A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia’s “Failure to Communicate”

[1] – 1st 7 comments by
“The Skeptics™”

34 – # of “The Skeptics™”
29 – # Questioning “The Skeptics™”
192 comments – “The Skeptics™”
44 – Lynne Batik
31 – Fenwicke Bootzin (Sizzling Bacon Scent) Sizzling Burnt Bacon Scent
13 – Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
13 – Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed)
12 – Jen Abe
10 – David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
7 – Edward Jenner
6 – Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
6 – Fred Hamlet
6 – Rene F. Najera
6 – Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
4 – Angela Campagna
4 – Val Perry Rendel
3 – Amy Hochberg Beaton
3 – Susan Scotvold Goodstein
3 – Karl Mamer
2 – Scott Hurst
2 – Laura Calise Neimeyer
2 – Tsu Dho Nimh
1 – Catherina Becker
1 – Vicky Forster
1 – Jan Gosau
1 – David James (@StortSkeptic)
1 – Terry D. Johnson
1 – Jen Keane
1 – Adam Levenstein
1 – Keir Liddle (@endless_psych)
1 – Matthew Miller
1 – Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
1 – Richard Murray
1 – Scott Myers
1 – Andy Roseborrough
1 – Footy Stuff
1 – Tom Steinberg

239 comments – Questioning “The Skeptics™”
112 – Didymus Thomas *
71 – Robert Davis
15 – Jon Barratt
13 – Eric Merola
7 – Bruce Scherzer
4 – Ben Hymas
2 – Bill Doucette
2 – Teresa Kennett
2 – Krassi Kostova
2 – Jessica Ressel-Doeden
2 – Jennifer Woods
1 – Angela Campagna
1 – Jessica Guillory Garza
1 – Melissa Gilbert
1 – Russell David Humphress
1 – Karl Jobst
1 – Anya Matkowski
1 – Susanne McAllister
1 – Terri Miller
1 – Mark Mord
1 – Shannon E. Peters
1 – Chris Rodriguez
1 – Pat Rozek
1 – Cindy Samora
1 – Ric Schiff
1 – Gary Susie
1 – Kevin Thurston
1 – Laura Vincent
1 – Susan Wassenhove
* Requesting “The Skeptics™” reply when they did NOT, pointing out where they did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims
38 comments with links – “The Skeptics™”
19 – Lynne Batik
5 – Fenwicke Bootzin (Sizzling Bacon Scent) Sizzling Burnt Bacon Scent
5 – Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed)
3 – David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
2 – Fred Hamlet
2 – Rene F. Najera
1 – Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
1 – Andy Roseborrough

131 comments with links – Questioning “The Skeptics™”
104 – Didymus Thomas *
18 – Robert Davis
8 – Eric Merola
1 – Paul Battista
* One of “The Skeptics™” made the mistake of commenting that Burzynski, had NOT published any publications
“The Skeptics™” LIES
[2] – 3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs

” … did you know that he’s recently removed all mention of antineoplastons from his website … “
[3] – 3/5/2013 – William M. London

” … Burzynski’s anti-cancer fantasies … “
[4] – 3/5/2013 – Paul Morgan

“As for his “gene-targeted” therapy, firstly Burzynski is simply using a cocktail of chemotherapy drugs in a random and haphazard manner with no thoughts as to the potential interactions and unpredictable toxicity of his mix of chemotherapy drugs”

“As for being “gene-targeted”, his approach could be described as “gene-targeted” in the same way as the military regard carpet bombing …”

“The Skeptics™” who got it WRONG
3/5/2013 – Rene F. Najera

“I predict this poll and subsequent comments will be taken down by the end of the day”
This “Skeptics™” must have had
confused with “The Skeptics™” like Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz), David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed), Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed), and Keir Liddle (@endless_psych), who block people on their blogs
“The Skeptics™” who did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims
3/6/2013 – Lynne Batik

“Dr. B is a scam artist who has found a few people he can claim to have cured, and uses those to sucker in far more people who he will bankrupt without curing”
3/4/2013 – Amy Hochberg Beaton

“I think Burzynski has proved multiple times over that his $*&% doesn’t work and he is not running a legitimate trial”
3/5/2013 – Catherina Becker

“To prey on desperate, dying people, encouraging them to fund raise, risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of debts, for life threatening humbug must be the vilest phenomenon in Medicine”

“To support such behaviour by running adverts for these vultures is equally vile”
3/4/2013 – Robert Blaskiewicz

“ANP is toxic as anything!”

“most of Burzynski’s patients never qualify for his trials”

“They all end up taking tons of chemo used off label”
3/5/2013 – Susan Scotvold Goodstein

“Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial for Burzynski’s 30 year medical scam is not presenting a fair and balanced program”
3/5/2013 – David H. Gorski

“Antineoplastons, however, are neither nontoxic nor an effective treatment”

“In fact, they’re definitely toxic”

“People have developed a dangeros condition called hypernatremia (too high a sodium level) as a result of antineoplaston treatment”
3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs

“Burzynski absolutely does not research “non-toxic” treatments”

“Mostly, he uses conventional chemotherapy, but in a rather amateurish way, using unproven combinations of drugs”

“The treatment that has made him famous, antineoplastons, is highly toxic and has been known to kill people”
3/5/2013 – David James

“You run the risk of genuinely endangering people’s lives by exposing them to unproven and ridiculously expensive treatment modalities”
3/5/2013 – Adam Levenstein

“do I think that the fraud Burzynski should be promoted with an infomercial on a taxpayer-funded TV station … “
3/5/2013 – William M. London

“Colorado Public Television functions as an infomercial broadcast service for false medical prophets (who profit from Colorado Public Television’s irresponsibility)”
3/5/2013 – Paul Morgan

“Antineoplaston chemotherapy – despite the claims of Burzynski and his shills – are far from being non-toxic”

“They contain vast quantities of sodium, which results in patients having to ingest vast quantities of water to counteract the overpowering thirst generated by taking in so much sodium”

“Some patients have become grossly hypernatraemic (high serum sodium), others profoundly hypokalaemic (low serum potassium)”

“Others have developed renal failure”

“All these TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS are extremely hazardous and life-threatening”

“If you consider antineoplastons to be non-toxic, you are seriously deluded”

“If you think antineoplastons are not chemotherapy, you are also wrong”
3/5/2013 – Tsu Dho Nimh

“You are being co-opted to slather a layer of respectability over Burzynski’s quackery”

“You seem to fit the definition of a media whore … will sell out for ratings”
3/4/2013 – Val Perry Rendel

“Do I think magic voodoo bullshit should be used to profiteer from human suffering and desperation?”
3/6/2013 – Andy Roseborrough

“Burzynski not only sells
for profit at the expense of people’s health, but he tries to silence legitimate criticism via his lawyers”

3/4/2013 – Darren Woodward

” … the completely unproven, very expensive treatments sold to vulnerable people … “

” … rather than informing your audience it looks like you are trying to misinform them”

“by what measure are antineoplastines non-toxic, certainly medically they are toxic”



[1] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS):
[2] – Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
[3] – Critiquing: American Cancer Society – Antineoplaston Therapy:
[4] – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski’s Grapefruits ?:
“The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) – PBS Facebook comment links:
Questioning “The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) PBS Facebook comments with links:

Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”

Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The BIG 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter A. Lipson, M.D.’s Article:

“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”

was posted:


Dr. Lipson has a web-site which advises that he:

“is an internist and medical blogger”

Dr. Lipson states in relation to Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski:

“His clinic claims to have a unique approach to cancer involving an experimental (and expensive) treatment he calls “anti-neoplastons”.”

Or, “antineoplastons”

Dr. Lipson does not state the relevance of his “(and expensive)” comment, as compared to any other cancer treatment

Nor does he indicate as he did re the other doctor, whether

” people come from all over the world to visit him and his colleagues”

in relation to Dr. Burzynski

Perhaps he was pressed to publish his article before he had time to completely research the subject-matter

Dr. Lipson contines:

“The basis for these claims is controversial to say the least and I’ll leave it to others to go into detail.”

The link that Dr. Lipson provides links to this source:
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Dr. Lipson does not disclose in his article that he also publishes on this site:

And that it is the site of Dr. David H. Gorski, who disclosed on social media that “Peter” was his “bud”

Dr. Lipson states:

“The Burzynski Clinic seems to be quite different”

“For one thing, it’s marketing seems to rely more on patient anecdotes than actual data”

I guess it’s possible that during his

” exploration of the public face of the Burzynski Clinic”

the good doctor was unable to find the “Scientific Publications:”
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
Dr. Lipson comments about:

[A] well-known “vlogger” who goes by the handle “C0nc0rdance”

and his

“posting a video critical of Burzynski

and C0nc0rdance’s paranoid statement:

“He used the legal thuggery tactic of submitting a false DMCA in order to force me to give him my home address so that I can be the subject of legal harassment and intimidation by his lawyers and media thugs”

“And later:”

“I’ve been in touch with Eric Merola by email, and he’s agreed to retract his copyright claim if I can get his email removed from all the mirrors”

Dr. Lipson does not opine about the manufactured “hysteria” activities by the Burzynski “Critics,” that occurred on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media sites, which entailed this “fact-challenged” video being “mirrored” (duplicated), a ridiculous amount of times

My review of C0nc0rdance | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

Dr. Lipson goes on to state:

“As a public figure issuing threats to another public figure, I don’t see how he should be entitled to hide his email, but I am not a lawyer.”

This is an exceptional point; and by that I mean Dr. Lipson pointing out that he is “not a lawyer,” since lawyers are usually bound by ethical rules

Dr. Lipson comments that Dr. Burzynski is

“not an oncologist by the usual definitions”

I am not sure what relevance this is since Dr. Burzynski is a biochemist

A fact that Dr. Lipson should have been able to find during his painstakingly, meticulous research

I am not sure if Dr. Lipson has an opinion that oncologists are somehow superior to biochemists, or not

Nor does Dr. Lipson disclose whether or not during his thorough investigation, he found if Dr. Burzynski works with any oncologist(s), or if any oncologist(s) are listed as co-authors on any of his clinical trial publications

Dr. Lipson goes on to state:

“His publications in the field of cancer are few…”

I am not quite sure what Dr. Lipson means by “few,” or why it is that Dr. Lipson was able during his previous research to find;

“By a quick check on PubMed, the (young) doctor I met there has about 60 publications to his name”

but was not able to find Dr. Burzynski’s 36 cancer publications that one can find, by

“a quick check on PubMed”

utilizing the search terms:

Burzynski S Cancer

or the other publications he has by utilizing the search:

Burzynski S

Dr. Lipson contines:

“Burzynski administers his experimental “antineoplaston” therapy under the aegis of clinical trials, but of sixty-one registered trials, he has completed only one and has not published the results of any of them.”

A “quick check on” clinicaltrials . gov using the search:

Burzynski S

displays what Dr. Lipson is referring to

However, Dr. Lipson does not mention:

Burzynski: Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

Also, if one follows the links on clinicaltrials . gov; which is supposedly sourced from the NCI, which link to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one finds that the results are different, which leaves one wondering which source is correct

1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)



Dr. Lipson posits:

“Rather than a traditional trial setup, his patients pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of participating in the studies (not the most ethical or effective subject selection strategy).”

Speaking of ethical, Dr. Lipson does not mention if Dr. Burzynski is receiving Federal funding or funding from any large pharmaceutical company

Or, If not, where does he propose Dr. Burzynski receive funding from?

Simply offering that there is a problem without offering a solution seems to be so very “last century”

Dr. Lipson also does not compare the costs of cancer treatments

Burzynski: Costs of Cancer treatments | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

Dr. Lipson proceeds with:

“Burzynski’s treatment statistics (survival rates, etc.) are not made publicly available; all we get are anecdotes, nothing to help us compare his clinic to others.”

Luckily for Dr. Lipson, I provide resources like this:

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings) | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
Dr. Lipson continues with:

“My experience with the Cleveland Clinic could not be more different from my exploration of the public face of the Burzynski Clinic.”


“The other is a personality-driven clinic with questionable ethical standards that, despite claims of effective new treatments, declines to publish results that can be used by the rest of the medical community.”

Well, I’m glad I could help

Down at the bottom of the article it has:




I’m not quite sure why an opportunity to comment is provided, since when I commented on the article numerous times, my comments were censored (removed), as I documented here:

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

Forbes censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” article comments | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

I found this to be quite ironic, considering that the source that this article was posted on, has done a number of articles re censorship, and given that in his article, Dr. Lipson states:

“Speech is best countered by more speech.”


“Attempts by supporters of Burzynski to shut up critics (by whatever reasoning) is antagonistic to the goals of medicine to collect, analyze, and disseminate information.”

The question is, what motive would Dr. Lipson have for writing an article like this, and for comments to be censored?

I consider myself to be a “Critic Critic,” or “Skeptic Critic,” if you will