User talk:ANP 2010

Almost all of your changes are clearly wrong; however, please discuss them, to see if you can obtain a consensus, before continuing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Antineoplaston has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. dffgd (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and on conflicts of interest. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, real life interrupted. You also need to remember WP:3RR; 4 reverts within 24 hours, no matter how appropriate, are grounds for a block, unless they are to remove material in specific violation of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:BLP or copyright violations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * " Dr. Dvorit Samid successfully filed eleven duplicate patents of Dr. Burzynski's Antineoplaston..." is a BLP violation. You don't have evidence that they are "duplicate patents"; just (limited -- you should use the real PTO search) evidence that he filed patents on similar subjects.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, why are you deleting my talk? Leave it. I want to see your "reasons" and "sources" for why my changes were incorrect. Again, I can't wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs)


 * I've deleted your section headers. Conversations threads should be carried out within sections, when possible.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to see the reasons why you changed perfectly verifiable information - ARTHUR
I want to see the reasons why you changed perfectly verifiable information - ARTHUR

my signature here XYZ (no signature button anywhere, sorry wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 (talk • contribs)

You can enter a signature by typing ~ at the end of your comments. That's what I do. Or, if you're using a standard skin, you can click on that set of symbols under "Wiki markup". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, please list reasons
Arthur, I"ll gladly meet your "goals", though why you have been assigned as the gatekeeper between truth and fiction, I am not sure. Give me the list, and I will make it work. ANP 2010 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer
This is simply not true. There are scores of peer-reviewed articles showing safety and efficacy via FDA-approved clinical trials. Phase 2 trials are completed in the United States. Phase 3 trials have been green lit. The completion of Phase 2 trials proves safety and efficacy. Failing to acknowledge this is a blatant attempt at either hiding this fact or the failure of you to accept this reality. See: flat earth. (it's round, by the way).

Secondly, to say that Phase 2 trials in Japan were never initiated is also another untruth. The Japanese government is funding Phase 3 trials on top of that to boot. Again, why do you fail to recognize these basic simple truths? ANP 2010 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If there were peer-reviewed articles, you might name some. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WRONG: A 1995 Phase I trial by Japanese researchers showed promise, but Phase II trials were never initiated.[16]
Phase 2 trials were initiated.

SOURCE:

http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/metastatic-colon-cancer-randomized-phase-ii-clinical-study-antineoplaston-therapy-doubled-5-year-7307.html

ARTUR: Please explain how this does not constitute being corrected on Wiki.

ANP 2010 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Unconfirmed press release, quoted in the Houston Chronical and (probably hence) in drugs.com. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Documentary film
It is public verifiable knowledge that an award-winning documentary film has been released called "Burzynski, the movie". It is also verifiable that the NY TIme wrote a review about it. I have provided the link to that review. If this entry is deleted from the Wiki page, I expect a full explanation in great detail as to why. I expect links to wiki's rules that it may have broken.

Once we get past this phase of Arthur's scrutiny, we will continue. That, as well as the Japanese Phase II trials that have been initiated and confirmed, contrary to the current status of Wiki's page on this subject.


 * The movie is not a reliable source. It might be noted in Burzynski's article, if sources verifying its existence can be provided.  (They hadn't yet been, at last report.)  Reports of the content of the movie can only be included if there were third-party reviews.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
SOURCE: PUB MED. You have used this source "PUB MED" on the wiki website. Therefore, please explain a reason for this not to be included:

Quote planned to be added to Wiki.

In Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials for patients with high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma, "Antineoplastons contributed to more than a 5-year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients".

LINK/SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713


 * Acceptable for the moment. It should be noted that the result is not statistically significant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Replies
Please move these comments to the talk page Talk:Antineoplaston, and continue the conversations there. This is an absurd location for the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer the questions and address the sources or this will continue here.
Also, in accordance to Wiki's "importance scale" -"CANCER: is listed as HIGH importance. So, you can fix that for us also Arthur.