Talk:Stanisław Burzyński

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

What is a supposedly neutral site like Wikipedia posting crap about Burynski? Buryzinski is a biochemist and renowned for his cancer treatment: his only sin is his unorthodoxy. Yet he is summarily dimissed as a quack bvy some nameless fraud, who links to what? a quack watch site! Burzynsmi is a qualified scientist, has a PhD in biochemistry, and has 200 publications, yet he's called 'pseudoscientific'! Really! This sort of arrogant decree pseudoscience and legally its libel.

'no properly designed scientific study '

The poster provides no links for this statement, and the word 'proper' suggests an inquisitorial attitude as to what is acceptable.


Does Wikipedia know that such libel on a public site is illegal?

Why is there no link to Burzynski's own site. And if there are no 'proper scientific studies' why is there no link to a 'proper' scientific site? Huh? [1]

Brian August 2o 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 (talk • contribs)

If mainstream medicine objects to his work, it's likely objecting for a reason. While the original version of the article ([2]) should have backed up its claims more thoroghly and had a more neutral _tone_, your version ([3]) takes all of this researcher's claims as unquestioned fact. I've put a POV tag on the article to get other editors to take a look at it. --Christopher Thomas 21:45, 9 January 2006 (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)

[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 21:44, 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] Wow

The QW POV is running amuck here. Let's try a little more balance folks. There's a difference between discussing scientific controversies and controversial figures in a frustrating field like experimental oncology with patients classed as terminal and outright participation in personal attack. Cancer treatments have long been considered pretty harrowing, the writing here seems to be personal sniping about methodolgies that may not be so bad by comparison (I have talked with residents while they were doing rotations in oncology who were mature professionals from other fields, and beyond their fatigue and disappointments, I thought I could see them turning green at the gills - definitely not an area for the faint hearted)--TheNautilus (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing a "Pseudoscientist" category placed upon this article is outrageous. So this is what Wikipedia has turned into? Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


The lead version was based on partisan sources, not technically reliable, given undue weight, and look problematic under WP:BLP and NPOV. ...clinical efficacy of these treatments has not been be demonstrated and several fatal side effects have occurred.[1] The practice is considered quackery by critics.[2] This is a very one sided POV where, in fact, a number of MD investigators, conventional, NCI and altmed, have said that Burzynski's antineoplastons showed impressive effects, rather that Phase II & III clinical trials to establish "proven" efficacy have not been accomplished. Burzynski himself says that advanced cancer is still risky business with his treatments. Several fatal side effects is undue weight where for conventional oncology using long approved "proven" treatments that might mean a not too unusual week or month at the office.

I found the comments in THE BURZYNSKI SAGA, from Ralph Moss' Cancer Chronicles interesting.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the QW comments belong in the article, although not in the lead. And, if better sources for his research methodology failures are provided, those should be in the lead. (FWIW, his claim that the specific antiplasmons need to be matched to the specific strain of the disease, although plausible, makes it unlikely that clinical trials would produce positive results even if his theories are correct. This is WP:SYN, so cannot be placed in the article, but....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to discuss FDA etc-QW POV very carefully, both here and in the antineoplastons article, watching WP:V, NPOV and BLP closely. A number of books and the public records do show there *are a lot* of irregularities and seeming incest in the cumulative actions of / with state (AG, TMB), federal (USPS, NCI, FDA, DoJ, DEA, ATF), insurance (RICO cross complaints), pharmaceutical competitor(s), revolving doors, harassment, collusion and then federal 9 patent filings (13 total) & licensing of "borrowed or inspired" science by Burzynski's former employee, simultaneously with the June 1995 armed raid. I have seen or heard clearly prejudicial comments from AMA members on some of the most parochial bases (e.g. snickering dismissal over Burzynski's original large scale peptide extractions - think analogs to Premarin production, Texas Pride, & deuterium fractionation with the Urban Cowboys participating, literally). The QW article's author, Saul Green, is stated by Burzynski to have been a paid consultant of Aetna and Grace Powers Monaco (QW, NCAHF boards, "Aetna's consultant on their suit"[4]) during the fiercest litigation assualts on Burzynski, without any complaints or challenges that I have seen yet from that direction after several year publication. Several authors, including Kauffman, dissect Green's article as a largely partisan attack with poor fact control and it does appear overharsh and defamatory in nature.
On the specific genetic/disease matching, if I infer what is going on correctly, Burzynski's 78 phase II trials with ~40 patients each, are roughly some kind of matrix for organ/tissue/genetic damage type, I presume titrated for dose and chemical combo. The small, brief NCI trials sound pretty technically meaningless, the monitored blood levels, reported in the Mayo review and compared to Burzynski's results, were less than 2% of Burzynski's achieved blood levels, so that NCI really has no credibilty as an honest (or meaningful) reproduction of Burzynski's work (there are other observers, the patients & families, on record about NCI trials, too).--TheNautilus (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] precipitous Ca

As mentioned above, I have moved the QW, NCAHF references here for discussion. QW and NCAHF are not considered technically reliable sources and in this case there are serious authors and information that these articles' opinions go beyond mere bias, are substantially speculative & factually wrong, and quite possibly defamatory. The Cat:PsS, which is long recognized for abuse potential, is absolutely wrongheaded here, a flagrant BLP violation, and legally dangerous, especially given the previous statement and request from the Burzynski office. INAL but on the Cat:PsS I have concerns about actual libel on something stated as a fact where the person has made biologically plausible statements, has two doctorates, 70+ Phase II trials in progress, and has survived the combined assualts of state, federal, medical, and major insurers, all while being hijacked on 13 technical-medical patents by "opposed" federal research groups. Pls do not restore the Cat:PsS, it is a serious BLP problem.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC), split comment [5]

It is no surprise that those who are debunked and criticized by Quackwatch do not like the site and try to question its reliability. But that does not make it an unreliable source. Quackwatch is clearly a widely respected source and certainly more reliable when it comes to criticizing quacks than their own website or interviews given to devotees.
It is clear from the article and the removed references that the reason for his permanent phase II-only clinical trials is a legal loophole that allows him to treat patients without having to demonstrate efficacy. As for the "biologically plausible statements" I can tell you that from a scientific standpoint the whole idea is more or less nonsense. From a medicinal standpoint this would not matter as long as it helps patients, but he has so far cleverly avoided any evaluation of efficacy, despite having treated thousands of patients over more than twenty years. Сасусlе 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You apparently are unfamiliar with Arb com statements that Quackwatch *is* not a reliable technical source, dispite the efforts of its stalwarts at WP to promote it as such. Quackwatch itself states that it doesn't even try to be balanced. The Kauffman content I linked directly addresses, with verifiable references (more in his book), Green's comments, and separately, the severe conflict of interest as lengthy paid participation in litigation and supporting losing adversarial positions is quite relevant to WP:RS. Prof Kauffman is quoted at length by David Hufford, professor of sociology & bioethics at Penn State College of Medicine & U Penn Med School: [QW & SRAM] two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias in "Evaluating complementary and alternative medicine: the limits of science and of scientists." from J of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Summer, 2003. Quackwatch has other authoritative critics, like Finnish Cochrane Collection author & public health authority, Harri Hemilä (MD + 2 PhD), who discussed examples of bias, error and misrepresentation by Quackwatch principals at some length pp 23, 36, 76-77 using peer reviewed articles, including previous articles on his individual points. Quackwatch has other personal attacks (often times on conveniently dead people) & deprecating whole areas of medical science where (despite expert efforts to educate) QW has based its opinions on extremely poor (fradulent) tests whose long (easily) identifiable (but embarrassing) errors are now acknowledged even by PNAS, CMAJ and NIH where Quackwatch ignored or attacked those that have the best data with " ... incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kauffman's conclusion on his 8 QW examples).--TheNautilus (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the LEAD intro which appears to closer to NPOV - there *are* science and political controversies. The inclusion of adversarial extremists with *known, specific financial conflicts of interests* like Saul Green, as well as extreme personal views with scurrilous, speculative statements in the article, is a severe BLP problem. In the Foreword to the Burzynski Breakthrough, investigative reporter Elias explictly says that a number of major conventional bodies dismissed the "quackery" description of Burzynski and his antineoplastons work and that they said this was a dispute in experimental biology, Elias' statement including the FDA and the American Cancer Society. The most accessible single discussion online of Green's surrilous polemic may be Prof. Kauffman's 2002 "Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch" article online. In Kauffman's book, Malignant Medical Myths (2006), in chapter 10 (pp. 247-258), he uses the 2002 article in toto, expands it some, adds numerous references, and a list of reviewers, This chapter was critically reviewed by Frances E. H. Pane, MSLS, ALice Ottoboni, PhD, Fred Ottoboni PhD, MPH, William A Reinsmith, DA, Alayne Yates, MD, and Charles T. McGee, MD.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC), split comment [6]

You are right about not adding the controversy about the legitimacy of his Ph.D. title to the article. However, your ad hominem attacks are a classical logical fallacy and do not address the critical arguments. You might also want to check the reliability of these sources. Сасусlе 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
see above reply. Green's COI is a WP:RS problem, the article is obsolete and voided by subsequent WP:V fact checking on his erroneous statements and speculation by independent authors.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

According to an FDA analysis in 1998, Buzynski's therapy contributed to the deaths of at least seven people through hypernatremia [7] caused by the enormous ammounts of sodium ions in his treatments [8] This is an unbalanced view with undue weight and with respect to conventional cancer therapies. My previous edit[] was more informative with the antineoplaston introduction including by this part: the highest [antineoplastons] usage levels carry a very high sodium load that require careful attention to fluid and electrolyte balance. Also according to Burzynski's observations, a major part of the problem is home patients, who could be not be as closely monitored and getting less local medical support, going off-protocol on their hydration. Many conventional neoplastic agents are far, far more deadly with great risks, even if "FDA approved", especially if improperly used.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)end of split comment [7]

Comparing risks is always a cost / benefit consideration. On the one hand you have proven cancer treatments that are aggressive, but save more lives (or days alive) than no treatment (proven in clinical studies). On the other hand you have Buzynski's therapy that has killed several people with no documented benefit whatsoever. Mentioning the risks involved in his cures in a neutral tone does clearly not put undue weight onto this fact. And you do hopefully not question the reliability of an FDA analysis.
Please let me share a personal anecdote: I came across Burzinky when I saw a (not cancer-related) scientific poster from his clinic at a major scientific congress. The content was utter nonsense from a scientific perspective, but their printouts were professionally color-printed on glossy paper (usually you can be happy if you get a photocopy) and it looked great with all these cool computer-generated images on it. I took it as a good hoax ("you don't fool me..."). After a few weeks I got curious and was surprised to find that the Burzinsky Clinic actually exists. I read Burzinski's website and noted his meticulous listings of memberships in professional societies, the number of patents he holds (both does actually not mean anything, all you have to do is to pay for it), and the number of publications (it is not the number that counts, it is the content and quality). His ridiculous poster presentation fit well into the bigger scheme to fool lay persons into thinking that he is a serious and respected scientific or medicinal authority.
Nautilus: you are selectively removing critical content and replaced it whitewashed formulations (at least partially taken from Burzinky's website and uncritical interviews with him). This violates Wikipedias neutral point of view policy and I urge you to stop this. Сасусlе 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
...has killed several people I really don't want to play "good doc - bad doc" with you, this is a purely prejudicial statement. Unnecesary death in medicine happens *a lot* in gross numbers, it is acknowledged within the profession that there are lot of structural problems in the area of service control in hospitals as well as the real personnel problems. Oncology to this point in time has ongoing controversies over net benefit broadly, large scale experimental protocols' designs. B might look like a boy scout in comparison to some incidents I am personally familiar with nary a word. B got most of his patients precut, fried, and/or thoroughly cytotoxified with zero hope. B pointed out that 2 of those 7 might be more accurately said to have died *with* numerical hypernatremia rather than from it, and that his patients offsite sometimes have trouble staying on hydration protocol whether due to discipline or lack of adequate local medical support (also sometimes because of bias).
no documented benefit You mean no FDA certified Phase III "proven" benefit with class III evidence. In experimental science areas, it is important to recognize what class I and class II EBM there is. Burzynski is an experimental oncologist, where you can join an existing Phase II trial, or if you have no conventional options left, you can try for the special FDA exception. There are a number of independent doctors, including federal, who have gone to bat for some of Burzynski's results as unusual, dramatic, multiple recoveries where death, intrinsic to specific diagnosis, was generally considered 99.x+% certain, that corresponds to Class II evidence in EBM. Here is a more recent summary of the available evidence, NCI. It is important to always realize in altmed discussions that conclusions for "approved Medicine" vs recognized Science in progress can be two much different things.
...question FDA Certainly others have, citing many forms of bias in this specific case, as well as institutional biases, judicial reprimands and orders, and directed congressional action. Of course there have been FDA officials or employees that did their jobs with as much integrity as possible, just overshadowed by the politicos. Every FDA action here is subject to WP:V, WP:RS rebuttal, sources and scrutiny.
Please let me share a personal anecdote...The content was... sounds like OR, sometimes useful for establishing common points of view. I have my own stories during foreign 5* hotel stays with the then latest in (US) VD technology on nice glossy 8 foot tall poster boards filling the lobby, thankfully gone in a few days, making claims that apparently didn't hold up so well (or long) on the frontlines of medicine.
I read Burzinski's website and noted his meticulous listings of memberships in professional societies... I gather that B is fairly effective as a self promoter and perceives listing these memberships as a positive, but understand professional societies can and do kick out members that are embarrassing or go beyond some limit, without too much ceremony, or make life extremely uncomfortable.
the number of patents he holds (both does actually not mean anything, all you have to do is to pay for it) although I will agree that patent quality in the US has deteriorated in the last dozen years, especially with the business & software hijinks, I think (bio)chemical related patents in the 70s and 80s were a little less than trivial to get when many PhDs couldn't even get one, resorted to unethical or "me too" tactics, "big boy" stuff, such as Burzynski complained about on the NCI using his former employee. Perhaps you don't have any such patents during the time period more than a dozen years ago.
Nautilus: you are selectively removing critical content I have moved some duplicated links and duplicated material with questionable material to Talk for discussion, per normal editing practices and there is the externeral link to this same material still present in the article which is mutually exclusive (either it goes or the references would).
This violates Wikipedias neutral point of view policy and I urge you to stop this. I am willing to discuss the controversy, but given some of the edits you have made previously, including material that Burnzynski office appears to cite as false and harmful, and which I believe to be false and extremely defamatory (e.g. "Cat:PsS"), I will likewise caution you, but I would rather spend our time finding and discussing better sources collaboratively.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new sources

This book, Surviving "terminal" Cancer: Clinical Trials, Drug Cocktails, and Other Treatments..., by an experimental psychologist, frmrly dept chair at UCSD, who took a hands on science review approach for choosing combinations of conventional, alternative and experimental therapies to become a rare long term survivor of Grade IV brain cancer ( GBM) using combined methods. He discusses Burzynski pp. 32-33, 186-193 from an uncommon, independent, highly informed, experimental sciences view. See also his online paper Treatment Options for Glioblastoma and other Gliomas, pp70-71, 2007, revised & updated periodically.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And another, from Complementary and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care and Prevention: Foundations And Evidence-based Interventions (2006) Dr. Marc S. Micozzi (Editor) '"...was a Senior Investigator for the National Cancer Institute" pp. 387-389--TheNautilus (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

also I found this recent paper interesting: "Urinary Proteomic Biomarkers in Coronary Artery Disease", Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, 7:290-298, 2008. "...the polypeptide pattern was able to predict the presence of [CAD] disease 83% of the time (95% CI 51.6-97.4), with a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI 89-99)..."--TheNautilus (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)