Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak

Posted on May 21, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
onforb.es/11pwse9
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), posted a biased article:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
on Forbes (#Forbes)

One “lilady” decided to bite off more than she could chew, when she posted:

lilady 3 weeks ago

“Ha Didymus Thomas…You opened your huge tin of Spam, months ago! And, you “Didymous Judas Thomas” and your sock puppets were banned by Wikipedia.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
and:

lilady 3 weeks ago

“But you ARE Didymus Judas Thomas, who, along with his/her sock puppets, are banned from Wikipedia:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
If “lilady” thought that I “opened” a “huge tin of Spam, months ago!,” I hope she truly enjoys the huge tin of spinach that I opened on Wikipedia:

(This “lilady” has stated her stance on “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” blog, making it clear that this “lilady” is just another one of “The SkeptiCowards,” along with “Orac,” Guy Chapman, Boris Ogon, etc.)

The list of “The SkeptiCowards,” expands exponentially

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/
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/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
Having successfully proven that Jimmy (“Alabamy Jimbo“) Donal Wales’ Wiki Leaks Wikipedia was BIASED when it came to the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Burzynski Clinic
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
article, I decided to:

Do The “Alabamy Right” Thing

(Unlike Wikipedia: Statement Of Principles)

[[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales:

(Wikipedia: Doing The Right Thing)

1. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.”

Time for a huge tin can of Alabamy WhoopA$$

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas

Pages in category “Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas”

The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

User:166.205.55.18
User:166.205.55.23
User:166.205.55.24
User:166.205.55.30
User:166.205.55.40
User:166.205.68.19
User:166.205.68.25
User:166.205.68.43
User:166.205.68.44
User:166.205.68.49
Last modified on 25 February 2013, at 00:06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
NICE TRY, WikipediAin’t!
redd.it/1efn0f
Read THIS:
http://redd.it/1efn0f
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

“[[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”
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1efn0f
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Did you see THAT WikipediAin’t?
http://po.st/xLSBJ7
THAT’s IP address:

166.205.55.30

User:166.205.55.18
User:166.205.55.23
User:166.205.55.24
»→User:166.205.55.30←«
User:166.205.55.40
User:166.205.68.19
User:166.205.68.25
User:166.205.68.43
User:166.205.68.44
User:166.205.68.49

Let’s see where else WikipediAin’t Ain’t managed to “Do The Right Thing,” shall we?

2/12/2013 and 2/13/2013, 2 purported Wikipedian’s “outed” themselves on “Orac’s” blog (Dr. David H. Gorski, @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
#sciencebasedmedicine)

#174 – SW – February 12, 2013
[…]
anti-Burzynski “bloggers”
[…]
These individuals are also responsible for “gate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic.

This issue, as well as the identities of those involved, will be covered in great length in the new 2013 “Chapter 2″ documentary.
[…]
You will notice the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources.
[…]
As one of those “gate keeping” wikipedians I find this quite laughable – not only the threat of “covering” my identity, but also the suggestion that bloggers and wikipedians (there may be an overlap, but I can assure you that I’m not a blogger) refuse to check and adhere to reputable sources

#203 – novalox – February 13, 2013

Now, let’s just wait and see djt make accusations of persecution and unfairness.

Should be entertaining to see his attempts at this.

Oh, BTW, djt, if you are still reading this, I was one of the Wikipedia editors who reported you for your trolling behaviors there.

Have fun with that
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
Neither of these individuals has had the testicular fortitude to bring their “A Game” and post comments or reply to questions on MY blog; which is different than “The Censoring Skeptics” blogs (Have fun with THAT):

Dr. David H. Gorski, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed), http://dianthus.co.uk/blog, @_JosephineJones, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, (@palMD), Peter A. Lipson, Musings on the intersection of Articles Bias and Censorship, A Film Producer A Cancer Doctor And Their Critics,
Guy Chapman, guychapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales, http://www.jimmywales.com, (@jimmy_wales), Forbes (#Forbes),
onforb.es/11pwse9,
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics, Keir Liddle,(@Endless_Psych), http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/, @rjblaskiewicz (rjblaskiewicz, Bob Blaskiewicz FauxSkeptic Exposed!, R.J. Blaskiewicz), http://www.skepticalhumanates.com
who censor others; which I do NOT do on my blog, since I actually believe in “Free Speech,” Walk the Walk, and Talk the Talk

WikipediAin’t apologist, Guy Chapman, posted:

“Ne’s like a rash over the blogs and twitter, he’s also been banned from Wikipedia which has a more robust attitude to sockpuppets and block evasion than some services.”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/03/burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/
“Ne’s”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
Guy Chapman is a Coward
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Didymus_Judas_Thomas
Chapman makes EXCUSES and hides behind his keypad, rather than respond to questions

Critiquing “Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that
“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.”‘

SW and novalox, which are you?

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person.”

4,089 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech“

WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?

Posted on May 16, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

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.