Talk:List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments

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.[1]

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.[2] 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

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)