Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, as I have proven previously:
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/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)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
1/13/2013 I requested that Wikipedia add this antineoplaston review article to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
8/2008 – REVIEW ARTICLE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18682440
Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care:
redd.it/1edfpd
Promises and Pitfalls
http://redd.it/1edfpd
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
http://m.jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/08/05/jjco.hyn066.full.pdf#page=1
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug;38(8):512-20
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full?sid=5c546408-071e-4148-abd3-6c295dd5c6d7
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyn066. Epub 2008 Aug 5
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full.pdf?sid=f8e0a3cc-2912-40e5-a7c2-dbd6db4b3c1d
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India
PDF pg. 5 of 9
PHARMACOLOGIC AND BIOLOGIC TREATMENTS
BURZYNSKI
Burzynski (49), a biochemist, discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again
Clinical trials have, however, failed to accrue patients to test this exciting concept
In the solitary phase II study, Antineoplastons [consisting of antineoplaston A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections] were given intravenously in escalating doses
The overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma
Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%
Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients (50)
PDF pg. 9 of 9
References
49. Burzynski SR
The Present Stage of Antineoplaston Research
Integr Cancer Ther 2004;3:47–58
50. Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, Burzynski B
Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2–1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
Integr Cancer Ther 2006;5:40–7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burzynski_Clinic
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=533137378
to view this change.
*Per [[WP:NPOV]] & [[WP:MEDRS ]] please add at the end of the Burzynski Clinic section; based on “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls,” “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” (which can be reviewed in HTML
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full?sid=5c546408-071e-4148-abd3-6c295dd5c6d7 or PDFs at pg. 5 of 9 & reference at pg. 9
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full.pdf?sid=f8e0a3cc-2912-40e5-a7c2-dbd6db4b3c1d
http://m.jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/08/05/jjco.hyn066.full.pdf#page=1 ):
+
:”A 2008 medical review stated that Burzynski “discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again.” “In the solitary phase II study” of “Antineoplastons” [consisting of A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections], “the overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%. Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18682440 &
+
*based on “The Oncologist,” “Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer” (which can be reviewed in HTML
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full?sid=aeef6d69-bf46-4bd0-93b0-f259cd21d416 or PDFs at pg. 4 of 10 & references at pg.. 7
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full.pdf
http://www.oncocure.ca/assets/byTopic/IntegrativeOncology/2-CAM%20Therapies%20in%20CA-Oncologist%202004.pdf ):
+
:”A 2004 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center medical review stated that antineoplastons therapy “research at the Burzynski Institute was permitted under an Investigational New Drug permit. The group’s preliminary report from a single-arm phase II study of 12 patients showed a 50% response rate.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14755017
Thank you very much. [[User:Didymus Judas Thomas|Didymus Judas Thomas]] ([[User talk:Didymus Judas Thomas|talk]]) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/13/2013
A search of “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” on Wiki, displays:
http://www.wikipedia.org/
Search results:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Japanese+Journal+of+Clinical+Oncology%22&go=Go
View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
A search HERE:
http://www.wikisearch.com/
About 152 results (0.16 seconds)
A review of those entries show that Wikipedia allows the
“Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology”
to be listed as a [[WP:MEDRS]] source
(Wikipedia: Medical Resources)
So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this medical journal review article reference?
Alexbrn advised:
Contact the editor:
mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Alexbrn
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexbrn
“It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact:”
“a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support.”
“The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already.”
“We shouldn’t be undermining that with poorer-quality sources.”
“(1/15/2013) AND “The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK.”
“In relation, other one-off articles are “poorer-sources”, and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus.”
[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] [[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]] 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=533161058
to view this change.
(Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, and has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English)
Let’s “FACT-CHECK” Alexbrn, shall we?
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)
(1/16/2013). 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 Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs 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 Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs 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 Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs 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 Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs 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,” references.” Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013l
[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct“.
(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs 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 Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs 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 Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, if you do NOT think (?) that the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology is a reliable source—source that has a reputation for being accurate and / or
“Good source”, then remove ALL [[WP:MEDRS]] references to it
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Pseudoscience:
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)
Balancing different views
If we’re going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority
(sometimes pseudoscientific)
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
[[WP:CSB]]
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?
YOU decide, because in my opinion:
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs did NOT do this
onforb.es/11pwse9
OR THIS:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“3. Why is it that on the Wikipedia “Brainstem Glioma” Prognosis page it has “needs citations,” when I can do an Internet search and find reliable independent sources for that information?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
“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.”‘
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, which are you?
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 