Talk:Essiac/Archive 1

Untitled
I really enjoy the Essiac formula, but am having serious problems computing the Wikipedia article on it. I find that the recipe is not correct (or mostly so, but crucial parts have been altered, and can change the effect and potency of the tea in the end), and that it doesn't tell nearly enough of the positive effects of Essiac. This is a minour opinion, also, in that it doesn't talk about Rene Caisse that much, either, and her struggle with nay-sayers the whole time she administered Essiac. I want to redo the whole page, myself, but find that I may anger whomever wrote this page or may just come off as completely rude. And who would want to be rude, right? ^_^ Viicious 09:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote a big chunk of the article and added/used the recipe I had on hand based on information provided by Gary Glum. Update and correct the article as you see fit. If you have a more correct or alternative recipe then either correct it or add it as an alternative. I can't be offended. Just Be Bold. Bdelisle 02:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your link to an 8 herb essiac providor contains no document of authenticity. If you would like to link to an 8 herb essiac distributor with an actual document of authenticity, please link to discount-essiac-tea.com.They provide a signed letter from Dr. Charles Brusch who developed and researched the 8 herb essiac tea formula from 1959 to 1967 at Brusch Medical Research Center in Cambridge Massachusetts.His research partner was the nurse who essiac tea is named after, Rene CAISSE. Her name spelled backwards is ESSIAC. Thier signatures appear together on several key documents used to verify the origins of both the 4 and 8 herb formulas. Discount-essiac-tea.com also answers many of the questions about the history of both the 4 and 8 herb essiac formulas. 08:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)08:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)08:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)~ Bryan Paulhus

Recipe
I removed the recipe which was included in the article for Essiac, per the what Wikipedia is not. Recipes and similar material are usually not encyclopedic, and are generally not included in articles. --TeaDrinker 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

4 vs 8 herb formula
I have tried both the 8 and 4 herb formula and i think the huge difference is note worthy. Perhaps an entire section is in order (after History section i am thinking). There is also an 7 herb formula but it seems to be un-common.

What do you think? 67.240.235.233 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)pauly God Bless
 * You mean the huge difference in curing your other cancer?84.249.77.153 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Potentially tendentious "citation needed" tag
I was wondering if anyone else thinks the tag that has been repeatedly added to the second paragraph  is inappropriate? All of the information in the paragraph is covered by the NCI citation at the end of the paragraph. The user adding the tag says that the name of the company in question is missing, but I think that's a moot point, because the article doesn't name a company. So the tag is essentially there to demand a source for information that the article doesn't even contain, which doesn't seem like an appropriate use of the tag. My main concern is that this is a potentially controversial article with a history of POV edits, and the tag could be seen as discrediting some of the article's contents, even though all of the article's contents are in fact sourced.

I would remove the tag myself, but I have already done so twice, and I don't want to violate 3RR. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that the tag is not appropriate for this situation. If they want to find the company, they can do research to find it instead of tagging the article in this way. Yobol (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Essiac entry in Wikipedia is biased
I would like to add that I have personally cured cancer twice using Essiac. Once was leukemia in my ex-wife and once for a cancerous bone tumor in our cat. I am using it now on myself to cure prostate cancer with good results. I wish that Wikipedia grow some balls and present article from both sides of an opinion.

Please add the following link to the Essiac entry:

Information on Essiac

Furryface47 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal experience and that website do not meet our standards for reliable sources for medical claims, nor does it meet our standards for what can be included as external links. If you want to publicize this website or your claims, you will need to find a different forum for it. Yobol (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The cancer Society whether American or Canadian is biased to ANY other cancer cure except for surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. It has been that way for over 80 years. Because they are supposed to be an "authority" they get the last word on a web page like Wikipedia. I trust most things on Wikipedia but when I see obviously biased entries such as this one (Essiac) I get really upset because there is no allowance for other supporting evidence. I have Oncologist letters and xray interpretations to back up my claims that Essiac DOES work and if you look at the web site mentioned there are lots of supporting documents in there. What would be required to get supporting evidence for Essiac that would be within Wikipedia's posting policy?

Furryface47 (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC) John Tod

After rating this page I was shown a selection for "Do you know you can edit this page?" and a selection for "Edit" and "maybe later." Been there done that and edits were rejected. All I was doing was putting up supporting links for the product but because I am not as powerful as the Cancer Society who can say whatever they want, my edits were rejected. Bah!

Furryface47 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC) John Tod I agree with furryface. My grandfather had prostate cancer and while he was in the hospital for a hernia operation he wasn’t allowed to take Essiac, his cancer count went up so high the doctors wanted to remove his prostate. He wouldn’t let them remove it and once he got home and started back on Essiac his count was down within 2 weeks to a safe level. His doctor couldn’t believe it. I read on this website that the product actually increased cancer rate in test by the cancer society. Are we supposed to believe this without any evidence? I know 6 people that had prostate cancer, 3 used Essiac and are survivors, the 3 that followed doctor proscribed treatments all died. That is all the evidence I need to know that the FDA and the medical profession will only promote a product if they can make a profit from their endorsements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.186.249 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I simply couldn't believe how biased this article was. You only have to look at the references to prove this. I am currently watching an extremely interesting documentary by Massimo Mazzucco on various alternative cures for cancer, Essiac included. The truth will come out eventually but it will be too late for many...Dwfrankfurt (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How come there isn't a wikipedia page for Rene Caisse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewbie8888 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you write one and see how long it lasts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.68.226 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen Drewbie8888 and 134.124.68.226, I doubt very much that we would see an article about Rene Caisse. There should have been an article about her here years ago. I have to agree with you 134.124.68.226. Perhaps someone will have a go at making an article about this woman. Certainly there is enough material out there to source to make an interesting and notable article.  Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues
Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Health fraud category. This is totally uncalled for. I can see anything in this relating to health fraud. How does this come about?
 * I think that this is something that needs to be discussed. From what I have researched, there is no reason that the Health Fraud category be used. This is something that warrants discussion. Thanks. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "There is no evidence it is beneficial to health, and it may be harmful" at the beginning of the article it says this! I find that to be grossly misleading and it puts a whole different spin on the article. So I changed it to "A page about Essiac Tea on the American Cancer Society website says Some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published but has not included any citations or references to studies to back this up." I did this because this is a more accurate description of the page. Please see here www.cancer.org Essiac Tea You'll see that it only suggests a possibility without anything to back it up. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits that I think are important

 * Unconfirmed and possible reports of success from notable publications section. "In the Beaver County Times on Apr 6, 2000, Dr Doug Knueven said he had heard of pet cancer patients that were helped by Essiac. Reference: Beaver County Times on Apr 6, 2000 C5 New pest treatment is safe and effective Dr. Doug Knueven This needs to be included as there are hundreds of re4ports of the effectiveness of Essiac. Just because the Cancer Society doesn't endorse it, it shouldn't be a reason not to include it.

Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Background on Rene Caisse who started Essiac section. This gives an insight into what the cancer remedy is all about and the fact that both Rene Caisse and Essiac are so intertwined, it would be grossly negligent not to include it. Also Essiac is her last name spelt backwards. That's a strong indication.

Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly, if you consider the statements of the American Cancer Society 'grossly misleading', you are going to have problems here. We base article content on the best sources available - and for medical claims that will clearly include the ACS. We do not engage in second-guessing such sources because we don't like what they say, and nor do we require them to cite sources themselves. This is all explained in Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (which I have already pointed out to you on your talk page) and compliance isn't really open to negotiation. As for your proposed 'Unconfirmed and possible reports of success from notable publications' section, not only does it not comply with sourcing requirements, but it is utter trivia - a report in a local paper that some doctor veterinarian had 'heard of' something? A statement almost entirely devoid of meaningful content. If you wish to promote Essiac like that, you will have to find somewhere else to do so - Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for such nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, you're not addressing the points I have made and you're going off on some other thing. Sort of seems like you're making out that I'm doing something when I'm not. LOL Mr Bill Truth (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have explained Wikipedia policy - and that is all that is relevant here. If you wish to promote Essiac, do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, I'll repeat what I said previously which was "Sort of seems like you're making out that I'm doing something when I'm not". Nuff said ! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Mr Bill, Andy is correct. Read WP:V and WP:RS to better understand why experienced Wikipedians and admins will continue to revert the type of additions you think are "important." Whether Rene Caisse is notable by WP standards is debatable, as this is the only thing she's notable for, and probably a simple mention of her is enough (rather than a subsection for a bio). I could go either way on including a bit of info about her. But rumours of essiac's effectiveness are already covered in the article, and such rumours have been debunked by the scientific studies cited. Additionally, there are other health risks with the formula that are well known to certified herbalists, for instance its problematic effect on blood sugar levels, that would be worth including if we have a good source for it. - Co rb ie V  ☊ 21:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This keeps getting deleted
Despite these claims, there is evidence that it does help, as in the case of Billy Best. Therefore, the statement that there is no scientific evidence is completely false, since at least one case exists to refute those claims.

Nearly 20 years later Billy Best is still cancer free.

In 1939 at a cancer commission hearing in Toronto, there were nearly 400 people who were ready to testify about the restoration of their health and the role of Essiac in this restoration of health. In 1924 Rene Caisses's aunt was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Following the non cobnventional treatment of Essiac, she lived for 20 more years. In 1939 at a cancer commission hearing in Toronto, there were nearly 400 people who were ready to testify about the restoration of their health and the role of Essiac in this restoration of health.


 * I believe the above content has merit. What do some of you think ? Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that you will shortly be topic-banned or blocked if you continue wasting our time with this garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You may believe that I will be" be topic-banned or blocked" and if you choose to use devious and dishonest means then possibly I will! But, I am asking you in the meantime to stop with the bullying tactics and threats. Most of all please no more posting of profanity on my talk page. I don't like it. Now I have previously asked you to discuss things and I'm asking you again. So please, no more slandering me and cut with this bullying, name calling and threats etc. Let's be mature. I'm up for discussion if you are. Thankyou Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cyber bullying, threats & profanity used to discourage any other view that comes from natural cures why? Is certain info TABOO on Wikipedia ???? Please, lets be respectful!
I have made some edits citing articles which I believe are from reputable sources. I've had my edits reversed and I have been unfairly accused of edit warring when it's obvious another party is doing it.

I've been threatened with action over what ? Nothing. And I have had profanity posted on my talk page. Well I won't give in to cyber bullying and other methods of intimidation. Others may give in and be scared off but not me ! I'm too old in the tooth for that. I've been around and I know all the ins and outs.

Surely we can discuss things in a civilized way and if an edit regarding Essiac is not worthy of inclusion then surely it should be discussed here. To date have provided accounts of the effectiveness of Essiac. For my efforts I have been abused, had profanity posted on my talk page and been threatened with exclusion from Wikipedia. That's not what should the culture here. This encyclopedia has the facility for anyone to make edits that are backed up with credible sources. If some people don't want those edits made because they have their own agenda then they shouldn't be allowed to carry on in a destructive, threatening way to discourage this. They should discuss this properly in a civilized way.The topping on this serving of negativity and nasty behavior is me being accused of being a shill for "quackery". I think the accuser may have more in his corner than he cares to reveal.

So I ask this certain member to please stop with the threats and no not post any more profanity on my page. I'll let that go this time. I have invited you to discuss so let's please discuss this sensibly.

Ok, so below is basically what I have sourced and used to post what I believe is credible evidence that should be used to portray another side to and add balance to the article. If the context or the way I have inserted it is wrong then I welcome any constructive contributions and corrections.

Thankyou


 * Billy Best cancer free 50 Critical Cancer Answers: Your Personal Battle Plan for Beating Cancer By Contreras Francisco, Kennedy Daniel


 * Billy Best made the national news in 1994 The Boy and His Death: A True Story By Marga Beukeboom - page 69


 * Billy Best rejected Chemotherapy. Yes strict diet was adhered to which could have aided the Essiac treatment Cancer: Conquering a Deadly Disease By Alvin Silverstein, Virginia B. Silverstein, Laura Silverstein Nunn


 * At 20-something years later, Billy is cancer free! The Raw Food World News Posted in: Health, Lifestyle, Medicine, News by Heather Suhr, Staff Reporter/Editor on 31 Aug, 2014


 * 400 people were ready to testify that their health had been restored, Essiac: A Native Herbal Cancer Remedy By Cynthia B. Olsen, Jim Chan Caution And Disclaimer


 * One doctor who came from California intending to stay for a day. She stayed there to observe for a month! She left Rene’s clinic, convinced that Rene had a cure for cancer. Womens Health Watch Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea


 * Dr. Banting who was the co-discoverer of insulin, found that Essiac tea had stimulated the pancreas to produce insulin in a woman who had diabetes. The woman had type I diabetes The woman didn't need insulin anymore! Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea


 * Dr. Charles Brusch cured his own cancer of the lower bowel, using Essiac alone. One of the most respected physicians in the US he was also John F. Kennedy’s personal physician Womens Health Watch Rene Caisse’s Natural Cancer Cure – Essiac Tea


 * Hundreds of testimonies to Renee Caisses credit Rethinking Cancer - Essiac-Press release to Detroit newspapers By Pat Judson, President of FACT Metro-Detroit

I'm sure some of what I have posted here is worthy of inclusion.

Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet again, none of the sources cited remotely comply with WP:MEDRS, or with Wikipedia policy on sourcing in general. And since you apparently refuse to accept the existence of Wikipedia policies in this regard, despite repeatedly being informed of them, I am calling on the current WP:ANI thread on your behaviour for you to be blocked from editing. You have wasted far too much of our time already, and I see no reason why this should be allowed to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, I'm not refusing anything. Please see that making threats and posting profanity on another members talk page is not the correct conduct to display here. There are constructive ways of addressing certain edits that others make. If you disagree with the content or don't like it then please explain why properly. Coming in, using bullying tactics and profanity is not a good look for Wikipedia. I've gone back thorough your history prior to my arrival and I have noticed a few disturbing things. Please desist in this negative behavior! I'm trying to source the best references I can find to improve the articles and some of what has been edited out is acceptable. Possibly some of what I included was in the wrong place and used in the wrong context. That is something I'm dedicated to improve. Let's make good articles here that are well balanced and don't have a one sided view that serves other parties. Not a good look. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Article balance will be determined according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines - of which WP:MEDRS is one. Please don't waste any more of our time with things you personally think are 'acceptable' unless and until you have carefully read WP:MEDRS, understand it, and can confirm that your proposed edits do indeed comply. If you can do that, there is room for discussion - otherwise, there is nothing further to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Article Purpose and Tone
There are serious problems with this article. Does it need to pronounce its efficacy? Unless its providing medical advice it should not. The article appears to consist of a skeptics view of the efficacy while providing no information of interest beyond a belief that it isn't effective. Anyone seriously interested will immediately move on.

It seems to me that issues of efficacy can be handled with a disclaimer and the Wikipedia is not well served by limiting its information to that which it considers effective. This applies to many medically related articles. Simon deWeerdt (19:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplesimon57 (talk • contribs) )

Edits today
It is clearly misleading. And after having attempted to correct that introduction with facts, and seeing my changes reverted immediately, it is clear the desire to feature misleading information is intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4eyes (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article (like all articles) is built according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; those policies and guidelines also govern editor behavior. The welcome message on your Talk page describes them. Per the talk page guidelines please use this Talk page to discuss the content and sources used in the article, based on the policies and guidelines.  Further posts discussing your feelings about the article or other editors will simply be removed. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits today
User:Tvadon - it seems that you are somewhat passionate about this tea.

Please do review the messages at your talk page (User talk:Tvadon) before you continue making changes. There are a bunch of problems with what you are doing, as folks have tried to point out to you there. Please take it slow and please ask questions when you are reverted. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 879368438 by Alexbrn (talk)
Hi Alexbrn - I'm relatively new here, thanks for your comments on the revision. I'd be grateful for your input - here are some of the issues that I see with the page now:

Neutral point of view •The assertion that “there is no evidence that it is beneficial to health, and it may be harmful”, forces one particular point of view over another, the use of the word ‘may’ implies an opinion, not a fact. And this statement has not allowed for the inclusion of opposing prominent views which can be referenced.

Verifiability •The second reference does not verify or support the statement that it references and conflates the efficacy (or lack thereof) of Essiac with an entirely different product, Flor Essence. •Reference 4, is referencing the formulation and ingredients for Flor Essence, not Essiac •“However, this has never been substantiated” This is stating an opinion as fact. It has been substantiated by Rene Caisse’s memoir and referenced in Clinic of Hope, The Story of Rene Caisse, Written by Donna Ivey, who managed information research in business libraries in Toronto. Can reference. •Reference 3 – it’s well documented, including support in reference 2 that the formulation does not use Turkey Rhubarb, it uses Indian rhubarb – all of those ingredients grow and have been widely available in north America for a long time. •‘Killed test animals’- no reference is made to this apparent statement of fact •Reference 5 – “Essiac may interact with some types of cancer treatment so it is very important to tell your doctor if you are thinking of taking Essiac” This quote is found nowhere in the referenced material. •‘Increased cancer growth’, reference 6, this is referring to Flor Essence, not Essiac. •Looser regulation – The tone here is biased, the FDA does indeed regulate dietary supplements as food, not drugs and forces the manufacturer to ensure the product is safe and effective, similar to any food product. •‘Fake cancer cures the FDA should avoid’ – reference 7 link not working.

Basically, there are a number of statements that not supported by proper references. Thanks for your expertise. Gerald.T.Munro (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the WP:V problems. But overall RS says this is a nasty fake cancer cure scam, and the article needs to be very clear about that. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping improve sourcing. In relation to WP:NPOV, policy includes being clear about representing the view of reliable sources.  Medical claims should also be supported by medically-reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) and pseudoscience clearly reported as such (WP:PSCI).  I hope this helps, — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Essiac Brand Dissambiguation
Since this page currently conflates Essiac the brand with a more general use of the word Essiac (which is a trademarked business name) as a general description of a type of herbal tea that often contains burdock root, turkey rhubarb root, sheep sorrel and slippery elm and mixes information about research based specifically on a product by Flor Essence (a competitor) would it make sense to have a disambiguation entry? One page for Essiac the brand / company and one page for Essiac a type of herbal tea. The way the current page reads it implies Essiac tea may be harmful but the study cited to back that claim is specifically on a Flor Essence product study. Since in the edit history it is evident mods are not ok with removing or clarifying the "harmful" claim towards "Essiac" perhaps a better solution is to disambiguate the brand from the general use of the word. Similar to Kleenex / tissue and Xerox / photocopy. ShawnaActually (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)ShawnaActually


 * Reliable sources use the headword "Essiac" and mention Flor essence as a variant. They're the same kind of nonsense (herbal tea quackery). We follow such sources so it's fine. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)