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 Wikipedia? 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

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.

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.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism Mid‑importance 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in Texas may be able to help!

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jack Hitt (February 26, 2019). "Inside the Secret Sting Operations to Expose Celebrity Psychics". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved January 29, 2020. Collectively, the group, which has swelled to 144 members, has researched, written or revised almost 900 Wikipedia pages. ... they have provided facts about the Burzynski Clinic, a theoretical treatment for cancer operating out of Houston.

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

A 2015 study from Ogata et al. titled "Randomized Phase II Study of 5-Fluorouracil Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as an Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer" ( https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120064) records that in an open label, non-blinded but randomized phase II study cancer specific survival rate (CSS) was significantly higher in the antineoplaston arm vs. the control (i.e. non-antineoplaston) arm. This study had 65 patients enrolled, with 33 of those in the control group not receiving antineoplaston therapy, and 32 receiving the treatment. Median survival in the antineoplaston group, was, in fact, 67 months vs. 39 months, with a CSS of 60% and 32%, respectively. Furthermore, there were no incidental serious toxicities or apparent liver or kidney damage. Now, I demand an answer on moral grounds: Why is this study not mentioned in this article? I hold a biochemistry degree and a master's degree in medical science and would like to know why this isn't mentioned in the article.

Additionally, Ushijima et al. in the journal Oncology Reports published an article called "Demethylation effect of the antineoplaston AS2-1 on genes in colon cancer cells" ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868501/) which clearly reports epigenetic changes in colon cancer cells, changes which are very likely to suppress cancer development and progression using the body's natural tumor suppression system. This work from these researchers is highly suggestive, just as Dr. Burzynski has stated in on-the-record interviews, that epigenetic modulations in response to the presence of antineoplastons are, in whole or in part, how they fight cancer.

While this is not absolute proof of antineoplaston therapy's efficacy, it is extremely favorable evidence and analysis, and I would just like to know how anybody could look at these studies and act as if the whole antineoplaston therapy question should just be dismissed as quackery.

Wikipedia - in fact, anybody - I ask you: why is none of this mentioned in the article on the topic? In fact, why are the staff at Wikipedia not seriously disturbed at the lack of research into this topic? How could anybody look at these studies and not demand further investigation? 2600:1700:407B:2810:153:D9CA:A5FC:2ECC ( talk) 03:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Read WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. We wait until there are favorable secondary sources that collect primary ones. That is also how competent scientists judge those things. Accepting primary studies at face value is naive and amateurish. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your reply.

1. Who said anybody should "just accept" this or that study "at face value"? - nobody, that's who. The point I made is that this is an example of a professional, independent, peer-reviewed clinical trial which produced results that unambiguously suggest that antineoplastons have clinical efficacy. Yes - duh, obviously - it could be a fluke - it's just that, without evidence to the contrary it is unlikely to be a fluke. Does such evidence exist, or not? No clinician in their right mind would say that "this single study means we need to start giving patients antineoplastons right away!" ...but no objective clinician could possibly look at that study and honestly say that this doesn't warrant interest. Given the history of the field any physician or researcher would be PERFECTLY within their rights to look at that study and say "meh, I'll bet it's a fluke - happens all the time," but that sort of reply is not science. Only follow-up studies that demonstrate no replication of effect WOULD be evidence. A study like that warrants follow up, and that's a plain fact. To ignore it wholesale in an article which is designed precisely to deal with the very controversy of the efficacy of the drugs is NOT objective or neutral.

2. Wikipedia's own policy (the one you linked me to) on Primary Sources (from "Reliable sources") states:

=======

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

=======

And here [from "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)"]:

=======

Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors

=======

Mentioning the results of the aforementioned 2015 Ogata et al. study clearly would not violate the explicit, stated policy, and in fact would do wonders for the objectivity of the article.

3. This article currently says verbatim that "there is no clinical evidence of the efficacy of these [Burzynski's] methods." The authors throughout the Wiki article were very careful to be objective and only report the opinions of institutes and bodies that stated that antineoplastons were not effective, instead of making categorical statements of fact or categorically characterizing the entire extent field of evidence as one way or the other. That is objectivity. However, in the aforementioned statement, this standard was dropped and the article makes a categorical statement which is, in fact, false, because the 2015 Ogata et al. study is an exact contradiction to the statement.

4. I have no serious academic interest, economic incentive or personal conflict on this matter at all. I just care about objectivity and have an interest in healthcare. Surely you're a clinician or scientist of some kind (I would hope) - what exactly IS your view on the 2015 Ogata et al. study? Do you think it was a fluke?

I apologize for the length of my reply. 2600:1700:407B:2810:6015:D9D0:4A7D:D0AE ( talk) 16:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I have an idea of Hobs opinion, but instead I'm going to give you mine. For us encyclopedia editors, Ogata et al is entirely unimportant, because of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. - Roxy the dog 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Uncannily accurate. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Let me explain. When summarising the 2015 Japanese study, you quoted raw survival data. This means that you've disregarded the existence of confounders and, essentially, the entire statistical model. However, the study conclusion reads: "Overall survival was not statistically improved (p=0.105) in the AN arm (n=32). RFS was not significant (p=0.343)." As you may know, the p-value indicates, in lay terms, to what extent the observed outcome can be credited to the studied intervention. Commonly, statistical models require p not to exceed 0.05 for the results to be considered statistically significant.

Here in this study, p was significantly higher, which essentially means that the observed outcome (e.g., difference in survival) has not been solely due to the intervention (antineoplaston therapy), since other factors have influenced it more strongly.

To but it bluntly, the study offers some evidence that antineoplastons are not effective in the studied dose for this type of cancer (although, being an open-label study, its evidence value is anyway low).

If you insist on including the paper, I'm ok with summarising it along the lines: In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Your analysis is excellent, and we should definitely not include it for those reasons. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

JzG, did you read the article before proclaiming Kashmirir's analysis excellent? RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes. My personal view: Primary sources with "antineoplastons" as an adjuvant therapy for liver cancer were, and remain, irrelevant to the inflated and entirely unsupportable claims by Burzynski for use of his quackery as a magical primary therapy (in the words of his stans, a cure) for incurable brain cancers, based on nearly half a century of utterly underwhelming results and large numbers of (well documented) dead patients bilked out of vast sums of money.

My Wikipedia policy view: Wikipedia is not here to blaze the trail in promoting commercial claims where the consensus in the relavant professional community is that tsaid claims are at best nonsense, and at worst entirely fraudulent.

When all the reliable secondary sources show he's a mendacious quack, so do we. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

It was a simple yes/no question - the 2015 Japanese study - did you read it before proclaiming Kashmirir's analysis excellent or not. Yes, you say. I believe you know what a primary endpoint is, and you know that the study that you read met its primary endpoint. And yet you insist an analysis is excellent that misrepresented that primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant. That is not excellent analysis. It seems to me your preconceptions are clouding your judgement. That's the most charitable interpretation of the facts in front of me I can come up with. How do you explain it? I expected the science and data to show Burzynski's work to be without much merit. But what I'm finding so far is multiple extremely flawed criticisms based on falsehoods. One of which has already been acknowledged and fixed. RudolfoMD ( talk) 02:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

1. I'm sorry but did you not read the rest of the findings section you quoted from??! It's not even five or six sentences long! And the very next sentence directly after the one you quoted states:

Nevertheless, the CSS rate was significantly higher in the AN [antineoplaston] arm versus the control arm (n=33) with a median survival time 67 months (95%CI 43-not calculated) versus 39 months (95%CI 28-47) (p=0.037) and 5 year CSS rate 60% versus 32% respectively.

At the risk of being redundant, I will point out that the P-value is below the threshold of 0.05 you selected! Not that p = 0.05 is some "special" threshold - it's just a convention. Many researchers value a p of 0.1, some 0.05, some 0.01 - those are all not uncommon p values. Either way it doesn't matter since you chose the p of 0.05, which you must not have realized the study conclusion did in fact satisfy. Did you not read the paltry few sentences of the article summary? Or are you seriously purposefully distorting the information? (See #3 below)

2. The Wikipedia policy states: "Any text that relies on primary sources should...only describe conclusions made by the source ... Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors

Now, your suggested "summary" is a complete reversal of the conclusion the study authors reach, which is described in the single sentence - not difficult to read or see - in the "Interpretations" paragraph of the study: Antineoplastons (A10 Injection and AS2-1) might be useful as adjunctive therapy in addition to HAI after hepatectomy in colorectal metastases to the liver. To include YOUR summary of the article would be a direct violation of the Wikipedia guideline you originally invoked!

3. Perhaps most telling of all, you either didn't read the paltry few sentences of the article summary, or had more insidious designs. I'm really just quite perplexed.

(A) Your "explanation" - which this person "Guy" bizarrely praised as "excellent" - suggested that a summary of the article could be included as In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer.

Excuse me, but what...the hell? The study was not testing 5-fluorouracil! It was not the adjuvant! You obviously didn't understand the simple trial! The article was testing addition of antineoplastons TO a therapeutic HAI (Hepatic Arterial Infusion) of 5-fluorouracil - the 5-fluorouracil is not an antineoplaston and is a known chemotherapeutic for this adminstration route - which is WHY they were using it in the first place! The antineoplastons were being added as adjuvants to be tested - BOTH groups got 5-fluoruracil, ONE got the antineoplastons.

(B) You obviously didn't understand the study despite it being incredibly simple. You didn't understand what was being tested, didn't know that 5-fluorouracil was not an antineoplaston, didn't know that 5-fluorouracil via HAI was a known chemotherapeutic, and thought that the data suggested 5-fluorouracil was ineffective, when in fact it is KNOWN to be effective, and the data in fact suggested that the antineoplaston WAS effective. I mean, this is just a ridiculous misinterpretation (or something) on your part - I'm sorry.

4. While your characterization of a study on basic research as "utterly useless" regarding clinical applications is an absurd exaggeration, it's perfectly legitimate to suggest it doesn't belong in a subsection, perhaps, about clinical results of a trial of the drug. But to call such basic research "utterly useless" is mind-numbingly obtuse - you can't GET to clinical trials without some plausible mechanism or evidence buttressed by basic research. I have no problem not mentioning the known epigenetic activity of antineoplastons in a summary of clinical trials - but to say it just shouldn't be included anywhere in an article about Burzynski and his therapy on antineoplastons is asinine. It's a known effect of the drug in cancerous cell lines and you have huge portions of an article dedicated to - supposedly - objectively analyzing the efficacy, plausibility and suitability of Burzynski's therapy for cancer treatments! To dismiss it as "utterly useless" is absurd!

5. I apologize for any overtly rude-sounding aggression but I was just left gobsmacked and dumbfounded by your response. I thought the people who would be editing a Wikipedia article about a supposed quack cancer treatment would be highly qualified experts in a closely related field, if not in the field itself. Instead it seems as if you weren't even familiar with a common chemotherapeutic agent, didn't know what kind of medication it was, and were unable to understand a simple article.

6. Let me be clear: I have no intention to continuously revisit these posts over and over again, though perhaps I might if I must. I feel I have said enough that needs to be said and the record will show it here. As I said before I have NO serious dog in this fight or conflict of interest, and I even am SUSPICIOUS of Burzynski's therapy myself! 40+ years of antineoplaston existence - you would think - WOULD render something more substantial by now if the therapy is legitimate. In addition, I'm fully aware that Burzynski has registered numerous trials - even many dozens which he suspiciously hasn't published the results of - and in the long run you're bound to get flukes. This study could have been a fluke - BUT THE EVIDENCE does NOT suggest that! To fail to mention this study in the kind of article you've written is simply NOT objective analysis and below the kind of objectivity I would expect from Wikipedia, which I have donated to more than once in the past and find an invaluable source of information. The fact is sharing these kinds of controlled trial results CANNOT damage humanity - it will all be part of a record that people are entitled to know about, and to FAIL to mention it is just as bad as promoting false information.

Again I'm sorry if this sounded rude but direct confrontation of distortion and confusion can often sound rude when its sole purpose is to get closer to accurate representation of the truth. I really hope you consider this further regardless of whatever decision you make and appreciate your time. I'm sorry again for the length of my writing here but I know of no other way to be thorough and as I said before I hope I do not find myself coming back to this repeatedly since I believe the analysis is self-evident and virtually all that I needed to say has been said here, though it be lengthy. 2600:1700:407B:2810:D80F:D35D:F99E:FBCA ( talk) 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

See the second sentence of this reply to you. - Roxy the dog 05:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

many dozens which he suspiciously hasn't published the results of
—  User:2600:1700:407B:2810:D80F:D35D:F99E:FBCA 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Check these recent edits of mine. Burzynski has published a lot more results than the article lets on. Bon courage insisted on stonewalling when I tried to work with them to correct the false/outdated claim in the article that "that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results". (Though just before finishing this comment, I saw some further edits have been made - hope they are a pleasant surprise.) RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Re. the Ogata study, it's all basic research – utterly useless for an article about clinical applications. We don't even need to go into the primary vs secondary debate. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You grossly misrepresented the findings, ignoring the primary endpoint.

If you insist on including the paper, I'm ok with summarising it along the lines: In a 2015 randomised open-label study carried out in Japan, 5-fluorouracil was ineffective as an adjuvant therapy for liver metastasis resulting from colorectal cancer.
—  User:Kashmiri 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a deceptive summary. You misrepresented the primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant when it was.

You don't want to walk it back, fine.

But I'm getting a lot of pushback when I'm removing demonstrably false, defamatory information violating BLP that I stumbled upon. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

As other editors have observed, PMID:25790229 is an poor/unreliable source, and simply not usable here. Bon courage ( talk) 07:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The Findings section contained

1. "Overall survival"- not significant
2. "RFS" - not significant
3. "CSS rate" - barely significant at 3.7%
4. "Cancer recurred" - no statement about significance.

So, we have the Multiple comparisons problem - there are four outcomes, one of which is barely significant. Because of multiple comparisons, the significances need to be adapted, making the third one not significant either. But the most relevant finding is obviously the first one, overall survival. (Hint: If the treatment tends to kill the patient as well as the cancer, that is not helpful.) That is the one Kashmiri talked about, and there is nothing wrong with that. Can you please stop trying to cram cherry-picked results into the article? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Diffs showing cherry-picked results being crammed into the article? I can't stop doing what I haven't started. Back off with the personal attack, eh?

The problem is I'm getting a lot of pushback when I'm removing demonstrably false, defamatory information violating BLP that I stumbled upon.

Does MEDRS say anything about the Multiple comparisons problem? Perhaps it should.

But, does V? No. When it comes to BLP violations, wp:V is what matters. That makes it usable here, even though it's a single study. I notice no one is pushing back on this central point.

But more importantly, true or false: Cancer Specific Survival was the SOLE, PRE-selected, primary endpoint, and it DOUBLED.
True. Kind of blows apart your whole argument.

Kashmiri grossly misrepresented the sole, primary endpoint (p=0.037 for CSS) as not statistically significant when it was. Y'all are defending that.

And then K called it basic research - huh? Clinical studies are basic research now?

Regarding 3: From the article:

Nevertheless, the CSS[cancer-specific survival] rate was significantly higher in the AN arm versus the control arm (n=33) with a median survival time 67 months (95%CI 43-not calculated) versus 39 months (95%CI 28-47) (p=0.037) and 5 year CSS rate 60% versus 32% respectively.

so why do you say 3.7%? "3.7" doesn't even appear in the paper! FR!

BTW, the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sources. If I was keen to make neoplastons look better, I could cut most of the negative info out of the article based on MEDRS. How 'bout we compromise, leave all that in, and take out the false info I'm objecting to? RudolfoMD ( talk) 08:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Diffs showing cherry-picked results being crammed into the article? Aren't you trying to put what you call "Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan" into the article? It is one primary study out of many, so it is cherry-picking. Even if we regard only this study, you are cherry-picking the one significant result out of four.

Back off with the personal attack, eh? A "personal attack" is something that refers to the person instead of what the person is saying or doing. I referred to what you were saying or doing. That is not a personal attack.

Does MEDRS say anything about the Multiple comparisons problem MEDRS does not explicitly mention it, but considering it is part of good practice. If you avoid primary studies like this one, that is a good start avoiding the multiple comparisons problem.

Cancer Specific Survival was the SOLE, PRE-selected, primary endpoint Was the "PRE-selected, primary endpoint" published before the result was? I cannot find it.

why do you say 3.7%? 3.7% = 0.037.

the bulk of the shit-ton of negative info about neoplastons in the article is sourced only to non-MEDRS-compliant sources WP:PARITY say, In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You can't even find a diff showing I called anything "Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan," Hob. Or that I tried to put the article you are trying to refer to into the article. So...

Your Can you please stop trying to cram cherry-picked results into the article? when I had done nothing of the sort = false and disparaging but OK, a "not personal" attack, so you're sort of right. RudolfoMD ( talk) 13:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

"Good Evidence for Antineoplaston Efficacy from Japan" is the title of this thread. You are writing contributions to it, and I got the impression that you are supporting the IP that started the thread and trying to get that study cited by the article.

So you are not trying to get the Ogata study into the article? Then what are you trying to achieve here by talking about the study? This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a forum. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You can't even find a diff showing [...] Or that I tried to put the article you are trying to refer to into the article. So... - diff. MrOllie ( talk) 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

BLP violation

Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. It's my understanding that BLP requires removing the false claim that "other investigators have not been successful in duplicating" any of his results. We all know: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or  poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially  libellous. This is obviously poorly sourced as it is contradicted by w:V .gov sources. I've pulled it. If anyone want's to revert, I urge a visit to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as a next, pre-revert step. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Classic WP:CRYBLP. Questions of experimental replication are not biographical; you just need a reliable source saying whether the replication has happened (or not). Bon courage ( talk) 07:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

A footnote in a journal article on the Phase III trial that the wipedia article uses as a source: ^[1]

is

§ See M. R. Hammer, Burzynski antineoplaston case study: conflict issues and recommendations. Office of Alternative Medicine report, National Institutes of Health, 1996; M. Hammer, The management of dispute and judgment process in controversial complementary and alternative medicine research. Office of Alternative Medicine Report, National Institutes of Health, 1996.

Has anyone found a copy of it anywhere online? I can't with google.

The article is by Hammer and he is citing his own work ... which I can't find. Curious. Also, he doesn't put it in the References section endnote like all his other sources, but rather in a footnote. Also curious. The resulting procedures - methods of social management of research in controversial areas to allow them to proceed anyway that the reference documents haven't been employed in a subsequent second attempt. Curious as well. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

WWayne Jonas should not be cited, he's a quackery apologist (e.g. author of a number of papers promoting the entirely refuted nonsense that is homeopathy). Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Huh? I am not looking for or seeking to cite "WWayne Jonas" <sic> work in the encyclopedia. And given your recent dubious evaluation of what is "excellent", I'm less interested in what you are sharing, un-prompted and citation-free. I'm looking for M. R. Hammer's 1996 NIH publication, not Hammer and Jonas' 2004 ICT publication, which is obviously readily available at the linked source I provided - <ref name=HammerICT>. Do you have anything helpful to offer about what I'm actually expressing curiosity? RudolfoMD ( talk) 02:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You kind've are. Wayne Jonas was director of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the time. The OAM (now the NCCIH) is independent from the rest of the NIH, so you probably won't find their reports in the same places as the rest of the NIH's output. It wouldn't be usable on Wikipedia anyway. MrOllie ( talk) 02:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the info. Why wouldn't it be usable with subject matter where MEDRS doesn't apply? RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

RudolfoMD, you wrote: "I am not looking for or citing "WWayne Jonas" <sic> work." Actually you are. Jonas is one of the authors of "Managing Social Conflict in Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research: The Case of Antineoplastons". Mitchell R. Hammer, PhD, and Wayne B. Jonas, MD

So Jonas is one of the authors, and, as noted above by Guy, he also happens to be a promotor of quack medicine. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 05:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I would be amazed if you got consensus that a report from the OAM is RS even in non medical contexts, let alone for Burzynski-related stuff. The OAM was set up in the first place because Sen. Tom Harkin was a believer (specifically in antineoplastons and bee pollen therapy) and he set the office up and kept it funded to promote those treatments. The whole thing is a political exercise that has very little to do with science. MrOllie ( talk) 18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

- O'Brien RudolfoMD ( talk) 07:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3527634/ should really not be used for anything like a factual claim, as it's ABOUTSELF material - Burzynski's own self-serving statement, with no objective review, and including contentious and likely tendentious claims like "The treatment was free from significant side-effects and resulted in objective response in a number of advanced cancer cases". After half a century, there should be an independent source for this, and almost certainly would be, if it were objectively true. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The wording is a bit close, but it is a paraphrase. Rather than deleting it, suggest a reword. MrOllie ( talk) 02:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

False. It's not a paraphrase. It's bloody verbatim copying by JzG contrary to a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. WP:C / COPYRIGHT. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

It's called plagiarism. Putting it in quotes and attributing it solved the problem. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 07:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Now it's more messed up. a cancer expert and an FDA official told Reuters and Reuters said aren't the same. RudolfoMD ( talk) 04:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, perhaps you should have left well alone, then, since your clumsy attempt to fix the “problem” of reality rejecting Burzynski’s piss therapy seems to be the root cause of all this drama. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Beware Talk page vandalism removing active discussion. RudolfoMD ( talk) 06:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Now a third time. I was archiving old and inactive content and didn't notice you had left comments in some of them. Now you have restored the whole thing. I'll be more careful with the next try. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 07:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

To avoid this in the future, don't comment on such old threads. Start a new thread. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 07:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Such helpful advice. SO kind of you. RudolfoMD ( talk) 07:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

{{ BLP noticeboard}} RudolfoMD ( talk) 09:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The article is slanderous. Reliable source : Burzynski documentary. Cancer cure cover up. It’s big business. He’s not a quack. Big $ has all the power to run smeer campaigns on anyone they like. The fda & Texas medical board were so despicable & unashamedly bold in taking him down because of his non invasive EFFECTIVE treatment of cancer. There are so many testimonials court appearances protests & news reports in this 2 part documentary it’s mind blowing. Deedssky ( talk) 05:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)<Eric Merola> reply

 Not done That documentary is not a reliable source. Far from it. Bon courage ( talk) 06:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply