Talk:Alternative cancer treatments/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Scope of topic

This may be too big of a topic to successully address... or maybe I'm just struggling. Thoughts on how to organize it? Is there really going to be unique information here that isn't included in the numerous other pages that deal with alternative and unproven medical treatments? I'm afraid we're just going to inflame the usual characters and create a lot of controversy without actually adding anything of value. Thoughts? MastCell 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Topic title

There is some crossover between cancer therapy and other health therapies particularly in the unproven category. Maybe the topic should be called Unproven therapies orUnproven medical products. The methods by which non cancer treatments are assessed are no different in any substantial way to the methods for testing cancer treatments.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While the introductory information certainly applies to the 'unproven' (*cough*) therapies in many fields, I think there's certainly room to have an article – perhaps this one – that looks specifically at the history and current state of the art in cancer treatment snake oils. They could be broken down into a number of categories, perhaps: diets; supplements; novel drugs and tinctures; unusual machines; psychological therapies; etc.

Cancer therapy is a somewhat special case in the world of unproven therapies. Cancer is a really scary diagnosis. Accepted therapies – for which proper trials have actually been conducted – often have serious, unpleasant, and even dangerous side effects. Even with gold-standard treatment, many cancers still have a low survival rate. The course of disease can be unpredictable, and it can be difficult to seperate the effects of unproven therapies from the effects of a previous, subsequent, or simultaneous conventional therapy, or the occasional spontaneous remission. People want to believe that there's a quick and easy cure.

I am hard-pressed to think of another disease (or class of diseases) that has drawn – and continues to draw – so many charlatans and deluded optimists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to focus here on unproven stuff for cancer, but I suspect that similar issues come up in many fields: Most major psychiatric disorders. Autism. Some autoimmune diseases. Probably lots of things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Off topic

There is more information in Redox Therapy. Perhaps Redox Therapy should have a subheading Cancer Therapy.Rickrhrhrh 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Coley´s Toxins

There is plenty of evidence from case studies and old trials that the toxins work. I don´t think they belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.B. (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends whom you ask. Most mainstream oncologists will regard it as unproven, because otherwise it would be used as a therapeutic modality. Case studies and old trials may not be the best quality sources for such assertions. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mager, D. L. (2006). "Bacteria and cancer: cause, coincidence or cure? A review". Journal of translational medicine. 4: 14. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-4-14. PMC 1479838. PMID 16566840.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) summarises much of the relevant research, but at the moment it is all still very experimental. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are they oncologists who are sponsored by cancer drug companies??? MrAnderson7 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• Wikipedia follows the high-quality sources, rather than first selecting sources to make sure that they support the pharmanoia POV. As it happens, very little research on alternative treatments is done by mainstream pharmaceutical companies. Most is either done by the multi-billion-dollar alternative medicine industry—for exactly the same "make money" motive that motivates the mainstream pharmaceutical industry, and often benefiting the same shareholders, since alt med companies are often owned by the same entities as pharma companies—or by taxpayers.
• If you bothered to read the article, you'd have noticed how sympathetic it is to Coley's toxins. As a result, your comment is entirely misplaced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unsourced opinion"

This was removed yesterday:

1. Fraudulent promotion and sale of products for the treatment or prevention of cancer which are known to be ineffective.

I doubt that the anon thinks that there has never been a con man in the history of the world who tried to get rich off of something that he knew wouldn't work. Is the question here really whether deliberate fraud is really "unproven"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Breaking the treatments into sections

We should break these trials into sections. Some have been tested extensively and found not to work (laetrile, while others have been tested with promising results, such as non-invasive RF treatment. Please comment. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I don't object, I think it's likely to result in a lot of individual spats over whether each item belongs in the category you've assigned. It would be best to have a source for each item before classifying it this way.

As a "halfway" measure, we could certainly draw some broad distinctions: X, Y, and Z are unproven because they are inadequately tested, but A, B, and C have been tested and proven useless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot break alternative cancer treatments into proven and unproven, even Laetrile is still contested. Alternative cancer treatments are simply unapproved by the American medical association. It should be pointed out that naturopaths could prescribe them and naturopaths are considered doctors. It should also be pointed out that most alternative cancer treatments are not approved because they are plant based and cannot be patented therefore nobody will foot the bill for the rigorous $$$ FDA clinical trials. Some other alternative cancer treatments cannot be patented because of ownership disputes such as Cantron. 71.223.6.84 (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, actually, we can, so long as we have good reliable sources supporting the classification instead of making it up ourselves. The fact that some lone crackpot somewhere contests something is unimportant: on questions of scientific efficacy, we need to represent the actual scientific consensus, not all possible views.

Some facts that you might want to consider:

• The American Medical Association does not determine worldwide scientific consensus. WIkipedia cares about the worldwide scientific consensus.
• Proper clinical trials can be undertaken without any involvement by the United States Food and Drug Administration. In fact, if you chose remarkably obvious endpoints (e.g., death), they could be undertaken for very little money indeed. Getting FDA approval is not the only way to demonstrate a solid basis for an efficacy claim. In fact, the 95% of the world's population outside the United States do this routinely.
• Nobody thinks that a naturopath is a physician, and many people don't think that they are "doctors" any more than psychologists or chiropractors are. Naturopathy is actually illegal in some places, and calling them "doctors" is illegal in many more.
• Ownership disputes do not prevent the issuance of a patent. The fact that Cantron was invented in the 1930s, while patents only grant protection for 20 years, is much more relevant. If Cantron had been patented, the patent would have expired fifty years ago.

I hope this helps explain things, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be recognition of the fact that inherently safe protocols, such as most dietary changes -- the kind that people who are *not* cancer patients might reasonably make -- do not require the same level of safety testing as pharmaceutical drugs. In fact it could be argued that cancer patients should be *encouraged* to experiment with dietary changes that others have tried, so long as there is no specific, known contraindication e.g. based on known food-drug interactions of an adverse nature. Such experimentation combined with careful and unbiased record-keeping, might well lead to more rapid advances in cancer therapy effectiveness, i.e. might accelerate the conversion of "unproven" into "interesting", "promising", and eventually "proven". Note that "unbiased" requires special measures, e.g. to make sure that patients who died are not prevented thereby from reporting their unsuccessful outcome and biasing the statistics.

Recognition of this reduced need for safety testing where e.g. dietary modifications are the complementary therapy under consideration could go a long way toward reducing the unnecessary cost of exploring these currently controversial therapies and identifying any that may have genuine merit and benefit for cancer patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.5.60 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Experimental cancer treatment

[1] and [2] are two papers on the topic. I don't think there were any spats on this page, since there's hardly any discussion here. By the way, I found that there's another page for the "under consideration" type treatments: Experimental cancer treatment ImpIn | (t - c)

That page, at minimum, should link here, and this page there. But I wonder whether a merge would work. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the merge is a good idea. By the way, the first thing on that page, the angiogenesis inhibitor, is not really experimental. The same could probably be said for some other things on there...I think "Unproven cancer treatment" is the best title for the new page, since we'd want to include both CAM and therapies which are under serious consideration. Some people may raise the concern that some of the "experimental treatments" are somewhat proven. Experimental conveys that image. The problem is that these are both fairly small pages, and so it makes sense to give the reader access to everything at once. I'm not sure if there's a more precise word than "unproven" -- perhaps unverified? Untested? The point is that experimental treatments have not been proven enough for widespread use. The intro to this article already discusses this issue. ImpIn | (t - c) 05:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If we merge these pages, then I think that "unproven cancer therapy" is the right title. It's the broadest title, and can include everything from "currently finishing a large, rigorous, controlled trial" through "proven to not work" -- and IMO that's approximately the scope of the things we need to cover. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about using the term "unproven" in the title, because that term means different things to different people (c.f. Coley's toxins, above). Instead, I'd recommend we merge, convert to a list, and move to List of experimental cancer therapies by phase (referring to this). We could include a distinct section for treatments that have never undergone trials. --Arcadian (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with using experimental in the title is that it indicates the existence of actual experiments (past, current and/or planned), which is not true for some of these. Consider the inappropriateness of listing a modern homeopathic treatment in an "experitmental" list: many homeopaths claim that it is impossible to verify the effectiveness of homeopathy through a double-blind experiment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcadian, I don't know what you mean by unproven meaning different things. It means one thing: unproven. I'm not seeing lots of meanings for it; you'll have to elaborate. Unproven includes disproven, experimental (which are not fully proven), and just plain wacky. It's an umbrella term. I don't think making an outright list is quite necessary because we should offer brief explanations. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote to not merge. I think the titles give 2 different connotations. the articles should link to each other though. I think different topics can be written about each. Any overlap can have links to the other article. Tkjazzer (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that "Unproven cancer treatments" is an umbrella term which incorporates experimental cancer treatments, since they are considered not sufficiently proven for mainstream use So it makes sense to include them all in one article, where we can categorize them with different titles -- "experimental", "untested", "disproven", ect. If need be, we can make subarticles. Plus, there doesn't seem to be a very large list of experimental cancer treatments right now -- so we're just making it harder for readers to access all the information.

• Oppose. I think "unproven" is an euphemism for a therapy that is widely applied without any serious attempts to obtain an evidence base. In contrast, "experimental" treatments may be undergoing phase I or II trials but are not yet widely applied because they lack an evidence base. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like there's no consensus to merge, and there's good reasoning behind it. I think we should rename this page, possibly to "Complementary and alternative cancer treatments". ImpIn | (t - c) 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd agree with II on this, since the proposed title is what this article has become. It'll have to be watched, though, since "Complementary and alternative" seems to invite snake oil as well as real research. I think there really are two groups though: treatments that aren't actively studied but are used anyway (most of them dubious), and treatments that are an area of active study. Acupuncture can be an experimental method for cancer treatment if there really are active experiments. Even laetrile can be experimental, assuming there's a real experiment and not cargo cult science. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• We can continue to categorize them. I categorized Laetrile as disproven -- it's been studied more than most (see the page), and maybe also put (potentially dangerous) in parentheses behind it. Certainly CAM invites snake oil as well as some plausible treatments, and we should do our best to note the differences. If no one has any objections, I'd like to go ahead and rename the page. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to sort through to make sure that the articles only have the correct content? Non-invasive RF cancer treatment doesn't strike me as a complementary or alternative treatment in any sense. It strikes me as unproven at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sure; just moved non-invasive RF. Note that there will be some overlap -- if a clinical trial is happening on a CAM treatment, then it will go on both pages. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly it should be called a list, as that's what it is now. Could be called "List of CAM cancer treatments". ImpIn | (t - c) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

ie:Gerson therapy (potentially dangerous)[3] Hoxsey method (scientifically implausible) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.187 (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in both cases. Hoxsey is banned in the U.S. as quackery (read the Wikipedia article). Gerson is dangerous (read the listed source). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of further response by the concerned editor for more than two weeks, I think it would be fair to remove the NPOV tag at this time. Does anyone else agree? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this to Alternative cancer treatment

This article needs to be retitled, and the lead changed. I propose the one in the title for brevity. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with a sysop mind renaming this to "Alternative cancer treatment"? Keeping it non-plural seems to be the standard, for good reason (easier to wikilink it pluralized). II | (t - c) 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bump. Would someone mind doing this? II | (t - c) 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plural title reflects plural contents and is standard practice here. Wikilinking plural titles is no problem. If you're having a problem, bring it here and let's see how it can be done. -- Fyslee / talk 07:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Experimental cancer treatment is not plural. When you do it singular, all you have to do is add "s" to the end to wikilink. This way I have to type the entire name twice to point to the non-plural version. Why fight it? The non-plural form seems to be the most common, and for good reason. What's your reason to keep it pluralized? II | (t - c) 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply create a redirect at the singular? Jefffire (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the singular is already a redirect to this article. You should have no problems if you simply link to that instead. Jefffire (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think intentionally wikilinking to redirects is all that nice to Wikipedia's already strained server, but I could be wrong. II | (t - c) 08:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See MOS on this exact issue: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(plurals). This appears to be a case where we would prefer to use the singular noun. II | (t - c) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be right on the naming convention. Of course, it might be a better move to merge the article into a subsection of Cancer treatment, or retitle it to Treatments for cancer in alternative medicine, as two possible alternatives. Jefffire (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to keep reading: Exceptions. This is an obvious exception. The title should reflect the contents. -- Fyslee / talk 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Circular arguments tend to be unconvincing. Fortunately, I see the similarity between this and the Zeno's paradoxes exception, and I'll desist. II | (t - c) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Is "New cancer treatments proposed or in clinical trials by establishment oncologists or scientists but not yet proven effective" really an appropriate category for alternative/complementary medicine? That sounds more like Experimental cancer treatment to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The categories overlap. Glance at a venn diagram; there is a set A (alt. med. treatments), set B (exp. cancer treatments), and an area of overlap (alt. med. treatments undergoing clinical trials). Incidentally, based on the results of the Phase I trial (follow the vitamin C megadosage link), I wouldn't be surprised if the vitamin C trial is a failure. Burzynski's antineoplastons is controversial, but it is also undergoing some clinical trials. I moved it out because Cassileth said it was so controversial, but it probably should be moved back in, since vitamin C is no more controversial, and both are clearly undergoing official clinical trials. II 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a few observations here... Yes, there will always be a certain amount of overlap. Some ideas that eventually gain acceptance as EBM start was folk medicine or alternative medicine. The idea seems reasonable to some doctor or scientist and they start doing case studies, which are a step above anecdotes as far as quality of evidence goes. This garners even more interest and pilot studies are conducted, and if they are promising, clinical studies follow. At any one of these steps, the idea or method can get ditched as too far fetched, unrealistic, or just plain nonsensical, ineffective, or a bad cost/benefit/side effect ratio. But occasionally the process goes to completion and a medicine or method gets patented, thoroughly tested, FDA approved, and then marketed. It then ceases to be "alternative", and becomes EBM. Alternative medical methods normally either deliberately skip everything after anecdotes, or just haven't gotten that far. They are marketed using anecdotes and undocumented or outright false claims based on ignorance or outright wishful thinking. This atmosphere is unfortunate for the occasional (now rare) method that actually has real promise, since it risks getting lumped together with quack methods and then getting ignored by mainstream science. If it really does work, it will eventually get picked up, tested, and succeed in gaining acceptance. But if it has first been through the hands of some notorious quack, who without any scruples or moral responsibility treats patients with it, that will usually delay its acceptance. It is imperative for unqualified people to stop playing doctor, and to immediately seek proper testing if they suspect a method has real promise, instead of jumping the gun and making money by marketing unproven methods. -- Fyslee / talk 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the key word: Can anything be considered part of alternative medicine when it has been proposed and is being tested by establishment oncologists and researchers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If something has been used and promoted by alt. medicine practitioners, and is generally accepted to be alt. med. by mainstream researchers, then most certainly, yes. It is clear that both vitamin C and the antineoplastons are being tested by the establishment, and both have been heavily promoted as alt. medicine, and are referenced as alt. med. in multiple peer-reviewed articles. II 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you name any example of an anti-neoplastic drug that was proposed by a researcher who is clearly part of the mainstream "establishment" medicine, but would still be broadly recognized as alternative medicine? An herbal treatment, for example, or a homeopathic remedy?

I can't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think there is an overlap. A method or idea can be both alternative and undergoing legitimate testing. If that testing shows it to be effective, then it becomes accepted by the mainstream and thus ceases to be "alternative" and becomes EBM. This doesn't address the fact that some methods that are already accepted aren't really EBM. That's because of historical reasons. Methods have also been inherited based on purely empirical evidence, which is notoriously unreliable. Human experience can't always be trusted. The EBM movement is being applied to old established methods and some of them get weeded out and discarded when it's shown they demonstrate no greater effect than the "placebo illusion". OTOH, the stuff we're talking about above is usually ideas that are seeking inclusion in modern medicine, whether they are old or new, and here the EBM movement's methodology works as a screening method. We already have our hands full just weeding out possibly ineffective methods we have inherited. We don't need to add more problems by uncritically accepting whatever sounds good. -- Fyslee / talk 06:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you, WhatamIdoing. You should probably read my comment above more slowly. Antineoplastons are referenced in this article. They are also referenced in Barrie R. Cassileth's article on alternative cancer treatments, as alt. med. cancer treatments. They are undergoing Phase II clinical trials. Whether they were proposed by a "mainstream" physician is irrelevant. If Cassileth considers them to be alt. med., and they are hyped by alt. med., and they are undergoing FDA clinical trials, then they are alternative cancer treatments undergoing clinical trials. Similarly, intravenous vitamin C just completed its Phase I trial, but that doesn't make it a non-alternative treatment. In all likelihood these clinical trials will disprove, rather than prove, the efficacy of these treatments. Also, in Germany, half of the herbs were prescribed by physicians as of 1999. Today the number is most likely much higher. Yet herbalism or phytotherapy -- even when prescribed by a physician -- is certainly still considered "alternative" by a substantial amount of people. Language exists in people's minds; it is a cultural thing. Perhaps "alternative" will be phased out, but for now it is used, and we base our encyclopedia on its use by reliable sources. II 07:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Burzynski is hardly an example of an establishment scientist. Please read the statement again: New cancer treatments proposed or in clinical trials by establishment oncologists or scientists but not yet proven effective. This is the definition of non-alternative experimental treatments. This statement does not say a single word about an alternative drug that is being properly studied, even though that's what you seem to expect it to say. It clearly includes every single cancer treatment that's being studied, alternative or not. This sentence is leftover from when this article was focused on all "unproven" cancer therapies, whether they were "establishment" or "alternative", instead of just alternative cancer therapies.

I think this needs to be re-written to say something like "Alternative cancer treatments, even when they are being properly studied." When we come up with a sentence that doesn't declare gene therapy to be an "alternative/complementary" treatment, I'll be satisfied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You just can't trust those "establishment oncologists". A thoroughly nefarious group. :) Anyhow, I think I see Whatamidoing's point, which should be fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. I've taken a shot at recasting the list to line up more closely with the current title and direction of the article. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles

Tossing these here for future reference:

• Schraub S. (2000). "Unproven methods in cancer: a worldwide problem". Supportive Care in Cancer. 8: 10–15. doi:10.1007/s005209900057.
• Ernst, E.; Pittler, M. H.; Wider, B.; Boddy, K. (2007), "Complementary/alternative medicine for supportive cancer care: development of the evidence-base" (PDF), Supportive Care in Cancer, 15 (5): 565–568, doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0174-y{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

II | (t - c) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Crotoxin

What about crotoxin, it was very popular in the '80s. http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/8/4/1033 Acolombo1 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

List of unproven or disproven alternative treatments

This FDA press release links to the following pages at the FDA website that might be useful for this article: Beware online fraud, list of 187 fake cures, warnings issued. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

New alternative treatment called Quercetin

Please can you add a new alternative cancer treatment called Quercetin. This compound belongs to the flavonoids. Flavonoids including quercetin are extracted from fruits and vegetables and they have been on the news many many times. So I think it's time to add Quercetin to the complementary cancer treatment list.

If this isn't done already, please add it now.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelle333 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a good reliable source that talks about their use to treat existing cancers? Most of what I've seen is either remarkably vague (a diet that is high in veggies is necessarily high in many flavonoids, making it impossible to identify which one(s) matter) or not about treating cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, is it alternative or experimental? This page is for alt med. Verbal chat 07:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can find some information about Quercetin and Cancer here:

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/5/3/196.pdf http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/quercetin-000322.htm http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/2/4/659

This is alternative med. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelle333 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Butyrolactone I the same as gamma-Butyrolactone???

Since the naming of the former is confusing, could someone please verify this--222.64.215.15 (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also the naming of 25-hydroxyprotopanaxadiol is confusing too--222.64.215.15 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Classification source

This news article might be a reasonable source to name for classifying a couple of these treatments, and also for supporting claims in the lead about why this topic is important/relevant/notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Glutathione

Added my edit again. The sourcing is on the glutathione page, not on this one - the same method used for "Cancer guided imagery", "Macrobiotic diet", "Essiac tea", etc. Clearly this is an accepted practice, so I don't see why my link should have to be any different. Deepfryer99 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a common practice, but it is not actually an "accepted" practice. Furthermore, nothing on the other page actually indicates that glutathione is a treatment for cancer: the other page indicates quite clearly that, while there is at least a slim possibility that it might be useful for preventing cancer, once a cancer has been established, glutathione may actively protect the cancer, which is rather the opposite of what most of us mean by "treatment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Other issues you mention aside,... that it isn't an "accepted" practice is pretty much what defines it as "alternative" and possibly eligible for mention here, isn't it? Note that the other issues might disqualify it, but that it's not "accepted" is actually a reason to include it, even if it would work counterproductively, as some alternative methods may well do. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Iscador

Which section do you think is best for this item?

• Iscador, derived from mistletoe

It was pushed as a cure, but didn't work; it is, however, widely used in Eastern Europe (mostly with the idea that the patients taking this will feel better, or perhaps eat more). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

People who choose alternative treatments

Deleted the 2 following sentences: "However, patients who use alternative treatments have a poorer survival time, even after controlling for type and stage of disease. This may be because patients who accurately perceive that they are likely to survive do not attempt unproven remedies, and patients who accurately perceive that they are unlikely to survive are attracted to unproven remedies.

Andrew Vickers, the author of the referenced paper, serves as consultant for Theradex and for GlaxoSmithKline, two companies that have a vested interest in discrediting alternative treatments because they promote standard chemotherapy drugs. (http://cme.amcancersoc.org/misc/disclosure.shtml / http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.20088/abstract) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.147.43 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 24 February 2011

We do not remove material published in quality peer reviewed journals like this. Yobol (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't see a conflict of interest worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.147.43 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't see any real conflict of interest to disqualify Vickers as a source, and, frankly, do not see anything particularly controversial about the statement. BTW, you didn't "mention" there was a conflict of interest, you deleted text because of supposed COI. Yobol (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Escharotics

It's possible that escharotics should be classified as mixed results; it should (in theory, at least) be just as effective at treating non-invasive skin cancer as a scalpel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit brash? Is there a nicer way of saying that you moved it because you don't believe it works? On another note, don't you find it strange the reference you added citing Dr. Nathaniel Jellinek, MD and Mary E. Maloney, MD both prescribe and compare Aldara or Imiquimod, which is an ex-3M product, to other 'salves'? Technically Natural Escharotics are a 'competitor' or 'alternate medicine' to Aldara. I wouldn't call vested interests or conflict of interests, but perhaps sponsorship? MrAnderson7 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. What's the nice way of saying "I didn't move it, so you're fussing at the wrong person"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sodium bicarbonate

The following was moved from my user talk page Yobol (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC):

Hi there, and thanks for your explanation on deleting my changes on NaHCO3 in Alternative cancer treatments. I agree with both your comments: the not-so-high-standard of the second source, and the first being in vitro.

However, those two are pieces of evidence, even if not so strong. Some evidence is better than no evidence. And I believe that in the apparent absence of a kick-ass randomized triple blind trial with a large sample, preliminary studies merit being cited, accompanied by explicit limitations and caveats, such as the ones you added. I believe that since they are on PubMed, a minimum of reliability should be granted to those sources. In the absence of other papers showing stronger evidence that sodium bicarbonate is worse than useless, the overall balance is somewhat favorable to it.

So, don't you think it could be more useful to reverse the deletion and add your caveats next to it?

All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.75.6 (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree we don't need a large randomized double blinded trial to make it, but we do need minimum standards; in vitro studies are notoriously unhelpful in predicting actual clinical relevance and Alt Med Review is, in my experience, a horrible journal which plays up alt med remedies and plays down "mainstream" remedies in every review of theirs I've read and do not think it is a reliable source. Being indexed in PubMed does not make it sufficient as a reliable source for WP:MEDRS; are there no clinical trials or even book citations to this topic, and if not, does it merit belonging here, per WP:WEIGHT? Yobol (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This major AltMed source says that there's been one small mouse study, that it's based on a disproven theory of what cancer is (it only "cures" the kind of "cancer" that is actually a yeast infection), and that the Italian ex-physician who promotes it is in prison for wrongful death and swindling. Overall, it did not sound like this is an accepted treatment even within the AltMed community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Complementary versus alternative treatments

While I hesitate to criticise, knowing very little of the subject, the first paragraph of the section "Complementary versus alternative treatments" seems to directly contradict the subsequent two, the first claiming that the two concepts differ principally by circumstance, and the latter two contrasting them.

It may be that this is intentional, designed to demonstrate shades of difference in two largely similar concepts, but it reads a lot like a passage written by two conflicting editors.

118.209.144.57 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"scientific-sounding information"

I think the phrase "scientific-sounding information" could be improved. What did the author mean? Scientific information can be scientific sounding and non-scientific information can be scientific sounding.

If the standard of evidence based medicine is peer review, should this phrase be "non peer reviewed information"?

If there is no constructive objection in the next 2 days, I will make the edit.

Phersh (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The author meant information that sounds like it's scientific to the lay person, regardless of whether it is scientific at all (e.g., Time cube) or whether it is current (e.g., Linus Pauling's famously wrong—and definitely peer-reviewed—papers on genetic information being protein-based instead of DNA-based) or whether it is generally accepted (e.g., almost anything in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is also peer-reviewed). In other words, exactly what's written there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

53 reviews

at the time of this writing this article has 53 reviews and a very bad rating. Maybe it is the clear and self evident bias. Perhaps it is the mis information that is being presented along side some facts. Whatever the case the rateing stands as evidence of the users dislike of this article.

Maybe some of the old hands that keep watch on this article should take their hands off of it and let new editors take the article a different direction.... hopefully a more honest one. 108.247.104.253 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review of related article

A request has been made for peer review of List of ineffective cancer treatments which has some cross-over with the content here. All and any feedback most welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger of List of ineffective cancer treatments into here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge.

---

Hi everyone! During peer review of List of ineffective cancer treatments (a page I am largely responsible for creating) it has been suggested that its content overlaps with the content here. So I am proposing a merger to get consensus on what, if anything could be done. As I see it, a couple of possibilities are that (1) the two articles are merged (as proposed) and this becomes an article that both gives a general overview of the topic and lists a good number of the dubious treatments, or (2) that this article becomes more exclusively concerned with narrative/background to the topic (i.e. by slimming-down or removing the lists here), and the list article focuses on being a list article.

One argument in favour of a merger is that the subject area is currently split. List of ineffective cancer treatments receives ~500 views/day, this article ~200/day. So there is an opportunity for a consolidating information on this topic for interested readers and building a higher-importance article.

Whatever is decided there would be plenty of detail to sort out (titling seems to be a hot topic) - but for now, in general, what do people think in principle should be done? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the call for discussion here, it is just that I'm busy thinking about other things atm. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

At face value, I concur with the proposed merger. I'm still exploring the consequences of such a decision, but I lean toward finding it agreeable.

One concern I've yet to directly mention in Talk:List of ineffective cancer treatments is length and format of the list, in the sense of whether the presentation should be tabular. But please think of it as conditional. If the list is meant to contain over several dozen items (which would depend heavily upon inclusion criteria), then it might be more useful as a data table of two, three or four columns (one for the name, a second for the description, a third for the category, and a fourth for the degree of importance or notability as a medical topic, or a fourth for the degree of implausibility and impotency as an anti-cancer). -- Lindberg 20:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

How do you plan to handle mainstream but worthless treatments? For example, there was a big push by activists to use bone marrow transplants for women with breast cancer a while back, and they even pushed through some laws requiring insurance programs to pay for it—but it turns out that it's all risk and no benefit to the patient. That doesn't fit in "alternative", but it is definitely "ineffective". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how the list criteria are set, there will be some items which are marginal for inclusion (Coley's toxins and Green tea have been discussed and left out of List of ineffective cancer treatments article for example). One advantage of a merged article is that these items could be given more nuanced description in narrative text, rather than being simply included or excluded from a the list. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of a merger. Both articles are good, but a merged article would be worth more. I like the idea of keeping the list in list format, whether in a table, as suggested above, or in its current format. It makes it easier to find things than if it was all turned into prose. Prose is fine for very short lists, but not for what we have now (and it shouldn't be shortened). While I'm at it, I'd like to thank Alexbrn for all the hard work. Well done! -- Brangifer (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as the title goes, I favor keeping this one, and making it clear in the body and lead that "alternative" is pretty much synonymous with "ineffective". While not all ineffective treatments are considered part of alternative medicine, all alternative medicine treatments are by definition ineffective. Once they are proven to be effective, they become standard medicine.

Mainstream ineffective treatments which are maintained in the face of proof they are ineffective often go directly to the quackery and health fraud category, and are used by fringe MDs who are usually alternative medicine practitioners as well. That's the nature of the beast, since in the world of alternative medicine, real proof is irrelevant. In standard medicine, ineffective treatments are usually abandoned, but that never happens in alternative medicine. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe they should be merged - as an RN myself, I see them as two totally different topics. While medicine continues to value evidence-based practice, alternative treatments are finding new headway. Many hospitals now offer homeopathic treatments like aromatherapy, relaxation music, healing touch, etc. in addition to traditional/standard medicine And nutrition is a huge area that is receiving a lot of attention. Alternative therapies just don't have enough evidence behind them YET - that doesn't mean they are ineffective or should be discounted is such. What we consider alternative therapies today might be considered standards in years to come, but this would automatically bathe them in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.82.243 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't argue against the content fork issue others have raised. I think it's clear here there's a consensus for the merge. I'll leave it a week or so and proceed with it - unless somebody beats me to it, or substantial objections emerge. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, since a consensus seems to back this merge, why don't you just begin to merge the content into this article now? It won't hurt this article, and if the end result looks good, we can !vote on deleting the other one, leaving a redirect. If this article ends up looking worse, we can always revert back to its existing status as it is now. You've done lots of excellent work, so I say "go for it!" -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Closing, result was merge. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternative?

I don't know about that.

"Once they are proven to be effective, they become standard medicine" is one viewpoint, but it's not completely true. For example: if you partly dislocate a joint, e.g., Radial head subluxation, and your medical doctor puts his hands on your arm and pops the joint back into place, then that's "mainstream medicine". If your chiropractor does exactly the same thing, then that's "alternative medicine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

??? Did you mean to start a new thread? I don't see the relevance here, but I'll answer you anyway. No, chiropractors can practice EBM. In fact a lot of what they do is physical therapy. That which is "uniquely" chiropractic is alternative medicine and quackery, but that's all another subject, and not for this talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed alteration to "Fasting"

There is some very good scientific research that seems to indicate that fasting benefits cancer patients. I would like to propose an alteration to the statement on fasting that indicates this.

Some sources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3245934?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18378900

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18184721

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/

http://defeatosteosarcoma.org/2011/04/fasting-as-an-adjunct-to-treatment-for-cancer/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733612

http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/31029/Cancer-Research-Findings-Explained

http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/071012/page5

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/fasting-and-cancer

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/02/06/scitranslmed.3003293 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.185.128 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I cant find anything in the article except the wikilinked Juice fasting in the 'diet' section. What did you have in mind? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's see:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3245934?dopt=Abstract - 25 year-old primary study on rats

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18378900 - 5 year old primary study on mice

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18184721 - 5 year old primary study on mice

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/ - 4 year-old case report

• http://defeatosteosarcoma.org/2011/04/fasting-as-an-adjunct-to-treatment-for-cancer/ - self-published

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733612 - mice again

• http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/31029/Cancer-Research-Findings-Explained - a university's news page

• http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/071012/page5 - usable source: commenting on a mouse study (equivocally)

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/fasting-and-cancer - not WP:MEDRS

• http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/02/06/scitranslmed.3003293 the mouse study commented-on above

So I don't think there's anything usable here in itself, let alone to overturn a 2012 statement from the ACS that "available scientific evidence does not support claims that fasting is effective for preventing or treating cancer in humans". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Two notes:

- my apologies, my original comment was in relation to the article "list of ineffective cancer therapies" (which is proposed to be merged with this article and the talk page linked to)

- I am not proposing that fasting be removed from the article just that it is noted that it is a subject being actively researched that shows *some* promise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.185.128 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, the links are largely useless here, plus this would only be relevant at the Fasting article, not in list articles which mention fasting. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate redirect with POV implication

First off, to clear up where I'm coming from, I do not have a set opinion regarding potential cancer treatments, but would as of now tend towards a school-medicinal approach to treating cancer, should I ever need to. That said, I came here following a link "List of ineffective cancer treatments" which redirects to this page titled "Alternative cancer treatments". I found myself chuckling over the implication but, on reconsidering with an admitted amount of nitpicking, this certainly isn't NPOV as it implicitly discredits all alternative treatments as ineffective. Since there is a section "Ineffective treatments" on this page, would it be possible to make the redirect (and similar ones, if there are any) point there directly? --89.204.153.191 (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch - I've changed the redirect (globally) to point to the section, which is a better reflection of what users might expect. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A redirect link from chelation to hear still jumps one from ineffective cancer treatments to alternative treatments suggesting chelation is an acceptable or common alternitive or at least commonly recomended.To be frank I don't think one is supposed to use chelation for cancer curing at all. That would be like advising people into taking laxitive for a headache and claiming it is an ineffective treatment for headaches.I myself know of it but never heard the idea of using the process for cancer curing. Such an idea seems preposterours in suggestion.

ALSO the reader reviews are something to consider regarding this article.. 1zeroate (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The redirect is to a section now, not the article as a whole. Chelation is a "feature" of many alternative cancer treatments (Issels, Contreras, Clark's regime ...). And yes, like all these alternative treatments, it's bollocks. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounding like science

This phrase appears to have been removed by someone who was guessing about the publications contents based on half a sentence in the paper's abstract. I think it's important to briefly mention that consumers find altmed treatments to be more appealing if they are promoted with science-y sounding language. If you've read Bad Science, or if you've looked at ads for alternative treatments, then this statement will likely seem extremely familiar, so I wouldn't think it was controversial, but perhaps a third person would like to consider it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Tone

I came here specifically to see if I could find a header that addresses the blatantly negative tone this article has and to see if I could comment on it, but it seems there is no discussion about it here (save from people who want a blatantly positive emotional tone, which is obviously also wrong). This article is not neutral. It's perfectly understandable and logical that things like quackery need to be referenced to explain some of the concepts, but it is not understandable that there is significant emotional spin present in the article. An example of this is the edit I just made. I'm not an expert on the subject and I wouldn't even know where to start editing it, but it might be a good idea to keep this in mind for future edits. 77.166.198.73 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what seems like "emotional spin" to you, so I'm not sure how to help you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I am new to editing but found an article about tamanu and cancer and not sure if it should be in here- http://mytamanuoil.com/tamanu-oil-and-cancer/ this is a close and personal topic to me and am very interested so could do all work if it's a go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.114.125 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Websites like that are not impressive sources. They are normally written by someone who is selling the product, and who therefore has a vested interest in overstating the benefits and understating the risks. So, for example, it causes allergic rashes (PMID 15500678), but they omit that fact. Looking at the abstract for PMID 18494888, it is traditionally used for open sores on the skin, not cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis

@Alexbrn: As I'm discussing on the other page, the full story should be told here. Marijuana is not a cancer cure. However, it has shown some promising anti-tumor effects in preliminary trials. Also, it is a safe and effective treatment of cancer-related illness such as nausea and pain. You've covered the first sentence of that statement. However, for neutrality's sake, we should tersely include the second and third as well. Exercisephys (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the full source (not just the abstract) before using a source. Besides, we already say "chemicals derived from cannabis have been extensively studied for potential anti-cancer effect". This article is focused on treatments and effectiveness, speculating further about what future research may (or may not) find is undue and also breaks the terse, summary style of the list. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the full source (not just the abstract) before using a source. -Alexbrn

No, I don't. That would be a waste of time. If a MEDRS-compliant review's abstract states a non-controversial fact, I can use that as a source. Don't just nitpick people on meaningless technicalities. Come to a conclusion based on MEDRS research and cite your sources, or leave my contributions be. Exercisephys (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you should read the source before adding it as a source. And no, it is not MEDRS compliant, as it is not MEDLINE indexed. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: @Yobol: Are you actually suggesting that every Wikipedia editor reads the entirety of every source they use?

Also, do you really believe I'm wrong? This is just stonewalling.

Regardless, the simplest and most correct way to handle this is to remove cannabis from this list. You define alternative cancer treatments as "alternative or complementary treatments for cancer that have not been approved by the government agencies responsible for the regulation of therapeutic goods." Cannabinoids are FDA approved, and according to this source (I'll find others if you're concerned about its accuracy), cannabis itself is approved by Canada, New Zealand, and eight European nations for intractable cancer pain. Exercisephys (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Journal article? Yes. We're not talking reading a book here, most journal articles are at most a few pages long, and it shouldn't be a strain by any stretch to read the source you are citing. The source you cite speaks to a specific product derived from cannabis, not cannabis itself. We need to be careful, as our article discusses cannabis, not specific derived products from cannabis. Yobol (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: @Yobol: Here's a fully MEDRS/MEDLINE source. The cancer section begins with the statement "There is evidence that cannabinoids may have anti-cancer effects." It acknowledges the incomplete and contradictory nature of current data, but supports cannabis as a legitimate pharmaceutical. That's the perspective I'm trying to insert here and elsewhere. It also specifies in the introduction that it is discussion the uses of cannabis through its active chemicals, cannabinoids, so the distinction between the two is not significant. So, do you guys have any further complaints, or should I expand this section and the corresponding cannabidiol section? Exercisephys (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My concerns are several-fold 1) you are attempting to conflate cannabis and cannabinoids, which are different substances (with cannabinoids themselves consisting of various different substances) 2) you are conflating treatment of cancer with treatment of symptoms of cancer above 3) the source you introduced does not "support cannabis as a legitimate pharmaceutical" as cancer treatment (they note only one phase I study with a total of 9 patients in the section you cite). What specific section/material are you looking at to make such a bold statement based on this source? Yobol (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: @Yobol: At the very least we should specify that it is considered an effective treatment for cancer-related symptoms. Also, most opposition to herbal cannabis is because smoking it can cause health problems. However, these can be easily avoided by oral or vaporizer use, and medical sources have recognized this as reasonable. There is no non-cannabinoid constituent of cannabis that is thought to be active or harmful, nor is there any significant suspicion of one.

Regardless, my point stands that herbal cannabis has been approved in Canada, New Zealand, and eight European nations for cancer-related pain. That alone makes cannabis' presence on this page dubious.

In the end, we can debate about how to word this, but the current state of the cannabis section is indefensibly incomplete and biased. As far as the "terse, summary style of the list" that Alexbrn mentioned, all I'm suggesting is an extra couple of clauses that differentiate cannabis (a promising anti-tumor agent) from the outright quack cures on this list, and to mention that it is established as a safe, effective treatment of cancer-related pain and nausea.

Also, I'd like to point out that Alexbrn initially tried to shut me down because my edits because they need to be "in sync with the linked-to article", but my suggested edits are almost identical to that of the main section relating to this: Medical cannabis#Cancer. Exercisephys (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that section is about the treatment of cancer, not the treatment of symptoms of cancer. You have not addressed how you can so badly misread a source to say it supports it as a "legitimate pharmaceutical" when it clearly does not. The point about Canada and other countries is about Nabiximols, not about cannabis itself. That another page does a poor job discriminating cannabis from cannabinoids doesn't really help clear up the situation here, either. Note that cannabinoids are already discussed in a separate section regarding complementary therapy. Yobol (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

treatment of cancer, not the treatment of symptoms of cancer -Yobol

...there isn't a very strong distinction between the two. That's why I simply want to make that distinction. Also, I do have a MEDRS source saying that "there is evidence that cannabinoids may have anti-cancer effects." For those two reasons, the current section gives an incomplete and biased perspective of medical cannabis use for cancer. The simplest indicator of this is that someone without prior knowledge would, upon reading this, think that cannabis is a sham medication, which is not the current medical consensus. This entire page, starting with the lead's image (and ending with the "Project Skepticism" header on this talk page), has the theme "money-grubbing quack treatments". Potentially useful cancer treatments have been swept up in the mix, and they should be given a full, fair, unbiased treatment.

You have not addressed how you can so badly misread a source to say it supports it as a 'legitimate pharmaceutical' when it clearly does not -Yobol

It's because these skirmishes that Alexbrn starts over things like this are a waste of my time. Nothing I've actually added to the article (and summarily had reverted) was the least bit questionable. I'm just link-bombing you guys to make the point that you don't have sources. I'm adding simple, reliable information to these pages, and Alexbrn's mad because he wants to use Wikipedia as his personal Snopes.

If we can't come to an agreement soon I'm just going to open a dispute resolution request for here and cannabidiol. I'll write up a suggested consensus section before I do that.

On that note, can you two let me know what you actually believe is true on this issue? It seems like you just decided to nitpick every addition I make to wear me down until I leave. You haven't actually stated what you think is true, only that every statement I make is false because of spelling or today's lunar alignments. Also, can you specify why, if my MEDRS sources aren't quite MEDRS enough for you, a blog post from Cancer Research UK being the only citation leads to a thorough, well-cited section? Exercisephys (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your decision to blame someone else for your misrepresentation of a source is sad, and frankly, absurd. I have better things to do with my time than deal with such absurdity. Yobol (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)