Talk:Nicholas Gonzalez (physician)

Postgraduate training

I removed a statement that Dr. Gonzalez never completed any training beyond his medical degree. By searching on the NY Doctor Profile I found that he actually completed three years of postgraduate training. I question the objectivity of the article referenced to support this statement if the author can err in such an easily researched item.Golgibody (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Inappropriate Information

I have removed the entire section called "Rejection by Mainstream" for several reasons: (1) because it simply does not represent Dr. Gonzalez's work, and "the mainstream" has hardly rejected him. He has, for instance, been given a 1.4 million dollar grant by the NIH to study his cancer regimen - and he apprenticed under one of the top cancer researchers of all time. (2) There is no NPOV or properly researched concept of "mainstream" that can be legitimately applied. (3) This whole section holds him out in a false light, is "classic disinformation," and was written in typical QuackWatch bad-mouthing style. It is not NPOV.

I removed the final portion of the following part, Support for Research Efforts due to its use of NPOV resources and integral reference to a QuackWatch article.

I removed a reference to the QuackWatch article on Dr. Gonzalez. Neither QuackWatch nor its leader, S. Barrett meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. They are certainly not NPOV. See the Appeals Court's comments as Footnote 11 (page 22 of the Slip Opinion at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/B156585.DOC) in the case of NCAHF v. King Bio, 107 Cal.App.4th 1336, 2003 which hold this source to be to be generally "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

Ralph Fucetola JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph.fucetola (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The material you used included citations to the New Yorker, New York Times, Village Voice, New Scientist, and Science, which are all very reputable sources. As such, I reverted your bulk deletion of material. If you would, please point out the specific material and citations that raise concerns for you. Hopefully, we can talk it out and come to an amicable solution. --Vassyana (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana – Thank you for your interest in our concerns about the Wikipedia page describing my client - world famous cancer researcher Nicholas Gonzalez MD.

I see, from your edits on this page that there is also a growing recognition that Stephen Barrett and QuackWatch have little, or no, place on Wikipedia as a Reliable Source .

Which brings us to the real problem here: When this article was originated it was, clearly, an effort to hold Dr. Gonzalez in the worst possible light. In some parts it still does that. I’m sure you are familiar with the term “Cherrypicking.” Wikipedia defines it as ”the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.” This activity, in itself, violates Wikipedia rules regarding “ Biographies of Living Persons.” It is clear that the author of this original article cherrypicked phrases from articles to hold Gonzalez in the worst possible light – while ignoring the real substance of the source information involved.

We have to ask “Why?”

Our concern about this is three-fold: (1) This article about Gonzalez on Wikipedia appeared one week after a Federal Investigative agency issued a public report in response to Gonzalez’s formal complaint about the mishandling of his NIH funded cancer study. The agency report found that the study was, indeed, mishandled, and publicly turned over their findings to a second Federal Investigative agency for further review. We are concerned that this inappropriate article was placed on Wikipedia with the intent of affecting, and effecting, the attitudes of the investigators from the second investigative agency, negatively, about Dr. Gonzalez. (2) this type of article, indeed, follows the pattern invented by Stephen Barrett on his quackwatch, casewatch, etc. websites and has no place on Wikipedia. The originator of the piece, “scientizzle” is a Barrett devotee, and expresses on his own personal website, not only his close relationship with Barrett et al, but his disdain for those, and those things, that Barrett criticizes. (3) The entire section called “Rejection by Mainstream Medicine” is clearly written in “cherrypicking” form.

How do we fix this problem?

Even the concept of "mainstream media" in the modern communications environment (created in part by Wikipedia) is a concept that has little-to-no significance, except as a pejorative. If one is a member of the "political and social establishment" it is used to denigrate those who are not part of the "corporate media" (which may be the better term for the phenomena). If you are part of the "anti-establishment" then it is used as a pejorative to denigrate it as merely establishment disinformation. In either case, it does not appear to be a NPOV term.

In any event, neither QuackWatch nor its leader, S. Barrett meet Wikipedia's criteria as NPOV. In addition, they are certainly not a reliable source. See the Appeals Court's comments as Footnote 11 (page 22 of the Slip Opinion at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/B156585.DOC) in the case of NCAHF v. King Bio, 107 Cal.App.4th 1336, 2003 which hold this source to be generally "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

Your advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. We are all learning how to engage in the type of community Wikipedia wants to be and I appreciate your efforts to deal with these significant issues.

Again I must ask, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph.fucetola (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I am quite willing to engage in civil and cordial discourse about article topics. I will generally do my best to accomodate any reasonable concerns, explain my actions, and inform editors about our policies and norms. While I disagree with your overall assessment of Quackwatch (which is award-winning and seems generally regarded as reliable), it was easy to accomodate your concerns about its use. For example, I felt there was no need to cite Quackwatch for claims supported by the New York Times and Science (both of which are easily in the top tier of reliability).

Could you possibly detail a few examples of what you feel is cherrypicking? I would like the opportunity to better review the sources and any points of potential concern. This is an article about a living person and we should exercise caution to ensure that all of the citations are accurate with the article text reflective of the references.

If there are concerns about reliable sourcing or an article about a living person, there are a couple of noticeboards for those purposes. (Respectively, WP:RSN and WP:BLPN.) If you could outline a couple of specific points, I will see what I can do to accomodate your concerns. If I do not act directly myself, I will still personally write a detached/neutral invitation for other editors to review the situation at the aformentioned noticeboards, or other appropriate venues. Vassyana (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana – thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns; advocating for the rights of the subject of a Wikipedia biography is a new experience for me (and most lawyers, I would assume) so I do appreciate understanding how we can make the process fair and transparent; in regard to your comments:

“While I disagree with your overall assessment of Quackwatch (which is award-winning and seems generally regarded as reliable), it was easy to accomodate your concerns about its use. For example, I felt there was no need to cite Quackwatch for claims supported by the New York Times and Science (both of which are easily in the top tier of reliability).”

Vassyana – let’s talk specifically about S. Barrett and Quackwatch – and their inclusion in Wikipedia as a "Reliable Source." It is clear, and we are going to need an official Wikipedia ruling on this issue, as i assert that Barrett does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia’s Reliable Source standards. He is hardly NPOV. His so-called “Award” was from a time long before Quackwatch, and his internet offerings, existed. There is no place where Barrett is “generally regarded as reliable” (do you have a Reliable Source for such claim?). In fact, the NCAHF v. King Bio Superior Court decision, and published Appeal decision, is very explicit that Barrett, in general, is “Biased, and unworthy of credibility.” So, why is he here at all? And why is his mini-army allowed to ride roughshod, on Wikipedia, over people they clearly discriminate against?

This is a systemic issue that needs the Wikipedia's attention at the highest levels of organization. My understanding from looking at the position of the Wikipedia Foundation is that it is up to the volunteers to police Wikipedia, so we look to you all to do so.

Continuing with your comments,

“Could you possibly detail a few examples of what you feel is cherrypicking? I would like the opportunity to better review the sources and any points of potential concern. This is an article about a living person and we should exercise caution to ensure that all of the citations are accurate with the article text reflective of the references.”

Each of the points made by “scientizzle” were “cherrypicked” - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cherry_picking - from articles to highlight the negative viewpoints espoused by Barrett and company, whose representative, in this article, was, and is, “scientizzle.” You have only to read each of those reference articles to discover that each so-called “quote” doesn’t even come close to referencing what each article actually reflects. The quotes only reflect the Barrett and company point of view, not NVOP, which is, by published court opinion, “biased, and unworthy of credibility.” Which, once again, should eliminate Barrett and web site as a Wikipedia Reliable Source.

In fact, the whole idea of allowing so-called “skepticism,” as an editorial stance violates Wikipedia’s rules on Biographies of Living Persons. “Skepticism,” especially the version espoused by Barrett and company, is hardly NPOV.

"If there are concerns about reliable sourcing or an article about a living person, there are a couple of noticeboards for those purposes. (Respectively, WP:RSN and WP:BLPN.) If you could outline a couple of specific points, I will see what I can do to accomodate your concerns. If I do not act directly myself, I will still personally write a detached/neutral invitation for other editors to review the situation at the aformentioned noticeboards, or other appropriate venues. Vassyana (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you for your commentary on this matter. I agree that this is the time and a place to address this “Barrett, and company, as a Reliable Source” issue directly. Let’s get started.

In the mean time I request that you take this negative stuff off of this page. Wikipedia rules on Biographies of Living Persons demand that this be done. Here’s what Wikipedia says:

“We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

"This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.”

So, how do we proceed now? Should I re-edit to remove what we consider "cherry-picked" information that holds Dr. Gonzalez out in a false light? Or will you seek to apply a NPOV approach? I researched a bit to see if I could find a Reliable Source as to the number of malpractice lawsuits the average oncologist faces during a career and may have some time to continueto do so. My initial impression is, several dozen. Thus two cases against Dr. Gonzalez, with ultimate vindication in another case against the insurance company involved, seems to me to show that he is a better than average physician.

In any event, your advise on how to proceed would be most appreciated. Ralph Fucetola JD Ralph.fucetola

Very disheartening wiki entry on Dr. Gonzlez. If it were all true and the implemented reality that no one benefited from his and other similar treatment one wonders why he continued to practice and treat patients. Its like the article its just trying to convince you to believe he and his treatments were fraudulent and that there are no actual cancer survivors and no science behind his work. This whole entry is just one big mind game of a lie - which got me thinking of the validity of Wikipedia and motivated me to some investigating and I uncovered this recent article. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/wikipedia-blocks-hundreds-of-linked-accounts-for-suspect-editing/ ..."The Wikimedia Foundation, the host of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, said late Monday that it has suspended 381 accounts or "socks" that it claims accepted or charged money "to promote external interests on Wikipedia without revealing their affiliation." The foundation said that it believed that activity from so-called "sockpuppet" accounts "were perpetrated by one coordinated group"

I was relieved after reading the comments of this article more people are just not "Buying it" anymore - the Wiki corruption and disinformation. This Dr. Gonzalez entry is a fine example of just that. Is the writing on the wall for WikiP? I've saved this bias article entry as is expecting no where else to go in wiki's future than fair and unbiased in ALL topics on wiki OR for WikiP to wilt and fade back to the nothing from which it came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from a surfer

I was reading this page and I do agree that this page is cherry-picking bad points and just aim to cast a bad light on Dr. Gonzalez. Why not mention more on those successfully treated patients records? Some people just too jealous that someone came up with a better method of doing something and had to trash it so they are still "top of the game" or what? Don't use Wikipedia to trash your opponent!

Why not mention something more balanced like this one on his website? I can see some may not believe it, why not verify yourself?

"I am the former Medical Director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France, a medical research institution.

I met Dr. Gonzalez in 1992, when I was vice president of research for the Nestle Company, the world's largest food company.

I told Dr. Gonzalez that I did not believe in his therapy. I then reviewed Dr. Gonzalez's patient records for persons with very severe cancer whose diagnosis was confirmed by reputable hospitals and universities. I, myself, looked at the x rays, biopsies, and test results to be sure the cases were legitimate. This involved dozens of cases, far too many to suggest coincidental results. To my surprise, I determined that they were all legitimate.

Never did I see an instance where Dr. Gonzalez had treated a patient for a condition for which there was a scientifically established, conventional method of treatment. Additionally, never did I see an instance where his treatment harmed people.

Pierre Guesry, M.D." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.102.2 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Many issues with mass edits

An IP made a long series of edits. I have reverted most of them because of multiple issues. I am not arguing that it wasn't accurate information most of the time, but that the totality of the edits created a vast undue weight to information about Beard, had problems with tense (Beard is dead, but things related to him were often spoken of in present tense), introduction of headings that don't conform to MoS (only the first letter is capitalized), and other issues. I suggest the author get an account and write their suggested additions here on the talk page in a very abbreviate format. This article is about Gonzalez, not Beard. Then they can be tweaked into an appropriate format and used. Also make small edits and save. These edits often contained both good and bad elements, making total reversion the simplest way of dealing with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalez protocol tested and failed

The test was fair and reported in a peer-reviewed journal. The failings documented in the letter are minor, and if they are going to be pointed out (dubious since they were minor and this is a page about the doctor rather than the protocol) then it should be in detail rather than simply described as "mishandled". The "mishandling" was basically two individuals inappropriately included and improper documentation of the informed consent - which has no effect on the actual test.

If this is about the protocol not being fairly tested therefore it's still effective therefore we shouldn't describe it as failed - nope. The test was fair, the death curves dramatic and uniform. The Gonzalez protocol is worthless, if not actually harmful and two inappropriately allocated subjects wouldn't cause that massive die-off you see in the death curves. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the trial was set up to fail

The test itself is what failed NOT the protocol. If you believe it's fair and found then you have not taken the time to review the circumstances to the results of that "trial." The trial was affected when the principal investigator assigned was a doctor who helped develop the conventional GTX chemotherapy regime; a clear conflict of interest. (he's listed in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17440727) The investigator's group sent patients to Gonzalez that did not qualify for the treatment, but they were still considered failures for his protocol in the "trial." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ-diONXCZc) This was reviewed by the Office of Public Health and Science that found 40 of 62 patients in the trial had been admitted inappropriately. (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR08/jun08a.pdf) The study was allowed to be published despite conflict of interest, and the fact that it was known the patient populations were not comparable. (http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/engel_1_05.pdf )

As a point in fact, the Dept of Human Health & Services letter clearly states: "...have resulted in accrual into the two study arms of patient populations that are not comparable. As a consequence, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to ascertain treatment effect with certainty." and "it is virtually certain that the controversy surrounding the study will not be settled by the data from it."

So clearly this study is not sound, this research is not undeniably valid. The fact that you are presenting this research as true, found, fact is an incredible disservice. Either provide the whole story or remove the mention of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.71.148 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"So clearly this study is not sound" ← source? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dept of Human Health & Services' review of the case - http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/engel_1_05.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.71.148 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We already say "the trial of the Gonzalez regimen was not capable of providing a definitive conclusion". A letter is not a good source, although interestingly it raises the futility threshold as an argument for not carrying out further trials. I've come across some material elsewhere about how these kinds of trials of quack medicine are unethical ... perhaps this angle needs more coverage? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed comments relate to both tests until an accurate and verifiable version is written

The preliminary test showed very positive results. While it clearly had a very small sampling, nevertheless, both the private sectors and the US government vetted the results and were impressed enough to committed millions in funding for further research. A previous editor refer to this report as fraudulent in nature, but the 2 articles referenced only contained generic definitions, and not Gonzalez related.

The larger test showed very negative results. It was denied publication by JAMA but published by JOC, both peer-reviewed publications, during an ongoing Federal Investigation on the improprieties in the study. The previous editor contends that 2 cases of mishandled documentation does not invalidate the test.

Other Uncertainties:

• How can the co-developer of the competing protocol (chemo agent GTX), Dr Chabot, be also the Principal Investigator, in charge of assigning patients into the Gonzalez protocol?
• Why were more stage IV patients assigned to the Gonzalez protocol (at 2:1 ratio)? Since the Gonzalez protocol require patients to adopt a rigorous diet plan, take 150 pills a day, and perform the gruesome enema twice a day, many stage IV patients will unlikely to have the gumption or capability to follow through without a dedicated or live-in care help at home.
• During the test, the government's program officer & compliance coordinator both expressed concerns, on separate occasions, about the integrity of Dr. Chabot & team. The latter official reprimanded him and his team with corrective action.
• Why did the Journal of Oncology (JOC) rushed to publish this report extolling the virtues of chemotherapy, despite pending investigation into improprieties?

Perhaps 40 (gov't estimate) to 42 (Gonzalez estimate), or 2/3, of the participants did not meet the admission criteria thus should have easily invalidated the results of the larger test.

I believe there can be substantial risks for patients in this test group...

• Did the patient have to wait very long before being able to start the protocol? This is significant for very aggressive cancers such as Pancreatic Cancer, which this test specifically recruited for. How long were the wait between the 2 groups?
• Were patients admitted into the Gonzalez protocol being intentionally assigned there knowing that they had little to no capability to completing the protocol and thus ensuring a very short survival period?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.163.113 (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC) ----

Final published results were negative and a 2005 letter about a tangential issue is not an appropriate reliable source to eliminate sourced information. Gonzalez' treatment was tested and it failed, badly. Such is what we report. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How can the latest test result to be at such big disparity between the first test? If both groups have similar degree of patient compliance to protocol, or if the Gonzalez protocol is adhered to relatively diligently, will we see effectiveness to be about the same or better than chemotherapy? Gonzales' argument is that 68% of his participants did not meet the inclusion criteria and thus the results were heavily skewed. If managerial issues were mostly "lack of signature", then I agree with you, but if it is related non-committed patients, incapable patients, overly sick patients, misdirected/unsupported agents, etc., then I think Dr. Gonzalez's point is valid.

What source are you basing this on? Where is it published? Is it just Gonzalez' opinion?WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are from his rebutted comments. And I do see your point that those may only be his opinions unless he can substantiate it with verifiable evidence proving his points. On the same token, since the basis of your conclusion is sourced from culminating both sets of patient records, were those data set published or will be available for public viewing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.163.113 (talk • contribs) 08:00, April 6, 2011

I haven't made a conclusion in this section at least. We don't draw conclusions based on primary data, we verify content with reference to reliable sources. We don't get to do our own analysis and adjust based on it. I'm basing my comments on the peer reviewed articles and publications from well-respected organizations that are found on the main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, how can a legal finding of fact in re Barrett entered into the public record by a court of competent jurisdiction also upheld at the appellant level not represent "reliable sources?" Does not the apparent policy opinion 'the courts do not meet the test of reliable sources' itself represent "conclusions based on primary data" which are supposedly not to be made? The underlying science in this dispute involves difficult matters reaching beyond the thresholds of what is fully known or otherwise fully understood. Therefore, any practicing scientist will tell you the academics are predictably not as credible as the practitioners in matters where there is no empirically-established pedagogy arising from a mature knowledgebase. There is new ground here. Further, there are burden of proof issues that are unaddressed, yet should be. There is clear and compelling evidence that the subject study in dispute is fatally compromised; its findings stillborn, in fatal conflict with its experimental design and dependent protocols originally intended. They must publish to fulfill the grant and clear the financial liability it represents. They took the money, it fell apart, and they had to publish something or breach the contract. This is not to impute evil or larceny, but one cannot look at orthodox oncology revenue and the highly political and financially-obsessed institutions of major hospitals, universities and their attendant medical schools and claim such financial interests and political monopolies operated by same are entirely benign and objective. Such claims of objectivity are void on their face. Wiki should mitigate this controversy accordingly. Wiki is faced with a conundrum that the only reliable sources in this dispute are the subject courts and the practitioner experienced in the treatment modalities which are not in favor with the present institutional orthodoxy that dominates the most economically productive oncology practices. Further, there appears to be no evidence the findings of the subject courts conflict with the findings of Gonzalez. In the matter of medical treatment of human individuals, there are no reliable sources as each individual patient presents differently in ways that cannot be individually predicted; just read the fine print on any registered pharmaceutical labeling. In practice; each patient, however apparently similar, is a one-off. Medicine is a practitioner art and the attending science is a tool; i.e., Medical practice is not Science. Moreover, very few physicians are credentialed as scientists; even fewer were credentialed scientists before they received their indoctrination as physicians. This is why any reasonably intelligent physician would demand just as Gonzalez did -- demand independent scientific review by scientists; i.e., chemists, physicists, statisticians and others who are familiar with and fluent in the boundary and reconciliation problems arising from the ever-pulsing advance of human scientific knowledge and the politics of the academy which also arises therefrom. Wiki should not play at facts. A lie is just as much a fact as a truth. More importantly, when scientists use the term "orthodoxy" it's in anticipation of the temporal facts forming the amalgam of orthodox thought being eventually found out wrong. The orthodoxy by virtue of being commonplace does not deserve any particular credibility when controversies at the boundaries of science are involved. Such common beliefs arising from the reductionist logic of 'reliable sources' is, as Karl Popper so aptly coined, a "scientism" and not a finding which arises from the proper and uncorrupted application of the scientific method. Gonzales is by any reasonable measure entitled to his anecdotal observations. The same cannot be said of claims drawn from a broken experimental design that fundamentally corrupted what would otherwise meet the test of scientific method. Wiki is a wonderful resource. Describe and step back. To faithfully describe can be difficult enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.61.206 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of material from published interview

This post is in answer to Yobol’s removal on two occasions of material referenced by a published interview of Dr. Gonzalez because he believes the journal (in which the interview was published) to be a “fringe” publication. This Wikipedia page is a biography of a living person. If an event is worthy of inclusion on this page, then given that it is a biography, Gonzalez’s comments on that event should also be worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Person’s page (WP:BLPSPS) allows the use of self-published material as a reference as long as the author is the subject of the biography. However, rather than use the material on Gonzalez's website or other self-published material to reference the fact that he disputes the findings of the study, I opted to use an interview that had been published by a third party, a journal (Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine) that is listed on Medline. If self-published materials by Gonzalez, the subject of the biography, would be sufficient to reference his comments, then a third party journal on Medline should also be sufficient, whether that journal is “fringe” or not. Therefore, I have restored my previous page edits without discussing Yobol’s position that Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine is a “fringe” journal. Golgibody (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The applicable policy here is WP:FRINGE, specifically the section requiring the use of use of independent sources. When discussing whether a fringe theory is actually valid, we use independent secondary sources, not primary sources by promoters of the fringe theory. That material certainly does not belong in the lead. Yobol (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is a biography, not an article about the theory. I'll be happy to take it to the WLP:BLPN if you wish. I have changed my editing of the page to reflect only that Gonzalez made comments and not their content. Golgibody (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a one line reference to the interview is reasonable, however the external linking to the alt med journal like that is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My use of the outside link was merely meant to be helpful to the reader, but they've got the reference if they want to track the article down. Thanks for the correction. Golgibody (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicholas Gonzalez (physician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007180904/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/03/31/1997-03-31_cancer_doc_hit_for__2_5m-plus.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/03/31/1997-03-31_cancer_doc_hit_for__2_5m-plus.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2000/04/21/2000-04-21_doctor_liable_in_death_of_pa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Questionable neutrality of this article

As many other people have mentioned, this article in the current form (September 2018) is not an honest and thorough description of Nicholas Gonzalez. I am really surprised--why has this article been marked as "the neutrality of this article is questionable"? As it is written, this article only mentions the side of the opinion that disagrees with Dr. Gonzalez. The talks on this page shows the many efforts in the original write-up to really put him down, that had to be removed.

The best a Wikipedia article can do on this person (as well as on many the so-called "alternative medicine" practitioners) is to note that he, his opinion, and his work are controversial. In a court trial, the opponent is given a fair opportunity to present his/her side--so why Wikipedia is being used as a platform to unfairly speak only one side of the controversy? It is OK to mention that the established medical community do not accept his point of view, method of treatment, etc., as is currently written. But then somebody has to present the other side of the conflicts without trying to be opinionated.

There are many missing aspects on the "other side" of the conflict. Why weren't these included--for example: Dr. Gonzalez's own rebuttal to the JCO article, http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/jco_rebuttal.htm .

In this rebuttal, he mentioned a number of violations that the Investigators had incurred in the course of the study. If one is seeking for the truth of the matter, why not follow those leads as well? Those FDA & OHRP violation notes are verifiable and should be mentioned on the article, with citations to the direct sources from FDA, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirawan0 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Chabot et al control group had 14-month median overall survival on gemcitabine alone...

... and if you've been immersed in the literature of chemotherapy of pancreatic cancer, you know that median overall survival on gemcitabine alone hangs around 6-7 months. So the median OS in the Chabot study control group is completely at variance with the body of established research for this protocol. In fact, it's simply not believable.If Chabot et al had such a successful protocol back in 2010, it should have been big news. And by comparison, big news on the frustrating pancreatic cancer chemotherapy scene was FOLFIRINOX, with a median OS of 11 months, and then gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, with statistically similar results.

 So, as I look into the Kelley-Gonzalez regimens, this trial doesn't seem worthy of citation for any reason. As for the regimens themselves, it seems that Kelley was on to something, even if the underlying theories look like garbage. High doses of enzymes, for example, might alter the stroma of a pancreatic tumor in a way that was favorable. As well, perhaps enzymatic lysate of cancer cells occurs and generates a beneficial immune response.
 As for "toxins", until people actually identify what sort of "toxins" they are thinking about, I don't want to hear about it. I will say that lysed or damaged cancer cells can release substances and particles that are cancer promoting, for example PGE2 release can interfere with the immunogenic response to tumor components released on cell death. As well, there are so-called "exosomes" released by cancer cells, some of which promote metastases. One could call these "toxins released by dying cancer cells" (bit of a stretch, though). 
  No comment today re coffee enemas, other than metabolically it does omit the liver first pass, so it ain't the same as chugging a mug. 216.211.242.39 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Chabot et al erratum

Actually, my bad; the control group was a mixed bag of gemcitabine plus various other cytotoxic agents, either capecitabine, docetaxel, taxotere, or cisplatin plus taxotere. Nevertheless, that their median OS was twice that of what has been reported in many published studies until recently with newer protocols, seems suspect to me. (Or, perhaps Chabot et al were simply fabulous clinicians, and by comparison, most published studies represent the "B-minus student" of results, a kind of under-achieving average.) 216.211.242.39 (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried to find a suggestion for improving the article in your contributions but failed. How do you want to change the article?

If you do not want to change the article, you are in the wrong place because that is what this page is for.

Also, you can just change your contribution instead of adding errata in another section. (As long as nobody has responded to it.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)