Talk:Low-dose chemotherapy

NPOV / OR / Alternative /Pseudoscience ?
I've had a go at wikifying (adding sections & subsections), working up the references into full citations, removing bad links (or merely advertising).

Minimising treatment side effect is of course to be welcomed. Likewise use of a number of differing approaches (e.g. on tumour vasculature) is innovative. The studies cited are real enough, but the extrapolation into the POV of this article, namely that low-dose treatment is currently an alternative to conventional aggressive treatments, seems at best speculative (citations needed if not to be considered as original research - see WP:NOR) or at worse pseudoscience (e.g. I.P.T.).David Ruben Talk 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article title
"Lowdose" is not a word, so should not the article title be "Low dose chemotherapy" rather than "Lowdose chemotherapy" ? "Low-dose chemotherapy" would be an alternative I suppose. David Ruben Talk 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact, "low-dose" is already mentioned in the text, so I would vote for that spelling of the title. dockingman Talk 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Current uses of "low-dose" in article was my doing, so one can't claim a prior styling, but I'll WP:be bold and rename :-) David Ruben Talk 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)