treatments were "crap"!?; is that editor committed to a neutral presentation for this article, huh?!). IHTS (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

for myself, i find the emotion in your edit notes and comments to be unhelpful. e.g "not biased much?? then why have editor(s) cherry picked only negative comments from this review which ended with this conclusion about the film??)" and "if the five documentary film awards won can't stay in the article, then these negative critical reviews must go as well (bias much??))". If you could limit your arguments to ones based on PAG, it would be helpful.Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

that said, your original edit note when you deleted this, was (although there may be an earlier one) "no source for this (other than the primary newsletter source itself); "chronicled" is more weasel; an extremist newsletter; & irony of accusing Burzynski of defamation while complaining of outstanding legal threats!)"

the only PAG based arguments there that I can see for deleting, is that:

you are claiming that this is a WP:PRIMARY source

(The word choice of "chronicled" could just be handled by copyediting; I am not sure what policy or guideline your claim that the nature of the source is "extremist" would fall under; and the stuff about "irony" seems to have no basis in PAG)

so, would you please clarify the basis in PAG for deleting the content? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered, but you continue asking the same thing. Once again, I'd confused the Gorski ref w/ the Blaskeiwicz ref. (Thus my comment re use of primary source, was intended to apply to Gorski, not Blaskeiwicz. However my use of "primary" then wasn't right either - I should have written "unreliable" - because that ref is Gorski quoting Gorski, filled with assumptions, no peer or editorial review [besides being out of date, and not supporting the contention made].) We seem to agree "chronicled" is weasel, and I still think it is irony to ref Blaskeiwicz accusing Burzynski of holding legal threat over others at same time accusing that he has engaged in defamation, but those are not the reasons I deleted that text. (I've already explained here on Talk, at ~~WP:PPN~~ WP:RPP, at WP:ANEW, and in editsum ("this text doesn't contribute to its article sec, and contains unsubstantiated claims of wrong of wrong-doing"). (So what the hell more do you want from me, and why do you keep repeating the same Q??) IHTS (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso, a lot of these problems may come down to bad communication, your failures to understand policy (we are allowed to include properly sourced biased content and biased POV), and your constant assumptions of bad faith, as evidenced in your opening comment in this thread.

Your labeling of Skeptical Inquirer as "an extremist newsletter" is really off the wall. It's a notable magazine you can buy anywhere. Try Barnes and Nobel. It's a very RS for skeptical opinions. Warning you on your talk page in the standard manner about your edit warring is not "trolling/harassment". It's a good faith attempt to keep you from getting blocked for edit warring. Your refusal to accept it in the intended spirit was another example of failing to assume good faith. You should have said "thanks for the warning" and left the warning in place. Hiding it and other warnings only makes you look devious. You seem to be trying to right great wrongs here, as evidenced by your persistent warring with multiple editors. That's battlefield, POV pushing, whitewashing, behavior.

Jytdog is right in many ways. Your arguments are not based on our PAG, but reveal that a strong bias is driving your editing, which is why I have called it whitewashing. It really is so blatant that most of your edits should be reverted on sight, per BRD, and you be required to discuss and reach a consensus before trying again.

That you consider Skeptical Inquirer "extremist" reveals that your personal POV is at the opposite end of the spectrum (the pro-fringe, pro-quackery end), and not even close to center. That makes it hard for you to allow anything negative in the article, and therefore you are getting resistance from many editors who know that negative content, if properly sourced, is allowed. In this case the mainstream RS are unanimous in condemning Burzynski, and that POV will be evident here. You are fighting against a consensus, and that's not good. It's classic tendentious editing.

Furthermore, with a fringe subject like this, WP:PARITY applies and allows the use of blogs and websites by experts, some of which might otherwise not be allowed in other subject areas. That's the nature of fringe subjects. Mainstream research, newspapers, and magazines tend to ignore quacks, but scientific skeptics, quackbusters, and other consumer protection advocates, write about them, and the voices of these authors must be allowed, otherwise we fail Wikipedia's mission to document the sum total of human knowledge, which includes such opinions.

You need to realize that we won't allow you to turn this into a hagiography and sales brochure for Burzynski, so stick to minor copy edits and typo corrections. You're good at that. Otherwise your edit warring and constant removal of properly sourced content is going to get you blocked. There is no need for that. You can do much good elsewhere, but here your editing is not good. Find some neutral subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, put a sock in it. I don't need your mommying/patronizing lectures, and your BS "guidance" laced with continual insults and threats makes me forced to tell you to go jump and stop addressing me. Re the Skeptical Inquirer, if you had been paying attention at all you would have seen that was a simple oversight by me (confusing the Gorski source w/ the Blaskeiwicz source), so your bitching at me on the point is misguided. You can take your accusations and insults and theats and inability to look in the mirror and go jump. I have read lots on your user page and have found binary black & white attitudes ("right versus wrong") two-dimensional and shallow, plus your own statements and cherished quotes with loads of hypocrisy. You have no business lecturing me, so kindly terminate your BS and leave me be. IHTS (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

IHTS, OK, here is what I understand so far:

you say there is a BLP violation, because of "unsubstantiated claims of wrong of wrong-doing".

I don't know what section you discussed this content/sourcing in here, nor what you mean when you write "at WP:PPN". What is that? I also don't know what you mean by "this text doesn't contribute to its article sec". I am repeating the question because I am trying to understand your objections and the basis you find for them in PAG. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, you corrected above, to point to RPP. your comments there were also focused on what you see as a BLP issue. So that just leaves the "doesn't contribute to its article sec" objection. I don't know what that means. WIll you elaborate on that, or is your objection just based on BLP? Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso would you please clarify (concisely) - is your objection to the Blaskeiwicz based on BLP alone? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jaffe's book removed

With all the edit warring I have no idea if something was decided about the lawyer's book. Jaffe is not in the article because... ? Sgerbic (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the justification was to replace the entire section with one secondary source with this edit. The previous excerpt from Jaffe's book would definitely be helpful with regard to the clinical trials that have taken place, rather than only quoting the NCI about Phase III trials specifically. Nmillerche (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

MSKCC page updated

I think this update is recent. [9]. I don't think it changes anything - "Bottom Line: There is no evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans" - ut it may be worth reviewing to see if any change tot he article is merited. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is indeed a reliable source of medical information, especially for overviews of cancer treatments - it has a comprehensive website covering numerous forms of conventional and alternative treatments, and the pages are written and reviewed by experts in the field. It is a secondary source, and a highly trustworthy one. If MEDRS does not accurately reflect the validity of pages such as this and its parallels at other internationally renowned specialist centres then MEDRS is is urgent need of revision back to the point where it does include them. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

nope, not a major medical or scientific body. folks often want to use sites like the Mayo Clinic or MSKCC (like this for example) for health-related content and those sites are very, very uneven. I steer clear of them and recommend that you do too. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

They are, however, major academic centres of international reputation, so while you may well prefer not to include them, they are nonetheless entirely valid. The MSKCC page on laetrile is not a bad summary, though admittedly vulnerable to quote-mining by quackery shills (as any nuanced scientific treatment of the subject will inevitably be). There are plenty of specialist academic medical centres that are excellent sources of information on often very specific treatments, with more detailed information than is available on other sites. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

it comes up from time to time. see the following discussions from the talk page of MEDRS:

from Nov 2014
from March 2013 (note the POV of folks pushing to use sites like Mayo, which will be familiar to you)
from April 2012
way back in 2008

the consensus in those discussions is generally not to use sites like Mayo or MSKCC, as they are uneven. as you and i have discussed before, i tend to toe a consistent line, so that i bring the same principles every where I go and that has served me well; I understand that you are more situational and that has served you well. I won't revert if you choose to use it here, as this instance seems OK, but it is not what i would do. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Awards" for films about the clinic

I do not think that the recent addition of material about awards for a documentary about the clinic to the the "Media" section is appropriate for this article for several reasons. 1) This is not the the Wikipedia article about the movie, it is about the clinic. A long list of awards is not appropriate here. 2) Most of the awards seem to be of non-notable sources (small local film festivals, now defunct cable channel, etc). 3) The long quote from New Times, appears to be arguing for the treatment rather than being used as a discussion about the documentary. I think this material needs to go. Yobol (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

good call. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The awards are positive responses about the movie. If your logic is "This is not the the Wikipedia article about the movie, it is about the clinic.", then the negative responses to the movie s/b removed as well. You can't have it both ways. p.s. The cable channel existed at the time the movie was released. The fact it doesn't exist now doesn't invalidate the award it gave. IHTS (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it was WP:UNDUE Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A key difference that bears highlighting is that the "negative responses" to the movie actually contained commentary about tangible issues related to the film and to Burzynski. The same can't be said for the "positive responses", which weren't even responses per se, but rather essentially nothing more than handing a certificate to the film-maker, who's not the subject of the bio. They say nothing substantial about the film or about Burzynski. Sources that actually critique the film provide some useful perspectives because they talk about the content and speak to whether the film met the sniff test for documentary quality (objectivity, balance, etc.). Awards don't do that; they say nothing more than that some people liked the film for reasons that aren't specified . If some secondary source discussed the awards, and provided some additional context, I would be much more inclined to favor their inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. The awards are from juries who took the film at face value, whereas the reviews show that it should not be taken at face value. Guy (Help!) 05:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the comment about amount of text I added. The reason is simple: I was the one who merged three articles into one. It would be astonishing if this did not result in my being the largest single contributor by bytes added. And if you want to see real opposition to Burzynski, I suggest you read the FDA inspection reports. I think the jury's out: he may have a valid treatment for some cancers and just be unwilling to share the money and fame, or he may be a charlatan. Time will tell (arguably it already has, but I think not just yet). Guy (Help!) 22:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Redundant and confusing quote marks in lead: "trials"

When you put the word trials in quotes as in the sentence in the lead:

[...] the costs for cancer sufferers participating in "trials" of antineoplastons, problems with the way these trials are run, and [...]

it implies "they really were not trials". But there is nothing in the body that asserts that, or that puts the word in quotes. So why is the lead doing this on it's own? The criticism of the trials as presented in the article body is re the way the trials were conducted, and that is already made clear in the above sentence portion, making the quotes in addition redundant to the sentence, or confusing if one assumes there is no redundancy. The solution is to remove the quotes around the word. If not then please explain why not instead of just reverting. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This text occurs in the article: "The compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered as part of clinical trials at the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute." For consistency, if quotes are used in the lede, shouldn't quotes follow in the body, thus?:

The compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered as part of clinical "trials" at the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute.

(If not, there is a consistency-of-expression problem. [I'm wrong?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this question at the time. Burzynski's own lawyer states that the trials are a sham, and the FDA documents showing destruction of the original records for many of the patients means that they are unpublishable, so it is reasonable to characterise them as what they are, as admitted by his lawyer at trial: an artifice to allow him to carry on business as usual after the consent decree. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Reinsert data removed in a recent edit

The following section should go back in:

Since the mid-1990s, Burzynski registered some sixty clinical trials of antineoplastons and, in December 2010, a Phase III trial which did not open for patient recruitment.<ref name=Phase3>{{cite web|title=A Randomized Study of Antineoplaston Therapy vs. Temozolomide in Subjects With Recurrent and/or Progressive Optic Pathway Glioma (ID:NCT01260103)|url=http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01260103?term=antineoplaston&phase=2&rank=1|publisher=[[Clinicaltrials.gov]]|accessdate=November 19, 2012}}</ref> None of the trials have published results, and all were paused (no new patients allowed) following a 2013 FDA inspections which found (for the third consecutive time) significant issues with his Institutional Review Board, and, according to papers published in November 2013, substantial issues with the conduct of both the clinic and Burzynski as principal investigator.<ref name = "USA Today" >{{cite news|last=Szabo|first=Liz|title=Doctor accused of selling false hope to families|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/|accessdate=November 15, 2013|work=USA Today|date=November 15, 2013}}</ref>

This is supported by a secondary source and is sufficiently striking that it merits inclusion - 61 trials registered for zero completed and published is an extraordinary record for a medical research center, I cannot find any parallels for this.

Also I'd argue that the following is vital context for this:

{{quotation|[...] Burzynski personally put together seventy-two protocols to treat every type of cancer the clinic had treated and everything Burzynski wanted to treat in the future. [...] We heard that the FDA had to put together a fifty-person task force to review all of the protocols Burzynski submitted.<ref name="Jaffe">{{cite book|last=Jaffe|first=Richard|title=Galileo's Lawyer: Courtroom Battles in Alternative Health, Complementary Medicine and Experimental Treatments|year=2008|publisher=Thumbs UP|location=Houston, TX|isbn=978-0980118308|page=107}}</ref>}}

Burzynski's own lawyer admitted in a book that the trials were a fiction. That is also pretty much unprecedented, as far as I can tell. The use of the "Galileo gambit" is interesting too. As Bob Park pointed out, It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe i removed the first sentence in the first section you quote. The source does not support the content, and clinicaltrials.gov is really a primary source. The rest of it is OK with me. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

USA Today definitely does support the problems with the clinical trials (including the partial hold and the unreported adverse events). There's also follow-up here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/burzynski-trial-reopens/11353085/ and here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/new-charges-for-burzynski/13111483/. The figure of 60 is IMO legitimate to take from the primary source as the number is alluded to in the Jaffe book, but in any case it's not an issue because http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/ mentions it directly as does http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure/ which explicitly notes the status of all the trials. So how about:

Since the mid-1990s, Burzynski registered some sixty clinical trials of antineoplastons and, in December 2010, a Phase III trial which did not open for patient recruitment. Burzynski has not published full results for any of these.<ref>[http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure/ Four decades of an unproven cancer cure], David Gorski, Skeptical Inquirer vol 38.2, April 2014, Center for Inquiry</ref><ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/ A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics], Peter Lipson, Forbes, 2013-19-04</ref> According to his lawyer, Richard Jaffe:

{{quotation|[...] Burzynski personally put together seventy-two protocols to treat every type of cancer the clinic had treated and everything Burzynski wanted to treat in the future. [...] We heard that the FDA had to put together a fifty-person task force to review all of the protocols Burzynski submitted.<ref name="Jaffe">{{cite book|last=Jaffe|first=Richard|title=Galileo's Lawyer: Courtroom Battles in Alternative Health, Complementary Medicine and Experimental Treatments|year=2008|publisher=Thumbs UP|location=Houston, TX|isbn=978-0980118308|page=107}}</ref>}}

All trials were paused (no new patients allowed) following a 2013 FDA inspections which found (for the third consecutive time) significant issues with his Institutional Review Board, and, according to papers published in November 2013, substantial issues with the conduct of both the clinic and Burzynski as principal investigator.<ref name = "USA Today" >{{cite news|last=Szabo|first=Liz|title=Doctor accused of selling false hope to families|url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/|accessdate=November 15, 2013|work=USA Today|date=November 15, 2013}}</ref>

How's that? Guy (Help!) 20:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A high-quality primary source with relevant quotations for clinical trials, along with summary with secondary source support. Nicely done, support its inclusion. Nmillerche (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

i am good with the use of USAToday sourcing you bring. great work! Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised that the part about Jaffe saying that the trials were an "artifice" was struck. That would seem to me to be perhaps one of the most important elements for people to understand, that there was, according to B's own lawyer, there was no chance of meaningful data coming out of it. That's just crucial. I would suggest that you restore that part in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.72.51 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on this talk page!

I can't believe it. You guys are behaving worse than I normally do! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what Talk pages are for? (Apparently not.) IHTS (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Do you? (Apparently not) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The TP is for improving the article. Not for improving itself. (Duh.) IHTS (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)