Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic – 2013 BBC documentary, Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?

Wikipedia must be too busy accusing me of using multiple Internet I.P. addresses to try and change every wiki article under the sun, instead of keeping their Burzynski article up-to-date

I await the in-depth analysis which breaks down my blog, Twitter, and Internet activity, showing that it was humanly possible for me to do all that has been claimed

But then again, maybe I’m NOT human !


Is that you HAL ?

Anywho, WP took a crack at addressing the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) Panorama documentary [1]

I did some critiques on the documentary article, documentary, and WP’s “credible source,” Dr. David H. Orac … Gorski [2-4]

“Burzynski exploits a legal loophole”by treating patients” with antineoplastons do so as part of a clinical trial, so the drug does not need a licence” for twenty years.” [66]

“Legal loophole” ?

Really ??

Not so much

It’s the law

“The Skeptics™” have had years to get it changed in Congress if it were a “legal loophole”

“According to Watford Observer, the mother of Luna Petagine, a young girl with a brain tumor, “cast doubt” on Burzynski’s “expensive treatment.” [67]

“Expensive treatment” ?

Based on what objective criteria ? [5-6]

The Reading Post said, the Panorama investigation shown on Monday questioned whether the Burzynski Clinic was ‘selling hope’to families” which doubted the statistics provided by the Burzynski Clinic. [68]

Based on what objective criteria ?

“They say 776 patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008.”

“And that 15.5% had survived more than five years, which compares favourably to other treatments.” [6] (see #13)

Where’s Wikipedia’s survival rates for:

a) Chemotherapy

b) Radiation Therapy

c) Radiotherapy

d) Other

and their comparison of possible adverse effects of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, radiotherapy, other, compared to antineoplastons ?

The issues I had with the documentary were:

1. “The report includes interviews with experts like Professor Richard Grundy of Nottingham Children’s Hospital”

“Prof Richard Grundy treats children with cancer, and runs one of the UK’s biggest research projects into brain tumours.”

“He says it is “unethical” for Dr Burzynski not to share his findings:”

In my ‘opinion,’ it is “unethical” for Professor Grundy to NOT share his findings re Dr. Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports [7]

2. “Unfortunately the results from Dr Burzynski’s clinic are not published in any form that’s acceptable to the scientific community.””

Explain [7]

3. Dr Jeanine Graf

“She sometimes treats patients from the Burzynski Clinic who have become critically ill, but she has never known any of them survive.”

How many patients ?

Richard Bilton asked for numbers from Burzynski, so he should be consistent and have asked Dr. Graf the same question

4. “He must believe in what he’s doing, but I have not been convinced by the existing scientific literature that his therapy has any efficacy.”

Where is Dr. Graf’s “in-depth” review of Dr. Burzynski’s above-listed publications ? [7]
[1] – Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic – Legal Issues: 2013 BBC documentary, Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?
[2] – 6/4/2013 – The British are Coming, The British are Coming: Critiquing
“Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”

[3] – 6/7/2013 – IT MAY NOT BE SCIENCE: Critiquing “Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”:
[4] – 8/4/2013 – Critiquing Dr David H. “Orac”
Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:

[66] – Richard Bilton

there for posterity on YouTube
[67] – Watford Observer
[5] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: Costs of Cancer treatments:
[6] – 7/18/2013 – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
See #10
[68] – Reading Post
[7] – 8/7/2013 – Burzynski: Phase II Clinical Trials Preliminary Reports:


Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS)

[1] – Wikipedia, which is behind on updating the “propaganda” on their Burzynski article, posted:

Legal issues

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

[2] – “A showing of Burzynski by CPT12 only generated a handful of complaints to the PBS Ombudsman

“These mostly concurred with earlier reviewers of the film that the movie displays a serious lack of objectivity”

[3] – “Some CPT staffers were also criticized for failing to ask Eric Merola any of the hard questions”[65]

[4] – What Wikipedia fails to advise the reader is how many times “The Skeptics™” lied, misinformed, disinformed, and / or did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims, did NOT respond to questions, used adolescent excuses and / or instead of addressing one issue per comment, posted numerous multiple issues in each comment which required research to address each issue, and thus #FAILED on the CPT12 Facebook page

[5] – [6] – Here is a list of “The Skeptics™” who participated in this questionable behavior

Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
Val Perry Rendel
Amber Sherwood K
Amy Hochberg Beaton
Robert Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
Adam Jacobs @DianthusMed)
Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
William M. London
Scott Myers
David James (@StortSkeptic)
Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
Karl Mamer
David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
Adam Levenstein
Rene F. Najera
Tsu Dho Nimh
Jen Keane
Vicky Forster
Scott Hurst
Susan Scotvold Goodstein
Catherina Becker
Footy Stuff

Oh, wait

That would take too much time since it was about all of “The Skeptics™”
[1] – Burzynski Clinic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2] – 3/23/2013 – My review of “Burzynski: A note to the PBS ombudsman”:
[3] – [65] – 3/22/2013 – PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler – Cancer Is ‘Serious Business.’ Is the ‘Documentary’?
[4] – 3/7/2013 – Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS (broadcasted a version of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business”(Part I)
#CPT12 @ColoPublicTV
[5] – 3/9/2013 – Colorado Public Television – PBS:
[6] – 3/26/2013 – My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):

Critiquing: Wikipedia – Burzynski Clinic

[1] – Wikipedia, claims:
“There is a scientific consensus that antineoplaston therapy is unproven and of little promise in treating cancer””
“… a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit from antineoplaston treatment.[1]””
“The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated: “Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans.”[1]””
Interestingly, the above 1st claim by “Wikipedia” does NOT provide any specific citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support this claim
[2] – 2/1999 – What “Wikipedia” does NOT advise the reader about the 2nd and 3rd claims, is that the conclusion of the study was:

“Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy
[3] – 6/1999 – Wikipedia also does NOT point out that Burzynski replied to the 2/1999 publication, that:

[A] – Study tested dosing regimen known to be ineffective

[B] – Dosages of A10 and AS2–1 used in study were meant for treatment of single small lesion (<5 cm)

5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than 5 cm

[C] – As the provider of A10 and AS2–1, I strongly suggested to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with greater tumor load

[D] – Study was closed when I insisted the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used
(letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995)

[E] – Review of clinical data in the article by Buckner et al proves validity of my position

[F] – Study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels

My phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine (PG) levels 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine (isoPG) levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate (PN) levels 2 times greater than those reported by Buckner et a1 [1]

[G] – Clinical outcomes reported by Buckner et al, based on inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from my phase 2 studies in which higher dosage regimen was used

[H] – They reported no tumor regression

In contrast, in 1 of my ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses [2]

[I] – Difference in outcomes primarily due to difference in dosage schedules

[J] – Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by Buckner et al is duration of treatment was too brief

Almost all patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days

1 patient received only 9 days of treatment

Current studies indicate objective tumor responses usually observed after 3 months of therapy

Additional 8 months of treatment usually needed to obtain maximal therapeutic effect

[K] – Ambiguities in response evaluation and analysis in article by Buckner et al

In.2 patients, tumor necrosis attributed to “radio-necrosis”

Interpretation’s clouded by fact antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis

[L] – Analysis by Buckner et al could’ve highlighted 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than 1 year

This is of interest because patients typically have life expectancy of 3 to 6 months

[M] – At time of the study by Buckner et al, the sponsor, NCI, decided against higher dosing regimen I proposed and closed the study

Study used dosing regimen known to be ineffective
[4] – 10/4/1991 – Five doctors (3 from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Branch (CTEP); including the Head of the Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and 2 invited consultants; including one from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski
[5] – 10/31/1991 – Michael A. Friedman, M.D. Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Department of Health &Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a one page Memorandum to Bruce A. Chabner, M.D., Director, Division of Cancer Treatment, which stated, in part:

“I thought you would be interested in this for several reasons:”

“3. Antineoplastons deserve a closer look”

“It turns out that the agents are well defined, pure chemical entities
“The human brain tumor responses are real”

[6] – 11/15/1991 – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a 7 page letter to Decision Network, which stated, in part, on page one:
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “

[7] – 12/2/91 – NCI (National Cancer Institute), Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons, states in part, on page 11:
“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “

National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services, Antineoplastons, pg. 1

“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “

[9] – Page 1 of 6, BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, Antineoplaston Cancer Therapy, Policy #: 280, Category: Medicine, states, in part, on page 2 of 6:

Key Points:
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
“After the reviewers found some evidence of antitumor activity … “
These facts indicate to me that Wikipedia’s claim about “antineoplastons”, is “debatable”

Maybe they should have learned how to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Antineoplastons, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
[2] – 2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma

Material & Methods:

Patients received escalating doses of A10 and AS2-1 by multiple intermittent intravenous injections with use of portable programmable pump to the target daily dose of 1.0 g/kg for A10 and of 0.4 g/kg for AS2-1

Mean steady-state plasma concentrations of phenylacetate & phenylacetylglutamine after escalation to the target doses of A10 and AS2-1 were 177 +/-101 ug/mL & 302 +/- 102 ug/mL, respectively


9 patients were treated, in 6 of whom treatment response was assessable in accordance with protocol stipulations
Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999), PMID .10069350
DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137

Click to access PIIS0025619611638354.pdf

Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–145
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45
J C Buckner, M G Malkin, E Reed, T L Cascino, J M Reid, M M Ames, W P Tong, S Lim, W D Figg
Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota USA
[3] – 6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
Comment on
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999

Click to access PIIS0025619611641438.pdf

Comment on
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter)
Mayo Clin Proc
74 (6): 641-2

Click to access PIIS0025619611641438.pdf

Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641
1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Mayo
Buckner, Reid, & Malkin
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 2 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
74(6):2 1999 Elsevier Ltd.

Click to access PIIS002561961164144X.pdf


Click to access Antineoplastons.pdf


Click to access 280.pdf


Click to access HS183_Antineoplaston_Therapy.pdf


Wikipedia, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?

As part of my exposé of who put the “BiaS in “WikipedBiaS, one of the articles I posted was:

“Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?”


to view this change

The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at
> worst a quack…”. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 30 December 2012

The world ?


Now THAT is impressive

I was NOT aware that Wikipedia is able to advise us all of what the “opinion” of “The world ?,” is

I wonder if that depends on what the definition of “IS,” is?

(Thank you, Bill Clinton, for providing us all with THAT gem)

If “The world ” truly “right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack,” how dare these people have the audacity and temerity to reference “HIS work

(I wonder if they received the Wikipedia Burzynski Clinic “gatekeepers’ official stamp of approval before they published this – I hate to think of what is going to happen to them if they did NOT … Will WikipedBiaS hurl Mud in their general direction? – I shudder to think)

Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
University of California—San Francisco
Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Click to access 298.full.pdf

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies

Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:
“The Skeptics:” Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored:
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t?:
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak:
On the 6th day, HE created WIKIPEDIA, and on the 7th, WikipedBiaS:
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic (Mobile)
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic Talk Page:

Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing

As I have proven previously, Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
12/26/2012 I requested that Wikipedia add the below Houston’s KPRC News article re Lola A. Quinlan, to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article, considering that they had previously posted there:

“In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski…”

“Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
Thank you very much.” Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 26 December 2012
So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this Houston, Texas, news article reference?

Dear Didymus Judas Thomas,

The Wikipedia page Talk:Burzynski Clinic has been changed on
December 26, 2012 by Arthur Rubin

to view this change.

Editor’s summary: /* Law Suits */ So?

Contact the editor:
Arthur Rubin advised:

“:So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news.” — Arthur Rubin 15:24, 26 December 2012

I had the impression that Arthur Rubin had not even bothered to read the article in question, and replied:

“::Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides.”. 17:51, 27 December 2012 Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012

Arthur Rubin’s, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ response?


Well, you know the saying:

Silence IS Golden

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

WP:NPOV clearly indicates:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).

“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”

“This page in a nutshell:”

“Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.”

(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)

[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?


(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

Is Wikipedia’s Burzynski BIAS showing?

YOU decide, because in my opinion it IS, since this piece of “Yellow Journalism” is referenced in the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

Prior to the debut of “Burzynski”, Houston Press correspondent Craig Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, characterizing it as “a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism”, and criticized the project for presenting only Burzynski’s side of the story.” [60]
60^ Malisow, Craig (2010-06-02). “Stanlislaw Burzynski: New Movie Proves He’s A Cancer-Fighting Giant – Houston News – Hair Balls”. Retrieved 2011-11-25.

Jun 2, 2010 – Houston’s Stanislaw Burzynski, who sells a so-called cancer …

(Hair Balls hasn’t seen the movie, but nowhere in the … )

So, in a nutshell, Wikipedia will reference “Yellow Journalism” by a “Hack” who posts an article about a movie he has NOT even seen, but will NOT reference a news article which is posted on Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site, which contains comments from her attorney, as well as Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s attorney

Wikipedia, your BIAS is showing

“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘

“the ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.”‘

Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’, which are you?