Talk:Alternative cancer treatments/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why

Why is it so hard to get a simple page of non-mainstream discussions? There are plenty of print books and articles in alternative magazines from which to quote. Drug companies don't fund juice cures. There's no money in it. It appears to me these two treatment pages (cancer and alternative cancer) are really mainstream and testing-for-mainstream treatments. But, alternative is not supposed to mean "other". That's how you end up getting one viewpoint in two pages. Where is the alternative viewpoint? I think it's odd that on the alternative cancer treatment article page there are no treatments that work. So you've got "regular cancer treatment" page and "other cancer treatments that don't work" page. I got my tumor to shrink by common water fasting. My cure would be considered anecdotal. Could we have a page on "anecdotal cancer treatments"?Kristinwt (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you want. The English Wikipedia puts forward what it calls a "neutral" point of view on all subjects. It does not use a pro-AltMed viewpoint in AltMed subjects and a pro-Big-Pharma viewpoint in other subjects. It's supposed to be the same disinterested, source-based, balanced viewpoint in all subjects. Because it's medical information, it's supposed to be based mainly on academic research, not on publications with a widespread reputation for selling unfounded hope.

We have a separate article at Experimental cancer treatment for things going through conventional evidence-based research, because that's not Alternative medicine. There is, BTW, a definition of AltMed that says there is medicine (anything that works) and alternative medicine (anything that doesn't work).

As for how money plays into it in the real world, may I recommend that you readBad Science? AltMed is a multibillion dollar industry (and that's only counting the USA). Wyeth, Bayer, Unilever, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline all own "AltMed" supplement companies. If they were required by law to prove that their supplements worked, they could easily find the money. They don't do it because we aren't forcing them to spend that money on research instead of on their executives' bonus checks, not because they're too poor to afford it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"I think it's odd that on the alternative cancer treatment article page there are no treatments that work. So you've got 'regular cancer treatment' page and 'other cancer treatments that don't work' page." Well, yes, by definition. If a cancer treatment is proven to work, doctors will start prescribing it and it becomes "regular cancer treatment." Alternative treatments are the ones that have not been proven to work. --Ashenai (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like WhatamIdoing wants something besides a self-licking ice cream cone. To say it's ineffective simply because if it were effective medical doctors would use it is a gross oversimplification of the issue. (if A, then B, because if not B then not A). Treatments that work in certain circumstances might not have yet obtained certification by AMA, but are nonetheless valid alternatives with limited efficacy. And the definition of alternative is not "stuff that doesn't work" but rather "stuff that isn't mainstream." That's what makes this page sound so negative.--DeknMike (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The AMA doesn't certify anything.

I personally agree with your distinction between alternative and mainstream medicine. However, the "works–doesn't work" definition is preferred by some people. (The obvious conclusion from this, of course, is that any licensed physician who suggests dextromethorphan for cough suppression is an "alternative medicine practitioner". ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Publication Bias explanation

At the bottom of the opening paragraphs, there is a parenthetical definition given for publication bias: "a refusal to publish results showing a treatment does not work." Following the link, I find that publication bias is more than just not printing a study that doesn't work. It includes studies not properly registered with the journals, studies not fitting with the journals' purposes (ie not pharmaceutical studies) or studies not supporting mainstream results. It also can include studies that show an effort not working. However, the definition in this article suggests a bias that Alternative Treatments don't get published only because they don't work. Recommend an alternate parenthetical definition: "a tendency to not publish results that disprove the expected hypothesis or that use methods not normally reviewed by the magazine."--DeknMike (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Publication bias, in the sense that the relevant sources are talking about, is really about not choosing to publish your results, because you don't like them. This is a major problem with research done by mainstream pharmaceutical companies on mainstream drugs. It is not unique to altmed by any stretch of the imagination.

The definition given here is still accurate:

• The company refuses to publish the results because it will hurt sales;
• The author refuses to publish the results because it doesn't show any benefit;
• The journal editor refuses to publish the results because it's a boring result;
• The journal refuses to publish the results because the author didn't jump through some sort of trial registry hoops;
• The journal refuses to publish the results because the author submitted it to the wrong kind of journal; etc.

All of these are examples of "a refusal to publish results showing a treatment does not work". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a problem with medical research in general, and the definition is adequate. Yobol (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ineffective" vs. "Unproven"

I've been thinking about the song/poem "Storm" by Tim Minchin, and how it defines alternative medicine as "either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work." In other words, while all the treatments on this page fall into one of those categories, I think we should distinguish between those in the former and those in the latter. In other words, I propose that all the ones that have just not been proven to work should be removed from the "ineffective treatments" section and put in their own section, which would be entitled "unproven treatments". Thoughts? Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable distinction to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're slightly off base. Minchin's brilliant "Storm" deals with "unproven" and "disproven", which is also the point of this article we use as a source, written by alternative medicine advocate Andrew Vickers, Ph.D.:

• "Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as “unproven,” suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown. Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial data on a number of alternative cancer cures including Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label “unproven” is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert that many alternative cancer therapies have been “disproven.”"

They aren't just "ineffective", but also "disproven". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The list criteria are set out in the section's opening sentence: "therapies that have been recommended to treat or prevent cancer in humans but which lack good scientific and medical evidence of effectiveness". This question has come up before and other possible labels (e.g. "bogus", "discounted") are probably less good. The trouble with the "unproven" label is that it puts these items in the same category as legitimate drugs under development that simply have not yet been tested ... and of course there is always the implication beloved by POV-pushers than unproven can imply "not yet proven". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I also object to the heading Ineffective treatments as for example, Cancer Research UK say, "there is no reliable evidence to show that the Budwig diet [...] helps people with cancer".[33]. the lack of positive proof is not at all the same as the negative proof... In other words, if there is no reliable proof to show positive, I don't see there is reliable proof to show negative, which would justify 'ineffective treatments' subheading. 93.87.177.78 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, you can't really prove a negative, we'd be waiting until the end times. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The reviews at PMID 23152069 and PMID 24403443 would be relevant: studies have been published, and they found that there was no survival benefit. NB that this is actual "evidence of no benefit", which is not the same as "no evidence either way". Budwig fares better than most (it is worthless, but mostly harmless; most of the ones in the list are both worthless and harmful). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Nonsense"? How FDA approves drugs? By finding they are effective. How do they not approve drugs? By finding they are ineffective!

Anyhow, funny Whatamidoing you cited a paper which contradicts you: "no nutrition-based interventions to date have provided incontestable evidence that they consistently improve clinical outcomes in advanced cancer patients. " note here words consistently and advanced. Also, in end of abstract: "Dietary counseling does not appear to improve QOL significantly in patients with cancer. However, an observed trend toward benefit underscores the need for further study." So, did you read these before citing them? 178.221.108.205 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That quotation is from a different paper from those mentioned: PMID 18551861. Quite apart from anything else, that paper doesn't mention the Budwig diet. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I had more tabs opened... :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.195.127 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The FDA does not "find that they are ineffective". They find that the data presented to them does not demonstrate safety and/or efficacy (so far; manufacturers are allowed to keep trying). The law requires that both safety and efficacy must be demonstrated before approval is granted, and the FDA accordingly refuses to approve drugs that have not demonstrated safety and efficacy (and also that the manufacturer have characterized the drug, so that they really know which chemicals are in those pills). They don't actually "disapprove" drugs; they just don't approve the ones that don't meet the standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this imply that not a single person had been cured by any of the listed methods? 178.221.220.214 (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that. Spontaneous remission happens randomly, even for advanced cancers, and it might randomly happen to someone who both has cancer and has been taking some altmed treatment. Every modern "testimonial" about altmed is from someone who did conventional medicine as well as altmed treatments. For example, I met someone back around 1990 who had survived (early) breast cancer. She had surgery and radiation. Then she did a juice fast. Whenever she "felt like the cancer was coming back" or "could feel the radiation again", she did a three-day juice fast again. It made her feel happier and more in control, but I'm convinced that it did nothing for her: there was probably no cancer left after the surgery. (Statistically, the radiation was probably unnecessary, too, but it is supposed to increase survival a little, so probably the radiation was a waste, but maybe she was one of the few that benefited from it.) And the people who just did altmed... well, I've heard of a couple, and they all died. (One did it with her doctor's blessing, because he figured that the outcome would be the same no matter what. I'm not sure about the others.)

The old testimonials are either fabrications (the concept of truth in advertising is a modern one) or misdiagnoses (e.g., the person who thought that electrical skin conductance testing would identify cancer... only that what it really identified was sweating, and she and her brother both died from cancer despite her "cure"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Definition of 'Evidence"

Some here will claim the only evidence that can be used is that which undergoes extensive clinical trials and proves a positive. However, in common language, evidence can be accepted with far less rigor.In some cases, evidence can be documentation of a single field observation. Or evidence can be reports of no negative effects without addressing positive outcomes. Therefore, adamantly declaring that only 'evidence-based' this or that adds no clarity to the discussion.--DeknMike (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

For a topic in the medical space, as one would expect we use "evidence" as it is defined in that field. The first use of the word is hyperlinked to Evidence-based medicine to reinforce that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)you

If you mean "evidence-based medicine" then say so. Don't hide the definition from the casual Wikipedia user who doesn't have the hyperlinking understanding that you & I do. Unless you are using this space to drive an agenda, say it plainly.--DeknMike (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is really going to confuse typical readers. This is not an uncommon way to talk about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct naming of section "Ineffective treatments"

According to Wikipedia conventions, the names of subsections should reflect their content as exactly as possible.

The overwhelming number of treatments in the regarding section are described as "not proven effective against cancer" or "no reliable scientific evidence exist" which means, their efficacy is not proven, but they are not proven in any way as ineffective (most treatments could also be described as "not scientific prove exists that this treatment is ineffective against cancer", although I can understand that this wording is not chosen ;) .

Perhaps this seems a bit pedantic, but talking about sciece, precision in terminology and meaning usually does matter.

My proposition, that would reflect the scientific data more correctly, is: "Treatments not proven effective"

Or perhaps there should be two categories, one "Ineffective treatments", and another one as above. This would sort the list by a meaingful criterion. --178.0.163.2 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fine as it is. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could be less evasive in the description of the individual items. For at least some of these, there is evidence that the treatments shorten the patients' lives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "unproven" doesn't always mean "ineffective". This is really about the basic meaning of words and not POV. I tried to change title to "Ineffective or unproven treatments" as discussed above but Roxy the dog and friends keep reverting the change. They clearly are biased against alternative treatments and decided to fight them in this article. 90.54.151.95 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

..... I haven't got any friends. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternative treatments

I question whether the title of this article is entirely accurate and descriptive of they article content.

We are discussing non mainstream practices which either are known not to work, or which are unproven one way or the other

"Alternative Treatments" immediately implies that they are efficacious alternatives to normal treatment, when we either know they are not (evidence of a lack of efficacy), or we don't know if they are or if they are not (lack of evidence of efficacy).

I think a crystal clear way of saying this is =

Non-mainstream treatments for cancer which are either unproven or ineffective

Which would be a better title, only obviously with less words. 188.30.200.188 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't reflect the content. The "Areas of research" section contains things which aren't straightforwardly classified in line with your proposed new title. Is there any item in particular you think is misplaced in the "Ineffective treatments" section? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just an idea. The logic of changing the main title was just an extension of the same desire to alter the "ineffective treatments" heading in order to be more precise and accurate.

The page contains some CAM treatments that are at least somewhat effective (e.g., massage for cancer pain or acupuncture for cancer-related nausea). The subject is "non-mainstream treatments for cancer", regardless of efficacy or evidence. It just happens that almost all altmed treatments are ineffective (for killing cancer cells). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue

The same way as effectiveness of a treatment should be proven, ineffectiveness should also be proven according to Evidence-based medicine (see discussion below). Claiming treatments are ineffective when effectiveness is neither proven or disproven (i.e. we cannot say) is a matter of point of view. This is an infringement to Wikipedia:Neutrality. Flagging the article as POV. 90.54.151.95 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If a treatment is not demonstrated as effective it is ineffective. "Ineffectiveness" is not proven. Science does not work that way, one doesn't "prove" negatives. In medicine a treatment is considered ineffective until it's effectiveness has been demonstrated, additionally unproven treatments are often not evaluated due to a lack of plausible mechanism of action and the ethics of testing. A reading of NPOV will reveal that the POV of sources is not an issue. If you can provide reliable sources with a POV that is not proportionately represented reflecting the views of mainstream medical science predominately, propose the inclusion of content based on these sources.

If you can't identify specific content that does not reflect quality sources or specific sources that are not adequately reprsented there is no violation of NPOV. Read the policy also read WP:MEDRS. The tag will be removed promptly if specific issues are not presented with policy based rationale backed up by quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence is not entirely correct: If something has not been studied, then its efficacy is unknown, which is not actually the same as ineffective. Also, it is possible to prove that something doesn't work, and it's done all the time. For a few of these, it's even been easy, because for some of these treatments, not only did 100% of the patients die, but they died sooner than people who didn't do these treatments.

If we leave logic aside and look at actual practice within the medical profession, treatments that are both unproven and alternative are assumed to be ineffective until proven otherwise, and treatments that are unproven, conventional and already on the market are assumed to be effective until proven otherwise. So, for example, teaching pregnant women about childbirth was wrongly assumed to be ineffective back when Lamaze was "alternative" and "countercultural", until they ran the studies and learned otherwise (and also waited a long time, because that's a social issue as well as a medical one), and over-the-counter cough syrup was wrongly assumed to suppress coughs until they ran the studies and learned otherwise (and we're still waiting for the medical profession to catch up with the science there).

(The medical profession isn't necessarily all anti-altmed; there's also a tendency to assume that altmed will likely be harmless and that conventional treatments will likely have side effects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Again the article reflects what the sources say. Are there quality sources that say something else? Is there any contention that the article doesn't reflect what the sources say? Opinions and analysis by WP editors (WP:OR) is not the basis for content, policy and sources is, see WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. This is not a forum for the discussion of the topic per WP:NOTFORUM. WP does not predict what may or may not happen in the future, but is based on current mainstream academic consensus per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Nor is WP the place to right great wrongs WP:RGW.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

"Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In mainstream medicine "Ineffectiveness" is proven by Double blind#Use protocol. "treatments that are both unproven and alternative are assumed to be ineffective until proven otherwise" is your own POV not a fact even in mainstream medicine. Anyway that's a different topic and a straw-man argument. The issue here is about semantic meaning of words: "unproven" doesn't mean "ineffective" according to the very basic meanings of words. This assumption in the article constitute a non-neutral Point of View and goes against Wikipedia:ASSERT. According to wikipedia rules please do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. 90.12.56.217 (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What specific content does not reflect the sources? What quality sources differ from what is presented?

Treatments without plausible mechanisms of action are not ethically subjected to double blind study. Human subjects are not subjected to pseudoscientific treatments to definitively demonstrate quackery. This is the position of the medical community and is reflected in the sources. What specific content has reliable sources that state what treatments are considered otherwise by the mainstream medical and academic community? What content does not "accurately reflect current medical knowledge"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Some altmed treatments have a plausible mechanism of action. Black salve, for example, has a plausible mechanism for treating skin cancer: it burns off the affected tissue, including any superficial skin cancers. Sources like PMID 24150196 and PMID 12472348 seem to say that the main problem is that it has less effectiveness and much worse side effects than conventional treatment (e.g., extensive scarring), but that it occasionally works in some simpler cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance Cansema has to this discussion, other than it is a very risky and uncertain treatment method where you're lucky if it works, and the risks of it not working are potentially deadly. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be the clearest example of the IP's problem. Let's say that it kills the cancer in 10% of non-invasive, non-melanoma cases, with horrible scarring (this might be overstating the benefits). Let's say that conventional treatment works in 90% of those cases, with far fewer side effects (this probably understates the benefits). Any sensible person will choose conventional treatment. But is Cansema actually ineffective, or just much, much, much less effective than conventional treatment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's say what the sources say. We could go with "Quack treatments" or "Useless treatments" or "Not effective and sometimes dangerous treatments" or we could stick with what is generally accepted in the mainstream medical community "Ineffective treatments". Perhaps some feedback from Project Med is in order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the proposal to change to "unsupported treatments"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd think per MEDRS we would want to avoid any appearance of promotion through not being very clear. Per Cassileth, "The promotion of unproven or disproved cancer “treatments” instead of mainstream therapy is quackery." certainly not in keeping with WP policy to in any way promote through white washing what is considered quackery. Note the quote marks around the word "treatments" is from the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP originally proposed changing ==Ineffective== to ==Ineffective and unproven==. Depending on the readers' POV, that could be a double slam on the treatments (that they are all ineffective [bad] and they are all unproven [bad]) or a more accurate description (that this section lists both things that are proven to be ineffective and other things that are not proven in any way). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer "Bogus treatments". As Cassileth puts it, "Laetrile was and remains only one among many bogus cancer “treatments” popular from the 1980s on. In the 80s, therapies in vogue included metabolic regimens, special diets, high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements, mental imagery applied with curative intent, and the like.[3] Over the past few decades, purification regimens, oxygen therapies, radio and other electrical frequencies, human and divine forces, and more have come to the fore. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think "bogus" would be NPOV, but sticking with "ineffective" is also fine – we explain what is meant in the following text, after all. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer we did not change the name from ineffective treatments (as this is what they are, and we also explain the definition used in the artilce), but if we do change it I will back Doc James's "unsupported treatments". We must not legitimize anything just by being vague. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not support "Unsupported treatments" as the use of the word treatment without explicitly stating ineffective is potentially misleading. Also many of the "treatments" discussed have been disproven. I prefer the current "Ineffective treatments" per Alexbrn we explain the definition rather clearly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Bogus" is slang, and therefore fails to have encyclopedic WP:TONE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I do not see any specific proposal made here. It seems to me that Doc James was asking what the proposal is/was (clarification appreciated Doc James). An editor who has not participated in this discussion has made the same change to the article twice (once with the assertion that "Wikipedia does not go by 'consensus'." which is not true, see the policy WP:Consensus). This change has been reverted both times, once by myself and once by another editor. I do not see any consensus here to support this change, nor policy based argument supported by sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between evidence of a lack of efficacy (i.e. that something is ineffective), and a lack of evidence of efficacy (we don't know if something is effective or not). So we should not say something is ineffective if there is a lack of evidence to say so. I support changing the heading to "Unproven" or "lack of evidence" instead of "ineffective". Ping to Hildabast who will be able to explain this much better I think. 188.30.200.188 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And with honest respect MrBill3, I can't even read your comments they are so heavily laden with Wikilawyering. My eyes glazed over. And I probably have the same opinion of Alt med as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.200.188 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it very plainly, on Wikipedia we follow what the sources say, not what editors think.

If you want to make changes to the article make a clear and specific proposal, provide reliable sources and get consensus.

That said, competency is required to edit WP that means at the very least understanding and following the core policies: "Neutral point of view"; "Verifiability"; and "No original research". It also a good idea to understand the policy "Consensus" when working on contentious articles. When dealing with any biomedical information I think you will find there is a very strong consensus for following the "MEDRS" guideline.

If an editor can't be bothered to work with Wikipedia policies and guidelines their input is not likely to be valued.

Regardless, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." see "The five pillars" of Wikipedia.

Just as a note indenting one's comments adds clarity and signing them is stongly suggested.

TLDR version: Work the WP way. Rely on sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to suggest it may be unnecessary to work in so many quotes, links and names of rules and guidelines. In a way it is like your comments are noncontributory to any discussion, if people can't bring themselves to read them. Not trying to be offensive, but people's brains just "tune out" background noise after a while. 92.40.83.226 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

MrBill, it seems to me that the IP does understand the policies, and is concerned that the possibly-less-than-entirely-accurate section heading might be violating them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not supporting "unsupported treatments" just proposing it as a possibility. I have not looked at the evidence enough to decide. What we need is a few possibilities with refs supporting each one. We can then better discuss the merits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the good doctor put it well. Proposed changes with refs. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis

I'm sorry, I just don't understand why cannabis is in this article. There is IMHO a huge difference between cannabis and the other treatments mentioned in the article: while it is true that it has not been conclusively proven that cannabis cures cancer, there is evidence that it could. Many studies ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]) suggest this. To be more specific, there is a growing body of evidence about the potential antitumor properties of cannabinoids, and while that doesn't mean that it cures cancer, it is just absurd IMHO to associate it with mostly pseudoscientific theories. Has any study determined the effectivness of homeopathy against cancer? And the same applies to light therapy, dance therapy and virtually all the other treatments mentioned in the article. For this reason IMHO cannabis should be removed from the article.--MarkyRamone92 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS; the sources cited about cannabis meet this standard, and a cursory review of the studies you cite do not (primary studies animal or in vitro studies, not MEDLINE indexed, or other reasons). To change the text of the article you will need to find high quality MEDRS compliant sources that dispute the current sources. When you find them, please suggest a specific wording change in the article cited to the specific source. Yobol (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we need maintain synchronization between the content here and the content at Medical cannabis#Cancer. If it changes there, the summary here can follow. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Marky, the problem may be one of misunderstanding the subject. This is "alternative" treatments. "Alternative" does not mean "pseudoscientific" or "quackery" or "useless". The opposite of "alternative" is neither "effective" nor "evidence-based" nor "scientific".

The opposite of "alternative" is "mainstream" or "conventional". What's "mainstream" is determined by societal acceptance, not by scientific evidence. (In this modern we-all-love-science age, we all hope that what's scientifically supported will be accepted, and that what's not will be rejected, but this is not actually how things always work out.)

Cannabis use is not a mainstream treatment for killing cancer cells. It is therefore an alternative one. Even if the evidence were irrefutable, if the treatment did not achieve social acceptance, it would remain an alternative treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarkyRamone92, WhatamIdoing, and Alexbrn: This article includes medical cannabis within a list of "ineffective" (as opposed to "alternative" or experimental) cancer treatments. This description might be misleading, since some anti-cancer effects of cannabinoids have already been demonstrated. Jarble (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We need here to be in sync with what is in Medical cannabis where it is stated that there is no evidence cannabis treats cancer as a disease. If it changes there, we would need to re-WP:SYNC it here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that cannabis has not been conclusively proven to cure cancer, but still I think that it does not belong in this page. First of all, because other treatments mentioned are patently pseudoscientific: while the possible use of cannabis to treat cancer is currently being investigated, I think we can safely assume that nobody will ever investigate the anticancer properties of dance therapy. Secondly, cannabis and its medical use are a hot subject at the moment, and IMHO we should wait for further information. The very sources cited to include cannabis in this page do not state that it doesn't cure cancer, but simply that "At this time, there is not enough evidence to recommend that patients inhale or ingest Cannabis as a treatment for cancer-related symptoms", which is not the same.--MarkyRamone92 (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What we have here is a list defined as containing "therapies that have been recommended to treat or prevent cancer in humans but which lack good scientific and medical evidence of effectiveness". So long as our Medical Cannabis article contains its current content, that qualifies it for inclusion here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Separate sections for treatments

There should be separate sections for treatments with separate levels of efficacy:

1) Treatments with known efficacy: Some forms of Traditional chinese medicine plus chemotherapy (PMID 23469033)

2) Treatments with unknown efficacy: Medical cannabis and other therapies that have not yet been tested

3) Treatments with no efficacy: Only treatments that are demonstrably ineffective should be listed here

Right now, this article lists many treatments as "ineffective", although some of them have been subjected to zero clinical trials, as is the case for cannabis. This is an extremely misleading article. The lives of countless patients are at stake here, so we really need to get this correct. -A1candidate (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (see above) many times. The neutral way to present the effectiveness of touted treatments for which there is no evidence of effectiveness is that they don't work. Other adjectives that could work here include "bogus" or "discounted"; however, "ineffective" is about as correct as we can get in a title. The more precise definition of what's in the list is given in the opening paragraph: "a list of therapies that have been recommended to treat or prevent cancer in humans but which lack good scientific and medical evidence of effectiveness. In many cases, there is good scientific evidence that the alleged treatments do not work". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not how evidence-based medicine works. We don't assume complete inefficacy when there are no clinical trials to support inefficieny. Please read the categories of evidence in clinical decision making. -A1candidate (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with (say) crystal therapy then! It's wise to follow some RS here, for instance PMID 15061600. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"The lives of countless patients are at stake here" only if your hypothetical patients are gullible enough to believe everything they read on the internet. I think that we can realistically assume a normal amount of basic common sense among our readers. The target audience for this article is someone who wants to learn about the subject, not someone who wants to self-treat cancer. WP:MEDMOS has warned against writing for "patients" and "professionals" (instead of "readers") for years. Let's not fall into that trap now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is not about writing for "patients" and "professionals". It is about staying faithful to medical literature and not assuming inefficacy by engaging in OR.

• Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy can all be labelled ineffective per PMID 15061600, but other treatments need a source to justify their inclusion.

-A1candidate (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removal of well sourced content in short time

Content with a reliable source has been removed twice in a short period diff and diff. This material is supported by a reliable source, no policy based argument against it's inclusion has been made here. I have restored the content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the argument used (that GNM is not a "treatment") is wrong, as our article on that topic makes plain. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring behavior continues without discussion here. I am reverting changes that are not consistent with the sources at Ryke Geerd Hamer. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

German New Medicine

Because there is an almost fetish like obsession among contributors to preserve the misinformation in this article, there is no point in trying to correct the page but to rather allow this important information to be known to the 0.00000001% of users who look at the talk page. The citation for German New Medicine, titled Cancer Quackery: The Persistent Popularity of Useless, Irrational 'Alternative' Treatments does not contain ANY reference to either German New Medicine or Ryke Geerd Hamer. It is as though someone simply looked at the title, added it, and assumed (correctly) that most people would be too stupid to check. Professortimithy(talk) 17:40, 29 Aug 2014 (UTC)

It's on page 2. Blackguard 23:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Professortimithy for finally using the talk page. In the future, keep doing this. This is how we do things. We collaborate, including with non-academics, and without personal attacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Professortimithy while making accusations like "fetish like obsession", you edit war. You then come to the talk page and make a false statement, Cassileth does indeed contain specific reference to Hamer and to German New Medicine. In making a personal attack that "most people would be too stupid to check" you apparently demonstrate an inability to read a journal article. Your accusation that an editor placed the content and ref incorrectly is completely inappropriate. Your statement that you are "not going to collaborate with the non-academic" is not only not appropriate if you wish to participate in editing Wikipedia it seems rediculous as it seems the academic standard you uphold doesn't seem entail the ability to check a source and includes personal attacks and falsehoods. I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Cancer and alternative medicine/CAM

Here are a couple new articles from Medscape dealing with AM/CAM:

• Mythbusters: Complementary and Alternative Treatments in Cancer, Victoria Stern, September 02, 2014 (Full article on one page.)

• Citation template: <ref name=Stern>{{Citation |last=Stern |first=Victoria |date=02 September 2014 |title=Mythbusters: Complementary and Alternative Treatments in Cancer |publisher=''[[Medscape]]'' |url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830552_print |accessdate=07 September 2014 }}</ref>

• Asking the Experts: Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Cancer, Gabriel Miller, Barrie R. Cassileth, PhD, Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, September 02, 2014 (Full article on one page.)

• Citation template: <ref name=Miller>{{Citation |last=Miller |first=Gabriel |date=02 September 2014 |title=Asking the Experts: Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Cancer |publisher=''[[Medscape]]'' |url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830553_print |accessdate=07 September 2014 }}</ref>

Registration is easy and free. Medscape is a good RS, sometimes as a MEDRS, and other times for expert opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps a better one: Integrative oncology: really the best of both worlds?, David H. Gorski, Nature Reviews Cancer (2014) doi:10.1038/nrc3822, Published online 18 September 2014 - paywall though. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sponsorship of this page by the American Cancer Society

There are 128 references to the American Cancer Society. This alone shows this page is utterly biased. A majority of items are defined as ineffective by the American Cancer Society and by no other institution. This isn't using varied sources.

Furthermore this page is supposed to be entitled Alternative cancer treatments, but the content is actually purely anti any form of alternative cancer treatment outside of the commercial conventional medicine. This illustrates further mass bias.

Is this page the reason why Wikipedia wanted to collect money from organisations to publish their point of view, objectively without facts or accepting any other evidence? This page is probably one of the most sinister ones on Wikipedia.

The ACS is a good source for a mainstream medical take on cancer-related topics; Wikipedia reflects such a mainstream view. If you want flakey information and conspiracy theories you'll need to look elsewhere (or change Wikipedia's policies). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless such a predominance is not ideal. But the picture is the same at About complementary and alternative therapies from Cancer Research UK (WP:COI declared) and other mainstream sites (NCI, NHS Choices etc). CRUK in fact goes into more detail on the difference between complementary and alternative therapies, which our pages don't seem to cover properly. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

added a bit now diff. It's a catch 22 if you like; the moment there is decent evidence for something, it stops being alternative & becomes conventional. But this now rarely happens. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in lead?

The lead contains this statement: "Before the development of these modern, evidence-based treatments, 90% of cancer patients died within five years. With modern mainstream treatments, only 34% of cancer patients die within five years." The cited sources don't say that these treatments are responsible for this increase in five year survival. Therefore, this seems to be an example of WP:SYNTH in that it is a combination of information from multiple sources to draw a conclusion not attributable to those sources. The Slate article, for example, does not mention chemotherapy at all. Everymorning talk 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Updating information on Ginger

A study from 2013 examined the impact of several antiemetics on multi-drug resistant tumors to potentially play the role currently filled by harsher chemosensitizers. 6-gingerol was, along with the other antiemetics, found to be effective enough to recommend further investigation of antiemetics for chemosensitizing purposes. The full text isn't available here, but the results indicate that there is preliminary evidence that in some contexts, ginger and/or its compounds may have a role to play in cancer treatment. (It's an effective antiemetic, and I'm not sure if that's too off-topic to include, but halting tumor growth isn't the only claim made about ginger in regard to the process of treating cancer.)

(Hope I'm not knocking around too badly as a noob.) Mostory (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline that encapsulates Wikipedia's rules-of-thumb for whether or not to cite – and include medical claims from – a particular source is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). (You can get back to that page using the shortcut link WP:MEDRS; you will also frequently see the abbreviations WP:MEDRS or just MEDRS when discussing sourcing issues on article talk pages like this one.)

It's a good idea when talking about a paper to provide full citation information and/or a link to the abstract in PubMed‐even if the full text isn't free, many Wikipedia editors have subscription access through their schools or workplaces. Looking very quickly through the 50 or so gingerol papers in PubMed for 2013, I am guessing that you're referring to Angelini, A. et al. (2013) "Modulation of multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein activity by antiemetic compounds in human doxorubicin-resistant sarcoma cells (MES-SA/Dx-5): implications on cancer therapy." J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 27(4):1029-37.

If that is the paper you had in mind, it seems that you may have inadvertently overstated its results. The study involved neither patients nor tumors; the experiments were conducted exclusively in cell culture. I wish these researchers well, but the literature is full of compounds that look promising in the petri dish but fall down in the clinic. For Wikipedia to suggest clinical effects, we need to have (at least) some good clinical trial data. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ernst quotation

Edzard Ernst is quoted as saying,

"... any alternative cancer cure is bogus by definition. There will never be an alternative cancer cure. Why? Because if something looked halfway promising, then mainstream oncology would scrutinize it, and if there is anything to it, it would become mainstream almost automatically and very quickly. All curative "alternative cancer cures" are based on false claims, are bogus, and, I would say, even criminal."

Ernst is factually wrong: escharotic pastes are "alternative" (this century; they were state of the art for medieval medicine), and they do actually permanently cure some skin cancers. They're not rejected because of a failure to cure cancer; they're rejected because they cure only about 10% of skin cancers, and modern medicine can cure about 98% of them. A cure for 10% of patients is still a cure.

Some are accepted in some societies but not in others. I believe I've seen editors mention at least one anti-cancer drugs with some alleged efficacy in Russia and one based on mushrooms in Japan, and both of those are unaccepted, "alternative" drugs in the rest of the world.

Finally, Ernst is blissfully ignoring the problems of time (what's alternative and effective today might be mainstream a generation from now, which is not "very quickly"), regulation (nothing is adopted "automatically"), and randomness (science can't assess a treatment that hasn't come to the attention of someone with the skills and resources to assess it). And in between the time whenever any such treatment is being used and when it is accepted, it's (a) still alternative and (b) still effective.

What Ernst ought to have said, if he had wanted to be precise, is that in a perfect world, all life-improving and life-prolonging cancer treatments that are more effective than what we already have would ultimately become mainstream. That doesn't mean that absolutely every treatment currently labeled "alternative" is completely worthless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I get this deja vu feeling when I read this. Have you written this objection before? It sounds very familiar. The key is in your last words--"currently labeled"--which implies that some treatments may indeed be proven to be useful and will ultimately be accepted. That's his point, so the two of you actually agree and this is a very minor quibble. Otherwise a discussion about whether what he's saying is precisely true in all details, or what he "ought to have said", is OR. We quote him and attribute the statement. He's basically right, it's expert opinion, and a RS, so we include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Brangifer opening comment is hearsay. We can not include Ernst's opinions on any subject, only the science he has performed. Unfortunately, the paragraph in its entirety does not meet any scientific standard: its a sweeping philosophical statement about AM. He is no more a philosophical expert than you and I. The burden lies on editors to justify the relevance and appropriateness to the article. Filingpro (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that including this quotation improves the article. I don't believe that it's WP:DUE to include it; I don't believe that it's WP:BALANCEd to include a soundbite from a divisive figure without providing the more common mainstream POV (which is that things considered alt med are unlikely to be "very quickly" embraced by the mainstream even if they do work); I don't believe that it's appropriate to promote one definition of "alternative medicine" over another (the "things that don't work" definition as opposed to the far more prominent and far more widely accepted "things that aren't mainstream" definition used in scholarly sources rather than in science by press release claims); I don't believe that it improves readers' knowledge of the subject; I don't believe it helps readers to leave them to guess what "very quickly" means; I don't believe that it is desirable to omit the fact that conversion from mainstream to alternative status is a two-way street; I don't believe that it says anything that we don't or can't say better (and specifically more precisely) ourselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

General concurrence with issues raised by WhatamIdoing. "very quickly", "almost automatically", "halfway promising" and "basically right" don't meet wiki standard for scientific statements.Filingpro (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least we now know what you "don't believe". You do realize that we can't "say better (and specifically more precisely) ourselves" without sources? That's OR and editorializing. If something's missing, you could add properly referenced content, but, OTOH, we don't need to reproduce all the nuances contained in the whole alternative medicine article. He is speaking specifically about the topic of this article, and it's a significant expert POV shared by others in the mainstream. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not with OR (original research) by WhatamIdoing. The problem raised by WhatamIdoing is the relevance and appropriateness of the Ernst quote to the article, which I don't see how the rebuttal adequately addresses.Filingpro (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need reliable sources. We do not, however, need direct quotations to convey this sort of information.

Some of what's in this quotation is already present and already sourced, so it's unnecessary: Ernst says, "All curative 'alternative cancer cures' are...I would say, even criminal", and we've used words like "fraud", "con artist", and "criminal" throughout the article for years.

I don't see any advantage to this soundbite, unless the real goal is to prove that Wikipedia editors have such a strong pro-mainstream POV that they can't even write with the impartial tone that NPOV requires. Speaking of NPOV, we had a discussion earlier this year at WT:NPOV about the problems with some types of quotations and the advantages of summarizing the content in short, impartial words. User:PBS or User:Dezastru might be able to give some perspective on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: Here's another, quite mainstream POV on medicine adopting proven new ideas "very quickly":

"If you look at history of medicine, it’s interesting how long it takes for evidence to get into the thick skulls of doctors. So when Pasteur proved the germ theory of disease it took about thirty years for the medical profession around the world to accept the germ theory of disease. Amazingly. It took twenty-odd years for doctors to accept that aspirin reduced the risk of dying of coronary heart disease after you’ve had a heart attack. It was well proven, it took twenty-odd years for doctors to accept that. It takes a long...it’s a conservative profession. It takes a long time to convince them of new ideas, and this [that H. pylori causes ulcers] was no different, because it was so radically outside of what they were expecting."

Radical indeed. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren’s work proved not only that Helicobacter pylori was the true cause of ulcers, but of stomach cancer, as well. In 2005 – more than 20 years after Marshall swallowed that batch of bacteria – they were awarded the Nobel Prize."[20]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with User:WhatamIdoing - the quote is not very helpful and uses dubious vague language in "bogus by definition" (that doesn't deconstruct very well). Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason (Sir John Harington (writer)) works as a joke, but would not as a serious observation. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been alerted to this conversation by WhatamIdoing mentioning me in this conversation. I think it would help to link to the archived conversation which WhatamIdoing mentioned above: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Proposal: revision of section on Impartial Tone.

The problem to which WhatamIdoing has alluded with the quote "If you look at history of medicine..." is that the Ernst quote is packed with inaccurate statements to present a specific point of view. I will detail some of those after an explanation of how I "know" this. As it happens this issue has been debated by the chattering classes in London over the last couple of months on that favourite platform of theirs: BBC Radio 4. This has been over two specific issues. One is advise given by the National Health Service over the use of certain drugs and methods, and the other is over experimental treatments for Ebola. From these discussions it has become evident that the current standard, orthodox, medical double blind trials are not always possible. This happens for thee reasons.

1. The model for such testing usually involves private drug companies investing in R&D in the hope of making a profit. If a drug or method is generic and can not be patented then private investment for a trial will not be available. The possibility of funding from public sources is a hit and miss. Currently due to government cutbacks in Britain, such money is next to impossible to obtain.
2. So given (1) it is possible that treatments based on generic methods and medicines may not be backed up by a full clinical trials until some time after their adoption. (Once adopted by a health authority, an interim statistical analysis can then be used to see if there is an indication that the treatment helps to lead to remission, and provide evidence that a full clinical trial should be funded; or that if no significant statistical evidence is found, for the health authority to discontinue the usage). A good example of this method in practice was the British adoption in the early 90s of laying babies on their backs to reduce cot deaths. This recommendation was initiated without the results of a clinical double blind trial.
3. The second reason is that the test population available may be too small to run a standard double blind trial -- understandably no one in their right mind would infect a test population with Ebola to test a new drug, so until the recent outbreak there was no one on whom to test new drugs. In the case of rare cancers -- like Ebola until recently -- there may not be a big enough population at any one time to run a double blind trial that would produce statistically meaningful results.

The article currently says "In many cases, there is good scientific evidence that the alleged treatments do not work." If this is true then it is not an alternative medicine but quackery. But a better sentence would be "Some/many/most(?) alleged alternative treatments have failed to stand up to rigorous scientific testing, while for other alternative treatments there is no verifiable scientific evidence that the treatments work."

So looking at the sentences in the quote:

1. "any alternative cancer cure is bogus by definition" -- This is giving a specific and narrow definition that excludes all alternative cancer cures that are not "bogus". It is also questionable under the terminology usually used for mainstream cancer treatments which are often not said to "cure" a cancer but to put a cancer into "remission". What is more accurate to say is an alternative cancer cure "is one for which there is no verifiable scientific evidence that the alleged treatment works."
2. "There will never be an alternative cancer cure." -- This is just rhetoric to reinforce the last sentence: of course under Ernst's definition of "alternative cancer cure is bogus" there will never be a cancer cure.
3. "Because if something looked halfway promising, then mainstream oncology would scrutinize it, and if there is anything to it, it would become mainstream almost automatically and very quickly" -- As I have shown above, in addition to WhatamIdoing's quote, there are systemic reasons why this may not be true.
4. The last sentence is true because it is a tautology, because it defines the target of the sentence by defining it as a set of purported cures that are bogus, which by definition excludes cures that work even if they have not been subject to successful clinical trials.

Also the quote fits the rhetorical rule of three which is a popular method of putting over a point of view (often used to great effect by Sir Winston Churchill).

What I have mentioned here are all reasons not to use this quote (not even as a source), but instead to do as WhatamIdoing suggests and construct the points (Ernst fails to make in a clear and precise way), using non-tautological sentences. What are the reasons for using this quote? -- PBS (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(other comments above)Filingpro (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The Ernst paragraph is a non-scientific, inflammatory, and sweeping philosophical argument that attempts to place all alternative medicine in a pejorative class. Only Ernst's scientific findings that debunk alternative medicine should be included. Ernst is not a qualified expert to make the philosophical argument that all medicine that is not approved by the government or statistically evidence-based is necessarily bogus or criminal. This is not in the domain of medical expertise but a philosophical domain. (Meanwhile, the correctness of the Ernst philosophical claim is dubious at best, as illustrated above by PBS argumentation, which appears to be philosophically superior to the Ernst comment).Filingpro (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the quote be removed and it is not the burden of editors to replace the quote with a substitution. I suggest waiting two weeks to hear any justification for its inclusion.Filingpro (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer, it's been weeks since this was discussed. You originally added the quotation, you've reverted to restore it several times now. So far, four different editors have opposed it on the talk page, and you appear to be the only person who supports its inclusion. I think that we have a consensus to remove it here. Do you read this discussion and come to a different conclusion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah ha! I had forgotten that I added it originally. You have then deleted it twice, and I restored it twice, all over the span of about four months. I haven't seen any policy based reasons for removing it, just a bunch of "I don't like it" type complaints. It's a strong and very true statement by a recognized medical expert on the subject, and encapsulates what other experts also say.

That it's opposed above by pushers of alternative medical POV is no surprise, but whitewashing and removal of properly sourced opposing POV without good policy based reasons is not allowed here. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not tear it down, and whenever we find relevant content from RS, we use it. Maybe it could be framed better, or otherwise improved, but rather than leave it out, we seek to somehow include it. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Who exactly are you insulting as being "pushers of alternative medical POV"? Wiki CRUK John, who has added more mainstream information on cancer than you? Filingpro, who mostly writes about voting? PBS, whom I pinged as being an expert specifically in the what the NPOV policy says about quotations from people involved in contentious subjects? (That, by the way, would be one of the "policy based reason for removing it" mentioned above.) Or me? (If the latter, then you might want to take a look at my contributions.) Those are the four editors who have commented here. I see nary an altmed POV pusher in the group. I've got to assume that you just didn't read the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brangifer you say "It's a strong and very true statement" but you have not addressed one of the points I raised that shows that it is not and simply stating that it is does not make it so. Putting your comments about the statement aside, you write "That it's opposed above by pushers of alternative medical POV is no surprise", to whom are you referring? Your also write "but whitewashing and removal of properly sourced opposing POV without good policy based reasons is not allowed here". Quite the contrary, for it to remain in the article you will need so show that there is a consensus to keep it. I too think the quote ought to be deleted for the reasons given. I have nothing against it being summarised in more appropriate language along with those other expert sources you write "encapsulates what other experts also say". So apart from yourself who else do you think supports inclusion of this quote? -- PBS (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoever added the Ernst quote, can you quantify and confirm that never in history nor in the future has or will any treatment considered alternative become mainstream (please provide reference both to the past and future research). His very quote states that if there's evidence that an alternative works it would be embraced by the mainstream but this means that at some point it must be alternative and therefore alternative treatment can be found to be effective and he contradicts himself in his own quote. I also notice that just one person wants this quote and it's the person that added it who is ignoring the arguments against it.

NOTE: I have no interest in medicine, alternative or otherwise, but I do have interest in valid information and the quote at the top of this page, given that it contradicts itself and is clearly meant to be condescending in tone (science is not emotional, it is not opinion, it is observation) does not satisfy this, it is merely the condescending opinion of one doctor. This quote does not add to the information in this article and the article would be far more credible (and wikipedia itself) if removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.182.67 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 February 2015‎

What moron decided with a broad stroke that ALL these treatments are ineffective?

collapse rant

What I don't understand is, who the hell up and decided that some of these treatments (namely some of the cancer fighting herbs) aren't effective? There are a lot of studies to show that many of the herbs on this list are actually good for your health and may have benefit in helping to fight cancer. For example, cancerresearch.uk claims Johanna Budwig was a quack, and whoever wrote this article is a complete NINNY, because Johanna Budwig was one of the FIRST people to put forth the idea that certain types of fatty acids can have a negative impact on health, and you idiots want to call her a quack? SHE LIVED TO BE 95 YEARS OLD. Other things you idiots have put on here as "ineffective" is cannabis, but research shows it actually does work to fight most types of cancers, at least shrinking the tumors and helping to give more time to the patient. Another thing that you idiots at quackwatch need to do is pull your head out of your anus because I see you guys like to piss on people's parade for trying to feel better and improve their health. You know some scientists aren't claiming "cure" they're just saying "this may help give you more time and improve your life." For example you idiots who made this article claim that "ayurvedic medicine" is ineffectual. I have evidence that proves otherwise, all you have to do is look up the articles on PUBMED for yourself to find out that India has among the lowest cancer rates in the world; while yes people in India still get cancers it isn't statistically as high as other regions, and when you look at the statistics of how many people live in India I don't see how you guys can't put 2 and 2 together and see a lot of what causes cancer is what we put into our body. I don't know if that is something you idiots ever researched in your 8 years in medical school, but you know it would help if you shit head morons would actually instead of focusing merely on one fine tuned area of medicine if you'd actually study overall health and biology of everything, instead of putting blinders around your eyes like a fucking horse that is being trained. Your vision is so myopic that you can't see to the sides. That horse might be able to see really well in front of itself, but it can't see the snake coiling up to its side very well. The same principle applies to you doctors who think you know everything because you go to medical school for 8 years. How many of you sons of bitches actually studied nutrition? How many of you idiots actually studied preventative measures of fighting cancer? And you call the people wanting to offer hope a quack? I could understand if they were being predatory, I could understand if they were demanding payment or advertising themselves, I could understand being leery of allowing people to use the word "cure" because cure is a heavy word. But for people like Johanna Budwig who simply advocated for a healthier way of eating, or any of the people on the list who advocate for a healthier diet who are called quacks? You people who label them quacks are pieces of shit, I hope you know that. Don't delete this comment, I don't care about this or that rule you pull out of your ass, it is time you guys listened to the voice of reason. It is because of you morons in medicine that it took almost 20 + years to get taxane mitotic inhibitors out on the market after its isolation; It is you idiots who disbelieved Native American medicine and called the medicine men "quacks" when they used yew bark to shrink tumors. Maybe its time for you guys to pull your head out of that dark place and actually look around and see medicine comes from nature. Sure modern science is supposed to isolate out the chemicals and ensures purity without adulterants, which can be a good thing. But something that is a bad thing is when it makes you think that somehow you have power over the individual, or that you have power to dictate what is medicine or not simply by your power to patent your isolation technique because you can't copyright what was put here on Earth by the creator. That's all I have to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.161.77 (talk • contribs) 21:54, January 21, 2015 (UTC) I have something to add This article seems extremely biased. Please don't "collapse this as a rant." This should be seen by everyone. I know Wikipedia has this or that rule that is impossible to keep up with as far as discussion goes (which I think is absolutely retarded, putting non-soapboxing rules on comment sections is absurd and should be eliminated especially of the criticism is in good intention). Anyway, as a regular Wikipedia user and admirer, I see the certain rules we have in place, in articles we're supposed to remove blatant bias and support any claims with citations. This rule is a good one to have, because when we have organizational bias, or quite literally cabals/secret societies (as paranoid as people want to act, this does happen, people do try to keep the truth from you to profit on you.) This seems to happen quite a bit with modern medicine. I don't say this lightly. Also I don't say this to discount or discredit modern medicine. Many of our advances in biology, chemistry and medicine have shown tremendous promise. But what angers me so much is when organizations which are propagandized by government agencies to be "the go to" for "trustworthy information" (American Cancer Society, or Cancer Research UK, which are backed by the private sector and certain parts of the government that sponsor the private sector) are actually lying to people, blatantly outright lying to people, even in the face of (and contradicting), oddly enough, the research available by the more *public* avenues of government such as the National Institute of Health and Human Services, Pubmed, Pubchem and the like. I am very libertarian socialist and see the benefit of nationalizing medicine to make all information beneficial to humanity such as health, medicine, and biochemistry completely free and open to the public, as well as open to public scrutiny. This is the problem with this article, it attempts in weasel wording to discredit research which is widely available on PUBMED and National Institute of Health and Human Services. This article tries to claim that certain plants and herbs are "ineffectual." This statement is very much a weasel term because a simple search of several plants and herbs, and certain types of animals and various other life forms shows that there are unthinkable amount of antiproliferative, anticancer, antioxidative, proapoptotic treatments available, that there are many ways of knocking down cancer proteins with our diets we eat, many ways we can starve off the metabolic process of certain types of cancers. To deny this would be antiscientific. This is why the people who wrote this article are the true pseudoscientists who should be lambasted. This article seems to glorify Cancerresearch.co.uk and American Cancer Society. Well maybe the author of this should re-check ACS because even they are having to admit that some of these things that we put into our bodies can affect the development of cancers. Denying peer reviewed research is dumb, and to call it quackery is even dumber. Nobody should ever be that myopic. I do not deny modern medicine and its benefits, but I will also not deny natural medicine and diet. To do so would be completely foolish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:2DF1:D6F7:C1BC:BB83 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Stop trying to silence me you biased piece of shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c4ea:14d0:2df1:d6f7:c1bc:bb83 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 January 2015‎

Revert to good

That's what I just did, but rollbacked, and couldn't put an edit summary into the article, so here I am. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I also resist the POV pushing of people who are myopic who are obviously too intellectually lazy to actually do the research and pull up studies off of Pubmed, who are actually too lazy to do the studies on their own under the microscope and actually help advance medicine and instead their only contributions to the world are to try to silence people who actually are doing the research. So next time you want to claim I'm a biased charlatan why don't you look in the mirror? I think people like you have mental problems.

What makes me so angry is how quick all of you people are to dismiss or delete anybody's comments that are backed by other peer reviewed research. Its like you guys who are deleting this have some sort of an agenda to push, and you claim to be unbaised? In several of my edits I showed several articles from the National Institute of Health that showed several plants you call ineffective actually do contain anticancer agents. Another fact is that you myopic people try to claim in your hitpiece article you've written that parasites can't cause cancer, and in one of my edits I showed research that came from SMITHSONIAN that showed parasites like trematodes can cause cancer, yet again, you dismiss it. This stuff is in modern biology books people. Are you kidding me? Are you so far behind in your biology studies that you don't keep up with what is going on in science? Are you serious?

I honestly don't know what you people's problem is, but I think the true "quacks" are the people who want to continue using the term "ineffectual treatments." Because truth be told, they can't say if its ineffectual or not, and the continued use of the word "ineffectual" is in clear violation of wikipedia's rules. I don't give a damn what Jimmy Wales says, you you can't be biased and use weasel terms on things. There are certain things that you guys just aren't keeping up with in biology and it truly infuriates me that you call recent studies "charlatan" especially when it can be repeated.

Don't make me hold your hand to do the research. Look it up on your own and find multiple sources. Then if you can prove its ineffectual, then fine. But you can't broad stroke paint something as ineffectual, especially if you have no tangible evidence. That just isn't science. If something is shown to be effective and can be repeated but is not accepted by the majority it doesn't mean that it is wrong, it doesn't mean that it is "quackery." It means that you should look at everything with open eyes and an open mind, and look at the evidence for or against something rather than go based upon an assumption.

If you naysayers go based on your assumptions, then we're all doomed because you're going based off of your old college books from 20 years ago. Progress is the result of innovation. Just like you guys deleting all the citations I put that showed these herbs contain agents that kill cancer cells, with multiple sources and multiple citations. It doesn't make any sense for you to deny people the honest truth, unless of course you seek to benefit monetarily from withholding progress. At which point I'd say you're all corrupt and should all be held in contempt of humanity.

This shouldn't be about bias or POV, this should be about backing up research with citations and sources. If someone can do that, then why do you people constantly get into these edit wars, going and crying like a bunch of babies to admins who you have wrapped around your finger to ban people that you don't like who disagree with your opinion. Aren't you all a little childish for doing stuff like that? If that's the case, why even have wikipedia as a publicly editable open source medium? Why not make it all closed source and proprietary so you can go into censorship wars and ban people who call you all out on your bullshit?

You're all biased, and you're calling the kettle black, you're all charlatans for cramming convention down people's throats but not offering anything in the ways of innovation, and in fact when people do innovate, you are all quick to call them quacks. You all make me sick to my stomach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:2DF1:D6F7:C1BC:BB83 (talk • contribs)

This is precisely the major reason I am interested in the project. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See this is a perfect example of censorship. When someone such as myself can provide links and sources that show this article is biased and that there is, in fact, research that shows some of the items listed here may actually have some benefit at killing or inhibiting cancer in vivo or in vitro, you want to get delete-happy and "protect the article" and lock everything up. It goes to show how closed minded you all are, and how myopic you all are. You all are quick to mock and call someone a quack who is trying to innovate and research in the field of cancer and oncology, even though I can back up my statements with multiple sources and research, of which you all delete and ban me. Good going, good showing how "scientific" you all are. If this is the "reason why this project interests you" then why the hell do you silence people who are saying that the fact that you broadly proclaim potential treatment options as ineffectual without backing up your claims aside from a quote from ACS or Cancer Research UK... I have backed my claims up with sources from National Institute of Health and Human Services, Pubmed and Pubchem, yet you guys want to silence me and call me a quack.

I'm sick of people calling innovators in science "quacks." For example, making it seem as if Johanna Budwig is a lunatic, or for trying to tell people they are lunatics for saying perhaps changing dietary habits can help to fight cancer. Why do you people do that? Especially when there is tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of research that show the food that we eat can effect our health, especially aggressiveness of cancer.

I'm not saying the alternative stuff is always a cure, but in some cases it truly can help. Honestly cancer is a tough disease and even conventional treatments are sometimes unable to solve the problems. So alternative routes should always be kept open because if we stay stuck in convention for the rest of our lives we will never, ever, ever innovate and we will never create newer drugs that can better target the cancers. Open mindedness and a willing to investigate is much better than closed minded idiocy. At least if someone is going to have the balls to say something is ineffective, prove it without a shadow of a doubt. For example, certain herbs and plants contain anticancer agents. Administration of several of these chemicals in vitro, under the microscope show the ability to kill cancer cells and induce apoptosis. Some studies actually go so far as to examine the specific chemical pathways, the proteins it effects, the cell receptors and the possible gene or even metabolic pathways it may inhibit. So why do so many of you want to fight and say "herbs are ineffective?" Haven't most of the medicine we have came from herbs, plants and mushrooms? Saying it is "ineffective" is wrong and downright deceptive to people. It is absolutely wrong to capitalize on people and to keep them in the dark, deliberately keeping them ignorant of how their bodies work. If that's the case, then hell why don't we shut down all of wikipedia that deals in any education at all of biology, lock it, and keep anybody from ever editing it again?

Thanks mods and editors you're really super geniuses I hope you know that. Especially for trying to cram your will on other people and forcing your POV.

Again - this hitpiece article is brought to you by ACS and Cancer Research UK.

If any of you out there ever want to learn about biology or biochemistry, and somehow find ways of fighting cancer, beware! You'll be labeled a quack the instant you make a discovery!

Thanks mods and editors you're awesome, how much is ACS and CRUK paying you off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:2DF1:D6F7:C1BC:BB83 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 January 2015‎

Semiprotected

I have semiprotected the article for one month and blocked the most-recently-used IP address used to edit the article. Recurring edit warring combined with personal attacks are no way to edit Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See this is a perfect example of censorship. When someone such as myself can provide links and sources that show this article is biased and that there is, in fact, research that shows some of the items listed here may actually have some benefit at killing or inhibiting cancer in vivo or in vitro, you want to get delete-happy and "protect the article" and lock everything up. It goes to show how closed minded you all are, and how myopic you all are. You all are quick to mock and call someone a quack who is trying to innovate and research in the field of cancer and oncology, even though I can back up my statements with multiple sources and research, of which you all delete and ban me. Good going, good showing how "scientific" you all are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:2DF1:D6F7:C1BC:BB83 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 January 2015‎

This has got to be the most unscientific, one-sided, biased article on all of Wikipedia.

This has got to be the most unscientific, one-sided, biased article on all of Wikipedia. Not only does it not back up many of its claims of ineffectiveness, mods and Wikipedia ninjas with agendas to push delete your comments and your sources if they don't agree with it

The facts are the facts, several of the "herbal," "Ayurvedic" and even 'Native American" plants and fungi are being strongly investigated for anticancerous properties. For example, Native Americans medicine men have used Yew tree bark for hundreds upon hundreds of years before taxanes were ever isolated. Yet I know it is dangerous to take taxanes without knowing what a person is doing because as a mitotic inhibitor it can literally kill somebody if they don't know what they are doing. But the fact remains that modern medicine came from herbalism, Native American and even Ayurvedic medicines may hold many keys to novel chemotherapies, so you can't say something is ineffectual if it is shown to be effective. This is what makes me so angry is how blatantly you all are pushing an agenda to make money. I'm not advertising anything and I expect nothing for saying these things. All I ask is for people who read this article, who happen to stumble across the talk page to actually do their research and not buy into the bullshit that people try to cram down your throat because sometimes things can be effective, and until we experiment and try things out sometimes we won't know if they are or if they aren't. I'm not saying to skip out on taking conventional medicine, because that could prove to be fatal. But sometimes complementing conventional medicines may actually prove to be synergistic. To deny scientific facts is unscientific guys. Come on. While I can admit some of the treatments are laughable, such as Zoetron or Orgone? What the hell are those things? See, I understand the scientific community lambasting unscientific things such as that. But herbalism, holistic medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, Native American shamanistic medicine are all under investigation for what works and what doesn't. So to claim *EVERYTHING* within a broad spectrum as ineffective is misleading and quite frankly, misanthropic to all of humanity.

An example of how backwards many scientists are, and how the lot of you in the fields of medicine and biology constantly contradict yourself: (this is a quote from the AMA regarding the macrobiotic diet, on one hand saying it's unhealthy, on the other, saying it is healthy)

"In 1971, the AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition said that followers of the macrobiotic diet, particularly the strictest, stood in "great danger" of malnutrition.[24] On the other hand, in 1987, the AMA stated in their Family Medical Guide: "In general, the macrobiotic diet is a healthful way of eating."[25]"

This is an example of how sometimes even the experts don't really know what they're talking about.

So again, to call something ineffectual would mean you would have to know for certain. If you haven't done the research on it, if you don't know which cell protein receptors are effected, if you don't know what metabolic pathways are effected, if you have no clue about the inhibition of certain intracellular protein pathways to effect the expression of certain genes, then what room do you have to speak at all as a professional by limiting the scope of research and information which is available to people in this, and why on earth, why on this planet earth would you want to make people feel like an imbecile for trying to seek beyond what is currently the limit of medical understanding? Shouldn't you applaud people for wanting to expand scientific knowledge instead of calling them fringe or pseudoscientists, especially if their research can be repeated by you under accepted scientific lab conditions? Don't be so quick to label everything; most medicine comes from the metabolic process of plants and fungi. For example, aspirin comes from willow tree bark, it is shown to have some inhibitory effects against cancer, do you want to take aspirin away form people and say its ineffective? Someone above mentioned Louis Pasteur having a hard time being accepted for a while by the scientific norm for his views on vaccination. If some of the knuckleheads from today's time who limit scientific advancement were to go back to his time, back when vaccination/inoculation was still considered a form of homeopathy (because that is technically what it is.) The naysayers from today's time would have told Louis Pasteur he was an idiot for infecting people with cowpox to prevent smallpox and we wouldn't know of passive immunity, I'm almost certain of it. Well the same applies for all of our biological research, namely research into plant and fungi chemistry, you can't say something is "ineffective" when certain chemicals within that plant are shown to inhibit certain things. For example, quercetin in broccoli and capers (among other vegetables) is shown to be a weak inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin, thus having inhibitory effects upon serine/threonine protein kinases which in turn effect cell proliferation and induce apoptosis. But the UK wants to put people in JAIL for calling something a SUPERFOOD?! Anyway you with-holders of information out there should realize that if it weren't for people innovating science we'd all be dying from rabies, smallpox, cancer, the flu, the bubonic plague. If it weren't for the quacks you hate on so much who stumble across things we'd be in horrible shape. So stop stomping on people's toes for trying to advance discovery. I mean I could absolutely understand if there were absolutely no merit in any of it, for example, what was listed above about "Orgones" or "Zoetrons" or whatever nonsense pseudoscience that is. But with chemicals from plants? No, you can't say that is ineffective because that is where most of our medicine comes from. Where would we be in this world if we didn't have such things as aspirin and salicylates which comes from willow trees? Where would we be if it weren't for the discovery of quinine from tree bark? Wasn't quinine among the first chemotherapeutic agents to be developed? So this whole fallacy of trying to make people feel ignorant for seeking medicine from nature is absurd and downright disgusting, because it it weren't for our discoveries using plants and fungi from the world around us, medicine would be NULL and MEANINGLESS. There wouldn't be such thing as medicine without these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:2DF1:D6F7:C1BC:BB83 (talk • contribs)

This opinionizing is unproductive. Quite apart from anything else the list in this article is merely an index in WP:SYNC with the main article topics that are linked to. If they change, then this article will simply track that. As for plants, we have an article Plant sources of anti-cancer agents; but that's not herbalism. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I believe "opinionizing" is unproductive; this is why I think the Edzard Ernst biased opinionizing should be removed from the article, unless of course he and the people involved with this article can provide comprehensive citations of the treatments that are proven without a doubt to be ineffective. I'm for the scientific method, not one sided opinion. If something can be proven, and can be repeated, then great, it works. If something cannot be proven, and cannot be repeated over the course of several studies, fine. But this grandstanding and proclaiming to the world as if you or Edzard Ernst or Cancer Research UK or American Cancer Society are the be-all, know-alls of everything dealing with this disease as well as metabolic disorder is fallacious (yes, cancer is a metabolic disorder as well as it has been proven cancer metabolizes more rapidly than normal somatic cells.) What gets me is how you guys are calling what I'm asking for "opinionizing" - when really all I'm asking for is for citations regarding studies, for all angles to be investigated (as we should do in science) and verified to work or else disprove it, instead of instantly dismiss and instantly think your opinion is equal to disproving something, or proving it as ineffective. An opinion by Cancer Research UK or American Cancer Society without cited research isn't quite the same as a peer reviewed article out of a UNIVERSITY or out of the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. If there is ever an agenda to push it is people who are overly zealous in their skepticism, to the point that they dismiss studies without fully investigating them, which to me is ignorant and downright stupid. Again, this isn't just my opinion, my opinion is shared with many people. If you're going to list things that are ineffective, put citations to studies, not citations to opinions. Also you people who are the supreme kings of this article who think you rule over everything in the universe as a supreme overlord in biology or whatever, perhaps you should actually look into some of the citations I provided that show some of the chemicals in herbs have been shown to fight cancer in multiple studies, instead of deleting my stuff why don't you make use of it since you supreme overlord rulers know how to make such supreme A+ articles, perhaps you can use the information of several studies that showed that herbal chemicals can in fact kill cancer cells in the laboratory, and perhaps can in vivo as well, rather than pissing and shitting all over people's parades and destroying their chances of hope for a little more time? Why do you people do this to people? Its misery. They've got some gall to call us "quacks."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Anticancer+herbs http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rosemary+anticancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Frankincense+anticancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cannabis+anticancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Curcumin+anticancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=oligomeric+proanthocyanidins+anticancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=grape+seed+anticancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=flax+seed+anticancer

I know Edzard likes to shit all over this kind of research but I'd rather be the type that researches it than type that sits around in the corner bullying the people trying to find something that helps. I don't make money researching this I do it for free. I have no agenda other than to try to help people and give information. I know you guys want to say all of this is ineffective, but there is so much research showing that it actually *IS effective.*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24982671 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24971463

There are so many new studies now that are peer reviewed, multiple studies at that, which have proven there are strongly anticancerous chemicals within broccoli and other vegetables. Yet Europe bans the use of the word superfood, the UK bans this, and wants to put people in jail for saying vegetables can help fight cancer. How crazy is that? We live in a really crazy world and this isn't an opinion piece this is facts backed with multiple sources. Some of these studies coming out are from the 90's up, some are as recent as the early 00's, some are as recent as a year ago. So to go calling people quacks for suggesting people eat broccoli when they have cancer is just evil. To say all of these things are ineffectual is being dishonest with current knowledge and research. It may not be a cure-all, fix-all, but if it has properties that can bring about remission, or at the very least slow the growth down and provide palliative relief (perhaps a little more time) and some inflammatory relief, then I'd say evidence is pointing towards it being an effective treatment, and that perhaps eating more vegetables would be a good thing, and that perhaps some of those diets mentioned may be perhaps be beneficial to some people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25543018 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cordyceps+anticancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Momordica+charantia+anticancer This by no means in any way should be interpreted for people to neglect conventional therapies. However, as a compliment to what is known to work, common sense synergism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:2DF1:D6F7:C1BC:BB83 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 January 2015‎