Talk:Antineoplaston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Additional Questions on Antineoplastons/Burzynski Clinic 2 Removal of critical content by Burzynski's staff 3 Statement of the Burzynski Clinic regarding recent modifications to this Article 4 Why the bad rap? 5 overhaul notes

[edit] Additional Questions on Antineoplastons/Burzynski Clinic

Why, if so effective, are antineoplastons not approved by the FDA? Phase II clinical trials have been ongoing since 2004.

The Burzynski Research Institute is a public company traded under the symbol BZYR (SYMBOL: BZYR). It is a penny stock currently trading at 5 cents on the over-the-counter bulletin board market. Why doesn't a major drug company simply buy Burzynski's public company if the drug is so successful? Given the companies size, even a small group of investors could do this.

The Burzynski Clinic claims to have treated over 3000 patients. If even half or a quarter of these cancer cases were cured, wouldn't these numbers grab media attention? Why not publish a list of people who survived due to antineoplaston treatment and have it independently verified?

Why is the Burzynski staff editing content on this page? This seems very suspicoius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.178.82 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of critical content by Burzynski's staff

Recently critical content has been removed by User:216.201.132.178 (DNS lookup). This IP address belongs to the Burzynski Clinic. The edits were made in violoation of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Guideline and the user has been warned. Cacycle 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote: I assume that Ixelles (Talk | contribs) is identical to the former user editing from the Burzynski Clinic as their similar edits occurred in the same close timeframe. Cacycle 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of the Burzynski Clinic regarding recent modifications to this Article

In regards to the recent modifications to the content of the articles about Stanislaw R. Burzynski and Antineoplastons, we would like to clarify that the Burzynski Clinic chose to make editorial changes to both articles, using the caution required by the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Policy and the Neutral Point of View Policy, to officially and explicitly dispute certain claims that we consider false or outdated.

Certain recent modifications to both articles seem to be an attempt to discredit the validity of scientific research and harm the reputation of Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD.

Burzynski Clinic will submit to the Wikipedia Information Team an official document addressing each of the false and unverifiable claims included in both articles and provide verifiable references to each disputed point.

Burzynski Clinic requests an objective review of the provided references by the Wikipedia Information Team, in line with its Neutral Point of View Policy, and objective decision as to which content should be removed from these articles.

Public Relations Office, Burzynski Clinic --216.201.132.178 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add missing information or corrections (including reliable sources) on the respective discussion pages of the articles. Thanks, Cacycle 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the bad rap?

Why is a treatment that is undergoing FDA-controlled trials in the "psuedoscience" category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.120.227 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] overhaul notes

Please reference the previous edits and discussion at Stanislaw Burzynski and Talk:Stanisław Burzyński during Jan-Feb 2008.

The drug company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals... used an inappropriate screening test and failed.
No scientific coauthor... sounds like malicious OR. Need a current reliable source, that will still be subject to WP:V.
Despite years of... Neither WP:V, RS currently sourced nor NPOV.
According to...' NCAHF is not a technically reliable source in general at WP and Green's points have been repeatedly & specifically been shown to false, extremely partisan if not malicious, and/or grossly misrepresented.

At this point in my research & review, I consider all Green papers on Burzynski that I have seen, to be extremely partisan, unreliable and (probably disreputable) gross misrepresentations. The WP:V story with the Cancer Letters versions is not much better, either.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)