Talk:Alternative cancer treatments/Archive 3

What people watches over this article?
It would be interesting to know, what are the people that watches over this article, making sure the alternative treatments are discredited? Do they somehow profit from the current medical establishment and have personal interests in keeping people in the belief that alternative treatments don't work? —Kri (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It was just a question. I'm not saying you have a personal interest, but that is how it feels when your edit is reverted within a minute after it was made on an article like this. I'm sorry if I offended you. What on Talk page guidelines was it you thought my edit violated? —Kri (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in fact it is discussing page improvements. Because it discusses a potential bias of this article, and Wikipedia's policy is that all articles should be neutral. —Kri (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kri, WP:NPOV refers to editors as representatives of Wikipedia. They must remain neutral in their editing. They and Wikipedia don't take sides, but do document the sides. We follow the sources and must reproduce the POV and spirit of the source. Scientific sources are skeptical of alternative medicine (AM), and the very definition of AM means it will always remain in a Catch-22 situation, because as soon as it's proven effective, it ceases to be AM and becomes simply "medicine".
 * If Wikipedia has a bias, and it does, it is toward reliable sources, and those sources favorable to AM are usually of poor quality and often unreliable. (We still use them to document the existence of their claims.) They can't even begin to compete with peer reviewed research. We also follow WP:MEDRS, which is a higher standard than for other sources. That means we generally steer away from single pieces of research and favor reviews of multiple sources of research. While one can always cherry pick individual research projects to justify almost any type of ridiculous claim, reviews of AM come back negative.
 * BTW, lots of editors of all persuasions have this article on their watchlists. In this context, your question is irrelevant and a borderline violation of our WP:AGF policy. Sources, not editors, determine what is good content. If the article were about a person, organization, or product, the identity of an editor might be relevant because of a possible WP:COI, but one should also avoid WP:OUTING, which can get you blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Without specific examples and high quality sources accompanied by concise and thought out rationale there is nothing in this thread about improving the article. "discusses a potential bias of this article" is vague and meaningless without such examples, has no value or weight without sources and makes no contribution without rationale. Talk pages of articles are for discussing the content of the article, not the editors. I am afraid that the editor Kri has entered discussion immediately after a series of unsigned, unproductive and innapropriate posts resulting in an abrupt hatting of this discussion which as explained is not on topic or useful. A good deal of information about editors who participate in working on articles with medical content can be found at WikiProject Medicine linked at the top of this page. A good reading of the core policies WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V with an eye for comprehension, meaning and detail is highly suggested, also of importance for articles with biomedical information is the guideline WP:MEDRS. Examples explaining content objected to and proposed content supported by rationale based on policy and backed up by MEDRS quality sources is what would be considered talking about page improvements. Questioning the identity and motives of editors without citing examples and reasons such a question might be valid is not only failing to improve the encyclopedia but violating policy. In short, bring the high quality sources, propose content, support and defend the proposed content with policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, first I want to apologize again if I offended anyone; I didn't mean to do that. It's just that it is incredibly frustrating when edits you make that attempts to make people think critically instead of swallowing mainstream research with hook, line and sinker, constantly gets reverted. Our society needs more critical thinking, especially since even some research (which we are supposed to trust) is commercialized and don't always show the truth. Researchers are after all also human beings and can be manipulated or corrupted, and since large corporations control much in this world, including research, a certain degree of skepticism against mainstream science is necessary, even though I feel that this is seldom the case on Wikipedia. I have seen this type of reverting so many times here that it has made me wonder why it is so common. Anyway, now you may understand my concern and point of view. However, I do think the editor who undid my edit had good intentions; I'm sorry if I acted immaturely and if I acted mistrustfully and jumped to conclusions. I guess this reversal might have been the straw hat broke the camel's back. And I certainly didn't mean to out anyone; it really didn't cross my mind that it could be perceived that way or that it even was an issue, and I'm sorry if it was perceived that I did.


 * That said, as a comparison to saying that AM is ineffective, let's consider saying that god doesn't exist. Even though it may very much seem that way, it is unscientific to claim that it is as it lacks evidence, and writing it here on Wikipedia would upset a whole lot of people. It is the same thing with writing that AM is ineffective; it hasn't been proven and it upsets a lot of people who believe that it works, and I think that this is the reason why there are so many rants here on this talk page. They might seem unproductive and inappropriate, but by saying that, you also show that you fail to understand their point of view. One quite apparent conclusion from all of those posts is that people do get upset because of the current formulation (I also got a bit upset, to be honest, because I believe that it's simply not true), which begs the question if the article should be formulated in some other way to make it less provocative. —Kri (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a basic tenet of Wikipedia that it does swallow the best validated research with hook, line a sinker. Foolish speculation and beliefs about health, and particularly about the most serious serious health topics like cancer treatment, do not belong here: start a blog, or contribute such things to Wiki4Cam, or something. Here content must be backed with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and fringe views must be clearly identified as such. Wikipedia is a reflection of mainstream accepted knowledge and to improve this article proposed edits must be aligned with that fundamental reality. I'm only seeing the personal views of an editor. Alexbrn talk 07:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kri, I have no doubt that you mean well, and that editing here, with all the confusing policies and guidelines, can be difficult and confusing. I'll just respond to some things in your last comment:
 * "that god doesn't exist. Even though it may very much seem that way, it is unscientific to claim that it is as it lacks evidence, and writing it here on Wikipedia would upset a whole lot of people. It is the same thing with writing that AM is ineffective; it hasn't been proven and it upsets a lot of people..."
 * First, we don't care if it upsets anyone. That's not our concern. This is an encyclopedia, and it can only document the sum total of human knowledge by being uncensored. It documents what reliable sources say, regardless of whether it offends anyone. We have pornography here, explicit images and language, and we have images of Muhammad. All these things offend people.
 * Second, your statement violates the rules of logic. One cannot generally prove a negative. It is the one claiming that God exists, or that alternative medicine is effective, who has the burden of proof to provide scientific evidence.
 * Regarding God, claims for God's existence are generally not falsifiable, and are thus not considered a scientific area of discussion. It's a belief system.
 * Regarding alternative medicine, it makes many claims which are falsifiable, provides no good evidence of efficacy, and often is provably ineffective or dangerous. It is also defined by its Catch-22 nature: If it is proven effective, it is no longer classified as "alternative medicine", but just "medicine".
 * Evidence-based methods are effective, and effective methods should be evidence-based. If a method appears to be effective, then it should be possible to prove it. If the research has not been done yet, it should be. We must remember that "Absence of proof is not the same as the absence of fact; it simply demonstrates the lack of adequate research." - Robert Sydenham. "Lack of evidence in the literature is not evidence of lack of effectiveness." Until that research is done, claims of effectiveness are uncertain, unusual claims of effectiveness doubly so, and consequently the marketing of products and practicing of methods based on such uncertain, unusual, and undocumented claims may be unethical, possibly dangerous, and often illegal. Read this.
 * Brangifer (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "the very definition of AM means it will always remain in a Catch-22 situation, because as soon as it's proven effective, it ceases to be AM and becomes simply "medicine"."
 * This is basically wrong. There's a minority of people who like this definition, but it's not the mainstream definition.  Categorization of "alternative" or "conventional" is mostly about acceptance, not proof.  There are mainstream treatments that are proven worthless (the famous study on arthroscopic knee surgery, anyone?) and a few alternative treatments that are proven to work.  For example, a person with non-invasive skin cancer could slice it off with a kitchen knife, which is "proven to work", but that's not the mainstream medical approach in developed countries, so it's "alternative".
 * Also, it's not true in the sense that the facts diverge from the statement as posted: Things that are proven effective don't become mainstream "as soon as" proof is on the table.  It took mainstream medicine most of a generation to accept things like the lipid theory of heart disease.  That's not "as soon as" proof was on the table; that was "decades after" proof was available.  It would be far more accurate instead to say that mainstream medicine usually accepts treatments years after their efficacy is proven.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (I wrote a response to this, parts of which are relevant here, but it was long and I thought it might derail the conversation, so I've taken it to WAID's talk page here.)  Sunrise    (talk)  09:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You made some very valid points in that response. I would add a couple more: (1) It is untrue (and unfair) to say that mainstream medicine accepted the lipid theory of heart disease "decades after" proof was available.  It took decades to run the studies (e.g. Framingham) that provided unequivocal proof; once that proof was available, there was rapid general acceptance.  (2) Generally accepted medical "truisms" are proven wrong all the time.  On my first day of med school, the Dean told us, "Half of what we will teach you over the next four years will turn out to be wrong.  Unfortunately, we don't know which half."  That is why mainstream physicians are so cautious about jumping on every new treatment bandwagon; we have been burned so many times by "proven treatments" that turn out to be worthless that we prefer to wait for data to accumulate -- and even that doesn't always seal the deal.  For example, there is growing evidence of serious holes in the lipid theory of heart disease. (References on request.)  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your anatomy instructors probably disagreed with that claim, since almost everything they covered is true.  Perhaps immunology and neurology, being far more complex, took more than their fair share to make up for the anatomists.
 * The American Heart Association issued a guideline in 1957 that called for a lower fat and lower cholesterol diet. The Framingham Heart Study (which oddly isn't mentioned in the lipid hypothesis article) provided what you call its "unequivocal proof" that cholesterol is associated with heart disease in the 1960s.  In the 1970s, sources like  were still saying that it didn't matter that much.  In the 1980s, cholesterol was only one of multiple factors, and the focus was on sodium and blood pressure.  What made the difference for the lipid hypothesis was Merck's marketing of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study, which was published in 1994.  That's basically three decades from your "unequivocal proof" to widespread acceptance.  (And now we're going back to the 1970s POV.  I'm wondering if we're going to find out that cholesterol needs to be controlled for weight gain:  250 mg/dL during a period of rapid weight loss doesn't say the same thing to me as 250 mg/dL during a period of midlife weight gain.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your definition of "general acceptance" is, but the lipid hypothesis was conventional wisdom in the medical community when I was in medical school (1973-77). It became popular with the general public later due to statin manufacturers' ad campaigns. And now that the statin people have convinced everyone, it turns out that there are big problems with the lipid hypothesis.  I realize this is not the place for this discussion -- but suffice to say that only about half the people who have heart attacks have elevated cholesterol levels; and that's only one major flaw. Ten years from now we may very well be shaking our heads that the lipid theory gained as much traction as it did.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  11:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And when review articles in reliable sources reflect such "head shaking" WP will reflect that. An encyclopedia is not cutting edge, it reflects the prevailing mainstream scientific consensus as reported in the highest quality sources. That is the nature of an encyclopedia and is the established policy of WP. It is an encyclopedia not an advocacy platform nor the place for the presentation of the latest stepping stones to scientific medical advances. There are plenty of other places for that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I can cite entire BOOKS of solid, scientific, reliable sourcing for the evidence against the lipid hypothesis, if that's what you need. For starters: Lipitor, Thief of Memory: Statin Drugs and the Misguided War on Cholesterol by Duane Graveline, MD; The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease by Uffe Ravnskov, MD; The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet by Nina Teicholz; The Great Cholesterol Con: The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease and How to Avoid It by Malcolm Kendrick, MD.  Many more on request. Perhaps we should start "reflecting".  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, the difficulty that Wikipedia has with such books – typically written for a popular audience, and not subjected to independent, rigorous peer review – is that they're a dime a dozen. For every 'contrarian' book that turns out to be 'right' (or even partly right), there are piles of such books that are utter rubbish, and whose ideas will never be 'redeemed'. It's almost trivially easy to support any harebrained hypothesis – and spin it into a miracle diet or cure for cancer book – through sufficiently devoted (and unscrupulous) cherry-picking of the scientific literature.  Authors' credentials don't guarantee quality&mdash;I mean, Dr. Oz has an MD, just like a real doctor.  Linus Pauling has a Nobel Prize, but he's still just plain wrong about Vitamin C megadosing.  Wikipedia can't and shouldn't give a platform to every 'outsider' who has a drum to bang, even though that means that sometimes we'll find out the accepted, peer-reviewed, core scientific literature isn't right. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific papers too, and I'll be happy to cite a few dozen if desired. I listed popular-audience books as examples because they are what the lay public sees, not the scientific literature; and the discussion pertained to "reflecting" the information available to our readers who, for the most part, are not physicians. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Budwig / reliable sources
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/what-is-the-budwig-diet All it takes is reading down further into the article. Cancer Research UK says "it isn't proven" but then contradicts themselves by saying "chemicals within flax seeds have been shown to fight cancer" (I'm paraphrasing here) How on earth can they claim something is "ineffective" but then turn around and have research that shows it CAN be effective? How does that make sense? You can't call something ineffective if it is shown to work. What kind of sense does that make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.161.77 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25417173 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23907590 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23896841 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23707669 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23566060 But Johanna Budwig is a lunatic right? I mean I thought that flax seeds were ineffective right? She should receive a posthumous Nobel Prize for her research and an apology from everyone who ever ridiculed her or called her a quack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.161.77 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "chemicals within" many things (especially when refined and concentrated) show anti-cancer effects in petri dishes; that does not mean the original things themselves when eaten have any such effect in people. It's a common fallacy that they do. Alexbrn talk 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Its also common fallacy to say they don't. Instead of saying it is "ineffective" one should be more cautious about the dangers of certain herbs containing both anticancer chemicals (usually in a higher ratio) and cancer causing chemicals (usually in a lower ratio), for example phenylpropenes. It doesn't mean it is "ineffective" necessarily. It just means if people are going to use things like basil or cinnamon for example in herbal medicine that they should be very cautious with it and research the positives and the negatives of everything they use and try to understand the pros and cons of everything they use.
 * Also yes I know things can change chemically due to digestion, but unless the chemicals are investigated in a digestive environment we cannot say for certain if it is effective or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.161.77 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed we can't. But we can accurately reflect what experts sources say so as to produce encyclopedic content, for Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects accepted knowledge. Alexbrn talk 19:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that even the 'accepted knowledge' uses weasel words, and now begrudgingly must admit that lab experiments show that chemicals derived from certain sources can in fact fight these cancers, and rather than providing information to people on how to properly extract these chemicals for their own personal use, they are telling people that they are quacks for suggesting the herbal method. If they truly wanted to progress biology and medicine, doesn't common sense tell us all that they would provide us methods of chemical isolation without charging us 75,000 dollars or more for their treatments? Rather than making people feel hopeless and stupid, it should be their duties to educate fully and provide open source information towards people with cancer. "Experts" my ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:70BB:C7AE:E7AA:AB0C (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is pointless. Please make concrete suggestions for article improvement specifying the RS to be used. This is not a forum. Alexbrn talk 22:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My concrete suggestions is to stop calling something "ineffective" if certain chemicals from certain plants are proven to be effective cancer fighters. That is pretty concrete. Call that which is ineffective as ineffective, fine. But herbs and plants aren't necessarily ineffective. "Ineffective" implies no benefit at all whatsoever. When that simply is not always the case and certain studies can actually show benefit. My complaint is that you can't broad stroke assume every herb, plant or fungi is an ineffective treatment simply because you want to monopolize chemical extraction methods. Period. (Although I do understand fears of scams and being ripped off, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/02/health/herbal_supplement_letters.html - sometimes the only way to be certain something is real is to get educated, read, and do your homework. But that isn't to say sometimes herbs can't have positive effects in helping to sometimes heal - people's best bet is to grow their own to be assured of purity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:70BB:C7AE:E7AA:AB0C (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you grow your own herbs then you're not purifying anything at all. Unless you have technical training, plus an ultracentrifuge and a few other pieces of really expensive scientific equipment in your home. :-)
 * But in any case, you still need to specify which sources you want to use (complying with WP:MEDRS) and for what content.  Sunrise    (talk)  05:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"If you grow your own herbs then you're not purifying anything at all"...What a stupid reply that is off topic to the discussion about the contradicting of efficacy of the mentioned substances. This whole wiki article is dumb. It starts from the “science” of unproven/ineffective cancer cures when most on the list have the backing science indicating anti-cancer benefits both in vivo and vitro then, people try to point it out with links to published research journals, only to have their links removed. Many of the substances were actually never scientifically disproven, only refused to enter or complete the reality making processes to be declared scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Orthomolecular medicine (or Megavitamin therapy) – the use of high doses of vitamins, claimed by proponents to help cure cancer. The view of the medical community is that there is no evidence that these therapies are effective for treating any disease.[153]"  This is an out-right lie! I'd post countless links to scientific peer reviewed research journals going back nearly 80 years for Vitamin C iv but they'd only be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out the list
The list is a large chunk of text, more than big enough to stand alone, and there is a difference between alternative and ineffective - at least in theory, refuted mainstream therapies could be included in the list of ineffective treatments, though arguably being refuted means that any continuing use is alternative, per Minchin's Law. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel like I came in in the middle of a conversation. Splitting out which list? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose Guy means the big list in the middle of the article. This started life as a stand-alone article but during peer review it was suggested it should be merged here -- an idea which, during subsequent discussion, seemed to attract strong support. I can see arguments both ways ... but as it is the list still has the feel of an "article within an article". Alexbrn (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Logically inconsistent
If something is known to be cytotoxic to cancer cells, it is logically inconsistent to say that it is entirely ineffective as a cancer treatment. After all, the selective cytotoxicity is exactly what constitutes a cancer treatment. The fact that a particular approach has not been adequately studied for this application (in varying strengths and forms of administration) does not in itself prove it ineffective. Take for example fasting, cannabis chemicals, some mushrooms, soursop chemicals, and quercetin - these are all shown in research to be selectively cytotoxic. As such, it is grossly inappropriate to outright label their use as ineffective or as pseudoscience. --IO Device (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * https://xkcd.com/1217/ Alexbrn talk 07:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I listed those examples because they're of course selectively cytotoxic toward cancer cells. And I did use this s word in my original post. Regarding the matter of in vitro vs in vivo, that's foremost a matter of successful drug delivery, and for this I had also included "forms of administration" in my post. --IO Device (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fact that an approach is being touted as effective despite a lack of adequate study is a pretty robust indicator of pseudoscience and quackery. And waving off the matter of in vitro versus in vivo as merely a question of "drug delivery" as if it were some kind of trivial and always-solvable (or even more-than-occasionally-solvable) problem suggests a certain...lack of awareness...of the practical realities of drug development. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate an agent as effective in therapy does not in itself make it ineffective, particularly given the existence of evidence from in vitro and/or animal studies. Even many chemotherapy drugs are not entirely effective; often they don't work or stop working in vivo. In practice there is a gray area between effective and ineffective; labeling something ineffective does absolutely no justice at all to the selectively cytotoxic substance in question. While I indeed may be ignoring practical realities of drug delivery in favor of less-publicized experimental approaches, it is unclear if concerns about drug delivery even apply to the agents I named. Lastly, ten years ago, agents such as curcumin and milk thistle might have been labeled as pseudoscience and quackery by some here; today perhaps they are not. Does this teach nothing? In my view, sensitivity and specificity in cytotoxicity are the only true indicators. --IO Device (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello I would like to know why TenofAllTrades is so absolutely hateful and biased, but too blind to see it? "Pseudoscience?"

Okay let me ask you oh king of this article how many citations do you need? What kind of biological pathways must be shown to be effected before you stop being silly? Let me ask you something TenofAllTrades, are you a biologist at all? Because I am. And I'm getting really fed up with the way you handle this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:1C36:C144:617E:C1FE (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we politely ask you to do us three favors?
 * Be nice. Ad hominems only serve to make other editors stop reading.  You have to remember that articles are written by a large number of people, some better than others at being neutral. Don't assume that everyone disagrees with you. When you get combative and start monologuing, people tune you out, or ignore you; or worse, conclude you have some POV agenda that you are trying to force on the rest of us. You will find that you get a lot more done around here by being patient, and building a consensus. It only takes a day or two, typically. This isn't a full time job for any of us, after all. It sounds like you have some good ideas; now try politely presenting them in a more pithy way, and you will probably find others who agree with you. (If you don't, that's a clear signal that you might simply be wrong.) Most people WANT an article to be 100% accurate; very few have their own agenda. Make it easier for the rest of us to agree with you by being a little nicer and a little less aggressive.
 * Sign your posts. Anonymous ad hominems only serve make other editors stop reading that much sooner.
 * You ask, "How many citations do you need?" Let's start with one.  Just one.  You have repeatedly asserted that we are ignoring scientific evidence; so let's see that evidence -- not anecdata, but peer reviewed, scientific studies supporting your contentions.  That's what we need here, not angry manifestos.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay how about we start with something simple such as Rosemary?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892299 Or perhaps you could scroll up and look at the citations above ? Or do a simple search on NIH PUBMED for "anticancer _______" (insert herb to search) To say herbs are completely ineffective is fallacious and actually quite ignorant. I saw one study that showed combining Rosemary terpenes along with standard therapy as a complement actually increased effectiveness and reduced mortality. "Ineffective?" This is the term that is making me angry; and the people who keep reverting it to "ineffective" are simply doing it to push buttons and to try to insult me and my intelligence. Sometimes I wish I could slap the teeth out of these keyboard ninjas mouths. I know they think they know everything, but the honest truth is they don't. This isn't an ad hominem attack, this is the simple truth, for them to call something "ineffective" means they know for 100% fact that something does not work at ALL. If something is cytotoxic to cancer cells (IN VIVO STUDIES MIND YOU) then HOW THE HELL do you people get on YOUR HIGH HORSE and call it "INEFFECTIVE?" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25819738 Curcumin is proven to be effective in this study (but in this article I'm sure it's still called "ineffective." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25824783 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25893361 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24215060 If people are freely giving this information out for the benefit of others and there is no profiteering, then why are you condemning people for it as if they are charlatans?? In many of these cases it is shown combining complementary herbal medicine with conventional therapy improves effectiveness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25779643 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24704556 I understand that you guys want millions of in-vivo clinical trials. Some of these haven't entered clinical phase yet because they haven't received adequate funding, but in many instances the results for herbs that exhibited antitumoral effects were repeatable by others. For example, Rosemary extracts have been shown by multiple sources to have cancer fighting capabilities. The same goes for cannabinoids, oregano, curcumin, blackberry and its leaves, hibiscus, milk thistle, karela, and the list goes on and on. If results are repeatable by others, and it has the ability to strongly slow down progression of a cancer, I wouldn't call that "ineffective." Let me define "ineffective" so you guys know and understand its meaning, okay? Because you guys keep using that term and I honestly don't think you understand what it means. 1. having no effect. 2. incompetent or inefficient. A better way to phrase this without sounding like a complete tool is "more research needs to be done." or "Many of these are currently under investigation." Not simply "OH IT DOESN'T WORK EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO PROOF OF MY CLAIM THAT IT DOESN'T WORK" At least I can back my claims up, can the people who keep reverting this stupid term back their claim up other than spouting out drivel by CRUK ? Repeating what CRUK says doesn't make someone an expert on the topic. Especially when half the time they have to back-peddle on their claims of ineffectiveness. Yes, yes, yes. I understand that surgical resection, modern targeted chemotherapy, gene therapies such as gene silencing with double-stranded RNA, RNAi, siRNA, etc. are way better in most cases than just plain old herbs. But like I said, in many of these studies, when some of these herbs are used in combination with chemotherapies it can increase the effectiveness of the treatment. Quite the opposite of the claims of this article of being "ineffective." One study I saw looked at gemcitabine and rosemary, with a control of gemcitabine alone, rosemary extract alone, and both together. I will try to find the study again when I have time, but rosemary improved effectiveness. Here is one of the studies, although this one isn't the specific one I was speaking about rosemary with gemcitabine, I will post more when I have the time because I have school soon. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661809002795 But I'm sure you can find it yourself if you just take the time and look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:1C36:C144:617E:C1FE (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with our guideline on reliable sourcing for medical content. Specifically, primary, in vitro studies such as the ones you suggest above are not reliable for medical content on Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But some studies about herbal effectiveness were actually done in vivo...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:1C36:C144:617E:C1FE (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS, " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." This includes in vivo content as well. It certainly should not be used to "debunk" what secondary sources say. Yobol (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just find it somewhat humorous that places like Cancer Research UK make the bold claim that certain things are ineffective (such as flax) but then when you read further down they say that certain studies show that flax can help fight digestive cancers. I just don't understand how a secondary source is allowed to make such bold claims but then incrementally back-peddle on their own statements, and then on top of it all the most negative aspect of their claim is what is taken as 'gospel truth' rather than this article fully reflecting the full scope of the research. I know you guys don't like primary sources. But these secondary sources need to step up their game and start actually doing some better randomized studies to verify or falsify claims rather than just boldly making a claim without actually taking the time to verify or falsify it. You can't say something doesn't work without checking it first. That's like walking up to a car and saying it won't crank without even turning the key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:1C36:C144:617E:C1FE (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also let us not forget that most medicine before the dawn of recombinant genetics and targeted gene therapy came from plant sources, and many of our chemotherapies would not have been possible if it weren't for studies in plant and fungi based medicine. There was a time when people thought paclitaxel was pseudoscientific. Now it is widely accepted as one of the most useful chemotherapeutic agents in cancer, and now we are so advanced in biosciences that we can synthesize it with bacteria. If it weren't for the yews though we wouldn't even know about paclitaxel. My whole point is that it is silly to make bold claims without being able to verify it. One of the most disheartening things about this though is when *several* primary sources (from several different people) can repeat results and secondary sources still will not acknowledge it as scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:1C36:C144:617E:C1FE (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ineffective treatments
Previous edits indicate that this section is a redirect target. That should be considered when working with this content. Anyway, there appear to be two extreme views, reverting each other completely. I see no proper discussion or agreed consensus despite edit summaries to that effect. Obviously the text sucks from both angles. It would seem that element by element consensus building is needed, with analysis of the merits of the present (and potentially additional) sources. I chose personally not to take further part in that process. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I feel as though a distinction should be made between something that is ineffective and something that doesn't have enough research to support whether it is in/effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.177.64.126 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may extend your point, it may be very difficult to prove anything truly ineffective. Considering that almost all substances are toxic to cells at a given high concentration, the distinction could then perhaps be made by testing the substance in vitro in varying concentrations with cancerous and normal tissue. The goal of the test could then be to test if the substance exhibits more toxicity to cancer cells than it does to normal cells. If the answer is yes, per a minimally acceptable and pre-established ratio, then it is potentially effective, otherwise it is ineffective. Different cancer cells may however need to be tested because agents often target particular cancers and not others. The point I'm trying to make is that in the absence of such evidence, no claim of ineffectiveness can be made. This is my own opinion and is independent of the article. --IO Device (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Restructure this talk page
This talk page is poorly written and make it difficult to keep up on what is happening in the main article. I sure can't tell what posts are about what and considering that the article covers controversial and difficult to cite information, I suggest that we better organize the talk page to make it easier to read. ThoHug (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, no. New threads go at the bottom and each thread has to have a heading, that's all the structure that's required. Modifying or rearranging other people's posts is not allowed (typically). Old or no longer relevant threads can be archived. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The response above is correct. Nevertheless, if you have any specific feedback for how a Talk page should be organized, it won't hurt to share. Note that clustering Talk page sections by ideology may not be appropriate or even necessary. --IO Device (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this article
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)
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
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)

Distiguishing between cancer-directed and symptom-directed therapies
As written, this page does not do a great job of distinguishing between these two aspects of cancer treatment: 1) treatments intended to have a cancer cell killing effect; and 2) treatments intended to decrease or diminish the signs and symptoms that can manifest as a result of cancer. These concepts are obviously intertwined, as killing cancer cells will often have a direct effect on signs and symptoms (e.g., shrinking a tumor that was impinging on a nerve can improve the nerve pain). My opinion is that this distinction should be made right at the top of the page, and the theme should be continued throughout. Some alternative cancer treatments are not-so-alternative at dealing with symptoms, but if they are being used in the belief that they will kill cancer cells, they become alternative. Jeremy Warner (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's when they simply don't work that they become altmed. -Roxy, the dog. Esq . wooF 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that definition? I would argue that the current definition of "not approved by the government" is incorrect. The definition on cancer.gov is "Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is the term for medical products and practices that are not part of standard medical care." Theyellowdart22 (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the term ineffective
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)