Talk:Alternative cancer treatments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Hematology-oncology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.
 
WikiProject Alternative medicine (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


The problem with this article[edit]

This article tries very hard to give the impression that certain alternative approaches for which insufficient evidence exists are ineffective. In doing so, it often uses various unscientific references, while ignoring the scientific references, both primary and secondary, in support of said approaches. As a case in point, there is of course evidence, albeit experimental and possibly insufficient, for cannabis and particular mushrooms as a treatment for certain cancers. This musn't then be taken to mean that cannabis or mushrooms are ineffective. By systematically and biasedly ignoring such evidence, this article does a tremendous disservice to painting an accurate picture of the agents in question. Ignorance of evidence is not evidence for absence. --IO Device (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For individual treatments the article is just in WP:SYNC with the main articles on those topics to which it links. If those change, this article will follow ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
So, you are stipulating that the article, especially the subsection on medicinal marijuana, cannot stipulate that it might help cancer because the article about Medical cannabis for cancer does not support this? The citation that is being used in this article states otherwise. If the articles need to match then the citations need to match as well. The current citation does not accept nor deny that cannabis can help in cancer illnesses. ThoHug (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to summarize the cited CRUK article as saying that cannabis "might help cancer". And yes, the material here should agree with the material at medical cannabis. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I might suggest that we use the reference in the medical cannabis article to better clear this up. The currently used citation is fuzzy at best. ThoHug (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV)[edit]

Newcastle Disease Virus for cancer treatment has been studied since the 1950s. It is not crackpot; it is science based but I think it is yet to be found to be effective in cancer treatment (just research). Should that be included here or not? AdderUser (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably not suitable for listing here, but nearly all the cancer material in the NDV article is poorly-sourced/undue and needs to be deleted IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

List split-out[edit]

I have split out list of ineffective cancer treatments as it was several times the size of the rest of the article. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the term ineffective[edit]

I wanted to say I appreciate the efforts made to improve upon this page. However I wanted to say the problem with the term ineffective is that it makes absolute claims when clearly many of the phytochemicals in several of the herbs have shown some benefit when used in combination with standard-of-care therapies with in-vivo case studies, some showing improvement of survival time, some showing symptom relief and anti-inflammatory properties. What should be elucidated further within this article is that some of these have been shown within laboratories to kill cancer cells. For example, cannabinoids may act to aid in fighting cancer in multiple ways, such as acting on g-protein coupled receptors, helping to activate GAPs that may help to dephosphorylate RAS (if the RAS protein isn't "locked") as well as aiding in its activities upon p8 and that within the cell it helps to produce an anticancer lipid ceramide which helps promote apoptosis. Another herb listed here is milk thistle, but it is known in literature to be at the very least somewhat effective through its chemical silymarin, which may help fight inflammation in the liver, pancreas and bile duct, and also may help induce apoptosis of cancer cells. Also, turmeric/curcumin has been shown in studies to help fight pancreatic and liver cancers. Karela (bitter melon) has been shown by Colorado University to help fight pancreatic cancer as well as diabetes by helping lower blood sugar levels and also activating AMP-activating proteins inducing apoptosis in pancreatic cancers. Certain flowers, such as wild bergamot, may be effective at lowering inflammation and helping to fight cancers. Certain chemicals, such as eugenol from cloves, have been shown to be effective at helping to regulate cell production and may help with leukemic disorders. Pomegranates contain a natural mTOR inhibitor. To say plants are "ineffective" is a slap in the face to scientists who have spent so much time researching. Truly, what must be done is further research, education and elucidation to isolate chemicals and study their effective dosages rather than to say it is entirely ineffective. But I see this page has greatly improved since I last visited, with a much less dismal viewpoint pushed upon the reader. I do agree however that it must be greatly recommended for all the readers of this article, especially those with cancer, to not bypass standard treatment, and this should be the goal of the article is to help educate those with cancer that it isn't wise to deviate too far off the path from standard of care, but rather promote the use of both standard of care and complementary-alternative medicine together, hand in hand, as much research has shown that combination of the two sometimes greatly improves survival, lowers symptoms, and may lower the risks with chemosickness, but should be reviewed with their healthcare professionals, oncologists and nutritionists before starting supplementation to assure there aren't adverse side effects. Thanks to the editors for opening their minds and being more scientific. We as scientists, myself included (speaking as a biologist), must research further. I don't want to be labeled a quack for making broad claims, but I do believe that sometimes herbs can and may help in the fight. Cancer is a horrible disease and we are just now starting to unravel how some of the pathways work, such as MAPK, PI3K, akt, mTOR and others. We are finding more and more effective means of battling cancers, through gene therapies, immunotherapies, virotherapies, anticancer proteins, anticancer lipids, inhibitors of faulty proteins (such as novel small molecule kras g12c inhibitors), PARP inhibitors, FAK inhibitors, nanobots as a vehicle of delivery for targeted therapies, and so on. So I implore those readers out there who question modern medicine to not quit standard of care just because some of these herbs may help, because within the next decade the standard of care will greatly improve, and targeted therapies are becoming more mainstream with less systemic toxicities to healthy cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:1836:3A76:5EC6:D64A (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Wikipedia[edit]

The fact of the matter is that the biggest problem with Wikipedia is that much of the time, many articles are written by non-experts in the field. Not to incite any hostilities, but many of the articles written on Wikipedia are done so by non-experts in the field, with no real background in the topic they are covering. When someone with a background in the field makes a correction, it gets deleted, and an edit war ensues. Many of the non-experts have all kinds of awards that they wear like a badge on their talk pages, while the rest of us are actually in college studying the very things the so-called arm-chair "scientists" tell us we are wrong about. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. And this fact scares me because Wikipedia is a popular go-to source for information. Much of the time bureaucracy and rules laid forth by the wiki-editors inhibit consensus, and dialogue is impeded. I truly wish that all of the articles dealing with biology could be dealt with by people who actually have a background in biology and chemistry. Most biologists would laugh at the notion that CRUK calls for the punishment of people who promote "superfoods" such as broccoli (literally! UK from what I have read actually punish people for using the word "superfood" in advertising!), when in fact, some of the chemicals in broccoli such as 3,3′-Diindolylmethane are now being isolated and investigated for its strong anticancer properties by the National Cancer Institute. So why are the so called experts policing words now? And why do the armchair "scientists" take what CRUK says as gospel truth? Seems to me like CRUK is about 60 years behind the USA in oncology. So how can they be cited as a reliable source of biological information? I'd far rather trust NCI than CRUK. But the author of this article seems to cite CRUK more often than any other source; I assume the author is from the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:C5C3:9B8C:5B41:AFEC (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)