Comment on After they kill Wikipedia history will be AI hallucinations.

• LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  In a recent post, I tried to introduce a conceptual tool which I (as humorously and self-deprecatingly as possible) named after myself. In brief, “The Kory Scale” (TKS) is based on the hypothesis that the more a new or existing medical therapy is attacked in a coordinated, sustained fashion by the medical establishment and media, the more likely the treatment is both highly effective and safe.

  Okay, starting off with a made up fallacy is always a bad sign in science FYI… And so is going off that bad fallacy with more fallacies for 10 paragraphs.

  Before I go further, I just want to celebrate that “there is a new Sheriff in town,” given my friend and colleague RFK Jr. is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services

  LOL of course, that actually is pretty consistent w your pyramid conspiracies

  Although I am not a criminologist, my understanding from movies and news reports

  LOL

  Let’s just move on to the claims you’re making:

  en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic

  The compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered as part of clinical trials at the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute.

  Burzynski has since produced the compounds synthetically.

  The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic selling an unproven cancer treatment, which has been characterized as harmful quackery.[1] It was founded in 1976 and is located in Houston, Texas, in the United States. It offers a form of chemotherapy originally called “antineoplaston therapy” devised by the clinic’s founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s. Antineoplaston is Burzynski’s term for a group of urine-derived peptides, peptide derivatives, and mixtures. There is no accepted scientific evidence of benefit from antineoplaston combinations for various diseases, and the Clinic’s claimed successes have not been replicated by independent researchers.

  The clinic has been the focus of criticism primarily due to the way its antineoplaston therapy is promoted, the costs for people with cancer participating in trials of antineoplastons and problems with the way these trials are run. Legal cases have been brought as a result of the sale of the therapy without regulatory approval.

  Burzynski is also the president and founder of a pharmaceutical company, the Burzynski Research Institute, which manufactures his antineoplaston drugs.

  See the last line? Now tell me, how is he not ALSO PART of the Turf war your article is talking about?

  Reviewers of his scientific papers have disputed the design of the trials and scientific validity of the published results.[12][13][14]

  In February 2017, following lengthy hearings, the Texas Medical Board recommended Burzynski’s medical license be revoked, with the revocation suspended,[clarification needed] and a fine of $360,000 for billing irregularities and other violations.

  So it’s not just Wikipedia against him, but also medical boards. SO again, no issue with Wikipedia here, or science, he just is grifting people and you dont get what science even is (hint: it’s reproducible results).

  From A-10, antineoplaston AS2-1 was derived – a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid and phenylacetylglutamine.[25] The Burzynski Clinic website states that the active ingredient of antineoplaston A10-I is phenylacetylglutamine

  So we know what it is, and it can indeed be synthesized (how else would the body make it, lol).

  Further, you don’t always need a placebo for studies, you need a CONTROL group. Often the control group is given a placebo, but in this case, they could use other chemotherapy treatment as a control. They dont want to be more legitimate though, because their patients’ and their families would have better standing to sue them for lying/false advertising/snake oil. So no, it wasnt rejected for not having a placebo group and being too ethical to give cancer patients a placebo LOL

  From 1991 to 1995, the NCI initiated multiple phase II trials of antineoplastons. In 1995, after over $1 million had been spent on these trials, they were stopped due to fundamental conflicts between NCI investigators and Burzynski and his employees, notably around Burzynski’s insistence on approving all protocols in the NCI trial.

  The largest trial Burzynski registered was called CAN-1 and aimed to cover all clinic patients at that time. Jaffe wrote that CAN-1 was “a joke” of a clinical trial and explained the legal maneuvering:

  The CAN-1 protocol had almost two hundred patients in it and there were at least a dozen different types of cancers being treated. And since all the patients were already on treatment, there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial. It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment. The FDA wanted all of Burzynski’s patients to be on an IND [Investigational New Drug (IND) Application], so that’s what we did.

  The consensus among the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society[33] and Cancer Research UK[34] is that antineoplaston therapy is unproven, and the overall probability of the treatment turning out to be as claimed is low due to lack of credible mechanisms and the poor state of research after more than 35 years of investigation. Antineoplaston treatments have significant known side effects including severe neurotoxicity. Hypernatremia is also a significant risk given the high levels of sodium in antineoplaston infusions.

  Gee, I dont think Wikipedia is the issue lol my word

  source

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There’s not really any conspiracy except one. Every billionaire and corporation seeks to profit above all other ethical considerations. I don’t know who’s correct regarding Burzynski, and I hope I’m never in a place to decide. But I don’t think it’s difficult for billionaires to brigade and rewrite any narrative that may profit them.

    Wikipedia is great, but I don’t think it should be viewed as trustworthy or definitive as a source. In the same way billionaire-owned news corporations cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. Wikipedia is a great place to start, but we could all use more practice following to source material, and to some extent I think Wikipedia reduces critical thinking.

    source

    • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Chat GPT reduces critical thinking, because it can loterally “think” for people. If someone isn’t a critical thinker, it’s not that they consume Wikipedia, it’s that they lack critical thinking skills. They will approach ANY TOPIC or writing the same, because they aren’t a critical thinker. Wikipedia is great and doesnt reduce critical thinking.

      source
• aubertlone@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You have actually got to be kidding me.

  This is pseudoscience… It does seem like they threw the book at him.

  But this stuff isn’t medicine man. I wouldn’t really call it effective at all. For Pete’s sake!!!

  Even the guy who wrote the article Pierre Koy. Talking holistic approaches to treat long COVID. Bro it’s so easy to tell how people are based on the shit they spew.

  Just remember people were taking ivermectin IVERMECTIN for COVID.

  Do you even hear what you’re saying? There’s no way we can prove what’s in the salt but it definitely works.

  Do you actually believe any of this stuff?? Dude just go ahead and drink the pee. Tell me how you feel I hope you don’t have cancer. I truly mean that

  source

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I don’t believe anything because I haven’t had terminal cancer or the treatment. I’m guessing you haven’t either. It’s not about choosing a side. It’s an illustration of corporate interests controlling the narrative from scientific journals, to media, social media, and Wikipedia. It would be naive to believe they can’t or don’t edit Wikipedia.

    source
• Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Any examples of Wikipedia trying to rewrite history?

  source

  • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The pyramids in Egypt were dated by radiocarbon dating, but those dates only indicated that the pyramid structure was inhabited or used at that time - it says nothing of the construction date. Yet the pyramids have dates with no cited references on Wikipedia. What is so wrong with saying that we don’t know with any certainty how, when, or why the structures were built?

    source

    • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah, I get what kind of guy you are now.

      Everyone itt note: this guy is against Wikipedia and thinks these things. This is EXACTLY WHY we need Wikipedia. He would literally be smarter if he had never used social media and had only used Wikipedia random article generator.

      source

      • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        But the evidence says nothing of the construction. The only thing carbon remnants indicate is that the pyramids are at least that old. That they were used and inhabited that long ago. If you believe they were constructed at the time, I would ask what evidence is there? Scant radiocarbon dating is not a definitive story to believe. Lichen in the granite quarry? Remnants along the road? A bakery and some mortar dust does not explain or date the construction of mountains of granite with no mortar between joints.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah, they could have been built by aliens who just wanted to share their urine salt treatment for cancer with us.

      source

      • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        god forbid someone has hobbies 🙄 /s

        source