Talk:Cancer

To Maintaining Low Blood Sugar as a New Cancer Treatment

Original research
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many people believe that vegetarian diet is good for cancer. And many scientist tried to find out certain factor which is important thing as cancer treatment from vegetables and fruits. But, remarkable factor is not revealed in the world. So this writing is for the discovery of the factor. And perhaps side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the factor. For determine whether low blood sugar which is side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the main factor or have no relation to death of cancer, amount of sugar essential and total of sugar supply are partially calculated. A human cell has about 2.8billion(1) base pairs(or about 5.6 billion base) and 2.8billion base pairs have 11.2 billion deoxyriboses as a DNA back bone(2). Deoxyribose and glucose are sugar. So glucose maybe used as a raw material of DNA back bone. And for 1.12e+10 deoxyriboses, 3.3477e-12 g glucose may be essential as a raw material of deoxyriboses. The number of cancer cells is about 2000/mm^2(3) and the density of microvessel is about 200(count)/mm^2(3) and the average diameter of microvessels is about 10μm(). One microvessel of 200 microvessels in 1cm length of tumor is surrounded by 4472 cancer cells. 2000/mm^2 times sqrt{2000/mm^2} times 10mm div 200/mm^2 approx 4472.136 The concept of a cancer cell is a point. And the concept of a microvessel is a line. Cancer cells which surround one microvessel must needs 1.4971e-8 g glucose per 1cm as the raw material of the deoxyriboses. The blood flow velocity is about 0.49 mm/sec in capillaries(4). If the average blood sugar level is 100mg/dl, total amount of glucose which passes through a microvessel of10μm diameter is 3.323376e-6g/Day. 1.4971e-8 g is about 0.45% of 3.323376e-6g. But it's not calculated that how percent of 3.323376e-6g glucose is absorbed by 4472 cancer cells. And it's sure that 4472 cancer cells consume more glucose than 1.4971e-8 g. For calculating the percent of the absorption, osmotic pressure and diffusion velocity must be considered. And it must not ignored that the convection must be limited among the cancer cells. Most cancer cells starve(die) and 4% of survived cells induce KRAS Pathway Mutations in 9mg/dl glucose(5). This means that low blood sugar induce the necrosis of cancer cells. Besides, the density of microvessels in tumor have relation to cancer returns(6). Under 70mg/dl glucose in micorvessels may reach under 9mg/dl glucose among cancer cells. One microvessel manages about 40μm from itself. 40μm is 8 times of radius of microvessel of 10μm diameter. Cancer cell which closes to microvessel will absorbs more sugar than enough so another cell may absorbs less sugar than essential amount. Besides, the glucose concentration in a micorvessel of the cancer tumor will be getting lower as blood flows(figure1). Figure1 explains that why huge tumor have disadvantages in low blood sugar level. The calculation is not completed. But if someone completes this calculation, every things will be sure. Or if someone who has cancer maintains low blood sugar level(under 70mg/dl), we can know the relation between blood sugar level and cancer growth. At last, the change of dietary has relation to avoid cancer death(7) no matter that the relation are strong or not. The important thing is that perhaps the induced low blood sugar by vegetable based diets are the main reason to avoid cancer death. The concentration of amino acid also needs to consider. The purpose of this writing is to informing that to maintaining low glucose may be better treatment than chemotherapy. All of cancer patients have to know that perhaps to maintaining low blood glucose(always under 70mg/dl) is enough good as a new cancer treatment. Figure1. Conception of glucose loss when blood flows : As blood flows, concentration of glucose is getting lower as cancer cell absorb much glucose. e-mail : evilstriver@hanmail.net reference 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#Human_chromosomes 2. Levene P, (01 December 1919). "The structure of yeast nucleic acid". J Biol Chem 40 (2): 415–24. http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/40/2/415. 3. Tsuyotoshi Tsuji, Yoshihiro Sasaki, Masanori Tanaka, et al: Microvessel Morphology and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in Human Colonic Carcinoma With or Without Metastasis. Lab Invest 2002, 82:555–562 4. M.Stucker, V. Baier, T. Reuther, et al. Capillary Blood Cell Velocity in human skin capillaries located perpendiculary to the skin surface: Measured by a New Laser doppler anemometer. Microvascular research 52, 188-192(1996) 5. Jihye Yun, Carlo Rago, Ian Cheong, et al. Glucose Deprivation Contributes to the Development of KRAS Pathway Mutations in Tumor Cells. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1174229 6. Noel Weidner. Intratumor Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Cancer. American Journal ofPathology, Vol. 147, No. 1, July 1995 7. WC Willett: Diet, nutrition, and avoidable cancer. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:165-170, 1995 (suppl 8)

Edit request, 14 October 2010

Revision 18:19, 14 October 2010 adds doubtful material on the causes of cancer from newly-published research. One of the authors claims [1] that "There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer." which is manifestly untrue. There is a discussion of this paper in New Scientist [2].

The newly-added text reads:

"The virtual absence of cancerous malignancies in ancient human remains suggests that cancer is mainly a man-made disease of the Industrial Age caused by environmental changes and the modern diet."

This despite many of the most significant causes of cancer predating the Industrial Age: sunlight, alcohol, tobacco, radon, infections, aflatoxins, heterocyclic amines from cooked meats, dioxins from wood fires, ...

The added text is at odds with established consensus, as indicated in New Scientist, above, and on the website of Cancer Research UK [3], and shouldn't be accorded such prominence in the introductory paragraph of the Causes section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.41.99 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. The text even contradicts itself since further downs it says that "viruses [are] responsible for up to 20% of human cancers worldwide", and viruses are very much a thing of nature. I propose that the discussion of this paper is deleted entirely. Gon-no-suke (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gon-no-suke - Agree. It is also impossible to reconcile the added text with the review article which provides the source for the immediately preceding sentence on causes of cancer.

I am not up to speed on Wikipedia policy, but this text was added on the day the newspapers carried this research, occupies quite a prominent place in the article, contradicts other more established sources and makes the article text logically inconsistent. Nevertheless it has overnight become sacrosanct as attempts to remove it have been quickly reverted.

The source is what Nature Reviews Cancer term an Opinion piece - "an opportunity to present a new or revised model or hypothesis on the basis of research data" [4].

The paper's conclusions have drawn strong criticism from the scientific and cancer research community (examples above), essentially as invalid extrapolations from a sample unrepresentative of the modern population.

Debating the merits of this paper is not the role of an encyclopedia. But what should be a concern is that it is a new hypothesis with no corroborating sources, which is at odds with consensus and which reputable commentators argue is not supported by the data.

If the new claims were true they would overturn well-established data on causes of cancer, many of which are not modern. Wikipedia policy does note that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and a single outlier article - the conclusion of which depends on questionable extrapolations - doesn't come close.

It is particularly unhelpful to present confusing and contradictory text in an article such as Cancer, which lay people are going to turn to for reliable information. 86.140.61.158 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted in the article that while science does not know exactly what the genesis of cancer is, it certainly was not observed in antiquity at rates comparable to today. What is the harm in noting that? Abe Froman (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

At the time of your comment the article did note this - in the first paragraph of the Causes section. Read before editing? And this edit request was, in fact, to remove that statement as there are some serious problems with the source (among other things, discussed in the links above and elsewhere: (a) the statement contradicts other well-sourced data about known causes of cancer; (b) it was based on analysis of a small number of mummies, most of which had short lives by modern standards, and cancer *was found* even in this small sample; (c) in the press release accompanying the paper one of the authors has gone on record stating there are no carcinogens in nature, which reveals a lack of basic knowledge in the field of their paper).

As regards "What is the harm in noting that?": Cancer researchers, such as Cancer Research UK, linked above, think it is harmful as they believe the science in the paper is poor and the conclusions invalid, and that it may cause people to believe that - as an apparent byproduct of an industrialized society - they are helpless against cancer when the reality is that many cancers are caused in part by lifestyle factors that can be addressed. (Not that this is the concern of an encyclopedia - I'm just answering your question.) The concern from an encyclopedic POV is that an article shouldn't contradict itself and spread confusion when the scientific consensus is clear - this paper is not a scientifically strong enough piece of work to throw the existing consensus into question.

While I was typing this, a new edit request 'Fix false statement...' appeared at the bottom of this page and the 'offending' lines have now been hidden. I believe this is the correct editorial decision, although the two separate edit request discussions may lead to confusion. 81.129.24.110 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for my not paying attention and not having seen this discussion before adding my comment below. I think the text, which I hid earlier this evening, is not at all useful and not accurate, despite the reputation of the publishers of the source given it seems very biased. Graham Colm (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In antiquity, people did not live long enough to develop cancer. JFW | T@lk 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I read in the study, diseases of old age were present in the several hundred to a thousand mummies studied. What I do not understand about this discussion is this: a group of editors appear to get together and decide whether real scientists are correct or not, based on their work's sample sizes, relative reputation to other scientists, and such. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the definition of the POV slanted writing that we are all trying to avoid? Abe Froman (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course editors have to make decisions! Editors of an encyclopedia science article should present the consensus where a clear consensus exists. When a new paper conflicts with this consensus, the question is whether the paper is scientifically strong enough to overturn the body of evidence on which the consensus rests.

The investigative work in this paper may be sound, but the conclusion is fairly speculative (this is clear when reading the peer-reviewed paper which uses much more nuanced terms than the accompanying press release) because most of the sample were relatively young and not all cancers will be evident in remains (in bone samples, for example, they were mainly hoping to find osteosarcomas, which are rare).

Against this we have extensive statistical and lab data on causes of cancer, many of which predate the modern era, and a long historical record of cancer (we get the term 'carcinoma' from Hippocrates in the 5th century BC).

If you can point to respected cancer information sites (major cancer research charities, government health information sites, etc.) that endorse this paper in their discussions of the causes of cancer please do so.

(For a scientific paper, by the way, the author's standing relative to their peers should not be an issue. I see no mention of that. There are Nobel Laureates who've put out some batshit crazy stuff.) 81.129.24.110 (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cancer patients suffer from all around of muscle loss by chemo

About 0.3% of all muscle is replaced by new separating muscle cells per day. Chemo is very famous for every separating cell killer like cis-platin. There are no doubt that after natural elimination of 0.3% muscle, 0.3% of new separating muscle cells will be get critical damage by a chemical attack. So about 0.6% of all muscle will be reduced per day during the chemo injection. Chemo injection makes a mere skeleton of a cancer patient about 1~2 years after periodical chemo injection. If It was a result of malnutrition, why the enough eating people turn into mere skeleton? Like this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.81.101.60 (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. This is not a forum, nor an obituary page. If you continue to post these messages I shall have to remove them without discussion. JFW | T@lk 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about entering this on the wiki page but can expand on the above re:.3% muscle loss. Besides death, hair loss, fingernails falling out, eyes swelling and needles needing to be inserted to drain them there is this: Mitoxantrone attacks heart muscle and has a lifetime limitation based on body surface area. Hopefully all who pass here understand why cytotoxic (chem) is rejected by 2/3 of some patients. Bgordski (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got that figure of 2/3 from. Chemotherapy should not be offered if the risks outweigh the benefits. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request - Fix false statement...

Under the section 'Causes' the article states:

"The virtual absence of cancerous malignancies in ancient human remains suggests that cancer is mainly a man-made disease of the Industrial Age caused by environmental changes and the modern diet.[6]"

The statement is false. The document this statement comes from, is not a reliable source of information. The document makes various false claims including the following:

"...There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”"

This is incorrect. See the Wikipedia 'Carcinogen' article:

"There are many natural carcinogens. Aflatoxin B1, which is produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus growing on stored grains, nuts and peanut butter, is an example of a potent, naturally-occurring microbial carcinogen. Certain viruses such as Hepatitis B and human papilloma viruses have been found to cause cancer in humans." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.194.239 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A good point. Many viruses are ancient, particularly DNA viruses, which include those that cause cancer. "The virtual absence of cancerous malignancies in ancient human remains" could be explained by life-expectancy. Cancer is often a disease of old age. Perhaps the human remains are of relatively young people, as seen from a modern perspective? I think that a problem with WP:NPOV might be caused by citing this source. I am interested in what the regular editors of this article think about this. Graham Colm (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Pathophysiology and the "Hallmarks of cancer"

Does anyone else think it would be appropriate and more reader-friendly if the Pathophysiology section would be organized as per the 6 "Hallmarks of Cancer" ?

I think this could be preceded with an explanation on the genetic vulnerabilities that lead to manifestation of one or more of said "traditional hallmarks". If no one objects I might edit the article myself sometime Friday. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Other organisms

The article reads as if cancer-like diseases are exclusively human. I came to see what animals/organisms can develop uncontrolled growth of cells, but it's all about humans. Even if it were called "cancer" only within human medicine, it is clear that at least other mammals can develop tumors. I'd be bold and make changes, but I figured there might be a reason for the narrow scope. 137.146.170.88 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be great if you wished to add something about cancer in other animals or organisms. Per WP:MEDMOS this would go in a section just before the references called "In other animals" or "In other organisms" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

News from Croatian Wikipedia: Neoplasm or, at Croatian, "Novotvorina"

Only attachment-link as the connection between English and Croatian Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor

78.0.158.74 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does this matter? JFW | T@lk 13:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

We link complicated terms and then have a whole page on which to define them. This section seems strage and important concepts should be combined into the appropriate section.

== Glossary ==

The following closely related terms may be used to designate abnormal growths:

• Tumor or tumour: originally, it meant any abnormal swelling, lump or mass. In current English, however, the word tumor has become synonymous with malignant neoplasm, specifically solid neoplasm. Note that some neoplasms, such as leukemia, do not form tumors.
• Neoplasm: the scientific term to describe an abnormal proliferation of genetically altered cells. Neoplasms can be benign or malignant:
  • Malignant neoplasm or malignant tumor: synonymous with cancer in everyday speech.
  • Benign neoplasm or benign tumor: a tumor (solid neoplasm) that stops growing, does not invade other tissues and does not form metastases.
• Invasive tumor is another synonym of cancer. The name refers to invasion of surrounding tissues.
• Pre-malignancy, pre-cancer or non-invasive tumor: A neoplasm that is not invasive but has the potential to progress to cancer (become invasive) if left untreated. These lesions are, in order of increasing potential for cancer, atypia, dysplasia and carcinoma in situ.

The following terms can be used to describe a cancer:

• Screening: a test done on healthy people to detect tumors before they become apparent. A mammogram is a screening test.
• Diagnosis: the confirmation of the cancerous nature of a lump. This usually requires a biopsy or removal of the tumor by surgery, followed by examination by a pathologist.
• Surgical excision: the removal of a tumor by a surgeon.
  • Surgical margins: the evaluation by a pathologist of the edges of the tissue removed by the surgeon to determine if the tumor was removed completely ("negative margins") or if tumor was left behind ("positive margins").
• Grade: a number (usually on a scale of 3) established by a pathologist to describe the degree of resemblance of the tumor to the surrounding benign tissue.
• Stage: a number (usually on a scale of 4) established by the oncologist to describe the degree of invasion of the body by the tumor.
• Recurrence: new tumors that appear at the site of the original tumor after surgery.
• Metastasis: new tumors that appear far from the original tumor.
• Median survival time: a period, often measured in months or years, over which 50% of the cancer patients are expected to be alive.
• Transformation: the concept that a low-grade tumor transforms to a high-grade tumor over time. Example: Richter's transformation.
• Chemotherapy: treatment with drugs.
• Radiation therapy: treatment with radiations.
• Adjuvant therapy: treatment, either chemotherapy or radiation therapy, given after surgery to kill the remaining cancer cells.
• Neoadjuvant therapy: treatment either chemotherapy or radiation therapy, given before surgery to shrink a tumor to make its resection easier.
• Palliative care: treatment that does other than cure the disease i.e. reduces severity of disease, relieve suffering and improves quality of life.
• Prognosis: the probability of cure/remission after the therapy. It is usually expressed as a probability of survival five years after diagnosis. Alternatively, it can be expressed as the number of years when 50% of the patients are still alive. Both numbers are derived from statistics accumulated with hundreds of similar patients to give a Kaplan-Meier curve.
• Cure: A cancer patient is "cured" or "in remission" if they live past the time by which 95% of treated patients live after the date of their diagnosis of cancer. This period varies among different types of cancer; for example, in the case of Hodgkin's disease this period is 10 years, whereas for Burkitt's lymphoma this period would be 1 year. The phrase "cure" used in oncology is based upon the statistical concept of a median survival time and disease-free median survival time.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be merged with the list of cancer-related terminology that exists somewhere on Wikipedia. This paragraph itself is not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any such list. Any guesses on its name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably this: List of oncology-related terms. Novangelis (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics on Cancer Research

At the bottom of this article, it states that

Despite this substantial investment, the country has seen a five percent decrease in the cancer death rate (adjusting for size and age of the population) between 1950 and 2005.

. This value is not representative of the impact of cancer research. For instance, imagine that cancer death rates did not change at all in the last 60 years, but while those who got cancer 60 years ago lived (overall, on average) five years (after diagnosis)-- while today they live (overall, on average) 25 years (after diagnosis). This would represent a huge improvement in cancer treatment, despite no change in death rates. As the years go on, mean life expectancy is moving progressively upwards and the rate of deaths per year is decreasing for most causes is decreasing. I propose that we replace this statistic with one more representative of the improvement in cancer medicine. Munkeegutz (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a review article that states something different? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect another reason that the death rate dropped so little is that cancer occurrence may have increased, not only age related. Breast cancer had a 300% hike in the last century, impact of smoking probably became much more dramatic sometimes after 1950. Richiez (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a complex area, with lots of potential confounding factors... the overall death rate remains 100%... if efforts to improve heart disease, stroke, airways disease etc. are even fractionally more effective than the cancer improvements, then things continue to appear bad for statistics regarding the bigC. Lies, damn lies etc.TamePhysician (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: The age of cellular pathology was born.

As far as I know there has been no Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_periods) known as the cellular pathology age. Might I also recommend replacing the "born" operative with "conception." 208.74.117.9 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the second request ("The age of cellular pathology was conceived"?), and I oppose the first. There's no need for Wikipedia articles to be written in the dullest, most literal language possible. "Engaging, even brilliant" prose is a goal, not a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Screening recommendations

The section on screening recommendations isn't working for me. First of all, it's US-specific, and there are small variations in the recommendations. Secondly, it's just kind of a data dump. I think it would be far more appropriate to discuss the how-and-why of screening than the current "answers". For example, it would be appropriate to discuss issues about harms from testing (e.g., radiation exposure), costs (time and money), the problem of false positives and false negatives, and possibly how the positive predictive value of a given positive test varies with the population being tested. I think that might be more educational than "here's the current schedule". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur. For me, the first thing that pops to mind with worldwide cancer screening recommendations is comparing Japan and the U.S. for gastrointestinal screening. In Japan, they screen for stomach cancer the way the U.S. screens for colon cancer because that's what the cost-to-benefit ratio supports. I don't have any handy sources, but I can certainly come up with something. (Endoscopy wasn't even listed in the general discussion, although two forms were in the U.S. details.) I've been thinking that "Signs and symptoms", "Screening" and "Diagnosis" should be grouped together in some logical arrangement (but without formal grouping) for "identifying that cancer is present". I'd put it after "Pathophysiology" and "Epidemiology", but I don't know that my instincts represent the general readership's interest. Similarly, I'd put "Prognosis" just in front of "Society and culture".Novangelis (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's undersourced (despite being entirely verifiable), but what do you think of my change? Please feel free to improve it.

I cited the historic 1968 paper partly because I could. Some things don't change much, and its principles are still used, often word-for-word (e.g., [5]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not really like all the bold. What is presented here is not really data specific to cancer screening but a discussion of how one determines what to screen for an what not to screen for. We could potentially screen for many none cancerous things like STI in sexually active women, hypertension, hyperglycemia ect. IMO much of what was added would belong best on a page about medical screening.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wild about bold (it'd be italics in a book), but I think that's the official MOS-approved style for lists of this type.

I think it's appropriate to show how the usual systems apply to cancer screening, but I agree that medical screening requires some work as well.

I'm just not excited about announcing any recommendations that are specific to a single agency in a single country. If you were in Japan and curious about stomach cancer screening, do you think you would be happy about seeing the irrelevant US recommendations for colon cancer called out, and the Japanese guidelines ignored?

Additionally, the USPTF isn't really the sole or best source for cancer screening recommendations. Their 2009 mammography guideline, in particular, is widely disputed (e.g., today's news), and thought to be too passive by basically every US organization. Why name theirs, and ignore the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the World Health Organization, all of whom recommend mammography earlier and/or more frequently? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We could mention more detail. We also have the Cochrane review that says the evidence does not even support the USPTF recommendations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not simplify by leaving out at least the ones that are disputed (e.g., mammography) or vary by country even within the developed world (e.g., colonoscopy)?

Going through the arguments over the timing and frequency of, e.g., mammograms for average-risk women seems too detailed for an article about cancer in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentaloma

I'm not sure where to stick this, but I decided this sentence didn't fit the screening section:

When cancers are found accidentally, such as through a medical test for an unrelated condition rather than as part of an organized screening program, they are called incidentalomas.

If anyone's inspired, please WP:Build the web. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Cases vs deaths

The numbers in the lead seemed odd to me (really? We actually know what caused 95% of cases of cancer?), and a quick look at the source suggests that we have a problem. Here's what it says:

The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc.

We're presenting it as all cases of cancer, and they're only talking about people who died from cancer (which is only about half the cases). As a result, we're certainly overstating the role of tobacco (lung cancer) and infections (liver cancer) and understating the role of sunlight (easily cured skin cancers).

I don't have a coherent proposal for fixing this, but we need to do something about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've pulled the misleading stats. They'd probably be better off later in the article anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree they are only dealing with cancer deaths. And not all cancers cause death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

90-95% of cancers is down to environmental factors

I think the above claim in the current article is deeply misleading and scientifically illiterate about the current state of research and thinking about cancer.

The template of an environmental factor is smoking; that smoking "causes" lung cancer is almost the Platonic form of what a genuine environmental cause should look like. And there is absolutely no scientific doubt about the link between smoking and lung cancer. More than 90-95% of all lung cancer is caused by smoking and anyone who tries to deny that is being scientifically idiotic.

So I have no doubt smoking causes lung cancer. I have no doubt it will kill 95 people a day or result in 39,000 avoidable and unnecessary deaths a year in the UK alone. The stats are bleak. The current lifetime risk of a male smoker developing lung cancer is 17.2%. It’s slightly lower for women. But some would argue that the risk is actually as high as 33%. One in three of all male smokers will get lung cancer and the only reason that’s no quite as obvious as it should be is that some smokers who would have gone on to get lung cancer are killed off by other smoking-related diseases first.

If you die from a heart attack caused by smoking in your mid-fifties, you’re not going to be included in the stats for smokers who get lung cancer in their sixties. The lifetime risk of lung cancer for non-smokers varies from country to country, especially in Europe. But the worst case scenario (in Eastern Europe) is that non-smokers only have a 0.5% chance of getting lung cancer, i.e. only 1 in 200 non-smokers get the disease.

But some studies in Western Europe reduce that risk by 10 times and seem to indicate that only 1 in 2000 non smokers will ever get lung cancer. If this figure is right and you take the higher 1 in 3 figure for smokers, smokers are 630 times more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers. So medical advice not to smoke is about as good as medical advice gets. And really, really, really should be taken if you’re not a complete halfwit.

But here’s my problem with the science of the article's claim that "90-95"% of cancers are the result of environmental causes. Although 1 in 3 of all smokers will get lung cancer and that will be caused by a simple environmental determinant, i.e. they smoke; 2 in every 3 smokers won’t get lung cancer, despite being exposed to exactly the same environmental risk.

So why don’t they get lung cancer?

Well, for a long time, people believed this would be down to an environmental factor like dosage. Men who smoked 60 cigarettes a day were at far greater risk than women who have a couple after their evening meal. And there is some truth in this. But not nearly enough.

The reasons why someone like Winston Churchill didn’t get lung cancer despite the fact that Winston was very heavy smoker is almost certainly down to genes. Like aggressive breast cancer in young women, to get lung cancer, even if you’re a smoker, you have to be genetically susceptible to it.

No one knows which gene(s) yet, but there are a host of competing alleles and loci out there being studied as potential candidates, and perhaps they work in combination anyway. For example a study led by Professor Richard Houlston for The Institute of Cancer Research team reporting in 2009 compared the DNA of 1,900 lung cancer patients and 1,400 healthy individuals (and then tested another 2,000 patients with lung cancer and a similar number of healthy volunteers) found specific differences associated with lung cancer risk were found on chromosomes 5, 6 and 15.

Those with certain genetic changes on chromosome 5 were more likely to get a type of cancer called adenocarcinoma and the region highlighted on chromosome 6 seemed to influence whether a patient developed adenocarcinoma or another type called squamous cell carcinoma. On chromosome 15, they pinpointed two independent sites that have a role in whether or not a smoker develops lung cancer. These areas of the genome contain a family of genes that influence smoking behaviour but also cell growth and cell death. Current or former smokers who carry one copy of each of these genetic variants increase their risk of lung cancer by 28%. That increases to 80% in smokers who carry two copies. ( By the way, non-smokers who carry these genes are unaffected)

Even at the risk of "mixing" an important medical health message, if we want to be scientifically scrupulous, so much is clear. People like Winston Churchill, people like the 2 out 3 smokers who won’t get lung cancer are protected against it by something in their genome. So although lung cancer is undoubtedly caused by an environmental factor, two thirds of the factors which will determine whether you get it or not are going to be genetic.

This is even more true of other cancers. So to claim that 90-95% of all cancers are caused by environmental factors is wrong. To imply that 90-95% of all cancers are exclusively caused by environmental factors is wildly misleading. All cancers are caused by both environmental and genetic factors which will vary according to the type of cancer involved.

Accordingly, to be accurate, I think the article should include a more tempered and measured discussion of the mix of genetic and environmental factors which will determine whether individuals will get a particular cancer. Ideally, I think this should be written by a scientist who is currently working in the field. But if no one else steps forward, I will attempt a draft myself.

Steve Coombes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8212658.stm

Above is the link to BBC report of Houlston's team's research into genes which affect lung cancer. Below is a list of recent articles published by ICR on genetic factors affecting a whole range of cancers.

http://publications.icr.ac.uk/cgi/search/simple?screen=Public::EPrintSearch&q_merge=ALL&q=richard+houlston&order=-date/creators_name/title&_action_search=Search — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcoombes (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the "90-95% is environmental" is an overly simplistic formulation of the problem, and I think the context of the intro says that, it's just the one sentence that's overly conclusive and misleading. 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence sounds very misleading, but I looked at the article it references, and while it is a broad simplification, the statistics and conclusion appear to be accurate. The paper pretty much uses the exact same phrasing. Any suggestions for how to better phrase it? --MrBleu (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The joy of being an editor is that if a source uses badly written language but OK numbers, we don't have to be burdened by their poor wording and construction. I don't think it would be seen as OR or SYN to paraphrase the source into less clunky language, especially since a hereditary component to environmental cancers is, as Skc points out above, a very mainstream idea. Reading through the cited paper, it is not so much presenting data as presenting an argument, and while we might consider it useful for the numbers, the opinions represented shouldn't be given too much weight, especially if those opinions don't represent mainstream thought. Honestly, I would phrase this as a disagreement among scientists as to which is the primary cause and which is the contributing cause and give both viewpoints. In that vein, saying that 90-95% of cancer is environmental, full stop, may be a WP:NPOV problem. Honestly, this probably should be in the article itself rather than in the lead, because we really could be clearer by saying a bit more. SDY (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the most important point to make is that "environmental" means "every single case of cancer except those that are absolutely, directly, without a doubt, caused solely by an inherited genetic problem."

I've contemplated changing it to read "5–10% caused solely by inherited genetic disorders, and 90–95% caused by all other factors, which researchers call 'environmental'".

I've not seen any significant dispute over the 5–10% number; has anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. What hasn't been clear in the lead is that it originally sounded like 90-95% of cancers were not in any way related to genetics, which is an unusual stance that shouldn't be given undue weight. My understanding is not that they aren't "genetic" or "not," they are "exclusively genetic", "a mix" (e.g. melanoma and moles my personal interest here), and/or "exclusively environmental" (e.g. Daigo Fukuryū Maru) and that most are in that middle ground, and that's not what the article was saying. SDY (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that say most cancers are due to environmental factors. We mention in the body what some of them are (smoking, obesity, etc) We could add this too the lead but I do not see evidence / reasons to change what is there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This ref says

The good news is that a large number of cancers can be prevented. It is estimated that as many as two-thirds of all cancer cases are linked to environmental causes. This number may even be higher. Many of these are linked to lifestyle factors that can be modified. For example, we know that onethird of all the cancer deaths in this country could be prevented by eliminating the use of tobacco products. In addition, about 25 to 30 percent of the cases of several major cancers are associated with obesity and physical inactivity.[6]

Now no one is saying that all these cancers do not have a genetic mechanism but that is pathophysiology. We do have some genes that make one at lower risk of disease than the general population ( there is a genetic change that a few people have that leads to high HDL levels and thus lower heart disease ) but we do not say that the 99.5% of the population that do not have it have a genetic risk. I do not see how the current statement is misleading especially if we have sources that emphasis that environmental changes can prevent a significant number of cancers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and since "no one is saying" it the article shouldn't either. Stating that "90-95% are due to environmental causes" could be misinterpreted to mean that there is no genetic component whatsoever. That is the language that the source uses, and I don't think the source is wrong, I just think that it is a poor choice of wording for our article. I agree there are some cancers where genetic risk is so common that heredity plays little part, but that is not an accurate description of all "non-hereditary" cancers. SDY (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it will be misinterpreted. We state the cause and then discuss the pathophysiology. Most people release that environmental factors can damage DNA.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) For the leading sentences of a general use encyclopedia, we should probably not assume that the reader has more than a very basic understanding of genetics. For a medical textbook it would be fine. For a twelve-year-old trying to make sense of why grandpa just died, it's not very helpful. Assuming that the reader knows what we're talking about defeats the purpose of having an article on the topic, especially the overall intro article on a technical subject that has to be understood by non-technical people. SDY (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So how about something like this:

Researchers divide the causes of cancer into two groups: those that are caused exclusively by hereditary genetics (5–10% of all cancers), and those that are not. Most cancers are not caused exclusively by hereditary genetic factors. They may be caused entirely by non-hereditary factors, or by a combination of hereditary and non-hereditary factors.

Does that seem reasonable accurate and accessible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should go with what the references say. 90% are due to environmental factors. Many people think that cancer is not preventable as they think it is primarily genetic or due to factors beyond there control. While the pathophysiology is genetic the cause of these mutations not. Many are surprised when told that much of it is preventable. Here is a great book on the topic [7] I do not support attempt to de emphasis the importance of the environment as a cause with out appropriate references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're de-emphasizing anything, we're just trying to clear up the writing. Stating that 90-95% of cancers have no hereditary component whatsoever is simply not accurate, so the article should not say that or imply it through poor writing. I think WaId is getting the right idea, though the last two sentences could really be merged with the final sentence (i.e. "Most cancers are either caused entirely by non-hereditary factors or by a combination of hereditary and non-hereditary factors.") SDY (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The ref says approx 30% due to tobacco, 30% due to obesity/diet, 20% due to infections, 10% due to radiation and less than 10% due to hereditary genetic conditions. I do not understand you problem with saying that 90% is due to the environment? If we where to eliminate many of the viral diseases like hepatitis, everyone stopped smoking and was of a normal weight, we fixed the ozone layer and ordered all MRIs instead of CT scans the amount of cancer would decrease. I do not understand how saying 90% of cancer is environment is misleading. We have a whole section on the pathophysiology of cancer that emphasis the genetic mechanism.

The argument above could be used to say all health problems are genetic (which they are in a way). If humans where designed better we would not get gout (we are missing an enzyme that most other animals have) but downplaying the significance of diet and obesity in that condition is not how public health is done and would be a disservice to the population at large. Saying all causes of gout are genetic would ignore all the cases that are preventable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Also we should discuss the more common causes first followed by the less common causes per WP:DUE Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the most common causes first, then the item for the #1 position is sunlight, not tobacco. I don't think that non-melanoma skin cancers are the most important, but they are the most common, and there are (very approximately) twice as many sunlight-induced skin cancers as there are tobacco-induced lung cancers each year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The pdf from the NIH above says only two-thirds of cancers have an environmental cause, and up to 5% are familial cancer syndromes. Does anyone know what their explanation for the other quarter is? Perhaps an interaction between genetic and environmental factors?

Also, I'm a little worried about the equation of "environmental" with "preventable". Cosmic background radiation is "environmental", and it clearly causes cancer, and there really is nothing at all that you can do to prevent being exposed to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I was putting them most common by mortality rather than by number of cancers induced. WRT environmental and preventable, we state 90% are environmental 30-40% are preventable. Thus there are none preventable environmental causes I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Physical agents

Are "Physical agents" and "Physical trauma and inflammation" not sufficiently similar that we could combine them under one section? We state that inflammation does not cause cancer in and off itself thus is it significant enough to be in a heading? May be we should move it to the other section? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I replied to this on my user talk page. Fundamentally, the distinction is one of mechanism—that is, the actual cause (the body's repair mechanism), not the proximate cause (falling off the monkey bars). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Diet

About this and this, I think we should think a little broader in the diet section. It seems very focused on what is derisively called the Standard American Diet focused right now, which leaves out a good deal of the world. For example, I believe it's generally accepted that a diet high in sugar and refined starch is a risk factor for cancer of the pancreas, and a diet high in vinegar is a risk factor for cancer of the stomach and esophagus. The latter is one of the usual explanations for the relatively low incidence of stomach cancer in the US and Canada. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Salt is associated with increased gastric carcinoma.(ref) Novangelis (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and as soon as it is support by review articles rather than primary research we should re add it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Age

As a result of this, the epidemiology section once again completely ignores the #1 epidemiological factor. Cancer is primarily a disease of old age. "Aging" may not be a cause, strictly speaking, but it is a very significant risk factor.

Furthermore, I suggest that not only is The New York Times a policy-compliant source for a direct quotation from a renowned expert, but also that it is actually the only acceptable source for that particular direct quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We have better references to support this point that the NYTs. We do state in the lead that "While cancer can affect people of all ages, and a few types of cancer are more common in children, the overall risk of developing cancer increases with age. In 2007 cancer caused about 13% of all human deaths worldwide (7.9 million), and the number of cases is rising as more people live to old age." Will add something better tonight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This BTW is wrong "Essentially all of the increase in cancer rates between ancient times and the beginning of the 20th century in England is due to increased lifespans." What about scrotal cancer is chimey sweeps? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to look for references, but as I recall, after roughly the age of 85, the incidence of cancer falls off.Novangelis (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I plan to make a nice graph like the one we see here [8] or I guess we could us the one to the right. This does not support the NYTs article. Absolute number of deaths drop aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't. "Getting cancer" is not the same thing as "dying from cancer". This graph shows only the trend in deaths ascribed to cancer, not the trend in people being formally diagnosed with (much less actually developing) cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would be a nice graft too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The increase in scrotal cancer for 18th century chimney sweeps was dramatic, but it represents a tiny fraction of total cancer cases, and it was basically a temporary problem that had pretty much been solved, after improvements in both chimney design and child labor laws, by the beginning of the 20th century (the time frame used for comparison).

See PMID 16786146: "Relative tumor frequencies on an age- and sex-adjusted population basis (using a mathematic model of skeletal involvement of malignant tumors in a well-defined English study population from AD 1901 to 1905) indicated that the tumor rates were not statistically different between ancient Egyptian, the historical Southern German and the recent English reference population.... Therefore, we conclude that the current rise in tumor frequencies in present populations is much more related to the higher life expectancy than primary environmental or genetic factors." (That's one of the studies the NYT article referred to.) It's pretty clear: once you control for age and sex, people in ancient Egypt, people in late Renaissance Germany, and people who died in the first years of the 20th century England all had about the same amount of cancer.

This appears to be the general consensus, not merely a single report. For a more general statement, see ISBN 9780123744197: "Cancer is predominantly a disease of old age. Thus, advancing age is the most important risk factor for cancer development..." (emphasis added). Or ISBN 9781841842967 p. 15: "Increasing age represents the single most important risk factor for cancer." Or ISBN 9780781768054 p. 156: "Increasing age is considered the single most important risk factor for the development of cancer."

More than half of cancer cases in the developed world are diagnosed after age 65 or 70. The median age for diagnosis of lung cancer is about 70. This doesn't mean that old age causes lung cancer, but it does explain why the index of suspicion for lung cancer is much higher when confronted with a 70-year-old smoker with a persistent cough than with a 20-year-old smoker who has identical symptoms.

I believe that it's not the incidence of cancer, but the incidence of people bothering to formally diagnose cancer, that actually falls off in late life. We stop screening mammograms, for example, around age 75 and the incidence of diagnosed breast cancer promptly drops by about a third. However, I've seen reports that up to one-third of elderly European (Danish?) women have undiagnosed breast cancer at the time of their deaths (excluding those women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer). When someone's heart disease has advanced to the point that treatment for a slow-growing cancer is irrelevant or impossible, then you quit looking for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

True good point. We should still use better refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This review states "The global burden of cancer continues to increase largely because of the aging and growth of the world population and an increasing adoption of cancer-causing behaviors, particularly smoking, within economically developing countries." Jemal, A (2011 Feb 4). "Global cancer statistics". CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. PMID 21296855. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This ref PMID 16786146 is a primary source. It does not address changing rates of obesity, smoke exposure, infectious diseases, or radiation exposure so I do not see how it came to this conclusion. The review above seems to give a more balanced picture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does address the changing rates of exposure during the 20th century: They specifically picked their reference group to avoid these problems. Obesity became a public health issue in the last generation—not among people who died more than a century ago. Tobacco use in England picked up after WWII—almost half a century after the people in the last study group died. Medical radiology wasn't invented until these people had been dead for a good quarter-century. Effective treatments for infectious diseases also appeared after these people were dead. If you died in 1901, your lifetime exposure to carcinogens were not dramatically different from people who died in 1701—NB that's according to the sources, not according to me—and your lifetime risk of developing cancer was not dramatically different, either (also according to the sources, not me).

I feel like you're missing the whole purpose of that paragraph. The purpose is to say—and this is, in fact, the mainstream position, widely agreed by everyone in the field—that the difference in cancer rates between ancient Greece [median life expectancy at birth: 18 years] and 1901 in England [median life expectancy at birth: 48 years] is basically all due to increased lifespan.

Note that it does not say that the difference in cancer rates between 1901 and 2011 [median life expectancy at birth: 75 years] is entirely due to increased lifespan. It says nothing at all about the difference in cancer rates between our great-great-grandmothers' generation and ours. The question it addresses is the (lack of) difference between cancer rates between our great-great-grandmothers' generation and Plato and Aristotle's generation. It happens that increased tobacco use, increased obesity, decreased use of coal- and wood-burning stoves, better treatments for infections, etc., are all widely believed to have changed the rates, but lifestyle changes in 1950s (tobacco) and 1970s (obesity) and 2000s (medical radiation) do not have the slightest effect on people that were born (on average) in 1850 and thus were long dead before these changes happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Than we have stuff like this "Incidence rates for all childhood cancers combined increased 0.6% per year from 1975 to 2002"Nerlich, AG (2006 Jul). "Malignant tumors in two ancient populations: An approach to historical tumor epidemiology". Oncology reports. 16 (1): 197–202. PMID 16786146. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Several of the cancer sites with increasing trends are plausibly explained

by changes in known risk factors or improvements in diagnosis. For example, trends in melanoma can be accounted for by generational trends in sun exposure and the increase in thyroid cancer is largely attributable to diagnostic artifact. For several other cancers with increasing trends, the explanations are less clear. These include multiplemyeloma, renal adenocarcinoma, testicular cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The fact that the incidence rate of a particular cancer is changing over time is not, in itself, evidence that any specific environmental factor is responsible for that change. Multiple changes occurred in the United States and other industrialized countries during the 20th century. These include large changes in diet, physical activity, tobacco use, medical diagnostic and therapeutic practices, as well as rapid increase in synthetic chemicals. It is both essential and challenging to view environmental factors related to cancer in this broad context. The decrease in incidence and death rates from many cancers in industrialized countries has been achieved by applying knowledge about cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment at the population and individual level. Much progress has been made, but even greater challenges remain. Among the most pressing needs is to apply these lessons in developing countries, where the globalization of tobacco smoking and obesity as well as the uncontrolled exposure to industrial pollutants and agricultural pollutants are compounding environmental risks related to air and water quality, infectious diseases, and

inadequate nutrition.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This review argues that cancer incidence does decrease past a certain age PMID 14624062 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, what it really says is that clinical incidence—the "bothering to diagnose it"—declines. The actual incidence—the existence of cancer that won't ever bother the patient, because s/he is going to die from heart disease before the cancer becomes clinically evident—apparently does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancer as a Fungus?

Has anyone else heard about this? It looks like the natural healing movement is running with the idea that cancer is some type of fungus and can be cured by making the body more alkaline. I've heard this on the radio and in news magazines, and seem to remember that its based on theories presented by an Italian doctor. I honestly know very little about it, but it seems like a significant enough thing that the wiki article on cancer could help place it into some kind of context. BlennGeck (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancer is when some of your cells start dividing rapidly. The abnormal growth of cells can be harmless, or it can spread through out your body and cause a lot of harm. Since cancer is a growth of human cells it is definitely not fromed from fungus. Perhaps they are arguing that there is a fungus that causes your cells to divide rapidly, but it's more likely that mutation in the DNA from old age, UV radiation, carcinogens, and other factors cause this to happen. AerobicFox (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox has summed up the prevalent thinking. Do you really think that a major theory about cancer pathogenesis would have been left off this page after so many years? And "theories presented by an Italian doctor" sounds suspicious in its own right; cancer research is conducted by enormous groups of people. One person's views are unlikely to be notable in this area. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this is a fringe theory. If you google cancer and fungus, you do get a bunch of hits, and there are clearly a lot of people out there peddling this notion that a fungal imbalance somehow leads to cancer. I can't honestly say I totally understand their argument. I was just curious if any serious medical sources had addressed it, since it sounds like a potentially dangerous myth. I know wiki isn't in the business of exposing hoaxes or anything like that. But I had hoped to get some context on this topic by reading the wiki article. BlennGeck (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article already covers the microorganisms that are linked with cancer. I don't think anyone here will be able to explain the fungus-cancer theory because it is not founded on serious science. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I actually can explain it having just looked it up, and it is quite funny. Pointing to research that has found a lack of oxygen can sometimes cause cells to turn cancerous, they are stating that what this study is actually observing is the growth of anaerobic fungus. They claim that fungus spores are everywhere in the environment, and that they store into your body waiting for a lack of oxygen to kill your cells which they will then consume and grow. They state for instance that the fermentation process of tobacco results in the yeast spores being mixed into the tobacco which you then breath in when you smoke. These yeast spores they say stay inside your lungs, and as your lungs fill up with tar depriving your lung tissue of oxygen, these yeast spores begin to grow, and that growth is what they claim is lung cancer, yes, they are indeed claiming that the yeast used to ferment tobacco grows into lung cancer. They also claim that the sun kills cells on your skin which fungus spores can then eat and grow off of, and cite "sesame oil" and "aloe vera" as substances which have been shown to effectively treat fungus and cancer.

One "article" from associated content concludes with

We already have these substances, some of which are mentioned above, but do we have the will to put our love for mankind ahead of our love for money? While current cancer treatments make so much money for oncologists and pharmaceutical companies, will any other treatment or understanding of the disease really catch anyone's attention? To find the cure for cancer, first of all we must decide if we really want to help save lives, or make ourselves very rich.

I believe I speak for everyone when I say super-lol.AerobicFox (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

From more research it seems they view cancer as a fungal growth and a growth of cells around them trying to stop them. Oh and they also believe that cancer is a "solely extracellular phenomenon", and that "At the moment, sodium bicarbonate (in a solution of 5% or 8.4%) is the only remedy capable of making the tumours disappear completely." Surely they say it best when they claim this new theory "distinguishes itself by its simplicity and its "innovative" ideology."(italics and quotations my own).AerobicFox (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my point is it should be covered as a fraudulent theory. It is a pretty widespread myth, so I thought it might be good to include what rela medical professionals have to say about it. BlennGeck (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We can't possibly devote attention to every misguided theory! The amount of dross would overwhelm the article. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

All the "alkaline food cures cancer" stuff goes back to the Edgar Cayce diet; it, along with many others, can be found at Alternative cancer treatments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a notable and widespread misguided theory. Don't see any issue with including it (perhaps in a myth and misconception section). I know usefullness isn't generally a guideline for inclusion in articles. But I would think people just diagnosed with cancer would find that information helpful. Since they are going to be hearing a lot of misguided theories from people. BlennGeck (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This article already mentions the fact that alternative theories exist and that some treatments are based on them. Given that you have conceded that this theory is misguided, I don't think it should be given more airtime than strictly necessary; the alternative cancer treatments article serves its purpose well. Several contributors (AerobicFox, WhatamIdoing, myself) have now tried to explain this to you. JFW | T@lk 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be given airtime because it is misguided and potentially dangerous. I understand what you are trying to say, but I simply disagree. Disproven or questionable therapies should be addressed in the article so people seeking treatment will have some way of placing them in context. BlennGeck (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Aerobic Fox and I are in the middle of a dispute. I suspect he popped because the opportunity to disagree with me presented itself. BlennGeck (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at the multiple user pages and other articles you were canvassing for support and just came across this, and being interested in the subject decided to post.AerobicFox (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant advice that I'd consult is WP:FRINGE, and this an unusual idea with few proponents, none of which is taken very seriously. As such, the due weight is nothing at all. There is no reason to include it in the article. SDY (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is a widespread myth spread largely by the natural healing movement. It regularly appears on natural health radio programs, and is all over the place on the net. I realize it is a wacky theory. And I realize it shouldn't be presented so that it appears we are giving it legitimacy. But since lots of people with cancer use the wiki article as a first stop. I think it is important to include it as an unproven or potentially dangerous therapy. BlennGeck (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the scale of the issue.

Yes: It's a popular bit of nonsense. However, it is not the most popular bit of nonsense. It probably makes the top ten, but it probably doesn't make the top five myths and misunderstandings.

So if we included a paragraph explaining this particular bit of nonsense, we'd need to include a paragraph explaining all of the other, even more popular myths and misunderstandings, to put it in the proper context—and suddenly we'll have another huge section in this already-too-long article.

As a result, I think the best solution (the best balance between increasing education and decreasing bloat) is to put it in the Alternative cancer treatments article, and to exclude it from this one. The few people who want to know about it will find it, and the rest will hear only about the more common ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, and I of course respect the consensus outcome of the discussion. I suppose the problem I have with the Alernative Cancer Treatment article is that, in a way, validates unproven treatments. I do like that it provides their status. However the Fungus theory appears under the heading of its treatment. So it is very easy to miss.

Would it really be a bad thing to include the top ten cancer treatment myths. I would imagine, as a patient, I would want to have that available in the cancer article so I know what to avoid. I do realize mythbusting isn't the domain of wikipedia. But medical articles and scientific articles do sometimes address myths and misconceptions in this way.

Much of this might be regional. But in the state where I am from, the fungus-cancer connection is the one I hear most often on the radio or just in general conversation. Of course, I don't know the best way to measure the popularity of each misconception. BlennGeck (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My last response to you: please read WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody agrees with you. Please let it rest. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand consensus and stated I respect the consensus view of the talk page. Just adding my final thoughts for your consideration. We are allowed to continue discussion. And there is no reason to assume others won't join in later and change the consensus. All the guidelines people have noted so far, I fully understand. BlennGeck (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:STICK. SDY (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to assume the debate is over after a single day. When many editors haven't even had an opportunity to weigh in yet. If you are unmoved by my arguments that is fine. But I have every right to continue responding so long as people are providing further rebuttals. BlennGeck (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Piling on consensus to not add fringe theories to the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(after e/c) What about others who join in later and support the consensus? That would be me. Perhaps it could be covered more fully in the alternative cancer treatments article (keeping the emphasis on it being utter hogwash) but it shouldn't be covered here. This article is long enough covering what is known about cancer, sub-articles serve the purpose of adding coverage of things like "what you can get gullible people to believe". Franamax (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps it could be covered more fully in the alternative cancer treatments article "

That has already been suggested(near the top of this discussion) and the editors here have no problem with it being added there.AerobicFox (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think adding more in depth treatment on the sub article is fine. But perhaps the sub article should be renamed "Alternative Treatments and Myths". Since, to me at least, Alternative Treatment indicates a level of legitimacy. And my understanding is there is nothing legitimate about this treatment and many others in that section (it would also make it easier for people concerned about cancer treatment myths to link to). BlennGeck (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking too that an article on cancer myths might be a good idea, as in a place for the ideas about cancer that would definitely qualify as pseudoscience or (as close as possible to) definitely wrong. This would contrast with alternative treatments where evidence may be unclear or the theory still disputed among reputable clinicians and researchers. Although as you say, Wikipedia's job is not debunking, and also trying to definitively label something as a myth could get even more argumentation than we've seen here. :) Franamax (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look again though, "Disproven or scientifically implausible" as a section heading pretty much says it all. So what that really leaves is perhaps a need to make a brief expansion there of this "fungus theory" and maybe figure out an appropriate redirect like Fungus theory of cancer that takes the reader right to the section where it's shown to be untrue. Franamax (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there is also the question of whether "Alternative Treatments" and "Cancer Myths" really should be two separate articles with some cross over. I have to admit, if I am coming online specifically to look for myths about cancer, I am probably not going to guess it would be in the alternative treatments section. BlennGeck (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Link?

I ran across this link to a patient-oriented booklet called "Advanced Cancer Care Planning: What Patients and Families Need to Know About Their Choices When Facing Serious Illness" from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) at The New York Times. Would it be worth linking to it? I'm a little nervous about adding it under ==External links==, because any second link might prove to be spambait. Maybe ==Further reading== would be better? (I haven't read it, but I suppose it might be possible to use it as a ref, too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancer is Wrongly-named, Causes -v- Effects, and how most cancer is self-inflicted.

What follows is my freely-stated opinion. It is however being shared by more and more people.

When will it be fully realized, that in going into the science and research of cancer cells themselves, of genetics and cancer-causing mutations, and of developing drugs and therapies to treat cancer, many researchers are concentrating, to ever-increasing levels of complexity and detail, on effects rather than causes. Cancer is not a disease. It is not a disorder. It is a SYMPTOM of a spectacular failure of the Immune System to spot these rogue, malformed cells and flush them out of the body. And so these cells remain, and multiply, until the patient develops a mass of them which we then call a tumor.

It wasn't until AIDS came along, and attacked the Immune System, that we all saw, to our abject horror, just how fast even the rarest cancers can appear when the Immune System goes down. Far from taking years to collect the neccessary rare mutations, in AIDS patients these cancers were appearing in weeks. The realization then dawned, that we ALL produce cancer cells, and regularly -- but our healthy Immune Systems quickly spot them and reject them out of the system. And this, and only this, is where healthy people differ from cancer patients. (Valhalan (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

We have to know this, in order to see that a cure for cancer will never work, so long as the Immune System remains unable to see new cancer cells developing from new mutations and remains unable to reject them. The cancer will just simply "come back again" as mutations, from DNA copying errors, from cosmic rays constantly raining down from space, and from radiation coming from the rocks beneath our feet shooting pieces out of our DNA, cause new rogue cells to appear in our bodies.

We also have to know this, in order to see that most the time and money that we spend on cancer research should be diverted AT ONCE into research on the Immune System, and into the problem of how to boost it so powerfully that no cancer cell will ever have a chance of remaining undetected in the body.

May I introduce a word -- IMMUNITIS -- which more appropriately describes the true beast we should be hunting here. Cancer, in all its forms, is "merely" one of its worst symptoms.

But is was never the business of the true professional to treat symptoms! Let alone pour trillions of dollars after such a folly!! Fancy any true pro, spending fortunes of the taxpayer's money running around after the mess that the rough-and-tumble of the universe makes of our bodies, after our Immune Systems have stopped protecting us.

Thankfully, our Immune Systems are generally robust and it takes a lot to make them stop working properly. Almost all cancer is self-inflicted. Just look, at the way we live, in contrast to how we lived only 100 years ago-- when cancer was almost unknown--- and yet the man himself has not changed. We stuff ourselves with purgatives, chemicals, food additives, we drink like fish and smoke like chimneys; in our lifetimes we will eat THREE TIMES our own weight in food additive chemicals. The wonder of it is, that cancer is not even more widespread. The body is taking what defences it has evolved against this abuse, and it is fighting to the Death. Put another way, Cancer (Immunitis) is a consequence of the abnormal way we have chosen to live, for a body which misses the happiness of the Stone Age and does not want to live this way.

But if we want the best of both worlds, to live in the modern age yet have no cancer, then we must regroup our forces, and this time identify the true target, the true cause, IMMUNITIS, -- and finally stop chasing around after its many and diverse effects.