Talk:Cancer

Archives
2005 2006

Another query

This sentence from the Molecular biology section (top of paragraph 10) is baffling to me:

"Mutation of tumor suppressor genes that are passed on to the next generation of not merely cells, but their offspring can cause increased likelihoods for cancers to be inherited."

Can someone clarify what this is supposed to mean?--DO11.10 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Basics of Cancer

"Acidosis" is the scientific term for a body that has a pH below 7.0. In this state, the body is deprived of oxygen causing one to be more susceptible to colds, flus and other diseases/infections. This state also contributes to accelerated aging.

Our modern lives give us ample opportunity to become acidic. Commonly-consumed acid-forming foods and beverages include meat, dairy products, sugar, coffee and alcohol. Environmental exposure to solvents, herbicides, pesticides and other chemical toxins boost our tendency to become acidic.

Acidosis is the cause of America's #2 killer-cancer. In order to understand the basics of cancer, we must first understand the acid/alkaline balance. Understanding the acid/alkaline balance, the following summary makes perfect sense: The prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.

Over 75 years ago, Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded two Nobel prizes for demonstrating that cancer results when weakened cell respiration occurs due to lack of oxygen at the cellular level. According to Warburg, damaged cell respiration causes fermentation, resulting in low pH at the cellular level.

Dr. Warburg, in his Nobel Prize winning papers, described the environment of the cancer cell: A normal healthy cell undergoes an adverse change when it can no longer take in oxygen to convert glucose into energy. In the absence of oxygen, the cell reverts to a primal nutritional program to nourish itself by converting glucose through the process of fermentation. The lactic acid produced by fermentation lowers the cell pH and destroys the ability of DNA and RNA to control cell division. Cancer cells then begin to multiply without restraint.

The lactic acid simultaneously causes severe local pain as it destroys cell enzymes; the cancer appears as a rapidly-growing external cell covering with a core of dead cells. We know cell masses of this description as "tumors."

Subsequent research by Keith Brewer, Ph.D and H.E. Satori has shown that cancer cannot exist when the body's pH is raised to 8.0.

Dr. Brewer developed a protocol to therapeutically raise pH with the element cesium in conjunction with potassium.

Cancer can simply not exist in a properly oxygenated cellular environment.

Cancer in animals

I can't help but notice that there isn't a great deal of attention given to cancer in non-human animals. It is of course made clear that they develop cancer just like humans, but there is very little information on the subject. A section on this, including their use in research (I just recently saw an article on the news about using eggs in cancer treatment for example) and their similarities and differences with human forms of cancer would be good to see, and would certainly round the article out nicely. Richard001 08:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard of a ANTI CANCER MEDICINE called UKrain. i couldnt find it on wikipedia, but maybe someone can make it or give me the redirect link?

Sea urchin cure?

I have heard that there is a certain chemical that is in sea urchins that can cure cancer, but would cost so much money to replicate it, nobody's doing it. Can somebody clarify if this is true? 69.249.48.122 02:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

University of Alberta mitochondrial theory

Are either of the above last 2 mentions reeferring to the mitochondria-affecting method that some University of Alberta researchers recently went public about? Apparently their method of "fixing" cancerous cells will not make drug manufacturers any money so they are having challenges getting funding for tests...

See Google news: University+of+Alberta+cancer+mitochondria

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=University+of+Alberta+cancer+mitochondria&ie=UTF-8&filter=0

199.214.24.129 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the Google News links was the "Y Files", which has a LOT of detail about "CDA" (the mitochondrial treatment).

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/225cancer_drug/

199.214.24.129 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dichloroacetate

Not sure where this goes but potential cure for cancer see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html and http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/ 03swalker 16:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It goes in the interesting compound hyped by researchers which have not even had a phase 1 trial yet section.Jellytussle 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Better than hyped by companies; this should be mentioned... and since it is a pre-existing drug it already has a track record of use in humans. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I came to the page looking for information on DCA. It should be mentioned in the article. Jeffrey.Rodriguez 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for information on DCA, why did you come to the Cancer article? I think you wanted to go to the Dichloroacetate article. You might notice that Cisplatin, while it is one of the most common cancer-fighting drugs, isn't mentioned at all in this article. --Mdwyer 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Solid point, but people will come here as well; and we should wikilink to that sub-article on Cancer... rather than sending smoke signals on the talk page. Cisplatin isn't news at the moment, Dichloroacetate is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links ???

I have made a link * "Cancer - A Biophysicist's Point of View" - new research linking cancer to entropy

What is "inappropriate" in this link ? Why are you removing it ? Do you have a sufficient background to make this judgment ? Actions like that will result in Wikipedia loosing its credibility as a source of good / diverse information and points of view ....

Resposnse from Mdwyer (part 1)

My background isn't in question. Your link is. We prevent links to preserve Wikipedia's credibility. I removed your link because of WP:EL; specifically, "Links should be kept to a minimum." To get your link accepted you will have to convince editors of its notability on the Talk:Cancer page. Why is your link more apropriate than the myriad other links that have been removed from this page?

Until you can convince us of that, your actions of adding the link back aren't helping your case. You are acting like a spammer. Avoid these tactics to maintain your own credibility. Instead, read the guidelines at WP:EL and WP:SPAM, gather a case, post it to the talk page, and you link may be welcome! "Good diverse information" is welcome at Wikipedia, but you must respect our guidelines. --Mdwyer 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response from Sunlight001 (part 1)

Your ability and background is in question since I am not a spammer and information provided in the paper is very important for researchers in the field and for the patients, since it can save many lives. Your actions undermine credibility of your function and credibility of Wikipedia.

Resposnse from Mdwyer (part 2)

• Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Cancer. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Mdwyer 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am under the three-revert rule, as well. If you add your link back one more time, I will not be able to remove it. --Mdwyer 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response from Sunlight001 (part 2)

Your actions are harmful to Wikipedia and people who have cancer and look for the most relevant and current information. I provide in my paper this kind of information. Maybe you should read it yourself ? I am surprised that you have no problem with 4 links to American Cancer Society which collects donations and has outdated and misleading information on cancer (for example fact that there is no link between hydrogenated fats and cancer). I think that you should explain your actions. I wonder who's interests are you representing ? Certainly not Wikipedia's, not patients', not honest researchers' ....

Reply from Mdwyer (hardly)

This is your paper? Then I was even more justified in removing your link. Wikipedia forbids original research -- see WP:OR. In addition, you'd be breaking the conflict of interest clause in WP:EL.

PS: I reformatted the page again to matche the recommendations of WP:UW. --Mdwyer 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RULES (comment by sunlight001)

Rules are made as a guidelines, to direct people. Rules without logical thinking and honesty are worthless.

Here are my objections:

---

• you have no credentials to make judgment about the paper's merit
• you are blindly applying "rules" without logical thinking and honesty
• you did not answer any of my questions and comments
• Wikipedia should block your actions, since they are harmful
• you will have blood of mislead patients on your hands

You are not telling us what you've been adding. Without this, your rant is pretty much meaningless. JFW | T@lk 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sunlight001 seems unwilling to learn the formatting syntax of Wikipedia, too. I've cleaned it up a little with some headings, but the fully-arranged rant can be found on my talk page. The short version is that I didn't think the link at the top of the rant (digitalrecordings) fit here. Mdwyer 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

DCA

RoyBoy (talk · contribs) reinserted material that dichloroacetate is effective in vitro. Well, so are hundreds of other compounds that did not make it into the New Scientist. Can we wait until this actually reaches at least phase II trials? I generally discourage addition of anything before phase III for the obvious reasons unless truly groundbreaking (Nobel Prize caliber). JFW | T@lk 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason those other compounds did not make it into New Scientist should be apparent; especially to a doctor. Please put the section back as it is potentially groundbreaking (and if so then it is defacto Nobel Prize caliber), and will be reinserted by others for good reason. While your criteria for discouragement is sound, it is simply not applicable to this compound because it has been mentioned by New Scientist. Your expertise and knowledge of many other compounds which failed effects your judgment in that it makes you overly pessimistic and cautious. A good thing in medicine to be sure, but not necessarily as well suited to assessing encyclopedic additions.

I encourage every effort to make it clear it is in preliminary stages of testing, but to not mention it does not make sense to me given the attention it is receiving because it is a pre-existing and used compound; hence the New Scientist mention. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 12:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add that I put DCA in the "Cancer research" section, rather than the Treatment section where it was put previously. Regardless of your criteria of notability, DCA is a candidate for cancer research. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that DCA may be a promising drug. But until phase I and phase II trials have been completed there is no way of knowing whether DCA will join the dumpheap of failed compounds or not. Only time will tell. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The science is fascinating of course (many cancers cells switch to glycolysis rather than FFA, which is the principle of 17-FDG PET). JFW | T@lk 15:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted. However, I do not see how this involves a crystal ball or in any way violates what Wikipedia is not. You'll have to find a specific relevant policy on WP:SCIENCE, for me to not escalate this issue further. While criteria 5 clearly states one article (even in New Scientist) is insufficient for inclusion; this story is gaining momentum and we should reflect that now; [1] not months from now. Months from now we can easily update the article to reflect its actual progress/promise; then a complete demotion to See also if circumstances dictate. (also it should be mentioned if 17-FDG PET is expensive, DCA would not be, again making it inherently more notable)

Further to quote an ABC article:

There is the medical equivalent of a tsunami wave building out there, only we don't know where this one is going to land.[2]

Wikipedia at the very least needs to mention and Wikilink to the appropriate article to handle the inevitable flood of traffic and interest. I would remind you Wikipedia is not a medical textbook/journal; we need to address issues as they arise in NPOV terms, not in relation to efficacy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The ABC article just reflects hype. I have asked one of our oncologists (User:Jellytussle) for his opinion, and will also leave a message on WP:CLINMED. Can you please wait until others have responded here? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is driven by knowledge in context, not by hype. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting, but I did decide to re-add my DCA addition after it was re-mentioned by another anon. The "knowledge in context" is indeed what I'm trying to achieve; whether that knowledge brings us a breakthrough, or yet another failure; its my current opinion we should mention it while it is prominent. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to comment JFW. I think it is important to get things in perspective. All of the media coverage is based on a single journal article (Bonnet et al Cancer Cell. 2007 Jan;11(1):37-51) and probably some press briefings. The popular media, internet etc have run with this. That includes New Scientist, which is a good journal, but does not publish original peer-reviewed research, and does not in itself lend any extra authority to the DCA affair. It is also worth noting that the quote by RoyBoy of the abc article:

There is the medical equivalent of a tsunami wave building out there, only we don't know where this one is going to land.[3]

is very selective. To my pleasant surprise this article is of good quality and urges caution on the matter of DCA, and I think it is worth quoting back another passage from the end:

"I am acutely aware that there are cancer patients out there who are fighting every day for their survival, hoping that there is one last chance to get a treatment that may prolong or save their lives. For some of you out there to inappropriately make them feel that DCA is the answer to their prayers based on this single early-stage report in a medical research journal is, in my opinion, not acceptable at best — and despicable at worst."

Of course it was selective, I quoted it to make a point! *sigh* I read the entire article prior to quoting it and I agree with your assessment. As such mentioning DCA in Cancer helps lead people to the sub-article context such as that. I would add to your point, that its based on a single preliminary journal article. While I am aware of that, it does still seem sufficient to Wikilink while hype persists. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

DCA is an interesting compound, and the theory behind it is interesting, possibly justifying further research, but DCA has not yet had a phase 1 trial for cancer. In vitro work can give helpful clues as to whether a compound has useful pharmacological properties, but it is simply not a safe basis for speculation about clinical efficacy. Remember that thousands of promising compounds are screened for every one that turns out to be clinically useful. With respect to big pharma not being interested etc, this is not necessarily a barrier. There are lots of public grants and charitable funds to support translational research in Canada, Alberta in particular, and in the rest of the world. A general search for DCA shows that it does have toxicities, and that there has been concern that DCA itself may be carcinogenic.

In summary: there has been a recent interesting report of pre-clinical work using DCA, a compound with known human toxicities. There has been immense hype and gossip, playing up something which might normally only merit a note in the news columns of general science and oncological journals. In Wikipedia, DCA may deserve a mention in Cancer Research, or its own page on Wiki, but it does not yet merit inclusion on this page. We have seen this before with other compounds and remedies and we will see it again. Jellytussle 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted yet again, though I disagree with the approach. Makes for a stable more encyclopedic article to be sure, but is significantly less helpful and streamlined (Wikilinked) for readership. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist were scolded for their careless reporting. I agree with Jellytussle that the big pharma conspiracy theory stuff doesn't necessarily hold – cancer is a hugely well (some say over) funded health issue. Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. Colin°^Talk 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In some respects Wikipedia is Wikinews (being timely), and that news you brought up should certainly be added (in the DCA article) to provide appropriate context. We can't avoid being Wikinews as things break. I'd hasten to add that doesn't necessarily detract from my position that breaking news can/should be mentioned in brief. Either because it is a breakthrough, but also if it is not. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jellytussle and Colin here. The Dichloroacetic acid article should probably be expanded and improved, given the surge in interest, but listing a compound here that's never been studied in humans with cancer, on the grounds of one cell-line/mouse study and some irresponsible hype, isn't warranted - as has been pointed out, any number of compounds have shown similar or greater promise in cell culture and mouse models, only to prove disappointing in humans. The pharmanoia is patently ridiculous. For Pete's sake... who funded the studies of DCA in mice and in kids with lactic acidosis (PMID 16651305)? The NIH, the FDA, the CIHR, private charities... drug companies are far from the only source of funding for clinical research (although the way Bush keeps shrinking the NIH budget, it feels that way sometimes). The argument that "it works, but drug companies won't allow clinical trials" is ridiculous. Wikipedia should be generally conservative when reporting on breaking scientific research, rather than trying to be out in front on the cutting edge. Can we at least wait for a trial in humans, even a Phase I, before putting it here, and instead try to improve the Dichloroacetic acid article? MastCell 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would hope you're not unfairly attributing pharmanoia to me. The mention of public funding wasn't initially written by me (although I did re-insert it with my initial rewrite); it merely seemed to go along with the interesting factoid it wasn't patented. I'm aware of public funding, as I was trying to communicate by saying: "Better than hyped by companies" in the above section that I merely prefer publicly funded hype over pharma hype. I've done extensive research in medical journals; and am routinely frustrated with the lack of accessibility to publicly funded research, forcing me to the local university. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to JellyTussle & MastCell (and Colin of course) for their input. I hope this settles the issue. Wikipedia is now grownup enough not to be driven by hype (as it was wont to in the past). JFW | T@lk 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not driven, reacting to hype can be appropriate... depending on notability of course. I'd like to thank JellyTussle & MastCell for their less than flattering inferences. I'm not new to this guys... I'm also not new to being wrong; I just need a little more grown up rationale on Wikipolicy (which we can apply as we go forward), and less basic information I already know. I would like to sincerely thank Colin for following up on the DCA story and providing additional context. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Roy, I didn't notice any "less than flattering inferences" or even any personally-aimed statements. This is an article talk page, not your user-talk page but I can see how you might feel defensive. The statement you added "but clinical trials on cancer patients would require public funding as it is a generic drug" was sourced to a reputable (if not authoritative) source and I don't see how you did anything wrong as a Wikipedian. I suggest the "pharmanoia" attribution was directed at the New Scientist editorial rather than you. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well as they were possible inferences there weren't any statements; concur with you on the pharmanoia meme, as ironically I haven't really looked into the informal discussion/hype surrounding the issue. I should say "less than flattering" isn't bad, just not good either. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been more clear... I was referring to the pharmanoia implicit in some of the outside hype on DCA, not implying that RoyBoy was being unreasonable. I have a lot of respect for RoyBoy and remember working with him on other controversies way back when. In terms of policy, I do think this falls under ...not a crystal ball. A drug with zero data in human subjects with cancer is just too new, and too much of an unknown quantity, to single out here at this point. I do think we should work on the dichloroacetic acid page, though, as I think it's getting a lot of traffic as a result of the word spreading. That's really where most readers will look, rather than here - and discussion of the in vitro/animal studies, hype, and patent issues is more relevant there than here. MastCell 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, it was a little confusing trying to thread through the points and I should have known better given our past collaboration. As to crystal ball, I still disagree; from my perspective to not mention DCA is as much a crystal ball as to mention it. Granted no mention is conservative; but its also confusing to readers who expect to find something given DCA is in line for future research.

It doesn't seem Wiki enough... and to put my position in summary policy form: I think DCA merits temporary inclusion in Cancer based on its popular notability rather than its scientific notability which you guys seem to be almost exclusively focused on. (I can appreciate why, since Cancer is a core FA science article) I'm referring to popular notability from WP:SCIENCE#General; if I've misapplied this concept... then my bad. :"D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, DCA already meets criteria 5 and 6. One criteria is enough for the DCA article, my feeling is two criteria is enough for a parent article mention (Cancer)... and regardless of DCA's outcome it may even hit criteria 7 by tweaking the focus of cancer research. That hasn't happened yet of course, but would I be correct in asserting that would make a Cancer mention a lock? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it hits notability criteria - I think we just differ on whether it should be mentioned in this article, as opposed to, say, cancer research or a more specific subheading. The other items mentioned here under "Cancer Research", monoclonals and targeted therapy, have both already crossed over into widespread human use and had a major impact on how cancer is treated. I just don't think DCA is anywhere near there yet, although I think the scientific and popular issues are notable enough for mention in its own article - which is where people will look anyway. I don't feel incredibly strongly, but that's my 2 cents. MastCell 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Cancer research" is a misleading header? This entire discussion seems to have spawned from my (mis)perception of what that section should be. If that's the case should that section header be tweaked and/or a new section for "Experimental cancer research" be added to Cancer? Looking at the mention in cancer research, the header is "Concerns about Cancer Research"; kind of a negative header, which isn't even explained in the content. Also it would seem the Cancer research isn't sub-articled very well. There should be a main article heading (done now), and my Wiki philosophy is the sub-article should be summarized (or the lead copy and pasted) to the parent article. If the former, then DCA should be mentioned here, if the latter then probably not. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over to dichloroacetic acid and tried to improve the "Therapeutic Uses" section. The problem with an "experimental cancer research" section is that it's really hard to keep up to date as therapies appear and disappear rapidly on the radar screen. This same issue has come up at AIDS/HIV. We have to set the bar somewhere; my feeling is that excluding therapies that have not even been tried in humans yet is a good start. But again, I'm not that committed here; I'd rather spend the time improving the DCA article. MastCell 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent precedent and I guess that'll have to do; but I would add Wiki is capable (and IMO should) wikilink to radar blips. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

RoyBoy, I agree that Wikipedia should document important trends, even when unproven. There is mounting evidence (e.g. oncologists being asked about DCA trials) that this thing is unbelievably overhyped, and perhaps one day we will cite a commentary from NEJM: "DCA, hype or a new dawn in oncology?" This is an excellent case study in post-internet epistemology. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... though I can't help wondering if any Wiki-novice medical professionals will come to Cancer seeking the latest hype on DCA. A rare occurrence I suppose. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they should be using the DCA article as the starting point. You don't look up the mechanism of action of rosiglitazone by looking at the diabetes mellitus, because it is too detailed.

I notice another editor tried to put DCA back, claiming that there was no consensus here. I strongly dispute this assertion. We've had JellyTussle, MastCell, Colin Harkness and myself all opposing, and RoyBoy simply asking that this "radar blip" is documented here. JellyTussle and MastCell are practicing oncologists. If Eric Kvaalen (talk · contribs) has new points in this discussion he is asked kindly to offer them here. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Big C

I can't find the term the "Big C" in the article, but films like "Love Story" were affected by the silence over it (okay, it wasn't exactly skin cancer, but all the same). Xiner (talk, email) 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a good "social impact" section. As I've noted elsewhere, some cancers have a much better prognosis than some non-malignant medical catastrophes, such as amoebic meningitis, subarachnoid haemorrhage or myocarditis with left ventricular failure. The whole "Big C" thing is a result of this weird preoccupation in the public discourse with malignant disease, and it is reflected in donations to funding (stroke research is still massively underfunded e.g. compared with certain rare cancers). JFW | T@lk 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cause of rmortality?

I think it'd be worth including a subheading in the pathophysiology section that explains how different kinds of cancer lead to mortality especially, but other generalized clinical symptoms as well. Opinions?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.151.250.39 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

That is almost impossible. Every tumour behaves differently. The "final common pathway" of cancer is like any other chronically debilitating disease: overwhelming infections, respiratory and cardiac failure. JFW | T@lk 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Two additions deleted.

Two additions were deleted.

One dealt with vitamins and the source was a CBC report, the other was sourced to the US government report dealing with probiotics.

Please advise.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I did that. If you look in the page history you will see that I left an edit summary. The edit summary was "please do not use news articles; they disqualify as WP:RS in science-dominated articles; also suspect Dr Koren's results need to be replicated".

I have removed your reinserted material. This is a science-oriented article. The claims you make are not claims that can be supported by news articles, because journalists are good at grabbing headlines but very bad at science (see the DCA discussion above).

Dr Koren's study is interesting but obviously needs to be replicated before this can be given any weight. Generally, one ought to be suspicious of vitamins preventing "all sorts of cancers". That usually means there's an orthomolecular quack around the corner somewhere.

With regards to the probiotics, much of this is still in the embryological stages and should not be brought as established fact. As an encyclopedia we have a duty in being somewhat skeptical with everything radically new unless this is widely recognised as such. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is your conflict of interest...for example garlic, time tested useful Along comes some 'scientific' study fueled by some pharmacetical, whether they own the publication or not, is a good question, the history of Vioxx, should show that even some of these 'accredited' sources are not really...

Anyway, I don't believe we addressed the one source that was the US government...

As far as the CBC quote, it also appears on the Univesity site, so I will try to look it up.

Keep up the critical analysis ! The details that are allowed in are very, very important.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the point being made here. MastCell 05:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Wolff's pointed edit summary read:

"please do not use news articles; they disqualify as WP:RS in science-dominated articles; also suspect Dr Koren's results need to be replicated."

He's right on. What is considered RS varies depending on the type of article. Especially on science-dominated articles it is important to maintain a high standard for at least two reasons:

1. it raises the quality of the article by using higher quality references.
2. it makes the article more stable. News reports of non-duplicated research come and go.

News reports are interesting, and may often be the first harbinger of major breakthroughs that really are reliable, but the first messenger often amounts to no better quality than the words of a gossiper. Duplicated research is much more reliable, stable, and much less vulnerable to being exploited by quacks and unethical researchers who milk the slightest positive mention for all its worth, and then conveniently fail to inform their customers or sponsors of the next piece of good research that demolishes the first report and dashes the hopes of often talented researchers. That's life in the world of science, and scientists are aware of this. They have learned from the history of scientific research that for every single advance there are a hundred failures. They are therefore very wary of pinning all their hopes on news reports. "Reliable" also has to do with "stability" in this type of situation.

Dr. Wolff, how about working on getting "stability" worked into the definition of WP:RS for science-dominated articles? When dealing with scientific matters, we're dealing with falsifiable information, hence it is legitimate to raise the stakes and only use the best resources available. We're not dealing with rumors here. That stuff might be fine for a "breaking news" or "current events" section in an article on a Hollywood star. In that context, reliability has a totally different meaning. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cancer institutes

I added a list of institutes within the U.S. which is continuously deleted by wolff, The inclustion of such a section (disregarding americocentricity) should, to my thinking, not be of any large concern. In that case, the inclusion of specifically stated american cancer institutions should not be a problem. As soon as i find a european list i will post it however, just becasuae one cannot be found is not a reason to exclude other pertinant infromation about cancer treatment facilities. If you have concerns about its focus on america add other institutions but don't delete information that belongs there.

I hadn't seen ColmanJ's comment when I wrote the comment below:

ColemanJ (talk · contribs) has now twice inserted a list of American cancer hospitals. But Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. I agree that most innovative work in cancer is being delivered in the USA, but one simply cannot ignore some very large and extremely high-quality cancer centres in the rest of the world; again, I need only mention the Royal Marsden Hospital. Qualifying that the list is American does nothing to improve its relevance. In what way does it improve the encyclopedic aspects of this article? JFW | T@lk 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to ColmanJ's message:

It is not being "continuously deleted". It is you who keeps adding it in without considering my points and see whether this list needs to be here.

Apart from been Americocentric, it also creates a different problem. There will be tendency of patients to be dissatisfied with the care they are receiving locally, because their local facility is not in that magical list. How was the survey conducted? Was patient satisfaction measured? What weight should we attach to such surveys to begin with? JFW | T@lk 21:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JDWolff. Quite apart from the fact that the list is incomplete for N. America (where is PMH Toronto?) the list has no relevance to cancer and its treatment as an encyclopaedic subject per se. Also, if one included all the notable cancer research institutes worldwide (divisive and controversial) from UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, sweden India, HK Australia etc etc then the list would get much too unwieldy for the Cancer page. would be more relevant to include the main cancer research organisations (RTOG, ECOG, NCIC,EORTC, CRC etc.) Might justify its own page but would likely get adulterated by others wanting to be included. Conclusion: a bad idea. Jellytussle 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ColmanJ, you'd probably be better off with the NCI list of cancer centers rather than using the somewhat arbitrary list provided by US News. Those on the NCI list had to go through some very rigorous peer review to get there. The US News list is selected by some magazine editor sitting in a cubicle. Perhaps you could start a new article NCI Cancer Centers and link to it from the cancer article? Jpbrody 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sunlight and Cancer

I don't think the evidence is "speculative". Have a look at the reviews of the science and it seems pretty solid. The main stumbling block appears to be that many health departments and cancer charities have the fixed notion that sunlight = skin cancer, and they are unwilling to even look at the evidence. Comments? --Sciencewatcher 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It would need to be handled carefully. Vitamin D is a hot topic right now, and may very well turn out to have important implications in cancer, but the specifics remain to be determined. The correlation with sunlight is intriguing, but of course one could think up any number of co-variates which also vary with sunlight exposure (activity level, environmental factors, etc), so without a defined biological mechanism it's more hypothesis-generating than conclusive. I'm also wary of a blanket statement that sunlight is good, since I see way too many young folks with metastatic melanoma - but maybe that's selection bias. MastCell 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The link appears to be vitamin D specific (at least for colorectal cancer), as shown by PMID 17296473. I have seen some papers discussing the theory behind the link, but I haven't really looked into it in much detail. Maybe someone else can comment on this. But if large epidemilogical studies are showing that vitamin D/sunlight is a factor in reducing cancer risk, is this not enough to at least mention it? Do we know the exact biological mechanism behind the other cancer risks? My contribution (which was removed by jfdwolff) was just a short paragraph summary taken from a recent review, and I think it is appropriate to put it back in. --Sciencewatcher 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We know that sunlight is crucial in the prevention of bone disease, and we know that sunlight exposure is inversely correlated with multiple sclerosis incidence. I agree that the skin cancer thing can be a bit too much of a good thing, but then melanoma is a truly ghastly cancer.

But the link you want to write about, as I explained in my edit summary, is probably not ready for prime time yet. There are many other things that appear to be linked to cancer risk (either positively or negatively), and writing "just a short paragraph" on all of them would bloat the article beyond recognition.

I'd be much happier if we could split out these topics to a subpage of some sort. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)