Talk:Burzynski Clinic/Archive 7

Request to include patent details
This "article" reads like an op-ed against Burzynski and his treatment. I would like to see inclusion of the following.

The US government has filed for (and received) patents on the very substances that it says have not proven effective in the fight against cancer. However, the US Patent Office had already granted patents to those same substances to Burzynski, long ago. Furthermore, the filings were made in conjunction with Dvorit Samid (a doctor that was previously employed by Burzynski to validate his claims) and Élan Pharmaceuticals (a company that at one time had signed an agreement with Dr. Burzynski to help him get through the FDA's bureaucratic red tape only to pull out of the agreement after they had learned what they want from him).

In US Courts, a witness is required to tell "The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth." Partial truths are usually more damaging than outright lies. I believe Wikipedia should present balanced facts, ESPECIALLY on a topic so controversial that the article is in "Full Protection" status. Andrew S. (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know you had to tell the truth in US courts. Not like the rest of the world at all then. It would be nice if we had some Clinical Trial Results to enable us to see if Stan's treatments work. He's been doing them for over thirty years - perhaps now is the time for him to publish his huge slew of positive results he keeps insisting are in, so that we can scrutinise them. That's how science works. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting Roxy, how you sidestepped the OP's point. (Is your argument, that since there are no published clinical trial results, there was no attempt to secure patents already held by Burzynski? Or that since there are no published clinical trial results, that said efforts to secure already held patents are not includable in the article?) p.s. Is this the low standard of argument-discussion we can expect from you on this page? To key off a tangent about telling the "whole truth" in court, when obviously what the OP intended was simply that the article should have a balanced/more complete presentation it currently lacks? IHTS (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * IHTS, while I do appreciate the fact that you appear to agree with me (the OP), ad hominem attacks do more harm than good. And saying, "They started it," or "They are doing it, too," does not absolve either party of the responsibility to remain civil. Andrew S. (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roxy, my quote about the oath that individuals have to take on the witness stand in US courts was not meant to imply that the US is the only country that requires such a thing. I am a US Citizen and only familiar with (some of) the specifics of US courts, so that is the only country I referenced and since this is not an article about "witness stand oath" practices, I did not see the need to research and document the wording used in other countries. BTW, I hope you will admit that your mocking retort was the first ad hominem attack, even if only slightly so. ;-)  Andrew S. (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The patent filings are really immaterial. To infer anything from them would be WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Who would be inferring? (The reader? The editor?) It stands to reason and common sense, IMO, an entity does not file patent applications for something they believe is worthless. (Or are you saying, by including the facts of patent applications for already existing patents, it is meaningless? It means the entity making application thought the patents might be worth something, or worthless?) Wikipedia is not supposed to make innuendo or conduct OR. We as editors are supposed to be thoughtful and include relevant facts about the subject. And the subject is Burzynski's treatments. And patent applications are always indicative of something seen by the applicant as worth patenting. (You disagree??) IHTS (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Dbrodbeck, the patent filings are FACTS. In your opinion, they are immaterial.  In MY opinion, they are extremely important in pointing out the duplicity of the US Government's behavior, one branch of which, the NCI, is one of the main entities, perhaps the main entity, that is trying to discredit Dr. Burzynski.  This heavily supports my claim that the article is biased against Burzynski, because many (most?) of the secondary sources cited in the article are based on the NCI's "findings."  This severely undermines the credibility of those secondary sources because the conclusions appear to be based on tainted/biased evidence/research, yet they are deemed worthy of inclusion in the article.  See my comment below about the WP:PRIMARY nature of patents. Andrew S. (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your intention to convey what you see as "the duplicity of the US Government's behavior...trying to discredit Dr. Burzynski" and to denigrate the NCI is the very essence of WP:OR, since there are no reliable sources that assert such. That's why attempting to convey these personal opinions of yours using primary references (i.e., the patent(s)) is not kosher, and the fact that they have not been included in the article is not evidence that the article is "biased against Burzynski' -- that's just more soapboxing. The reason for exclusion is clear cut and it has nothing to do with bias; its is about upholding very well delineated WP policy issues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The text that was proposed would in fact be WP:OR. It's a discussion that's not even worth having in the absence of a reliable secondary source. Patents are not a demonstration of efficacy and it doesn't matter what Burzynski thought when he filed them. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red, I never said that patent filings demonstrated efficacy, although IHTS does bring up a good point that the US PTO requires the inclusion of potential benefit, so a rational thinking person could reasonably assume that the US government believed that antineoplastons are indeed efficacious after having reviewed Burzynski's studies, even though they, through the NCI, are bent on discrediting Burzynski's treatments using the very same substances. I realize that patents are WP:PRIMARY but that policy does not prohibit their inclusion.  It says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (my emphasis)  Regarding the exact wording of my original comment, I did not necessarily intend my text to be used verbatim.  I provided the details about Dr. Samid and Élan Pharma as background/justification for mentioning the well-nigh duplicate patents (for supposedly ineffective substances) in this context. Andrew S. (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "It stands to reason and common sense, IMO, an entity does not file patent applications for something they believe is worthless."
 * WP doesn't include content based on an editor's opinion of what is commonsensical -- that's the very definition of WP:OR. It comes down to what reliable secondary sources have written about the subject. Aside from that, it's totally conceivable that someone would fie a patent application for something that doesn't work. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly about including the material the OP suggests, constitutes WP:OR, please clarify. (He suggests reporting the fact of patent application attempts for patents already held by Burzynski.) No one said patents are a demonstration of efficacy, except you, Rhode Island. That is not the standard for inclusion of the article, if it were, there is much content in the article which would need removal.) (BTW, "what Burzynski thought" is not any part of what is being discussed here. User Dbrodbeck said inclusion of the material would be "inferring" something, he did not specify what, I was only guessing what he meant, inferring the applicant thought the patents were worth obtaining, which is common sense. [In the patent applications themselves, the applicant must list potential benefit his invention represents, so that would at least support the applicant seeing the patents as something worth the effort/expense to patent.]) IHTS (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rhode Island, first, I did not suggest the material the OP suggests should be included on the basis the material was "common sense". So please don't make that argument, as I didn't do that, I was responding to the comment that inclusion of the material would be "inferring [something]". Also, your contention that patents are filed for "something that doesn't work" is absurd. (Have you ever seen a patent application? The applicant is supposed to list the advantages/benefits her/his invention imparts/conveys. [And in this specific case, of the patent applications filed for already held patents by Burzynski, the potential advantages/benefits of the antineoplaston drugs are described part & parcel to the patent application, and said description includes potential advantages of markedly reduded side-effects, compared to traditional chemo/radiation cancer treatments.]) IHTS (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a plain pattern in the argument methods being used by editors here, one of jumping on any pregnant word as the basis for outright discrediting, rather than presenting any cogent argument. (Examples: jumping on phrase "the whole truth" in US courts; jumping on expression "IMO"; jumping on phrase "common sense".) That isn't argument or discussion. Jumping on a word and shouting "See!!" seems to me to be intentional avoidance of engaging in argument/discussion. It is more consistent with WP:Disruption, than anything. No good argument has been made that the material suggested for inclusion by the OP is WP:OR, but some bad ones already have. IHTS (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur with the OP re her/his general observation re the slant of this article ("This "article" reads like an op-ed against Burzynski and his treatment."). In fact the article was so slanted when I found it, it seemed as though constructed to be as damning as possible against the subject, via selective omission & commission. (There are many examples of this, and the edit history record also shows editor activity bent on keeping the status quo.) IHTS (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IHTS, your comment was WP:SOAP. The TPG is to be used to discuss specific editorial content; not to make sweeping generalizations like "This "article" reads like an op-ed against Burzynski and his treatment." Vague non-actionable comments like that simply aren’t helpful and they border on TPG abuse. What the OP proposed for inclusion was the following specific text:
 * “The US government has filed for (and received) patents on the very substances that it says have not proven effective in the fight against cancer. However, the US Patent Office had already granted patents to those same substances to Burzynski, long ago. Furthermore, the filings were made in conjunction with Dvorit Samid (a doctor that was previously employed by Burzynski to validate his claims) and Élan Pharmaceuticals (a company that at one time had signed an agreement with Dr. Burzynski to help him get through the FDA's bureaucratic red tape only to pull out of the agreement after they had learned what they want from him).”
 * Every bit of that proposed text is WP:OR. There is no reliable secondary source that makes such a statement.
 * As for patents, I’ll reiterate – yes, they are often filed for things that don’t work. Medical use patents do this sort of thing all the time. A company can develop a drug and file medical use patent for various medical conditions that the compound has not been proven to treat and may prove ultimately to have no efficacy in treating. Such patent claims are speculative. It is a way of protecting a potential medical use in which efficacy is by no means certain or even probable. Here’s but one example: a patent for an acai berry powder that includes medical uses such as “cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, vascular disease, arthritis, ulcer, acute respiratory distress syndrome, ischemia-reperfusion injury, neurodegenerative disorders, autism, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, gastrointestinal disease, tissue injury induced by inflammation.” There is no evidence at all that acai berry powder is effective in treating any of these conditions. Do you get it now?
 * As far as the Buzynski article goes, an ANP patent would be considered WP:PRIMARY and thus not suitable for inclusion, even in the absence of the text that was proposed by the OP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) If you think the OP's comment was WP:SOAP, and border's on TPG abuse, then go tell it to her/him, not to me. (You seem to want to make me responsible for another editor's specific quote. My agreement was with her/his overall ipression re the article evincing slant. [You're going to accuse me of abusing TPG for registering my concurrence with her/him view??]) 2) I did not read the OP's suggestion the same way you did - as explicit text addition. (I read it as her/his own summary of facts that she/he felt should be included. Not as specific text to include.) I agree the final part of the OP's paragraph is WP:OR. But the remaininig facts may be able to be serviced with supporting RS refs - how do you happen to suddenly know that they cannot be?? (You state "every bit" is WP:OR, when there are multiple facts present; no monolithic RS is required for all those facts.) 3) WP:OR is about an editor's own conclusions or thoughts. What basis for claiming WP:OR?? 4) You say patents are "often filed for things that don't work", but that is a misleading thing to say. (NO ONE files a patent for something known to not work. The patent applications were filed, with description of potential advantages/benefits on the premise that the inventions therein *might* work [at the time or in the future]. And in this case the potential advantages/benefits of Burzyski's drugs were described. So what is your point at all?? [That an entity trying to usurp patent ownership from Burzynski, carries no meaning whatever and is not noteworthy for the article?? But at same time some rogue employee acting irresponsibly and threatening Rhys Morgan with legal action and sending pics of his house *does* have relevance/meaning to the article?? Just what is your point, and why are you mushing up "doesn't work" with "may have potential for efficacy at this time or in future"??]) IHTS (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) "If you think the OP's comment was WP:SOAP, and border's on TPG abuse, then go tell it to her/him, not to me".
 * I made the comment very clearly in reference to what you had most recently posted, not to what the OP said. I said specifically "IHTS, your comment was WP:SOAP" Are you playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?
 * 2) "I did not read the OP's suggestion the same way you did - as explicit text addition. (I read it as her/his own summary of facts that she/he felt should be included"
 * The OP said specifically “I would like to see inclusion of the following.” If that was not a specific proposal, then how about making a specific content proposal now? That’s the purpose of the TPG; not to have endless soapboxy philosophical debates.
 * Guilty as charged! My apologies. When I say "guilty" I mean that, after rereading my original post, it does indeed sound like I meant that my text should be used verbatim. Given that the page was (and is again) in "Full Protection" status I could not add the content myself so I thought I should include justification as to why I thought there should be a section pointing out that even though the US government, in the form of the NCI, claims that Burzynski's substances are ineffective, they still filed a patent for those same substances and patents must include some statement indicating that the substance/process/invention would provide a benefit to society. Andrew S. (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) "WP:OR is about an editor's own conclusions or thoughts. What basis for claiming WP:OR??"
 * It’s unsourced. The words and WP:SYNTH proposed by the OP are their words, not the words of a reliable secondary source, which is all we are interested in here at WP.
 * 4) "You say patents are "often filed for things that don't work", but that is a misleading thing to say…So what is your point at all??"
 * It’s not misleading at all and I showed why. It's a simple statement of fact. My point ultimately, as I have made clear already, is that patents are WP:PRIMARY and what the OP proposed for inclusion would not comply with WP policy. That being said, do you think we can now put this thread to rest? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that this thread has been malformed from the outset. The OP titled the thread "Unbalanced" and made the charge that "This "article" reads like an op-ed against Burzynski and his treatment, but then the only example they gave that allegedly supports this charge was that WP:OR about a patent wasn't included. It's clear that this cannot even remotely be construed as evidence that the article reads like an op-ed against Burzynski. The WP:TPG should be used for it's intended editorial purpose, not as a WP:FORUM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The OP made a general observation, I agreed w/ her/him, but you want to accuse me of WP:SOAP, but not the OP?! 2) The OP wasn't obligated to propose specific text, and neither was/am I. That doesn't mean the thread is useless or constitutes "endless soapboxy philosophical debates". (It seems you're trying hard to suppress any idea-discussion/generation. That's contrary to what Talk is for, Rhode.) 3) The OP wasn't obligated to source his idea for inclusion. Others can do. The OP suggested in her/his judgment something lacking that if included would improve the article. You should reserve your assessment "WP:SYNTH" for removing text from articles, not Talk page suggestions re missing content. 4) The OP did not propose including WP:PRIMARY patent info in the article, so why blame/accuse of that? And you're still obfuscating things by suggesting a patent might be filed for something known to "not work". (Nobody files a patent application unless there's potential gain to be achieved by its acceptance. [Even in patent application form there is space requried to explain advantages/benefits of the new function.] Yet you seem to deliberately miss that and want to imply otherwise. To suggest some entity would file an application for patent knowing the applied-for new function failed to function, makes no sense whatever.) IHTS (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, a long diatribe without a single tangible editorial content suggestion for improving the article and no evidence to support the charge that the article is "unbalanced" or that it reads like "an op-ed against Burzynski. That is the quintessence of an "endless soapboxy philosophical debate" and WP:FORUM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If we include the "successful" patients then we also include the "successful" patients who subsequently died (some were still being touted as successes years after their deaths), and the many unsuccessful patients, including the ones where Burzynski pretended that ischaemic necrosis was a good sign and castigated parents for taking their children off the toxic infusions to live their last days in something approaching comfort. What a prince.

As to why the article is negative in tone, I think that might have something to do with forty years of making a fortune selling an experimental drug to vulnerable patients, mostly children with incurable cancers, without ever producing any credible evidence that it works. The scientific and medical communities are very old-fashioned about that kind of thing. When your Institutional Review Board is run by an old friend and puts through single patient exemptions on the nod, when you don't report adverse events for years, when you keep two sets of records, one for the regulator and one for yourself, when you have "success" stories on your website who turn out to be dead, when your major venue for publication of your work is not the peer-reviewed literature but propaganda films made by the art director of Zeitgeist, a well-known conspiracy theorist who also pimps laetrile, than the medical and scientific communities tend to think you might be a quack. They start asking hard questions like why you're practising oncology when you're not even board certified in internal medicine, and why you're using patient testimonials instead of peer-reviewed evidence.

You might like to compare this article with the one on Oasis of Hope Hospital. If you can find an essential difference in character between the two clinics offering unproven therapies at vast cost, then please do mention it so we can assess how the tone should be different. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
has been adding new external links and further reading items that point to fringe/advocacy sources: These do not enhance the encyclopedic value of this article; quite the opposite. Everyone should remember that WP:AC/DS apply to editing of this article. Alexbrn talk 11:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An article ("Thirty Years of Saving Lives: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski") from the fringe serial The Townsend Letter
 * A book entitled The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It
 * The Burzynski movie


 * The movies link extends already discussion (section) in the article. The other items are not excluded by policy from this article, you seem to have a black & white view that any minority opinion must be eradicated from this article. (That is not what policy & guidelines say.) I'm about to open a new thread to complain this article lacks a sec on the alternative view expressed by not only medical PhDs, but the named author, and a host of patients. (The article calls the antineoplaston treatment "controversial". Yet, there is no "controversy" described or presented, only FDA statements & charges, Cancer Society conclusions stating lack of acceptable evidince, and TX Medical Board challenges. Those are all statements of position and legal cases, not "controversy". So where is the controversy presented in this article? It isn't. That needs to be corrected, ... to even let the article make logical sense to readers.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Discredited" would be a better word than "controversial". It is policy that we don't give undue weight to fringe notions. Alexbrn talk 12:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You're talking two different things. There is a place in this article for the opposing view, as mentioned. (Policy & guidelines support that.) And if you want to change the argument to "discredited", the article does not say that, it says "controversial". (So, are you suggesting parallel discussions? Or what's in the article. Stick to what's in the article, or change it to match your argument.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We should say antineoplaston therapy is "discredited" not "controversial". There are no opposing views worth mentioning, just fringe crap. The WP:GEVAL trap must be avoided - it seems to be what you're falling into. Alexbrn talk 12:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't complain to me, the article is stable in specifiying "controversial". (If you want to change that, then solicit support to change it. Obviously you won't get that from me. ["Shoulda/coulda/woulda".]) I'm not falling into any "trap"--WP policy & guidelines support explanation of notable opposing views in articles. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The views supporting Burzynski's treatment are fringe crap. We omit this per policy as quoted, as doing otherwise unduly legitimizes it. I notice you've edit-warred a link to one of the clinic's promotional movies back in, which is not good. Alexbrn talk 13:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh gee--now your bias is on display for all editors to see. (Need I say more?) And your argument, and ridiculous threat/warning on my Talk, are out-of-bounds--the Burzynski 2010 documentary is part & parcel of the article, adding an EL to a page about it is not inappropriate, wrong, or counter-policy, as your protestations claim. (How defensive! Over a clear add. Gee!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELNO governs these external links. Could someone explain why they are permitted given ELNO #2? This is not an article about "viewpoints." Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The link is placed in violation of that guideline. The (promotional / donation-seeking) target site is a veritable quackfest, and even disclaims any link with the topic of this article! ("Disclaimer: This documentary film series is not affiliated with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski MD, PhD, The Burzynski Clinic, or the Burzynski Research Institute, Inc.") Alexbrn talk 13:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these links are any less appropriate than SBM and other advocacy sites. - A1candidate  14:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't A1. One doesn't normally describe science-based sites as "advocating" anything - except perhaps rationality & the scientific method, which we are required to favour by our neutrality policy. Alexbrn talk 14:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Presentation of fringe POV is adequately done by presenting the facts about Burzynski's work, which is allowed because it's the subject of the article. Adding EL:NO violating links to fringe promotional websites is just an attempt to create a false balance. NPOV requires the inclusion of mainstream criticisms of all the allowed descriptions from Burzynski about his claims, and WP:PARITY covers the inclusion of mainstream critics, especially subject experts like Gorski. The Townsend Letter and Whitaker are notoriously unreliable pushers of all kinds of unscientific quackery and health fraud, and their addition violates EL:NO policy. The only place they would be allowed is in articles about themselves. It's very disappointing to see editors defending such crap. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the EL to the documentary films, explain the logic of allowing content on the 2010 & 2013 films in the article, but disallowing an EL addition to the films' website. (The EL provides further info about re the films, detail better left to the EL not the article body. That is a perfect function of ELs according to policy. If you're arguing the EL is disallowed due to fringe then why are you not also claiming the corresponding article text must eliminated for the same reason and on the same basis? If the article content is okay then the corresponding/supporting EL is okay. If the article content is not okay then it would be a different argument whether-not the EL is permissable. Where's the logical consistency in your arguments?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The external link to the film's site violates WP:ELNO. More importantly, it constitutes an offsite attack against WP editors and as such its inclusion would be expressly forbidden as per WP:RPA. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, Red - that isn't what WP:RPA says at all. It relates to WP editors making offsite attacks on WP. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you looking specifically at the part of WP:RPA that refers to External Links? It says "Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted." The webpage in question (aside from slagging WP in general and encouraging trolling) makes the following absurd claim: "The Wikipedia page is a victim of an aggressive "Astroturf" campaign created by special interest groups trying to preserve their market share".
 * I regard that claim as an unfounded personal attack because I, as one of the WP editors on this article, am being falsely accused of being part of an astroturf/special interest cabal. There's no reason any of us should have to put up with an unfounded attack on our credibility and reputations as WP editors. Anyhow, WP:RPA also says that "the interpretation of this rule is complex" and directs to WP:LINKLOVE for guidance on interpretation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red, you side-stepped my Q. If content re the 2010/2013 films is permissable for the article body, then what logic makes an EL dedicated to more detail about those films impermissable? (I asked for logic. Not policy interpretable according to agenda. Instead of logic, I could also have asked for common sense: What common sense says that two films described in the article can't have a supplementary EL devoted to more detail description of the two films?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's rather obvious. We have reliable independent sources discussing Merola's films, that goes in the article but does not mandate that we cite or link to the films themselves, not least because they are blatant propaganda. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Japanese clinical trial published March 19 2015
I suppose there will be great opposition to mention of this. Especially since the peer-reviewed trial publication is favorable re scientific evidence re efficacy re antineoplastons re liver cancer studied in Japan. IHTS (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Link? That would be a primary source right? Have you read WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee that didn't take long!! (Already opposition to the scientific peer-reviewed medical literature phase II independent double-blind clinical trial all you POVers have been clamoring about that has not existed (and said non-existence is because Burzyncki is a "quack"!). And now that has become published, you want to immediately find reason against any potential inclusion into the article. (Amazing. But why am I not surprised?) p.s. How disingenuous! (Asking for a link, then even before one is provided, negating its includability! How long have you been waiting to instantly descend on this - since March 19th publish date?)  IHTS (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a link? Primary sources don't really cut it per WP:MEDRS, it would require us to comment on it in wikipedia's voice and we can't do that.  Once it is mentioned in a secondary source I would be happy to have it mentioned.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose Hardly has noticed this press release. Seems to be a low quality primary study. Strange it doesn't say where it was published ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (Later) Aha! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366171/ Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IHTS -- when you're contemplating adding new content to the article, you must consider how it stacks up against WP policy. In this case, you're proposing inclusion of a primary source and yet WP:MEDRS advises against doing so:
 * "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles...Primary sources should generally not be used for health-related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable - any given primary source may be contradicted by another, and the Wikipedia community relies on the guidance of expert reviews, and statements of major medical and scientific bodies, to provide guidance on any given issue.".
 * Aside from the fact that this is a primary source, its conclusions conflict with the current consensus of secondary sources and "major medical and scientific bodies". However, it probably won't take long before a reliable secondary medical source reviews the study in question, and at that time, the possibility of including it would be revisited. If you simply make the effort to consider content on the basis of WP policy, then perhaps you'll be less predisposed to attacking the reasoning and motives of other editors. It is inappropriate to call other editors disingenuous in a situation such as this when there's a WP policy that clearly applies. If you think there's a reason why policy shouldn't apply in this case, and I can't imagine such a reason exists, then you can simply state your case -- without the personal barbs or complaining about what you see as a conspiracy to suppress information. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this is a rather poorly designed (i.e., "open label, nonblinded") trial, which ranks it very low on the evidence quality scale, so there's an additional issue here as per WP:MEDASSESS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the result is hardly positive. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lastly, there is an issue with the quality of the journal (PLoS One) in which this study was published. According to an article in the prestigious journal Nature, PLoS One is:
 * "relying on bulk, cheap publishing of lower quality papers to subsidize its handful of high-quality flagship journals...“There's so much in PLoS One that it is difficult to judge the overall quality and, simply because of this volume, it's going to be considered a dumping ground...it introduces a sub-standard journal to their mix.”
 * So we have multiple issues here: (1) WP:MEDRS recommends exclusion of primary source articles; (2) the study design itself makes this low quality on the evidence scale as per WP:MEDASSESS; (3) the journal in which it was published (PLoS One) is low quality; (4) the findings of the study conflict with the established consensus of "major medical and scientific bodies"; and (5) the study has not yet been reviewed by any secondary sources.
 * I'm willing to continue discussing this, although the issues seem pretty cut and dried, but will have no patience for such a discussion if it devolves again into soapboxing and personal attacks. Be forewarned, if this happens again, I will run it up the flagpole with WP admins as a user conduct issue and will seek a topic block/ban for any editor(s) who can't remain civil, won't focus on policy, or uses the discussion as a WP:FORUM and an opportunity for soapboxing and personal attacks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple more things - first to note the study (which is inconclusive anyway) is a classic altmed (A) vs (A + B) type study to evaluate B, which is likely to be found iffy in review; secondly, do we even know that the combination of surgery + ANP + conventional chemotherapy that was evaluated is the same "therapy" on offer from Burzynski's business? Alexbrn (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your observations and questions are perfectly valid but I don't think it behooves us to dive too deep into interpreting the study's design; not when there are so many other fundamental red flags that would prohibit the study from being included in the article. My concern with raising issues about the intricacies of the experimental design (beyond it being a nonblinded/open-label phase II study) is that it will open the door to endless nit-picky debates about minor details that don't really matter in the grander scheme of things -- i.e., given that there are several major and clear cut reasons why inclusion would be inconsistent with WP policies and guidelines. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though it is important to know (if this gets reviewed) if what's being evaluated is Burzynski's therapy for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, post surgery. Nothing in the article says so. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the fact that AP was being evaluated as an adjunct to conventional therapies rather than as a monotherapy complicates matters further. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Independent? Not hardly. Tsuda appears int he Burzynski propaganda films and is testifying for him at court, they go back a long way.
 * The Tsuda study has actually been touted for a while, including as a conference presentation (i.e. not peer-reviewed). It was rejected by a higher tier journal, which is probably why it's in PLoS One, a non-specialist journal of - ahem - variable quality.
 * This is a small, nonblinded study using non-standard endpoints and its publication at this time is likely designed to try to neuter one of the items on the docket before the Texas Medical Board, which won't work because the complaint in the docket is not that ANP doesn't work for metastatic colon cancer, but that the patient was treated without tissue biopsy, by an unlicensed physician.
 * Other issues include the fact that there was no apparent independent adjudication of cause of death (especially significant given that it was open-label), and the trial was not registered until after it was complete, which allows the investigators to choose an endpoint post-hoc, another form of bias which speaks directly to the non-standard endpoint used. The length of time the trial ran and the small number of patients raises questions over the actual number treated - were patients cherry-picked post-hoc? This is something Burzynski has done before, publishing only the favourable results and ignoring the majority.
 * Did you notice that neither overall survival nor relapse-free survival improved? Yes, that's right: the study shows that antineoplastons don't work. The term "cancer-specific survival" means that according to the investigators, the patients, who died just as quickly in both arms, died of something else, hence validating their prior belief that ANP works. That's not science. In fact its classic pseudoscience.
 * So, it's a primary source, commentary supporting its results comes only from sources that are the canonical opposite of WP:MEDRS (e.g. Mercola), and the patients died just as quickly whether they received ANPs or not. I can see why people might want to include it as an example of the atrocious quality of the "research" Burzynski uses, but that seems harsh to me. Better to omit it altogether. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If Tsuda has such close ties with Burzynski, why is there not a single mention of him or any of his Japanese collaborators in our article? - A1candidate  12:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's not discussed in reliable independent sources. The reliable independent sources are not much concerned with Burzynski or antineoplastons, the absence of any credible evidence of effect after four decades is enough to show that the therapeutic potential is ignorable. As an addendum tot he above comment, by the way, I also note that there was no discussion in the paper of allocation concealment, which is essential in open-label trials to provide at least minimal control over experimenter bias. This paper really is astonishingly poor and it's no wonder that high impact journals wouldn't touch it. The experimenters were investigating a treatment in which one or more of the investigators and the president of the institution (as a Burzynski patient) were emotionally vested (not mentioned in the paper), where they were free to choose in advance which patients went on which arm, where they knew which patients were which, where the patients died at the same rate, and they were able to choose an endpoint after they had the data, because the trial was not registered in advance, and they were pretty much able to decide which patients died of cancer versus "something else", with no evidence of objective oversight. When the patients have indistinguishable progression and mortality, the usual conclusion is that the treatment doesn't work, not to decide that they were actually cured but stabbed to death by a passing unicorn or something. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * i believe this horse is well-beaten. We're not using this source - it fails WP:MEDRS; if the results are discussed in a secondary source we can cite that.  I don't see a lot of point in going on. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

page protection
this artice has become an edit warring nightmare, driven by Ihardlythinkso's aggressive revisions. I am seeking page protection. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My response at WP:RPP: Agreed there is aggressive POV editing going on, but by the requestor Jytdog, not me. (For example, Jytdog requested this page protection after restoring content I'd reverted [the Blaskwiwicz newsletter ref] which contains inherently defamatory unsubstantiated claims of wrong-doing by the Burzynski Clinic, and [according to the article Talk] "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. 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." (And I have redone the revert on that basis.) This issue belongs rather at WP:BLPN. The effort here to clamp down to retain on BLP-violating material via page protection, compounds the issues involved, and not in a good way.) IHTS (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC) In addition, the text doesn't even support the article sec ("Legal threats"). (These are "gossipy/unsubstantiated/hearsay threats".) IHTS (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You say. I saw them. I know some of those involved. It was clumsy thuggery of a scary but ultimately pathetic kind. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * that's ambiguous. are you talking about me? Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected, again
I've protected the page for 2 weeks due to the ongoing disruption. I would remind all the editors on this page to respect consensus even if it is not to your liking, and to try to edit dispassionately. If you find yourself getting upset about what's happening on the page, it's best to edit somewhere else or just log out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Spike, this isn't good. The proper solution would be to block the disruptive editor. Take action at AN instead of here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize this might not be the most popular solution, but one wants to take an action with more gains than losses. Here, we gain more discussion and lose the edit war. What we don't lose is the ability for every editor to participate in the discussion. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with BullRangifer. Why should disruptive eds be allowed to continue? We issue mops for a reason. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bull and Roxy on this issue. The disruption has been due to a single disruptive editor who is using the TPG as a WP:FORUM to air greivances that have little if anything to do with any tangible editorial matters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems a puzzling decision. We get one editor trying to force an iffy change on a highly controversial article and ... the article gets protected. What!? Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * please reconsider. There is  one disruptive editor here. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. The complainant certainly showed that there was disruption at the article, but not that the person you disagree with should be removed from the equation entirely. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * removed from the equation entirely ← not entirely. Wouldn't a temporary block normally be handed down for breaking 3RR? More if there is a history of disruption? By your reasoning any drive-by POVster who tries to force content into an article (and who is repelled by editors asserting a consensus version) gets off and can get articles locked. That would seem more like enabling disruption rather than controlling it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 11:53, April 17, 2015‎ (UTC)
 * No, I think blocking should be the exception rather than the norm. If it was just some clown mashing the undo button repeatedly without discussion or attempt at rationale, I would block and move on. This case is a lot more complex, and the more complexity, the less likely we should be to block someone. I understand that you wanted me to act against, but that was not the right thing to do in my neutral judgement. I did spend quite a bit of time looking at all the ins and outs before acting. Although we disagree, I hope you will accept my reasoning. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Protect the article rather than block. I see. I accept that you are acting honestly. I think it isn't the right thing to do, but thanks anyway. I'll be back inna couple of weeks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 13:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we all AGF that you believe you're helping the situation, but this is totally outside the normal way of dealing with situations where there is clearly one disruptor (especially one pushing a fringe agenda) refusing to accept a rather large consensus, and even guilty of edit warring. I don't recall seeing this situation before. They didn't even get a block! This punishes everybody equally so the disruptor learns nothing.

If they realized that they must change their tactics, then they could return after their block knowing that they must not edit war and must follow BRD by using discussion. They would know that there is a hammer over their head threatening longer blocks or topic bans if they repeat their behavior. None of that is working in this case, so this is pointless disruption of the normal editing environment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @BullRangifer, I can see why there is *bull* in your username. (one pushing a fringe agenda - how about one attempting to bring some fact and neutrality to an article completely dominated by a gang of 5 whose mission is to ensure the article is as damning to the subject as possible?; refusing to accept a rather large consensus - or a gang of POV-pushers with aforementioned agenda, perhaps?; even guilty of edit warring - right you are, the worse that can be said about me with any credibility, the rest is just attempts to get my gord thru invitations to catfights over pointless and misfired ad hominem; That punishes everybody equally - why would a page freeze be interpreted as punishing you or your gang, considering none of you much update this page at all, presumably because it already contains the targeted slant you seek, unless it is to obstruct an editor like me who wanders in and witnesses said slant and attempts to do something about it even in small ways?; If they realized that they must change their tactics - it is you and the gang of 5 here that employs browbeating tactics through gang-up to support your damning agenda-driven POV, not I; this is pointless disruption of the normal editing environment - what a crock, calling a complete route of this article by a POV gang a "normal editing environment"!) Save your breath, because this post represents the last time I will respond to the baiting and demeaning accusations (e.g. of "whitewashing" the article for e.g., when you guys have successfully blackwashed it in numerous ways and any ways possible, even defamatory comments on the article Talk, which I'm amazed still exist according to BLP policies against same) which amount nothing more than invitations to catfight with you so as to get me blocked. Have a nice day. IHTS (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The comment above illustrates why IHTS is having continual conflict. A warrior's mentality, soapboxing, refusal to acknowledge consensus, and nothing even remotely resembling a constructive editorial suggestion. The 'gang of 5' that you refer to is known in WP parlance as a consensus of independent editors. I'll add that we don't make snide comments about other editors user names here IHTS -- it's a form of personal attack and is unproductive at best. I see no self-awareness or acceptance of personal responsibility, which suggests a high probability of the edit warring behavior continuing when the page block is lifted. That is why a user block, not a page block, would have been the most appropriate course of action. Either way, IHTS will be on a short leash. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And your comment reeks of hypocritical BS. (Why are you making all those personal attacks on an article discussion page, huh?! And your guys' technique to eliminate opposition to slanted POV on articles you dominate is well-known - make a future topic-article ban case by building up SOAP, BATTLEGROUND, FRINGE-POVer, doesn't abide CONSENSUS, abuse of TPG, was WARNED many times at his Talk, and so on. How blatantly transparent!) The fact is any POV group can claim consensus by numbers - and that is what you've done here, and that explains the sorry state of this article. But you're either wrong on your idea of consensus being !vote-count, or it is an inherent destructive weakness in WP policy def. You seem to love to "blah blah blah"-comment about everything no matter how irrelevant or distracting, Rhode Red. It's put-offish, and I suspect too, an obfuscating tactic like the others. You also have no credibility to make the pronouncements you do. I added a single word to a lead sentence - an important clarifying distinction - and a group of 5 editors get all panic-stricken (instant revert followed by 6 changing arguments: "unsourced", [then] "lede doesn't summarize body", [then] "it's not true because my [misinterpreted] Gorski quote says so", [then] "source doesn't support contention", [then] "an insignificant technicality", [then] "nobody says that", [then back to] "source doesn't support contention") - as though your protected house of cards is about to collapse all at once. This article has never been dominated by a clique of POVers bent on discrediting the subject to the max - oh goodness no, what was I thinking?? Not to mention the recent tabloidian proposal to include a comic pic of a doctor's face, who either unexpectedly peed himself or shit his pants. IHTS (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that you persist in abusing the talk page by using it as a soapbox and attacking other editors instead of focusing on specific editorial issues. The primary reason your edit about cytotoxicity in the lead was reverted is because it was not stated in a WP:RS and would therefore constitute WP:OR. The basis is very simple and there's no need for these nasty diatribes. It's a simple editorial issue and you seem to be refusing to get the point. When a unanimous consensus weighs against you in a situation like this, it's time for introspection, not time to attack. If you disagree with the outcome, then you have the option of pursuing other channels such as dispute resolution, but your current course of action is counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What's "unfortunate" is that you seem to think you have the right to accuse of Talk page abuse hypocritically, and lecture me patronizingly re WP processes. The arguments re word qualifier "noncytotoxic" were all over the map, National Institute of Cancer is a WP:RS in your book, and the reference explains several theoretical mechanisms that might explain how neoplastons work, and none of them are cytotoxic descriptions (who is contending that ANP treatments are or might be cytotoxic? - you?!). The nastiness eminates from *you* Rhode Island, with your perpetual baseless "abuse of Talk page", WP:SOAP, WP:LISTEN, and assorted BS complaints. I honestly think you cannot *not* comment on anything and everything to hear your patronizing dominating voice echo whereever you go. Your idea that consensus = numbers is a sham. (If that were true, offline POV-pushers could gather their numbers and dominate/control any WP article, period. And that seems to be your chief operating procedure, besides accusing and attacking and threatening anyone who disagrees with your POV to condemn the article subject to the max possible.) IHTS (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red sums it up well: "The primary reason your edit about cytotoxicity in the lead was reverted is because it was not stated in a WP:RS and would therefore constitute WP:OR." That pretty much ends the discussion. We must follow policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I've not been involved in the edit warring on this article and will not do so. However, if the "one word" you refer to trying to add is "noncytotoxic", I already noted why I believe policy does not support the addition. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Spike's action is consistent with normal practice, being the smallest action necessary to control the problem as defined. If people think that IHTS is disruptive on a wider basis, they should apply to WP:AE for a topic ban form the articles on which they consider him disruptive. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Go for it! IHTS (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, I still disagree with Spike's decision. It was totally non-standard given the circumstances. I suspect he acted without knowing those circumstances. The proper solution would have been to block the disruptive editor. Spike should have taken action at AN instead of here. That was the "smallest action necessary". Article protection has not stopped the disruption at all. Because IHTS isn't topic banned, we have received plenty of very nasty personal attacks from IHTS, IDHT behavior, and refusal to accept how policies are to be applied. The disruption continues right here and wastes our time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this kind of thing is water off a duck's back to me, since I routinely enagge with Burzynski cultists (and homeopathists and other crackpots) on the internets, so I guess I'm inured to it. The diatribes you lionk certainly make a strong case for a topic ban if not a block. I would take it to the admin boards if I were you. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede bombing
is repeatedly trying to insert into the lede that SB's chemotherapy is a "non-cytotoxic" chemotherapy. I don't see any source using this phrasing so even if correct, it would not be due (and of course ledes summarize bodies rather than carrying novel content). Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but that is a MOS stylistic point. In a reasonable time the noncytotoxic descriptor (and discussion if necessary) can be added to article body. But for the moment you shouldn't be knee-jerk deleting the edit (at first you reverted because "unsourced" instead of tagging "needs citation") since this is a vital clarification/distinction what kind of chemo antineopolaston treatments are generally considered to be - even by both sides of the professional debate. IHTS (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, your edit is simply not supported by the source you used. If we use a pertinent source, like Gorski we find And so, if mentioned at all a fairer summary of an on-point source would be to call it a "risky, toxic and expensive" chemotherapy since the cytotoxicity is neither here nor there - except of course it is in line with the Clinic's attempts to try and make the therapy seem safe & acceptable: a game your edit is now making Wikipedia play. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First, I disagree Gorski is a "pertinent source". But beyond that, even Gorski is not saying what you assert he is saying. (You're misreading what you've quoted. He is referring to the non-antineoplaston regimens that the Clinic also offers when the Clinic determines for whatever reasons that is recommended for the patient individual needs, not the ANP regimens. And the quote is also vague ("his therapy" is vague, again, the Clinic offers two different types of treatment plans - one using ANP, one without, so referring to single "his therapy" is inherently vague and misleading - he might be referring to ANP being manufactured from FDA-approved components, but it's unclear he means that, and even if so, it doesn't support your argument, since [as mentioned] there are two different regimen plans even though Gorski has confused by using the singular). IHTS (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re your edit is simply not supported by the source you used. Did you read it? (Several proposed mechanisms are described; all of them are noncytotoxic.) It's a fair source, if one is even required (you demanded one). (Even Burzyski's [non-WP editor] opponents don't contend this.) If you have a better source, then please go ahead and supplant mine. IHTS (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's something you're reading in to the source, not something the source says? Or maybe I've missed it ... please quote me where it calls this a "non-cytotoxic chemotherapy". If it doesn't, why bother digging around to twist up a description that the source never uses - especially for our lede. We should be limiting ourselves here to the chief defining characteristics of the chemotherapy as used in RS, and they are that it is (a) ineffective (b) toxic (c) risky and (d) expensive. The technical issue of its cytotoxicity is merely incidental. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you missed it. In addition, perhaps you're not reading for meaning. (BTW, are you suggesting ANP is or might be cytotoxic? Based on your misinterpreted Gorski quote? [Even Gorski doens't think that.]) Also BTW, I don't intend to discuss the entire lede with you here, that isn't the point. (I added a single word. Get a grip and quit trying to manipulate discussion about a single clarifying word that is no more than a simple copyedit.) The technical issue of its cytotoxicity is merely incidental. Um, ANP is a noncytotoxic treament, not cytotoxic. And the clarification isn't insignificant (your "merely") - it's germane to the article subject in a big way. IHTS (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It needs to be a properly sourced part of the body, and then it also needs to be significant enough for mention in the lead. We're not there yet. A CN tag won't do. Unsourced controversial content (that's OR) is not the way we do things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the first part (see above). It is an important distinction (cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. noncytotoxic). There's no rush or emergency to get the distinction also in the body. (It should have been there a long time ago.) And it is not a controversial point - ANP is generally understood to be noncytotoxic chemo by even opposing sides of the antineoplastons treatment controversy. (See above my re to Alexbrn.) IHTS (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excepy nobody refers to it that way, preferring other more relevant descriptors (like that it's ineffective). So there is no need for us to do so, even less to try and force it in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * An important clarification the article needs that is germane to the subject. ("Effective" vs. "ineffective" is a totally different issue. Why are you trying to mush/confuse the issue?? To insert yet another personal slam against the subject at any even out-of-context opportunity!?) I don't suppose you'd offer to help, instead of vigorously and inappropriately pounce, by adding the noncytotoxic content into the body text, huh? IHTS (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC! I don't see the issue of cytotoxicity being discussed in RS, so wouldn't support us doing so. It'd be undue. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look again. (And try to read for meaning also.) IHTS (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to provide a quotation. I'm asking again. Looks like you've got meaning you're "reading in", rather than what's plainly there. We are in the business of summarizing accepted knowledge, not excavating incidental details. Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And it looks like you're trying to take me in circles. Already replied to all your Qs. (Not excavating. Not incidental.) And brush up on the meaning of WP:UNDUE. IHTS (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for a good source that says it isn't cytotoxic, and in the meantime, it is UNDUE. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 08:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

fundamental issue is that content added by IHTS is unsourced, and is being added to the lead without being added to the body and its relative importance judged. editing 101 problems. IHTS, what is the source for the content you want to add? Jytdog (talk)


 * I have this article on my watchlist (not sure how that happened, but it is). I was initially puzzled by this revert's edit summary of "revert unsourced". However, opening the citation from the NCI made it clear. The issue is  not the reference, but what is attempted to be justified using the reference. Nowhere in the reference is " "antineoplaston therapy" referred to as "noncytotoxic". Additionally, a review of literature regarding antineoplaston therapy makes it clear that the claim of  noncytotoxicity is central to Burzynski's claims. I strongly endorse the revert, as the insertion was unsourced and non-neutral (as it declared in Wikipedia's voice that  "antineoplaston therapy" is "noncytotoxic). JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Joe, your comment makes no sense whatever, and let me explain why it doesn't ... You say a review of literature regarding antineoplaston therapy makes it clear that the claim of noncytotoxicity is central to Burzynski's claims, yet, if that is so, then one would suppose that mention of same would be presented in the current article. But it is not. (If you think it is, then quote text from the article to show - but there's nothing there, so good luck!) § Perhaps you & editor Alexbrn ought to get together to prepare a more consistent opposition strategy!? - Alexbrn says: "The technical issue of its cytotoxicity is merely incidental. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)" whereas you say the opposite: "the claim of noncytotoxicity is central to Burzynski's claims". IHTS (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Central to Burzynski's PR, not central to us as neutral encyclopedia editors. The two contexts are different (for most of us here, anyway). Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Illogical. (By your logic, there s/b no Burzynski claims in the article at all. And if that were the case [and it might be since you have the apparent need to scour the article of said claims] in what context do FDA and/or NCI counter-claims currently existing in the article make any sense whatever?!) IHTS (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fringe claims are documented according to the statements of their proponents. The reality-based perspective is documented from relevant reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Image
A picture speaks a thousand words. I think it would be easy to write a fair use rationale for the following image as illustrating a real oncologist's reaction to the levels of sodium typically seen in Burzynski patients (this was the case of Luna P., featured in the Panorama documentary mentioned in the article).


 * Image

I think it should illustrate the paragraph discussing the Panorama documentary.

Incidentally, the section "Media and awards" is a bit of a problem, perhaps just "media" would be better as the award to the propaganda film falsely identifies it as a humanitarian work; I don't think there is anybody in the relevant professional communities who seriously thinks Burzynski is doing humanitarian work since even if his treatment does work, and the evidence to date suggests rather strongly that it does not, he profits handsomely from it. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That sort of trolling is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. A picture of Burzynski would be much more desirable. - A1candidate  10:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not trolling, it's an illustration of how the reality-based medical community reacts to the adverse events Burzynski claims are perfectly fine. Burzynski seems to think that life-threatening sodium toxicity doesn't even need to be reported to the IRB. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh Bull. (If you posted that image, I would remove it on the basis of WP:Vandalism.) IHTS (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a more compelling way to illustrate the reality of the toxicity events that Burzynski doesn't even bother to report? It's the most striking image ion the entire documentary, and vividly reveals the gulf between the propaganda films put out by Burzynski and the reality of what he actually does to his victims. It also explains in a single frame why FDA approval and proper clinical trials are not optional. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you've just demonstrated the low level of argument combined with degree of active bias against the article subject that exists better than anything ever could. IHTS (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You've all got it wrong. The image is showing the face of a guy who just tasted Marmite for the first time -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am biased in favour of ethical behaviour and following the scientific rules of evidence. Burzynski seems to think these don't apply to him. That's probably why he's up in front of the Texas Medical Board again. To reiterate: this is an actual paediatric oncologist reacting to an adverse event which is entirely normal for Burzynski victims, which Burzynski, not a paediatrician or oncologist, despite running an extremely lucrative paediatric oncology business, doesn't even bother to report to his IRB. Guy (Help!) 06:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it is a genuine image of a genuine onc reacting to being told how Stan operates? I misunderstood. Let's use the image. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a screen grab from the BBC Horizon documentary Hope For Sale, it captures the moment that Dr. Anthony Michalski, consultant paediatric oncologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, saw the sodium levels the Burzynski treatment caused in his patient Luna P. This kind of sodium level comprises the majority of the adverse incidents referenced by the FDA in tier inspections, and is considered potentially life-threatening. I believe it was this kind of spike that the FDA showed Burzynski had failed to report to his IRB for up to seven years after the event, because Burzynski, according to all the available evidence, simply doesn't this it significant. See and : "Proponents claim that antineoplaston therapy is “nontoxic” However, reported side effects range from mild to serious, including fatigue (extreme tiredness), anemia (low red blood cell counts), headaches, numbness, skin rash, swelling of the hands and face, chills, fever, dizziness, changes in blood pressure, unpleasant body odor during treatment, and sleepiness. High levels of blood sodium and abnormal calcium levels can also cause significant problems with this therapy. Other serious side effects can involve the brain, and include confusion, seizures, and swelling in the brain. This has required that the treatment be stopped in some patients."
 * To be clear, I think it is a good illustration for the section on media coverage, because it sums up the Horizon documentary in a single frame. To put it anywhere else would be to risk WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your idea for including such an image to convey your point would be appropriate for a tabloid like the National Enquirer but not an online encyclopedia. IHTS (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ...in your opinion. I disagree. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, in a previous section on this talk page I was told that Wikipedia is not a place for opinions! ;-) Unless it is yours?  Guy, I truly mean that as a gentle poke in the ribs.  Your comments that I have read so far have been well thought out and well expressed.  Just wanted to point out how easy it is to slip into opinion mode.  If you went back in time before WWII and told doctors that you were going to treat patients who have cancer with what is effectively poison (most accepted chemotherapy treatments are more or less a controller poisoning in hopes of killing the cancer without killing the patient) their reactions would probably be very much the same as Dr. Michalski's.  I realize that I am being a bit hyperbolic here, but would the reaction of pre-WWII doctors justify a wikipedia article against accepted chemotherapy?  Of course not so neither does this image belong in this wikipedia article.  Perhaps in an article discussing facial expressions, but not in this article.  Andrew S. (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As if that opinion would have general merit! (For this article your username shows as #1 in amount of text added, and #3 in number of edits made. Is there any wonder any longer how this article has gotten to such a bias and slant against its subject??!) IHTS (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Guy, it doesn't look like this idea is getting traction at the moment, so I have another suggestion. While that pic accurately encompasses the mainstream view of Stans raison d'etre, perhaps, as Stan and his team love sending people pics of their homes, couldn't we use a pic of Stan's home to illustrate the vast sums of money he has, presumably from treating kids with glioblastoma etc in his clinic. It's easy to find the address on Google Street view, but it's hidden from the street. The shot of his gatehouse, the amazing wrought iron work with Stan and his wife's initials intertwined feature highly. The huge walls, security features etc and the manicured garden and driveway? The mansion itself is hidden from the street, but google earth will do the trick. We were going to hint at this when they were harassing Rhys Morgan, but we decided not to. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So now we should use wikipedia to villainize Burzynski because he has made a lot of money? Although the big fancy house is a FACT, you are suggesting using it in a way to villainize (discredit?) Burzynski which seems inconsistent with wikipedia policies/goals. (sorry, I don't know all the WP:xxxx things to use)  This would seem like WP:OR unless you can find some other secondary sources that used this image in this context.   Andrew S. (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, I think that image is problematic because it doesn't convey anything definitive. If it's taken at face value, it simply depicts someone reacting to something. His expression could be construed as horror, astonishment (either good or bad), surprise, fear, etc. Without context, this could even be depicting a man choking on a piece of food. The legend would need to provide context (e.g. it is an oncologist reacting to being told how much sodium the ANP formulation contains), but it would also need to provide an interpretation of the oncologist's expression (e.g. that he was horrified), so you're asking the reader to trust that you're accurately representing the feelings of the man in the image. In other words, the image doesn't add anything of value to the article because it would require a complete and explicit written interpretation. If a complete and explicit written interpretation is required whether or not the picture is included, it would be logical to conclude that the picture is dispensable.MRotten (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

== needs updating !! and less bias ==

FDA has approved this for final trials.

So it is NOT UNproven but merely not approved YET by the FDA.

This article has a strong negative bias that needs to be more balanced.

24.254.189.92 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason trials exist is to show whether something works or not. Until it's approved after phase III, it's just blowing smoke. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

one question: why won't anyone address concrete, actual patients that were cured, not statistically, but truly, patients in splendid health, one or even 2 decades after they've been given an unequivocal oncological death sentence and subsequently underwent the ANP treatment. also, maybe someone should fairly list partial/total costs of the conventional chemotherapy treatments available, their side effects, and actual effects on the system, and compare all these factors, individually, with the ANP therapy. It would be the apogee of irony if any one of the critics were to get the pathology this cure proved to fully cure, wouldn't it.. I'm sure all this denial, the apparent hypocrisy, and/or other interests for this sustained, suspiciously vehement, counterintuitive criticism would dissipate immediately. it is, of course, very bad that anyone should get rich if they're in the "alternative" cancer (cure) treatment business, only conventional oncologists and certain elements affiliated with pharmaceutical giants should get rich, who would EVER DARE challenge that!!! anything goes when you start demolishing a reputation, an idea, a solution, anything.. I've had many members of my family die of cancer, some actually died directly after the chemo, none EVER got better, not even a little bit. and I witnessed what the chemo did, first hand. the attitude of doctors was so optimistic at first, they've really all had the best conventional care! this scheme has been going on since the 50s, with slight variations, everything approved, everything kosher, insured, conventional, with consistently deplorable results, so, you tell me, people, what changed, besides the increasing incidence of cancer per capita, since the "BIG INNOVATION", chemotherapy has been approved for mass production? this is not simple denial, this must be more, it's the only rational train of thought, the only thing that makes sense. stomp Burzynski into the ground, give it everything you've got, fast and unforgiving, because if he succeeds, you're done, all of you. soon, you'll resort to much worse, I'm sure. an "accident", maybe.. poor Dr. Burzynsky doesn't even know the danger he faces, every single day he continues to exist. the enormity of forces against a cure is hard to fathom even by extremely well informed professionals, the dynamics and variables in play near impossible to consider together.. All I know is, that if I ever get Cancer, I'm screwed! I'm very well insured, but I won't have access to the Burzynsky treatment, I can't afford it.. most of us 99.9%ers can't. and absent the insurance coverage, much fewer could afford even starting the conventional treatments, which are generally much more expensive, let alone finishing it, a point that neither side of the argument wants to make, or if they do, they get edited to death. I have to say, wikipedia caters to a strange audience, I really don't know what to think of this platform anymore, it's not what it used to or was conceived to be, it's very informative in certain areas, but it's aggressively pejorative, and surprisingly blatantly at that, when it comes to challenging huge financial or national interests, sensitive issues are summarily subjected to devious, carefully engineered censorship or skewed versions of already predigested, manipulated facts (if one can still call them that), towards convenience, and the reinforcing or reestablishing status quo. This attempt to mangle the truth seems particularly desperate, so it's strange that it went unnoticed, after all, WP still imposes some rules, at least that's what I'd like to hope. I have other examples, of course, but I'd like to focus only on this one, rather than digressing into other topics.. it's shameful what's happening on WP, really. the unabashed, audacious bias is insulting, not that I didn't expect some, being true to one's interests is human nature, but not like this, not at all cost, not with such potential criminal energy. sad, very sad.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.202.123.37 (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Bankruptcy
http://www.open-public-records.com/court/texas-15958095.htm

Given Jaffe's statements about being in a conflict of interest re the clinic, it is likely that they are unable to pay his fees and he has issued a winding-up order, but I await commentary in independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 court stuff
Unfortunately, the latest edit to the lead is inappropriate in all sorts of ways. Per WP:LEAD this edit was not a summary of the body text (it isn't covered, yet) and therefore shouldn't be there. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE are self explanatory. I have removed it for the time being, pending comments here.

I see no reason not to move that text in its entirety to the legal issues section, suitably copy edited. I'll make a suggestion shortly. I do think this should be included, just not in the LEAD. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the removed text ...


 * "In November 2015, the Texas Medical Board has taken Burzynski to court in Houston, Texas. They are accusing Burzynski of bait-and-switch tactics, improperly charging patients, not informing patients that he owns the pharmacy they are required to fill their medications, and of prescribing drugs "off-label". Burzynski's former attorney Richard Jaffe has filed suit in Federal Court claiming unpaid legal fees of over $250,000. Burzynski through his current attorney denies all charges. ref> "


 * My suggestion, with changes in italics (to go into a section in "Legal Issues" but I'm not sure which?) ...


 * "In November 2015, the Texas Medical Board took Burzynski to court in Houston, Texas. Burzynski is accused of bait-and-switch tactics, improperly charging patients, not informing patients that he owns the pharmacy they are required to use to fill their medications, and of prescribing drugs "off-label". Burzynski's former attorney Richard Jaffe has filed suit in Federal Court claiming unpaid legal fees of over $250,000. Burzynski through his current attorney denied all charges. ref>


 * Thoughts? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The changes you've made might be a good followup in the Legal issues sub-section (following "...the hearing was set to begin in November 2015."). Jaffe's withdrawal from the case is mentioned, but the USA Today source that you've added might also help consolidate some of that information. Nmillerche (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Roxy. You are completely correct, it needed to be in the article but I should have added it to the body, don't know what I was thinking. Still I do think that something should be in the lede about the court case, it just seems odd, like we are ignoring it by hiding it in the body of the article. It is extremely important. Maybe something like "The TMB and Burzynski are currently in court about specific allegations" (of course better written than that) but some mention should be in the lede.Sgerbic (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article to reflect comments above, and changed the refs above to tidy this page. The legal issues over the years are well covered in the body of the article, and are mentioned in the lead. Perhaps now is the time to give this more prominence there, per Susan. I'll attempt something, but feel free ! -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried a couple of times, but having read the lead and the legal section again and again, I think the lead covers it. I know, I think that each time another legal event happens we should give it prominence in the lead, and each time I think that the Americans will do the job this time, and each time slippery Stan wiggles out of trouble somehow. Maybe this time? -


 * The current proceedings against Burzynski are in Austin, Texas. Not Houston. The lawsuit against him by his lawyer has been settled out of court, which I take to mean that B settled like a bitty baby when it was clear what was liable to come out when Jaffe claimed in a legal filing that B had not disclosed all of his debts, including debts to patients and insurance companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:5D50:80B:E98D:563E:25A (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

POV problem reported
By email at WP:OTRS, someone reported that the article has a point of view problem and ought to include information from these sources:  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cancer Tutor
 * http://www.burzynskimovie.com/
 * What information exactly? Neither of the sources are WP:MEDRS and no proposal has been put forth regarding the inclusion of any specific content from these sources, so there is insufficient basis for a POV tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not my issue and I cannot continue this conversation, but the request was for use of those sources.
 * This article is mostly not MEDRS because it covers a range of legal and social issues. I confirm that those sources are not MEDRS, but it does seem to me that they present a complementary social perspective which might not be included. Leaving medicine aside, to what extent do you feel that those sources are unreliable for their social perspective? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no point in discussing the sources when no content has been proposed for inclusion. Make a specific content proposal and then the validity of those sources can be discussed in their proper context. One cannot reasonably argue that there's a POV issue in the absence of a specific proposal for text to include in the article. That being said, the hyper-partisan Cancer Tutor website makes a variety of dodgy medical claims, postulates FDA conspiracies, etc. Even in the abstract, this source would apparently fail to meet WP's reliability standards. And WP:MEDRS would be the standard for most of the content in the article. It's unclear what you are referring to when you mention "social issues"; I see no sign of such issues in the article or how these two proposed sources would be pertinent in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016
Please included the following at the end of "Clinical studies":

To date (May 19th 2016) 62 different clinical trials are registered under the Burzynski clinic (new Ref). Only one of them are completed, two are terminated (due to slow enrollment), eight are withdrawn prior to enrollment, and as many as 50 trials are listed with unknown status (some of them verified many years ago). Finally, none of the 62 clinical trials report any data (new Ref).

New Ref:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Burzynski&Search=Search

Moroks (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌, the section in question already mentions that over 60 trials are registered and that as of now, no new trials are allowed due to FDA agreement and current trials are all paused. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent coverage

 * STAT News
 * Washington Post

Reading between the lines, the Burzynski PR machine is revving up ready for the verdict of the case brought by the Texas Medical Board, and a few journalists are smelling a very ripe rat. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

article not up to date
Dear all,

The article on Burzynski is not up to date (anymore). The FDA has proven the treatmentmethod of dr. Burzynski, but that is not what I am reading on your wikipage. The article is misleading. Please adjust it for correct data.

Best regards,' a conserned reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:EC0A:1:946C:FC50:2C25:281 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't. Guy (help!) 11:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017
ON MARCH 3, 2017, THE BOARD ENTERED A FINAL ORDER AGAINST STANISLAW R. BURZYNSKI, M.D., SUSPENDING HIS LICENSE, IMMEDIATELY STAYING THE SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE PLACING HIM ON PROBATION FOR FIVE YEARS UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS: PUBLICLY REPRIMAND; MONITORING OF BILLING PRACTICES; ETHICS COURSE; 72 HOURS OF CME, IN THE FOLLOWING TOPICS: 15 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF INFORMED CONSENT, 14 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF MEDICAL RECORDKEEPING, 14 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF RISK MANAGEMENT, 15 HOURS IN SUPERVISION AND DELEGATION, AND 14 HOURS ON THE TOPIC OF PATIENT COMMUNICATION; SUBMITTING INFORMED CONSENT FORMS FOR REVIEW; SUBMIT AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM; PASS THE MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE EXAM; AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY OF $40,000; AND PAY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000. THE ACTION WAS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AT THE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS (SOAH) INCLUDING: FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMED CONSENT TO THE TREATMENT PLAN; FAILURE TO SUPERVISE RESEARCH ASSISTANTS WHO WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE; UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF MEDICINE; FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIS OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN SOUTHERN FAMILY PHARMACY; IMPROPERLY CLASSIFYING A MINOR PATIENT'S DEATH AS A LESSER ADVERSE EVENT FOR PURPOSES OF FDA REPORTING; AND FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE MEDICAL RECORDS TO SUPPORT CHARGES. THIS ORDER RESOLVES A FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AT SOAH. DR. BURZYNSKI HAS 20 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER TO FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING. BrianPrince (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Content about the 3 March 2017 ruling is already in the article. Stickee (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note
In spite of all of the back-and-forth strong opinions, much of this article is a borderline attack on Stanislaw Burzynski, his clinic, and the debates that have ensued around it. It would be in the best interests of anyone hoping to acquire information about this clinic, ANP treatment, or any other alternative cancer treatments if there were much more factual articles and statistical numbers. It takes no more than 16 words before the term "unproven" is inserted into the description of this clinic, and "unproven" is up for debate depending on who you are and whether or not you have received treatment from this clinic. Somebody please, at the very least create and cite a direct link to Antineoplaston therapy and any available empirical data that exists to be reported. If even one person has been cured by Antineoplaston therapy, even if the reason is because their body was too toxic to support reproduction of cancerous cells, it deserves to be accounted for and reported in a scientific manner without regards to it's creators character or a lack of ethical guidelines. The FDA will tell you he's a hack, he would tell you the FDA is a fraud, both could be simultaneously true; I doubt any of it matters to someone dying of cancer if there is a possible treatment. Mycaptchawasbeeberefer (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, but no, that is not how any Wikipedia article is written. Everything in Wikipedia depends on what we call "reliable sources" and for information about health, those sources are defined here: WP:MEDRS. Also please make sure that comments you write here are focused on making concrete changes to the article, again, based on what reliable sources say, not your opinion (mine doesn't matter, either) If you continue just offering opinions, those posts will be removed.  Please do read the talk page guidelines.  Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you've noticed, but he is up in front of the Texas Medical Board yet again for gross ethical violations, his IRB was found to be grossly inadequate and conflicted by several FDA reports, his own lawyer admits that his clinical trials are a scam designed to let him continue selling his unproven treatments, his trials are incompetently run and the results worthless with crucial records destroyed, he has charged vast sums to participants in these worthless trials, and at no point has he ever published any meaningful results in a journal that is worthy of the name (partial publications in predatory open-access journals is about it). The article accurately reflects the fact that the real-world sources unambiguously show him to be a charlatan. This is not our problem to fix.
 * We do not include cases he has "cured" because there is absolutely no credible independent evidence that he has cured anybody. All reported results are fully consistent with the outcomes of prior therapy and the natural course of disease. It's also notable that the vast majority of his patients die within the original prognosis, albeit usually much poorer and with massive side-effects from his toxic therapies. You could also talk to a "cured" patient like Laura H, featured in his first propaganda film, except that she died of the cancer he "cured". The benefit of the doubt gets extended until the doubt evaporates - with antineoplastons that was about 15 years ago. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please update this sentence to reflect the actual outcome of the trial:"In February 2017 following lengthy hearings the Texas Medical Board recommended Burzynski's medical license be revoked, with the revocation suspended, and a fine of $360,000 for billing irregularities and other violations.[8]" The omission of the outcome and only publicizing the desires of the TMB show that this site is against Burzynski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.46.91 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)