Talk:List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misinformation in Wikipedia

Quote: "Diet-based Alkaline diet – a restrictive diet of non-acid foods"

Once again Wikipedia is exposed as not having a clue what it is talking about. The alkaline diet specifically recommends acid foods like LEMONS because they are claimed to leave an alkaline residue, known in 'alkaline diet circles' as ASH. The diet is not based on the pH value of a particular food to begin with but rather the effect on a cellular level after digestion. Please understand that I am not trying to say the alkaline diet is valid or invalid – rather, that Wikipedia needs to get its facts straight and not spout misinformed nonsense. In fact lemons are supposed to be one of the most alkalising foods available, according the dietary theory. Whether that is true or not is not the point.

I'm not too sure how to go about correcting this mistake Samsbetter (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

From the Canadian Cancer Society source:

The chemistry of your blood is slightly alkaline, which is the opposite of acidic. Supporters of an alkaline diet believe you should eat food that matches the chemistry of your blood. They say that a high-acid diet upsets the balance of your blood and causes disease over time – so eating a more alkaline diet will protect you from disease.

Seems clear clear from that this particular form of woo stipulates the eating of alkaline foods, not acid ones. It's a very good source, so duly we reflect it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK is not a valid official institute for declaring anything at all.

Cancer Research UK is not a valid official institute for declaring anything at all. Referring to it only empowers the conspiracy theories about supressing the natural remedies. And it is only one institute. Has it ever done any research on these things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.10.95 (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

See Cancer Research UK. In line with WP:MEDRS, this is one of the most authoritative medical sources on the planet, and in fact they have worked collaboratively with Wikipedia to improve the quality of our articles. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Newcastle Disease Virus

Virulent Newcastle Disease or Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) has been tested in the treatment of cancer. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulent_Newcastle_disease#Use_as_an_anticancer_agent

There is some controversy about it but I don't think that it is an approved treatment as yet.

Should it be included in the Unproven list here? AdderUser (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Much of the sourcing for cancer in that article failed WP:MEDRS, so I gave it a heavy trim. The question for inclusion in this article would be whether NDV has been "promoted to treat or prevent cancer in humans". Has it? Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it can definitely be said that NDV has been "promoted to treat cancer in humans" since the 1960s, at least. I googled "newcastle disease virus and cancer." Here are some leading references (cut and pasted as text, not as properly Wiki formatted citations; please edit to proper markup if you think it would be helpful).

(1) Newcastle Disease Virus (PDQ®)–Patient Version https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/ndv-pdq

(2) Application of Newcastle disease virus in the treatment of colorectal cancer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6718777/#:~:text=Newcastle%20disease%20virus%20can%20selectively,new%20treatment%20for%20colorectal%20cancer.

(3) Oncolytic Newcastle Disease Virus for cancer therapy: old challenges and new directions https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4241685/

(4) The oncolytic Newcastle disease virus as an effective immunotherapeutic strategy against glioblastoma https://thejns.org/focus/view/journals/neurosurg-focus/50/2/article-pE8.xml

(5) Re: Scientific Interest in Newcastle Disease Virus Is Reviving https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/92/6/493/2965039

And many more NDV - Cancer references from google, Pubmed, and in the sidebars of the references, above. If you agree that it belongs in the main article, I hope that you can add it according to best Wiki practices.

Thank you. AdderUser (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing sources that describe it being researched, but not promoted - we really want sources saying it was being sold/recommended/advertised etc., and discussing that. I suppose a virus is quite a difficult product to sell! The nearest parallel I can think of is RIGVIR (which definitely has been promoted as a cancer cure). Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "promoted" is supposed to mean. Paid advertisements? Public seminars? Clinical trials? (There were trials in Hungary. A 2006 NIH funded Clinical Trial to take place in Israel was withdrawn: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00348842?term=newcastle+disease+virus&draw=2&rank=1 Journal articles? Webpages at the NCI? Fifty Years of Clinical Application of Newcastle Disease Virus: Time to Celebrate! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344264/ Clinical trials have to be "promoted" in order to recruit patients. Newspaper articles and TV news stories and similar media "testimonials" by famous people are sometimes "promotions" fed to them by the drug companies as "news" in order to get around paid advertisement restrictions. (One early example was Eli Lilly's Oraflex, q.v..)

NDV for cancer was "promoted" by Hungarian L. Csatary, M.D. starting in the late 1960s. I think he's dead now; I can't find a bio or obituary. His daughter, C. Csatary is a US M.D. who took over researching and promoting NDV for cancer. They established "UNITED CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE" https://www.dandb.com/businessdirectory/unitedcancerresearchinstitute-alexandria-va-15773168.html in 1983 to "promote" NDV for cancer. BTW, I'm not making a value judgement on NDV, just suggesting that it be added to the Main article. However, many (e.g., Quackwatch, I think) consider NDV for cancer to be quackery.

Please explain "promoted" so I know whether or how to pursue the suggested inclusion of NDV. AdderUser (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably the meaning is close to that of "advertise" in the UK Cancer Act: So, it if is offered as a treatment (outside a research setting), prescribed, or advised to be useful. Perhaps the lede should say "publicly promoted" to be clearer? If it's covered by QuackWatch that could be useful: link? Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Neuro Linguistic Programming has no claims that it will cure cancer.

The cited reference says:

"How is NLP promoted for use?

Imagery is said to be a relaxation technique, similar to meditation and self-hypnosis, that has physical and psychological effects, Promoters claim it can relax the mind and body by decreasing heart rate, lowering blood pressure, and altering brain waves. Some supporters also say that imagery can relieve pain and emotional anxiety, make drugs more effective, and provide emotional insights. Practitioners use imagery to treat people with phobias and depressioni, reduce stress, increase motivation, promote relaxation, increase control over one's life, improve communication, and even help people stop smoking. Imagery is also used in biofeedback, hypnosis, and neuro-linguistic programming. For people with cancer, some supporters of imagery report that it can relieve nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, relieve stress associated with having cancer, enhance the immune system, help with weight gain, combat depression, and lessen pain."

No claims are made that NLP is a treatment for cancer.

The reference then goes on to conclude that NLP _can_ be helpful in managing pain and discomfort that comes from chemotherapy treatment.

The same reference also states that NLP will not heal cancer (duh, NLP is psychological not physical), and NLP was not claimed or presented to be a treatment for cancer.

If this Wikipedia article wants to include all things that never claimed to cure cancer, this article would be near infinite.

Placing NLP on this Wikipedia article is out of context. 212.58.102.77 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

From the source "They claim NLP can help people with ... Parkinson's disease, AIDS and cancer." Also that such claims are not supported by evidence. So, no. Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The cited reference does not say who/where/how NLP is promoted as a prevention or cure for cancer. The article itself makes that claim by itself, and then proceed to discuss why their own claim is false (a straw man argument).

The same reference says NLP _IS_ a valid complementary treatment for chemotherapy (in the 'imagery' section), but then in the main NLP section it concludes NLP has no purpose in cancer treatment. Here is an NLP organization making a cancer claim the reference agrees with: https://anlp.org/case-studies/how-nlp-removed-scan-anxiety-in-cancer-patient

At a minimum, this Wikipedia article needs one or more references that specifies WHO or WHERE that NLP was _promoted_ to prevent or cure cancer. I spent a lot of time searching for such a source, and I cannot find anyone or anything that has made such a claim.

212.58.102.125 (talk)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and some editor not liking what they say does not matter. Alexbrn (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "not liking what they say", it's about references that use actual sources. If an article brings in data/claims but has no source, how is that reliable? WP:ONESOURCE: "If you come across an article with only one source, the subject is unlikely to be notable enough to merit a standalone article." 212.58.102.125 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society is major medical organization and a top-tier source for cancer topics; its book on altmed in cancer is a golden source. You are however correct there is insufficient sourcing for an entire standalone article on "Neuro-lingustic processing and cancer". Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What is best practice for old and updated references?

A Cancer Research UK source has updated its content by dropping "or any other disease", possibly to limit it to the topic area of the organization, which is only cancer:

• OLD: Ayurvedic medicine – a 5,000-year-old system of traditional medicine which originated on the Indian subcontinent. According to Cancer Research UK "there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease".
  • CAVEAT: That wording was accurate at the time of inclusion, as evidenced by the Internet Archive version.
• UPDATED: Ayurvedic medicine – a 5,000-year-old system of traditional medicine which originated on the Indian subcontinent. According to Cancer Research UK "there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer".

What is best practice here? The edit war needs to be settled. For once an IP is not vandalizing, but seems to have caught a problem. What do we lose by just accepting the newer wording? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Should probably use the updated version. We lose nothing since this article is about cancer treatment specifically anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Then let's allow the change by the IP. This event should go down in history! It's pretty rare. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Fasting and reducing cancer growth

Quote: "Fasting and intermittent fasting – not eating or drinking for a period – a practice which has been claimed by some alternative medicine practitioners to help fight cancer, perhaps by "starving" tumors. However, according to the American Cancer Society, "available scientific evidence does not support claims that fasting is effective for preventing or treating cancer in humans".[16] Professional societies in France and the United Kingdom reached similar conclusions.[17][18][19]"

There is research showing that fasting helps to fight cancer growth. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7730661/, which references many studies supporting the claim, while also claiming that the research is still not fully developed. I hope this can be reflected in the section quoted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:57E3:5100:8523:C884:25E6:37E6 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

MDPI journal. So, junk. Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Bon Courage, please explain.

User: Bon courage

I asked for a more thorough explanation on why you find the grammatical correction to be nonsensical. Instead, you reworded it to "makes no sense".

I'm new here, I'm not trying to pick fights with anyone, I'm trying to understand your logic. "Supportive" and "community" are modifiers to "aspects", therefore the correct reading should be "its aspects" if you remove the modifiers. "It is aspects" is not grammatical. If you disagree, I respectfully ask that you say *why* rather than just writing it off as nonsensical. I welcome other's opinions, too. GoldenKiwiCat (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying now and it's good! Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)