Talk:List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Congrats!

User:Alexbrn, congratulations on a very nice and useful list. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching it develop, but this page is lacking in dissenting voices. Where are The Bowen Techniquers? The Therapeutic Touchers? etc to be all outraged. The page hasn't matured properly till there has been some name calling. We need anecdote, somebody who knows --Roxy the dog (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! As this is a list article, all the entries reflect the content (on effectiveness) in the main article(s) they point to. So if an editor takes issue with an entry, they will need to overturn the consensus on the main article for for that topic, and then we'll just sync up here. I have taken care to ensure we are in sync in all cases, and even had to write some new articles in the process: so if anybody wants to look at Seasilver, Revici's Guided Chemotherapy and the Oasis of Hope Hospital I'd be grateful for more eyes ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I put up this list here for visibility, hopefully that'll help contribute to a more robust dialectic. http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1lr2ic/list_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments_wikipedia/:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.51 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent page to whomever wrote this.Sgerbic (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hulda Clark

Hulda Clark's nonsense might deserve a spot here, especially since she claimed to be able to cure ALL diseases, including all cancers. Then she died of cancer.... -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Added ... and there's plenty more to come ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Zoetron therapy

I created a new article on the bogus Zoetron therapy to have something with more detailed information to link to from here, but it's been marked for speedy deletion on the (incorrect) basis that it is duplicating existing material from this page. Would be grateful for more eyes on this ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Germanic New Medicine and other possibly missing content

Germanic New Medicine as propagated by Ryke Geerd Hamer may deserve an entry or is it there but I missed it? Other healers, electrical devices , chemical and herbal remedies and also (interestingly) prayer are listed in this reference: Cancer Quackery: The Persistent Popularity ofUseless, Irrational 'Alternative' Treatments ONCOLOGY. Vol. 26 No. 8 August 20, 2012 by Cassileth et al. Ochiwar (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent find! German New Medicine now added ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

List candidates

Working area to list some things which might be included in the article.

Rules of thumb for inclusion:

• The candidate item has some coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia (of course, if it's notable and not covered, that coverage may need to be created)
• Some evidence that the treatment has been promoted as useful for people with cancer
• A well-sourced statement of its lack of effectiveness

Potential new items

• Cassava – Not sure of the evidence it's promoted as a treatment. However, ACS say this.

There are some indications 1, 2, that it is promoted as a cancer cure.Ochiwar (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done good - added. In the light of the strong ACS comment on effectiveness that seems clear.

• Coley's toxins – ACS says "Supporters claim Coley toxins stimulate the immune system in people with cancer" and "Scientific evidence suggests Coley toxins or other mixed bacterial vaccines may have a role in treating cancer when combined with other treatments". (My thought is not to include, although this treatment is outdated, it is not completely ineffective). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI}
• Dichloroacetate (DCA). The most recent material I can find on this is here.
• Green tea – ACS says "A few people suggest that it helps to treat cancer" and "results from human studies of green tea when used as a whole herb have been mixed. More research is needed to find out if green tea can help in any kind of cancer prevention." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI}
• aloe Vera --- aloe Vera juice drinking has been seen to cause cancer in rodents and is being studied as a carcinogen. Should this be added? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6824:D8D0:B995:A340:7461:ECF (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

as regards green tea, I am aware of phase II clinical trials conducted by the Mayo clinic (I think) into Green Tea Extract and CLL that have now come to an end, and there does not appear to be any plans to continue the research. It was sponsored by patient groups. I always thought it would be ineffective, but as yet, I believe that it would be unfair to make that conclusion here. Not certain however. --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 13:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the sourcing doesn't (yet?) warrant a listing. NCCAM takes the "mixed results" line too. Let's see what the future research finds ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Cannabis –and Hemp oil –

New to this, so sorry if I don't do it correctly. There doesn't seem to be any listing of cannabis related products. Here is a good article covering the controversies: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/ 87.104.38.123 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole cananabis and cancer topic seems very complicated, I haven't felt confident is having a handle on it so far. Perhaps we should start a new section to discuss it to see if we can decide how it should be included, if at all ... ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I came upon this list and saw that source 48 for cannabis is a 2014 article. I looked on the ACS website here - http://cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/chemotherapyeffects/marijuana-and-cancer - and noticed that while they don't claim cannabis can cure cancer, they do say it can be effective in treatment: "While the studies so far have shown that cannabinoids can be safe in treating cancer, they do not show that they help control or cure the disease." Does cannabis have the potential to be removed from the list? 204.9.172.253 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Inonotus obliquus – commonly known as chaga mushroom. Chaga has been used as a folk remedy in Russia and Siberia since the 16th century. According to the Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center, "no clinical trials have been conducted to assess chaga's safety and efficacy for disease prevention or for the treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes". They caution that the mushroom extract can interact with other drugs.

This one came up in a favourite place of mine only today, in all seriousness. I've been banned from there, so was restricted to shouting at the monitor screen, and vowing to suggest Chaga for this article? Like Green Tea, there are possibilities for this stuff, but reading the full article, seems to be a low likelihood. I've lifted the text from the main article. Comments? (If this gets rejected I shall have to partake of some of that smoking material noted above.) --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

One might argue this is covered by our general "mushrooms" entry. As you note, the PSK extract from chaga is showing some potential as an adjuvant therapy, and - on a historical note - chaga mushroom features in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's novel Cancer Ward (which sounds like a cracking read - I'm saving it for my next holiday). Nevertheless, the mushroom on its own certainly qualifies for the list on the basis of the MSKCC commentary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Noni Juice / Plant ?

I do like this article !

I have been posting the link to this page on some of my pet cancer forums as a jumping off point for discussion and further research for believers who might ask about, say, Garlic Poultices in the cure of advanced pancreatic cancer etc. and one person said...

"What about Noni Juice, Rox, it isn't on the list and I eventually unfriended one old friend who kept spamming me with it"?

I can't as yet find anything showing Noni Juice/Plant etc touted as a cancer cure, so my question is, should I include this as my contribution to the article - there is a good ACS page to cite? --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 09:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - please include ... it looks like a clear case. I'll have a go at improving the Noni juice article itself. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple tagging of this article

This article has been given multiple tags labeling it as having some issues that need improvement. I am removing them as they don't apply. This is because:

• This is a "list article" per MOS:LISTS#List articles and is functioning as an annotated index of other content on Wikipedia. Critically, there is nothing in this article that isn't elsewhere on Wikipedia; each entry on the lists links to at least one other article giving the same or greater coverage of each "treatment". If those article have problems they should be adjusted and then the list will follow according to the principle of WP:SYNC.
• We are using WP:SUMMARY STYLE style for each list entry, there is strictly no need to add citations because those citations also exist in the full articles. However, in each case a strong WP:MEDRS compliant reference is given here to assure the reader that this health information is authoritatively backed. That is sufficient.
• The first paragraph does not require inline citations because it is setting out the criteria for list inclusion (as we must per MOS:LISTS); the second paragraph does not need inline citations because it is summarizing the article per WP:LEAD.

It's also worth mentioning that some of these stylistic topics are being discussed in the peer review this article is currently undergoing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just read the peer review page, and fwiw I don't think more pics are needed, but I am perhaps not the best judge ! --Roxy the dog (woof woof) 07:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We need a certain density of pictures if we're going to be a featured list. Myself, I think the current ratio of text to picture is about right ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My comments on pictures in the peer review were made on the 20 September at 08:30 and at that time there where six pictures in the article. Since then a lot of work has been done on the article, and at present I am also of the opinion that the ratio of text to picture is about right. Ochiwar (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The list is not yet ready to be featured, but likely will be at some point. -- Lindberg 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

In-text attribution, etc

FYI, I have had an interesting exchange with User:Lindberg G Williams Jr about in-text attribution and other matters. I mention this here as the exchange is pertinent to the editing of the article, and shouldn't be stranded on a user's talk page. Any responses should be posted here please. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The list could get very long depending on inclusion criteria. As of this time, I suppose, I only recommend that the attention of more than one, maybe more than two, cancer research organizations or caveat emptor agencies be requisite (or even merely ideal) for an article's inclusion in the list and likewise an article's referencing of the list. So, that is one issue, whereas another is the wording. The American Cancer Society uses somewhat opinionated or subjective rhetoric (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch) in criticism or counter-advising, which probably ought not bleed over into Wikipedia. No doubt, however, the Society is absolutely right whenever it states that there is no scientific evidence that a given product is an effective treatment of cancer; a statement which—to delve into style—does not need to be repeated for every item in a list, but signified as a footnote with a symbol like an asterisk or a dagger (typography). As we can see, I am all over the place, but the first sentence of this comment block pertains to the topic of "in-text attribution." -- Lindberg 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

Reader feedback: Solid overview, should inclu...

Jettparmer posted this comment on 6 September 2013 (view all feedback).

Solid overview, should include link to "proven effective" or current accepted cancer treatment modalities

Any thoughts?

Jmvernay (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

yes thoughts!!! lol

scientific medecine do not cure cancer either lol! it's not on the list! so a least of current accepted cancer treatment?! there isn't one because there is no cure lol! although fasting and the original primate diet of the human...do cure cancer! but tell that to the wikipedia pseudo-scientist lord! lol wikipedia started good but is a fraud!

(Off topic) In fact, modern medicine can successfully treat some kinds of cancer, in some cases to the point of eliminating it. The trends are not due to an increasing use of altmed! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I put the following comment on Jettparmer's page:

Hi - and thanks for your feedback on this article. The scope of the list is just ineffective treatments, and it is quite long (horrifyingly so) already; I think if we start mixing in effective treatments it will dilute the scope and could make the list enormous. The nearest equivalent on Wikipedia to a list of effective cancer treatments is the Management of cancer article, though this is not a list.

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Was this article written by Big Pharma?

I find this article really factious and not objective at all. It looks like it's written by big pharma. My mother in law got cancer and I read tons of study and books in the last weeks. Why Chemotherapy in example is not included as an ineffective treatment in example? It is probably the treatment with the most studies and 90% of them are showing how ineffective it is. Often it even kills you before than the cancer would do! And also for most of the alternative methods it's stated that "there is no evidence that it is working". This doesn't mean at all that is proven scientifically that it is not working!!! And in example for Soursoup (Graviola) there are several studies showing that it is effective at least for some types of cancer, but probably for more. And the diet guidelines of alternative methods like Gerson Therapy are partially confirmed also by the various national Cancer Associations! Not to count that almost half of the cancer patients die of malnutrition rather than the cancer itself. I find this article really misleading and partial. Big pharma is putting its hand also on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phidias81 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

None of us on Wikipedia have the means of easily answering such a question. If "Big Pharma" has a presence on Wikipedia, the specific users acting on its behalf are ethical to state their conflicts of interests. Also if there is a presence (and the following can be considered pure conjecture), then the list of ineffective cancer treatments is not likely to be the only region of presentation within Wikipedia whereby "Big Pharma" has a presence, and it might be noticed. Furthermore, I cannot imagine somebody coming forward purely on account of a question asked on the talk page. Why admit it? In all of the aforementioned, the same concerns would apply to anything to the contrary of "Big Pharma," such as alternative medicine advocates or even integrative medicine advocates, all of whom want money in some way, just like most people. (Please help me avoid drifting off into a psychology tangent. Wikipedia wants money too, but has insisted it only come in the form of donations, not sponsors' advertising, and so for a reason.) -- Lindberg 21:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

Wow, I only just noticed this section. So, the question is "Was this article written by Big Pharma?". As the editor responsible (just now) for 95% of it, I can in fact give you a firm answer: "no". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(You don't say.) With that in mind and human nature being well considered, we could say that we expected such an answer from you. In a way, the article is your article. However, of course, there are many articles on Wikipedia for which only one Wikipedian is responsible for a supermajority of the content, so what you've done is not necessarily abnormal or inappropriate. -- Lindberg 03:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

Right - it "is not necessarily abnormal or inappropriate" to help build a better encyclopedia; it's the main purpose of being here! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just added something to the list. Can somebody please tell me where to apply for the Big Pharma cheque? I could really use the cash right now. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 07:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Roxy. Cheque? You, just like Alex or anybody else, have every right to make a claim of being unaffiliated. Just to note, conflict of interest can extend beyond a being on an interest's payroll as you seem to have implied. By the way, you're more than welcome to match the amount of content for which the main contributer thus far has been responsible. The article would have the appearance of belonging to Alex and Roxy rather than only Alex. As for Neil, some more agreement between Alex and Neil might be an improvement. -- Lindberg 20:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

Any editor with ongoing concerns about undeclared COI should raise them at WP:COI/N. Pursuing them on an article Talk page is disruptive (and has been the bane of the Talk page of many articles treating fringe topics). Talk pages are for discussing edits to the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with this article being unscientific, also I happened to notice the overwhelming reliance on a couple of sources well funded by industry which in itself is evidence of bias. Where are the plethora of actual photochemical trials from respected journals of scientific herbalism represented in the references? 85 percent of pharmaceuticals are based on photochemistry. How do they find new promising leads for new pharmaceutical treatments? From studying plant chemistry and traditional (folk) medicine provides the leads, so how can herbalism possibly be ineffective? There are masses of scientific studies on most of the plants mentioned showing positive results, over ninety thousand on cannabis alone, Wikipedia is going to the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iseesomenonsense (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but whole culture's medical systems are listed, and there are surely are zero studies that attempt to test every Native American treatment for cancer effectiveness. Disgusting and racist.76.105.216.34 (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Good list, just a very bad headline

"List of ineffective cancer treatments" => I suggest replacing it with "List of alternative cancer treatments" or "List of unconfirmed alternative cancer treatments" or something similar in nature; "ineffective" for one may actually be "effective" for another. All statements provided by various Cancer Societies quoted in this article simply say that there is no data to back up the claims. But maybe in time they will collect (or be given) such data. For the time being, it should be considered 'research in progress'. If someone has already be given a death sentence by official medical world, what difference does it make for him to try whatever else he things can help? Most of the things on the list won't hurt him anyway, and what if something actually helps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.203.18 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The list is a combination of ineffective (insufficiently effective) or outright bogus cancer treatments. The article might be better served if some explanation of "ineffective" is actually given. Alas, the list more or less accuses certain random things of being peddled as sure and effective treatments, amidst what might be a general understanding that cancer can only be treated with specialized and potent substances (often intravenous) that destroy, or with pathogens that eat, cancer cells without doing the same to the human body, which just barely exist. Depending on inclusion criteria, some or all variations of chemotherapy would belong. As for the notion of "different strokes for different folks," it could be explored in medicine, biology, physiology and anatomy in general, not just cancer study, especially in how genetics and prenatal development play roles in disease or susceptibility/resistance thereto. -- Lindberg 19:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

Lindberg, the lede describes what belongs in the list: "substances, procedures and approaches which have been considered or proposed for the treatment or prevention of cancer in humans, but which have been found – after scientific study or review – to lack medical evidence of effectiveness." This seems fairly straightforward to me, but if you feel that it's lacking, you're of course welcome to propose modifications. —Neil 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No doubt it is straightforward, but it does not layout the criteria. -- Lindberg 21:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

I grant it may not be an unsurpassably ideal set of criteria, but it's still a set of criteria: (1) therapies (2) that have been proposed for cancer treatment or prevention (3) yet lack rigorous evidence of effectiveness. If you're saying there aren't firm quantitative criteria for effectiveness like, I don't know, citations in PubMed, that's true, but I think those would be vastly more work than they're worth. —Neil 00:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Neil, what you are saying is not correct, in particular this sentence "have been found – after scientific study or review – to lack medical evidence of effectiveness" is really misleading. I would think that studies have been done and they proved the remedy not to be effective. But if you look at the sources, that's actually not true. They are not accepted by traditional medicine (not difficult to believe) because it's not proven that they are effective (actually some in the list have positive studies instead) that is completely different than be proven to be ineffective! It means just "we don't know if it's effective" it doesn't mean "we know that it's ineffective" comment added by phidias81

If you understand "lack medical evidence" to mean "proved ... not to be effective" then it is your comprehension which is at fault, not the article text. It doesn't just mean "we don't know if it's effective", it means "we've tested it, and it doesn't work" (or lacks plausibility, or a credible mechanism of effect). It would help perhaps if you could specify one item in the list which you think is being mis-described as "ineffective". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Phidias, somehow I get the feeling that you're interpreting "to lack medical evidence of effectiveness" as "to lack medical effectiveness," but I sincerely hope such a feeling is not match of a fact, since the interpretation (perhaps one that you or others hold) would be a miscomprehension. I'm just considering the possibility that readers might scan or read the sentence in question too quickly and miss what is being stated. As for the choice of title of the article, it is an adjacent but different question. -- Lindberg 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

It's important, by the way, that we're saying "scientific study or review" all the things on this list have at least been subject to the latter even if no clinical studies have been carried out (for some things - like orgone - trying to test medical effectiveness would be a waste of time). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This page contains a subset of infective cancer treatments, namely those for which good WP:MEDRS exist which show them to be ineffective. However, "List of cancer treatments proven in reliable sources to be ineffective" is rather unwieldy, so I suggest we stick with the current title. a13ean (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Revised lede

Hey guys! I've worked on copyediting the lede to tighten the wording up a bit and to link to the effective cancer treatments at management of cancer. Here's the proposal:

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

Ineffective cancer treatments are therapies that have been recommended to treat or prevent of cancer in humans but have been shown to lack scientific and medical evidence of effectiveness. Unlike accepted cancer treatments, such treatments are generally ignored or avoided by the medical community, and often labeled pseudoscience.

Despite this, many of these therapies have continued to be promoted as effective, particularly by practitioners of alternative medicine. Scientists considers this practice quackery, and some of those engaged in it have been investigated and prosecuted by public health regulators such as the US Federal Trade Commission, the Mexican Secretariat of Health and the Canadian Competition Bureau. In the United Kingdom, the Cancer Act makes the false advertising of cancer treatments a criminal offense.

Let me know what you think. —Neil 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me start by quoting the exiting opening sentence, and emphasizing certain things which carry a specific meaning that have affected the list construction (glossed in square brackets):

This is a list of ineffective cancer treatments. [formulaic opening; however according to the comments in peer review, this is no longer a favored style for list ledes] These are some of [so, not a comprehensive list] the substances, procedures and approaches which have been considered or proposed [somebody, somewhere, must have connected the treatment to cancer] for the treatment or prevention of cancer in humans [so we exclude things which are purely limited to lab experiments], but which have been found – after scientific study or review [so, not just opinion] – to lack medical evidence of effectiveness. [i.e. the null hypothesis has not been countered]

The proposed re-write loses some of these criteria, which maybe were packed-in to tight before. I think we need to make sure the points are touched-on somehow. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I considered (most of) these when writing the lede. Here's my thoughts:

• some of: I think this goes without saying. 99% of Wikipedia articles leave out important information, but we generally rely on the reader's common sense rather than mentioning it in every lede. If you really think the article needs a notice, we could use Template:Dynamic list instead.
• considered or proposed: I left proposed in my revision.
• in humans: Good point. I've just added that to the draft.
• after scientific study or review: I think this is unnecessary; every sentence on Wikipedia contains the unspoken coda "...according to reliable sources." Besides, how else would you get medical evidence of effectiveness?
• medical evidence of effectiveness: I also left this, word for word, in my draft.

—Neil 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The question of comprehensiveness was something raised by a couple of editors in the peer review, which is why I included it. If the list ever became featured, the default expectation it would be comprehensive - hence the warning that this isn't so here. (This aside, I think you're zeroing-in on an improvement!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is a reasonable point. The trouble is, the incompleteness is a fact about the list itself rather than the topic, so we can't really mention it without being self-referential. That seems to be the function of the template, so I've changed the draft to include it. I've also made some more copyedits and added some citations for the scientific use of "cancer quackery" (let me know if you can think of a better word than "scientists"), just out of an abundance of caution. —Neil 16:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I've made a couple of final edits (most importantly changing "lack evidence" to "have been shown to lack evidence"). Alexbrn, would you be okay with the change? I know the merge may render this moot, but if you've no objection we might as well. —Neil 00:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think I'd have a preference for "found" or "held" rather than "shown" - some of the things are so whacky nobody has really shown anything about them. I'm thinking of a situation where a champion of (say) orgone shows up and queries the lede because we cannot cite anything that shows it lacks evidence. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I could see that scenario too, but couldn't you just as well say that some of the things are so wacky that nobody has really found anything about them? Maybe the solution is just to go back to saying "therapies that lack evidence"—how would you feel about that? —Neil 00:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the new proposal of Neil is much more objective, even if I still see a bias toward the traditional medicine. In this sentence "This practice has been categorized as quackery" it should be specified who is categorizing so, since it looks like it's an universal truth, but it's not. Also some of the alternative treatments are legal in some countries, like Iscador (fermented misteltoe) in Germany, as there are some approved clinic like for Gerson Therapy in Hungary and Mexico. phidias81

Phidias, I actually didn't intend that. One of Wikipedia's fundamental tenets is that we accept scientific conclusions as the closest approximation of truth we have; if you want to characterize that as "a bias toward traditional medicine", then so be it. In this revision, I limited myself to non-substantive copyediting, but if you have well-sourced suggestions for how to improve the second paragraph, you're welcome to post them here. —Neil 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the WP:PSCI policy requires that Wikipedia is (if you like) "biased" in favour of the mainstream medical view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor so I don't feel like suggesting any real suggestion, but just not to say more than studies says or don't say. In example the title is completely misleading. Rather than Ineffective, would be better something like "not proven" "not verified" "not approved" phidias81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.43.240 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "not proven" and "not verified" are problematic because they imply we're just waiting for more evidence. Vickers is good on this and to be neutral we need to be in-line with the mainstream view of these treatments. Saying "not approved" is problematic because it raises the question of who is not doing the approving. I think other NPOV titles that could be used are "Dubious cancer treatments" or "Bogus cancer treatments". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed that this article's content be merged into Alternative cancer treatments. Please comment on this on that article's talk page and not here, so that discussion is kept to one place. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed alteration to "Fasting"

There is some very good scientific research that seems to indicate that fasting benefits cancer patients.

Some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to propose an alteration to the statement on fasting that indicates that this is a therapy that shows some promised and is being actively researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.185.128 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As discussed over on Alternative cancer treatments none of these sources are usable. This article is a list article that merely reflects what our Fasting article says - there's nothing in it about fasting holding promise as a treatment for cancer in people. If the content changes in Fasting it can change here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that some of the herbal treatments are no longer called quackery and are being taken seriously, especially ones undergoing clinical trials and showing promise

I also appreciate the rewording of this article. Rather than labeling a plant based treatment as "ineffective," we need to gather resources together to investigate the chemicals from the plants that work rather than butting heads. Because if we are to be honest some of the best chemotherapies and immunotherapies available only work for so long. We have to work to advance medicine not restrict it. Thanks to all of you for trying to improve this article, and rather than labeling everything as "ineffective" - actually study it first, and don't just take one source's word, take multiple studies and do a compare/contrast so the reader can understand the pros and cons of the chemical agents within the plants. I know this isn't supposed to be a "medical help" place, but Wikipedia is useful to people who are researching their own sicknesses, so we have to do what we can to help. We shouldn't promote not getting treatment that is standard of care, but we should be able to provide research and evidence of what may help ease their pain or perhaps prolong their life if they are out of other options, rather than making them feel dismal and without hope. So thank you for rewording the way this article was written. The original way it was written seemed very spiteful and hateful. I understand sometimes people think that herbal medicines are a bunch of hooplah, but truly some of our best medicines come from plants and fungi. Where would we be without aspirin? Where would we be without quinine? Where would we be without cordycepin? Where would we be without cannabinoids and the discovery of g protein coupled receptors? Some new research shows benefit and shrinkage of tumors with curcumin, milk thistle, flax, rosemary, hibiscus, frankincense, and many others. I know you guys deleted the whole debate we had about primary and secondary sources but even the bigwigs at these big cancer organizations are having to backpeddle on some of their previous stances. Although people should always, always, always tell their physician what herbal treatments they are on and always be cautious with what they take because certain things like pau d'arco can interact badly with things like heparin or warfarin, even though pau d'arco has anticancer properties it can be toxic at too high of a dose. So I do understand the purpose of this article is to educate, but we must tread lightly because many herbal, plant based and fungi based medicines may actually slow the growth of tumors, sometimes even kill the tumors (at least for a while). So thanks to the editors who actually saw some problems with bias in the way this article was originally written. Yes we have to educate people on what has been proven to be bogus, but some of the herbal/plant/fungal stuff really isn't bogus, sometimes its all about method of delivery and potency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:59B9:9608:8DB8:3084 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

References

I was a bit uneasy about "ineffective" being changed to "questionable" as it opens the door to unjustified credence. This posting reinforces that unease. For "real" cancer drugs made from plant we have an article: Plant sources of anti-cancer agents. Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Questionable" definitely had a problem with unjustified credence. To avoid a potential war over the use of the word "Ineffective" I have changed it to the way it is referred to in the lede where it says "Unlike accepted cancer treatments, unproven and disproven treatments are generally ignored or avoided by the medical community, and are often pseudoscientific." (Emphasis added). I think this should be okay, as it is specific, it reflects the wording in the article, and it shouldn't have the same issue with unjustified credence. I would also still support the original wording of "Ineffective". UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Three possible additions and one possible retraction

Hi all. I am just putting forward a few possible additions and one possible retraction.

Additions:

1 - Apricot kernels. On the main page it says they have been marketed as a cancer cure but found to be ineffective.

2 - Turmeric. The main page doesn't say anything about it being a supposed cancer cure, but it is being touted as a cure for cancer, and many other things. I suggest it be added.

3 - Black salve. Again, the main page says it is a 'dangerous and controversial alternative cancer treatment.' It should be added.

I am not saying that I personally disbelieve in these treatments, but by Wikipedia's criteria, correct or not, they should be added.

Possible retraction:

Sodium bicarbonate. This page says: .. "evidence also does not support the idea that sodium bicarbonate works as a treatment for any form of cancer .." Actually I know of one study which disputes this claim, published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. The title of the paper is: "Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases." The URL is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19276390 You can also see similar articles listed on that site. By Wikipedia's criteria, sodium bicarbonate should be removed from the list. Thanks for listening, Cheers, blucat David.1.178.112.138 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC) I see that the first remark was answered bu blucat David within ten minutes and the second was removed within minutes. The link refers to in vitro so not in a human body but rather in glassware. A human has a stomach with acid in it and it is very bad for a human to use a lot of what you refer to as sodium bicarbonate or baking soda. The baking soda in shops is made more acid with additives. In certain health stores they sell sodium bicarbonate as a special item without aluminium at a much higher price. They also say that one should drink the sodium bicarbonate with molasses. These are snakeskin oil salesman tactics. Many people use this and so far they could not find any cures from this.

Things may be changing soon in the institution. Pr Chi Van Dang, recently appointed Editor-in-Chief of Cancer Research, promote the use of baking soda to assist immunotherapy and chemotherapy . 2A01:E34:EDB4:C0E0:CD25:3EB9:1901:C9F9 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDPRI, you need something better than a press release. "Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources)." –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Laetrile and black salve are covered, and I'm surprised I cant find turmeric in there, I bet I just cant find it. As to sodium carbonate, I haven't read your cite, but your quote would not be an indication to retract, imho. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Turmeric is generally taken by cancer patients as a palliative treatment to calm the stomach and reduce nausea caused by other treatments. There is lots of solid evidence of the effectiveness of turmeric for nausea and some other digestive problems. Therefore, you will see it on a list of herbs that are important to cancer treatment, and yet, it is not normally claimed to be a direct treatment. This is the sort of mistake that this sort of list is very prone too. Just because it doesn't treat the underlying condition doesn't mean it is quackery for it to be used by people with that condition.76.105.216.34 (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Turmeric is probably the most potent anti-inflammatory and cancer preventatives know to man. Strictly speaking it might be classified under "Ayurvedic medicine", it being central to that practice, but in other contexts t would be difficult to isolate and or marginalize the effects in any study of trials of just ingesting turmeric and it's active ingredients, curcuminoids. It should be excluded from this list in the same way that oxygen, a useful chemical that obviously is central to life can't be said to fight cancer except if applied in a novel method, but its usefulness to the body through other mechanisms is unquestionable. Lambchowder (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)LambChowder

Wait, wait, I'll question that premise! Turmeric is only 4-6% curcuminoids, the presumed bioactives. And curcumin as a dietary supplement is known to be very poorly absorbed. Much of the information on plant material and extracts being antioxidants is fatally flawed because based on test tube results. In real world, the compounds are very poorly absorbed, and much of what is absorbed is quickly metabolized to other compounds. The science lit on turmeric/curcuminoids for cancer treatment is skimpy and preliminary..David notMD (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Some claim that you have to eat it with hot peppers to absorb it better. Leaky gut from the peppers? I do not know the logic behind it but that is the gossip going around these days.

Cannabis

Exerdoph‎ has been repeatedly adding text like this to the article:

While not curative, cannabis and related cannabinoids are useful in the treatment of cancer. The US National Cancer Institute currently claims FDA approved "commercially available cannabinoids, such as dronabinol and nabilone, are approved drugs for the treatment of cancer-related side effects". Furthermore, several studies have observed THC and other cannabinoids to be antitumorigenic and to increase the efficacy of chemotherapy.[2]

This shouldn't be here because:

1. This is a list article, which must be in WP:SYNC with the main article(s) it wikilinks to (in this case, Medical cannabis is the one). Text needs to change there before it can change here. But in any case ...
2. The focus of this article is "cancer treatments", not side effect treatments
3. The claim that "several studies have observed" in this context is improper synthesis from the source that merely lists research without implying conclusions.

Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn‎:

This is directly from the source:

A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective.

The NCI does not cite the study, perhaps they conducted it themselves. But given the trustworthiness of the NCI I do not believe credibility is an issue. The conclusion from this statement is very implicit. CBD and THC, a major constituent of cannabis has been shown in vivo to aide in the killing of cancer cells. I ask you how this is not completely relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exerdoph (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That lab work has been done is not in itself relevant to the question of treatment efficacy (this is an article about treatments), but in any case you have not addressed the first point I raised which is crucial here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn‎ "Furthermore, several studies have observed THC and other cannabinoids to be antitumorigenic and to increase the efficacy of chemotherapy"- This is included in that page pretty much. I can understand why you would want to exlude the part about side-effects treatment. That second half though is already on the page.

• Two points here.
  • Treating cancer pain is not the same as treating cancer per se.
  • Discussing "cannabinoids" as though all compounds in that class have identical activity is not appropriate here or in any context where medicine and chemistry are taken seriously. Changing one atom in a compound can dramatically change its activity.

The removal of the content added by Exerdoph‎ was correct. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog:

• Refutal
  • Treating cancer pain can allows patients to take stronger doses of their medications and to continue therapy for longer than without. That's why its used as an anti-emetic and to induce appetite. Eating food and being able to feel comfortable are equally important as the actual treatment. Cancer treatment involves a lot of different drugs and cannabis is clearly useful.
  • Let's stop pretending like I'm a fourth grader this is pretty obvious. There are any different cancers and many different cananbinoids. I made no such claim that all cannabinoids are useful in treating all cancers. All that is implied is that certain cannabinoids are useful in treating some cancers, which is true.Exerdoph (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Will be adding this to the page in 12hrs or upon approval from :Alexbrn‎:

The main constituents of cannabis, THC and CBD have been identified as signaling molecules that may play an active role in cancer signaling pathways. In an extensive review of cannabinoids role in the signaling pathways of several cancers, It was concluded that "Cannabinoids exert a direct anti-proliferative effect on tumors of different origin. They have been shown to be anti-migratory and anti-invasive and inhibit MMPs which in turn degrade the extra-cellular matrix (ECM), thus affecting metastasis of cancer to the distant organs".Exerdoph

References

(talk) 18:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lead defines the scope of the article - this article is about "alternative treatments that have been promoted to treat or prevent cancer in humans". It is not about treating cancer pain, or nausea or other side effects induced by chemotherapy. There are no cannabis-derived compounds or derivatives for which there is good clinical evidence that they can treat or prevent cancer in humans. The content you want to add is not relevant - see WP:OFFTOPIC. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• • Correct. In other words (in case anyone is still confused about this), we don't want to (indeed, cannot) infer that observations at the molecular level will necessarily translate to clinical efficacy. Are cannabinoids theoretically useful in cancer treatment, and have various anti-proliferative effects consistent with that goal been demonstrated in petri dishes and mice? Absolutely. Have any of them been demonstrated, as yet, in humans? Absolutely not. Vitamin C is capable of interrupting many of those same proliferative pathways, as Linus Pauling pointed out repeatedly for 20 years; unfortunately, it didn't pan out at the clinical level. There have been many similar disappointments over the years. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn‎ "since most users smoke it mixed with tobacco, and this complicates research" Such a claim would have to be supported by some statistic but none is referenced in http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

That text is not in this article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

use of wikipedia as public influence

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

---

The topics and entities of this wiki is hotly contested in the U.S. What helps one person may or may not help another, and discoveries continue to unfold on many of these approaches. It would be more neutral to state that, rather than take what appears to be a political stand. Given that wikipedia is commonly used as a definitive source for the average person who may not have time or access to science articles, it seems to me a reponsibility to avoid bias one way or the other.

History shows that medical opinion changes over time and that it is often through grassroots efforts that solutions to unsolved medical problems occur. I believe the way this article is written it does a disservice to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonix (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If and when medical opinion changes, Wikipedia will reflect that. However I doubt that (say) squirting coffee up your bum is ever going to be found to cure cancer. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

History does indeed show that medical opinion changes over time. That is why medicine discards treatments found not to work. This list includes treatments which have been shown not to work, but which continue to be sold by quacks anyway. That's the entire point. To be on this list, a treatment has to have been proposed, investigated, found to be unsupported by good evidence, and it has to be promoted in spite of that. Many of these treatments are surrounded by quasi-religious mythology.

Homeopathy is a good example. There's no reason to suppose it should work, no way it can work, and no good evidence it does work - it has been extensively tested and three separate government level reviews (Switzerland, the UK and Australia) have all found it to be worthless. It does not cure cancer. It is promoted as a cure for cancer, and people die as a result (google Penelope Dingle). There's no scientific controversy about this, it's controversial only to True Believers.

As to grassroots efforts "often" solving medical problems, I dispute that. Unless by grassroots you mean the community of doctors, medical scientists, university researchers, charity funded laboratories and so on which form the sources for our articles showing these treatments to be unproven or disproven. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy is the favorite punching bag of late night young adult edutainment programs because it is so positively without merit that anyone could see and deduce that in a moment's consideration. It's a poor example because like 95% of these other treatments, while we may feel one way or the other, most of us would be hard-pressed to make a strong, coherent argument against more than a handful on our own. Most of the treatments on this list might be justifiably believed to have at least one plausible avenue of action that might benefit the body or fight cancer in some way. Homeopathy requires particularly strenuous, unsupportable conclusions; too many to even mount the attempt.

In the main I regard your characterizations of these treatments as having basis in "mythology" rather than anecdote, to be a reflection of hostile mistrust and not from serious appraisal. Most of the qualifications in this article seem to simply reference official medical bodies, most notably the AMA. This needs to be improved. I'm very dubious regarding any claims that the preponderance of these treatments have been clinically disproven rather than that they simply haven't been investigated owing to difficulty in procuring interest, and thus financial support and professional sponsorship for research through official channels. Lambchowder (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)LambChowder

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

Minor revisions

I revised "Injecting insulin to try and boost cancer drug effectiveness – unproven and dangerous" to "Injecting insulin to try to boost cancer drug effectiveness – unproven and dangerous" as a simple grammar correction. Please advise any displeasure.--H Bruce Campbell (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Fowler says try and "is an idiom that should not be discountenanced, but used when it comes natural" so this is not strictly a correction - but try to is fine. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In the spirit of renewing dead threads, can I just say that it should be "is an idiom that should not be discountenanced, but used when it comes naturally" -Roxy the dog. bark 11:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Consideration for hyperthermic cancer treatment

I haven't looked deeply into this treatment (or therapy) but it isn't listed so, if someone gets the time.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed "Hallelujah diet" from the list

I removed "Hallelujah diet" from the list of disproven treatments because I checked the ref and found the author says this diet is low in fat and high in fruit and veg and that "It is well established that low-fat eating lowers blood cholesterol levels and that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are associated with lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and certain cancers".

The author criticises various companies and supplements, but he certainly doesn't "disprove" the diet as a cancer treatment.

Here's the text I removed: * Hallelujah diet – a restrictive "biblical" diet based on raw food, claimed by its inventor to have cured his cancer. [[Stephen Barrett]] has written on Quackwatch: "Although low-fat, high-fiber diets can be healthful, the Hallelujah Diet is unbalanced and can lead to serious deficiencies."<ref>{{cite web|title=Rev. George M. Malkmus and his Hallelujah Diet|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/malkmus.html|date=29 May 2003|accessdate=|author=Stephen Barrett, M.D.}}</ref>

.Great floors (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't cherry pick the source like that and infer things from a partial reading. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Criteria: scientific consensus or an article on QuackWatch? (removed 2 more entries)

The diet section contains entries "disproven" by being criticised by one doctor.

Being denounced by some well-respected cancer agency is worth noting, as is being disproven by a study in a decent peer-reviewed journal. But being criticised by a doctor in a book does not mean an idea is disproven. (Remember, books aren't peer-reviewed.)

I've now removed these two entries:

* Kousmine diet – a restrictive diet devised by [[Catherine Kousmine]] (1904–1992) which emphasized fruit, vegetables, grains, pulses and the use of vitamin supplements. There is no evidence that the diet is an effective cancer treatment.<ref>{{cite book|author=Jean-Marie Abgrall|title=Healing Or Stealing?: Medical Charlatans in the New Age|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kel6_1aN5JwC&pg=PA83|date=1 January 2000|publisher=Algora Publishing|isbn=978-1-892941-28-2|pages=82–83}}</ref> * [[Moerman Therapy]] – a highly restrictive diet devised by Cornelis Moerman (1893–1988). Its effectiveness is supported by anecdote only – there is no evidence of its worth as a cancer treatment.<ref name="qw-moerman">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/moerman.html|author=Stephen Barrett, M.D.|date=11 December 2001|accessdate=|title=The Moerman Diet|publisher=[[Quackwatch]]}}</ref>

.Great floors (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a list article and the entries must be in WP:SYNC with the articles they point to. Continue damaging the article like this and you are likely to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the guideline. I'd never seen it before. The sourcing problem seems to apply to the parent article too, so it should be fixed there. Unfortunately I'm not that interested in this topic, so I'm just going to leave the problems unfixed.

Please stop the accusations of "damaging" articles. My good faith and competence is surely obvious. Great floors (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a fine reference for this under [{WP:PARITY]]. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403092521/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine to http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/MindBodyandSpirit/naturopathic-medicine
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209065404/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/manualhealingandphysicaltouch/castor-oil to http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/manualhealingandphysicaltouch/castor-oil
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130905235019/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/chlorella to http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/chlorella
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219044718/http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/sodium-bicarbonate to http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/sodium-bicarbonate

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Scanning down the list of references, one sees many links to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, a Rockefeller-controlled institution and long known to be one of the biggest fraudsters in cancer research. As far as MSKCC is concerned, if it isn't synthetic and can't be patented, it doesn't work. They're hardly an authoritative resource. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 19:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources are only reliable/unreliable in respect of content. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources; unexceptional claims can be backed by lesser sources. What do you think is problematic? Also what has Rockefeller got to do with it? Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ginger is 10,000 times more effective than Taxol

The citation for ginger's effectiveness being unproven is no longer available. New research shows that ginger is effective. Ginger should be removed from this article. "taxol, even though was highly active in monolayer cells, did not show activity against the spheroids even at 10000 fold higher concentration compared to 6-shogaol" http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137614 75.169.39.121 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS (and in any case "raise hope for its therapeutic benefit" is about as weak a claim as it gets). Alexbrn (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930225912/http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/gerson-therapy to http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/gerson-therapy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930001037/http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/echinacea to http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/echinacea

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sbm":

• From Detoxification (alternative medicine): Gavura, Scott (2 January 2014). "The detox scam how to spot it and how to avoid it". Science-Based Medicine.
• From Hippocrates Health Institute: Bellamy JJ (26 November 2015). "Brian Clement claims Hippocrates treatments 'reverse' multiple sclerosis". Science-based Medicine. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
• From RIGVIR: Gorski D (18 September 2017). "Rigvir: Another unproven and dubious cancer therapy to be avoided". Science-Based Medicine.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Pygeum Africanum

Could Pygeum Africanum (Prunus Africana) be listed as a possible aid, 24 February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.80.17 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Good thought. Added an entry for "Pygeum" and cleaned up the associated articles. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Quercetin should be removed from this list

There is a lot of evidence pointing to querceting being a powerful therapy and adjunt to conventional therapy for a veriety of cancers as well as being a safe anti-cancer dietary supplement. Here are a few studies that have been done that show it possessing potent anti-cancer ability.

Administration of quercetin lead to ~5 fold increase in the life span in tumor bearing mice compared to that of untreated controls.

Apart from antioxidant activity, Qu also exerts a direct, pro-apoptotic effect in tumor cells, and can indeed block the growth of several human cancer cell lines at different phases of the cell cycle. Both these effects have been documented in a wide variety of cellular models as well as in animal models. Quercetin and Cancer Chemoprevention (PDF Download Available). Available from:

Phytochemicals in Cancer Prevention: A Review of the Evidence:

Effects of low dose quercetin: Cancer cell-specific inhibition of cell cycle progression

This is just a small sample of the available research.

Quercetin clearly is a powerful therapeutic anti cancer agent. Leaving it on this list misleads people and reduces the credibility of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.250.10 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done Junk journals and/or primary research. No thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful reference

A very useful recent reference on the cyclic phenomenon of 'a year away from a cure' news stories. Could be good in the lead, or to finad additional examples for the list?

• "Here is who repeated an unsupported claim about "a complete cure for cancer in a year", misleading millions on social media". Health Feedback. 2019-02-15. Retrieved 2019-02-18.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Johanna Budwig.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fasting

Fasting should be removed from the list of unproven and disproven cancer treatments: Fasting for Health and Longevity: Nobel Prize Winning Research on Cell Aging. Japanese cell biologist Yoshinori Ohsumi won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2016 for his research on how cells recycle and renew their content, a process called autophagy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat Kristar (talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an index article and must reflect the content at the main article(s) it references, in this case Fasting. There it is well sourced that the idea that one can treat effectively cancer by fasting, is bogus. If content changes there, it can change here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

here should be mentioned radiation therapy which is the worst treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.83 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy#Cancer which is linked in the fasting article. --101.98.159.75 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Phosphorylethanolamine

Maybe Phosphorylethanolamine should be added to the list. In 2016, the Brazilian Medical Association, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology and ANVISA (regulatory agency for drugs) all declared that there was no evidence of safety or efficacy of this substancy in cancer. The Supreme Court forbade its medical use. Sorry for not providing any source, I just remember very well the controversy because it was a big thing here 179.178.2.139 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks likely. The Phosphorylethanolamine article should be fixed first. Ernst has something on this.[3] Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

and ...  Done Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Although thousands of pacients all over ther world were healed by this compound, the Brazilian Medical Association usually doesn't approve anything, which does not bring profits for solution developers and labs. If a natural remedy is sold by the profiteers of another's faith, no benefit will come to the buyer. Cure must be accepted, not bought. The cure is proportional to the user's faith and not to the purchasing power of the buyer. This is why natural remedies have no effect on people with bad eating habits or bad character. There is no harmony between the medicine offered and the desire to heal. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry...we only use sources that qualify under WP:MEDRS here.- Sumanuil (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

New findings to add

Hi. I would like to add the information below, either to this article, or else somewhere on Wikipedia. can anyone please advise on some good places where I might be able to do so? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

==Possible cures based on immune cells and t-cells==

There has been significant research that is based upon finding ways to enable the body's own immune system to fight cancer cells, i.e by using t-cells and white blood cells.

In January 2020, researchers in Britain announced they had discovered a new type of immune cell which might perhaps prove to be a general cure for many types of cancer.

thanks.

This is a list article pointing almost exclusively to other articles on Wikipedia which cover various "unproven and disproven" cancer treatments that have been fraudulently promoted, within the scope set out in this article's lede, so your content would not seem to be appropriate in this article. Your proposed topic is covered at T Cell#Cancer but so far as I am aware there are no sources calling this out as quackery. Note that sources for biomedical information need to be WP:MEDRS, so not newspapers. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

references

References