Talk:Cancer Treatment Centers of America/Archive 1

Still advertising?
Having worked for a REAL cancer center, I saw a commercial for CancerCenter.com and was shocked and horrified. How is this still allowed to continue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC9D:CD39:E5D0:900F:911:205 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This page has been significantly edited; please review for approval
Dear Wikipedia staff, This page had been significantly edited. Please review for immediate approval. Thank you, User name: heatherodonn
 * Seems good. The only things left is to provide reliable third-party coverage about the centers.  ColourBurst 15:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy about editing of this article
There was plenty of glowing praise for CTCA on the original version of this page, but when some balance was added about the negative side--the reliance on magical treatments and the lawsuit by the FTC--someone came along and wiped the whole page. The person who created this page in its current incarnation most certainly was not "attacking" the subject, rather he/she was attempting to hide negative information by deleting the page as soon as it became something more than an advertisement. The attack page header is totally unwarranted and false here. BobBuckeyeBuddy 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there an article header for "employees of this article's subject have edited out true information about the subject in favor of falsehoods and threatened to sue anyone who corrects them"? If not, perhaps one should be created. DarthSquidward 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Darth, is there verifiable information that is not currently included in the article? If so, please restore it. As long as you cite your sources, it is inappropriate to remove any relevant information you put in the article. Lamaybe (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to keep things neutral
This page has gone from an advertisement to an attack page and now is something in between. Please see Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thank you. --BigDT 07:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the controversy section
May I just ask why some people are so interested in bringing up an 11 year old advertising discrepancy? CTCA is a fine company that has helped many people. It's terrible that some people are upset over an 11 year old ad. As for the effectiveness of their treatments, well I think the patients are the best people to answer this topic. --64.53.217.217 02:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A balanced wikipedia article includes any relevant and verifiable praise and criticism of the subject of the article. Lamaybe (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CTCA controversy
Why is there nothing on this page about the fact that CTCA has been the subject of action by the FTC for scamming cancer patients with ineffective, un-medical treatments?

http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/FTCActions/ctca.html, FTC News Release: March 13, 1996

Why are people deleting everything that points out that CTCA is a scam which offers mystical nonsense, not a real hospital offering actual medical care? Why does this article read like an advertisement for their bullshit? Why is Wikipedia so invested in protecting quacks and con artists?

Cancer Treatment Centers of America is not a place full of "quacks" or some place where they promote using "magic." While they are proud of the fact that they offer complementary medicine, things like nutrition, and psycho-immunology, they are in fact at the forefront in leading traditional medicine. For example they were among the first hospitals in the country-before Sloan-Kettering and Mayo-to have a radiation technique called Tomotherapy, which attacks the tumor with higher doses of radiation while doing less damage to the skin, either on entrance or exit. Additionally, instead of giving the body a massive dose of chemotherapy (a poison), they give smaller doses when the cells of the tumor are dividing and at their weakest. This means that they more effectively fight the cancer while doing less traumatic damage to the body. If whomever wrote that this is a place full of "quacks" had done their research, they would probably know this information. Additionally, there have been articles in the Chicago, Philadelphia, and Phoenix papers about the success that Cancer Treatment has had, and they were recently a featured in a cover article in health magazine. Those who want to edit wikipedia should at least be informed!!

Do you work for CTCA, 24.148.82.22, or are you just another pro-mysticism, anti-science idiot? RockinRobbin 06:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do not work for CTCA, however, am studying mathematics and economics at the University of Chicago-hardly what I would call a "pro-mysticism, anti-science idiot." Instead, I would call myself an informed reader, who in fact has actually investigated several cancer companies and there traditional technologies and discovered that Cancer Treatment Centers of America is at the forefront of the cancer treatment field. Why this is difficult for you to accept is hard for me to understand. Whatever the reason, I urge you to simply search online about CTCA and you will see that they have the best in technology and doctors, including Edgard Staren, who belongs to such well respected organizations such as the American Surgical Association, the Society of University Surgeons, and is the former President of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Additionally, they offer the latest in surgery, radiaton, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy - all of which are traditional, scientificaly proven methods. Please investigate just a little before attempting to sound informed.

CTCA is no longer an obscure company that people can simply defame. It has grown and is now a well respected cancer treatment company. For those of you who doubt this, I urge you to simply look at the media coverage of CTCA over the past year. Not only have they been featured in the Chicago Tribune and Business Week, there have been several reports on the news, including one by ABC which discusses CTCA's use of Brachytherapy, a type of advanced radiation therapy that few hospitals have, but that is highly effective when fighting prostate cancer. Remember, slander and libel are offenses that can be tried, both at the criminal and civil level. Think, and research, before you write.
 * "Remember, slander and libel are offenses that can be tried, both at the criminal and civil level. Think, and research, before you write."
 * Actually criminal libel - in the United States - is rare or nonexistent. This article is not meant to be a blantant advertisment for your company.WacoJacko (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Details regarding the 2001 FDA warning letter were relocated to the Controversy section. This FDA warning letter has no relationship to the efficacy level of alternative cancer treatments. The references referring to the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments at CTCA (and other cancer hospitals in general) did not contain content relevant to this statment. Kabby5041 —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
 * I thank those who included the controversy information. While many, many companies have some regulatory issue over their lifetime, it is valid to include that information in the article. For a company treating so many patients, it is impressively low. I had looked on Wikipedia after seeing their commercial on television quite a few times. That isn't unusual, as Fox Chase Cancer Center also advertises on television.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

CTCA Television Commercial Starring Peggy Kessler
This commercial gets a lot of play. It is clearly misleading. The fine print at the top of the TV screen acknowledges as much. Why do the TV stations continue to air it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofredo29 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because, it is not illegal content and the stations or networks are paid for the commercial spot. In what way is it misleading?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer: The commercial, and its recent sequel, implies but never actually says that Kessler has survived pancreatic cancer. If you pay attention to what Kessler says in the second commercial you find that the scripting is downright devious in leaving that impression but without saying what it knows would be untrue. Therein lies the attraction for the vulnerable viewer with pancreatic cancer. The CTCA is cruel beyond belief just to make a buck. I'm just surprised they haven't tried it with mesothelioma.Godofredo29 (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing the talk page
Why was this talk page blanked? What happened to all the discussion that used to be here? Why is the article itself still an advertising piece? DarthSquidward (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who blanked it, but I restored the blanked talk. Lamaybe (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the talk page so the oldest edits are at the top, and every topic has a relevant header. Note to new editors: please put new edits, comments, or topics below the old ones. Thanks! Lamaybe (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the neutrality still disputed?
Although it could do with some more third party references, it seems like a NPOV article. Does everyone agree? If there isn't any dissnt, I move that we remove the "neutrality disputed" tag. Lamaybe (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm just gonna remove that tag then, since no one else has posted here.Lamaybe (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Things you should know about CTCA
You should be aware that: 1) CTCA is the only major hospital in Philadelphia without domestic partnership. 2) To learn more about who pays for CTCA Google "CTCA and Newt Gingrich." Don't take my word for it...use the internet to see where the money comes from. 3) CTCA Philly had an annual employee survey...until... the results of the 2008 survey were so abysmal that the company refused to release them. They took the survey and then never posted the results. 4) CTCA Philly is a revolving door. The staff turnover was 3 times in 2 years, with the worst of all being in Care (Case Management).

Don't believe me... ask any nurse in the Philadelphia area about its reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.38.176 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * High turnaround of professional staff isn't that unusual in certain fields. Cancer treatment center nurses, neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, emergency department all have high turnover due to stress. One can only see so many patients die before one finally has to find a different position.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to the speedy deletion:
Much like Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and Mayo Clinic, Cancer Treatment Centers of America should be able to present fact-based information about their hospitals. Per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion (see below) this article is not blatant advertising. Please let me know what content is inappropriate in this article and I will make any changes necessary to bring the article into compliance.
 * You're not supposed to write your own article. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promoting yourself, whether the information is "fact-based" (whatever that means) or not. Wikipedia is not about presenting all "truth" or "facts"; it's about presenting verifiable (backed up by reliable sources) information. CTCA is not a reliable source about itself. 68.196.149.60 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Name Ambiguity?
How many different entities are being discussed here? I've seen at least four similar but different names, all of which default here in google searches. The one I see advertised on TV is Cancer CARE (not 'Treatment') Centers of America. The commercials show actual photos of more and different locations than are mentioned in this article, and they feature testimony ("This big burly doctor walks in...") from 'satisfied patients' who are OBVIOUSLY actors.76.247.164.104 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Obviously actors" is purely POV. This article is about Cancer Treatment Centers of America, not any permutation of the name, but that name in specific. Opinions are not valid for encyclopedias, cited facts are.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Free advice
I know this is not a forum and I am breaking one of my own golden rules but believe me when I say there is something that feels very wrong about some of the claims this CTCA organization makes. If you ever see an advertisement by CTCA, it starts by out right attacking physicians making them look like they are a bunch of anti-patient, careless figures who just "come in and tell patients" that they have cancer! This is a bulls**t image aimed to incite the patient's frustration at the physicians and I know this from countless experiences I had with great physicians who live to help patients and hurt as much as the patients they treat when they hear that the cancer is advanced. That being said, you can sort of understand the tone that this organization builds itself on. Additionally, the adds have a statement on the top that says "Results not Typical, and that it would not be likely for all" or something in those lines further more a reason why I consider it to be uncomfortable; also I can almost guarantee you that no place can give you more than your hospital can, in terms of treatment and service, whether paliative or not. I believe that great patient care comes with compassion for the patient, but also with real treatment modalities with their limitations, and honest patient-physician relationship that might not be what the patient or family sometimes expect to hear. At any rate, I felt it was something that I wanted to say but knowing that wikipedia does not allow original research, and that I am not like CTCA trying to place blame on random parties, I did not enter it into the main article. However that is my honest feeling and I hope that it will be useful to at least a few. Dr. Persi (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of the what CTCA does is use alternative medicine, for which there is no evidence in usefulness. That's why there is a disclaimer.  I don't mind for-profit health care organizations, but this one seems to feed off of people's fear of standard oncology, by offering medicine that is junk.  I'll dig an article about them that I just read.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fear sells, hence the approach of the ads. That was one of the reasons I looked them up here, because of the presentation. That said, I DO know of some doctors who pretty much tell the patient that they have cancer and show no empathy. That is usually due to having to give the same bad news over and over, it emotionally drains them, so they protect themselves by detaching emotionally. Quite a few probably don't even realize that they're doing that, so powerful are the protective mechanisms of the mind. CTCA merely capitalizes upon that and makes it reflect badly on those few who have that issue. That made me question their ethics, hence my research.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The latest ad promotes the use of "naturopathy." Is someone going to edit in some cited information showing these charlatans for the scamming quacks they are? Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)