Talk:Non-invasive RF cancer treatment

tone
This article reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia entry. Also, for what it's worth, this technology seems to be referred to as "Kanzius RF therapy" and so forth only by Mr. Kanzius' company. This term does not exist in the scientific literature. Try a pubmed.gov search for "Kanzius" and the only paper it brings up is the 2007 Cancer article that Mr. Kanzius is a middle author on. Even that paper doesn't refer to it as Kanzius RF therapy. --193.60.81.195 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is titled "Non-invasive RF cancer treatment", and depending on the source of the literature, there are either many names or none, but this had been addressed as an issue previously and the name has been changed accordingly. As to its writing style, you're welcome to change the tone of the article if you can do so without removing information critical to its integrity. Thank you 24.110.85.96 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR discussion
The section related to toxicity, cannot be added to this article as it violates our policy of WP:NOR. If there is material about that subject that is presented in an published source directly related to the subject of this article, it can be re-added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The published abstract is completely and directly related to the subject of this article. When I reference a published abstract or article, it does NOT violate the OR policy. It isn't OR. As defined by WP:NOR, OR is "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories". As defined by the WP:NOR policy, I must cite a reliable source. In this case, I've cited an abstract published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Again, this is NOT OR. In order for a nanoparticle to be a viable candidate for this therapy, it must meet two criteria: the particle must be able to be heated by an RF field, and must not be poisonous to healthy cells. Further experiments in the future may show other criteria need to be met. Certainly it helps if the particle has already been approved by the FDA. Perhaps the nanoparticles must be a certain size, or must be able to reach a certain temperature at certain frequencies. To date, only two criteria have been cited, and the experimentation referenced tested for each of these conditions in gold nanoparticles. If I cite an experiment, with published results of course, that is testing only cytotoxicity or only the utility of the nanoparticle to induce RF-induced cytotoxity, then it remains relevant, as it is directly related to the subject of this article, which is: the ability and method to treat cancer non-invasively by sending a metallic nanoparticle into the human bloodstream, bound to some targeting molecule, to be bound to target cancer cells, then exposed to a focused RF field, which should heat only the nanoparticles bound to targeted cancer cells, and kill the cancer. I have written this article covering the key components of this therapy: the theory, the machine, the nanoparticles and the targeting molecules. I have compromised with you as much as I can, as you don't feel as much detail is needed regarding the toxicity of nanoparticles. Fine, I'll leave out the fine details. Anyone interested in reading about them more, can read the cited, published abstract. I will however still state that a nanoparticle meets the aforementioned criteria, as it is not only relevant, but a point of contention for those wary of nanotechnology being used in medicine, and as such are concerned about the effects of nanoparticles on healthy cells. Regards, DigitalCatalyst 13:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The OR violation relates to the introduction of "background information" which has not been published in direct relation to the subject of the article. When such primary sources material is referred in a secondary source that describes or relates to Kanzius, it can then be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kanzius is the name of the inventor who created the machine that generates the RF field described in this article. When Dr. Curley, who is heading research at the MD Anderson Cancer Center on further developing this method, authors an article describing the details of this process, whether he mentions Kanzius' name is moot. This article is about the the therapy he inspired/invented, not the man himself. For information on Kanzius, please refer to John Kanzius. You'll find the recent article about this method, published in the journal "Cancer", makes no mention of John Kanzius or how it relates to him, though it is about this most important work of his, as is this article, albeit in broader scope. Kind regards, DigitalCatalyst 02:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the papers in question refer to Kanzius RF therapy, these can be added. If not, they cannot. Is that simple, otherwise you will be violating WP:SYN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not that simple at all. WP:SYN is defined as "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What position am I advancing? One section of the article you deleted specifically cited an experiment testing the viability of gold nanoparticles in this therapy. To quote the introduction of the abstract referenced,"We have devised a novel, external, non-invasive radiofrequency (RF) system designed to produce thermal destruction of cancer cells. This system requires the presence of resonant or metallic target molecules within the cancer cells. We evaluated gold nanoparticles (GNPs) in a hepatocellular and a pancreatic human cancer cell line to determine: 1) absence of cytotoxicity of the GNPs themselves and 2) utility of GNPs as a target molecule for external RF.". The study tested both the toxicity of the nanoparticles used, and the ability of the nanoparticles to heat and destroy the cancer. This is why I created the toxicity reference in the nanoparticle section, because it IS relevant and referenced in a published source directly relating to the subject of the article.DigitalCatalyst 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The position that is being advanced is that Kanzius RF therapy is related to the paper in question. If it was, it would have been mentioned. I do not claim that the paper is not a reliable source for the article on nanoparticles, it is. But it is not a reliable source for this article, as it is not being referred in that paper. Remember, this is a Wikipedia article about a developing possible therapy invented by Kanzius, and it it not a paper that discusses possible relation to other studies on the subject. That is why I have also deleted the mention of the pancreatic cancer study, as it does not mention Kanzius RF Therapy. If we have a thrd-party source that makes that connection, we can add the material in that context and with proper attribution: using primary sources is never a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The paper was specifically about the therapy, this is what they were referring to when they said in the introduction "We have devised a novel, external, non-invasive radiofrequency (RF) system designed to produce thermal destruction of cancer cells. This system requires the presence of resonant or metallic target molecules within the cancer cells". This isn't enough mention of the method in question? You do raise a good point though, many of the sources discussing Kanzius' method have referred to it in different ways. I've seen it called the Kanzius' method, the Kanzius protocol, the kanzius non-invasive radio wave treatment, and probably a few other things. All of these names are referring to the same method, the same invention, the same treatment. The treatment, and its components, are the subject of this article. The pancreatic cancer study wasn't a study regarding pancreatic cancer at all. It was evaluating the viability of gold nanoparticles as possible candidates for this treatment.DigitalCatalyst 17:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that your edits are made in good faith. Having said that, we should be cautious with the material we add to this article as to not to cross the line of WP:SYN. All I am saying is that if a paper does not mention Kanzius RF therapy, we should not be the ones to advance that position in Wikipedia. If the paper referred to Kanzius, we would have citations about his work in the paper. Regarding the pancreatic cancer study, the same applies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt your...counter-edits are also made in good faith. My only point of contention, is that John Kanzius is not going to be mentioned in ever article regarding this method he has been part of, and which is often named after him. In fact, since the work was published (with him as a co-author), many medical sites reporting on the published article fail to mention him completely, whereas many former articles focused on him. For example, take this article: Nanotechnology-Based Strategy Aims at Noninvasive Cancer Therapy , http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAPMeeting/tb/7210. Not ONE mention of Kanzius' name. However, it is most certainly about this "Kanzius method". It is most certainly an article I'd be safe citing in this article. I know what you're saying, a paper-clip is a piece of bent wire, but not all pieces of bent wire are paperclips. Unless someone else says a particular piece of metal is a paperclip, who am I to say. I do understand what you're saying.DigitalCatalyst 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

<<<<< Ar you saying that Kanzius is co-author of In vitro gold nanoparticle targeting enhances non-invasive radiofrequency destruction of human gastrointestinal malignancies? The soruce cites C. J. Gannon, P. Mukherjee, S. A. Curley, as authors. ???? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that Kanzius is co-author of "Carbon nanotube-enhanced thermal destruction of cancer cells in a non-invasive radiofrequency field", Published in Cancer.DigitalCatalyst 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see (and would be great if we can resolve it) is that we do not know if these studies are based on Kanzius invention or not, and we cannot assert a connection based on our own analysis of primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand your position, I really do, but the problem I see, is that this new method, while it often has Kanzius' name attached, is the result of a collaborative group effort, not the work of one man. The key players are pretty much all the authors/co-authors in the paper published in cancer. In fact, since the published Cancer article cites all the authors/coauthors, the credit for this invention also goes to the authors/coauthors. Without Kanzius, the idea may not have surfaced to utilize radio waves and metal-tagged cancer cells to treat cancer. Without Smalley, nanoparticles may not have entered the equation, as that was HIS contribution, that and the subsequent involvement of his team at Rice University. Without Curley and Geller, both of which have been as involved in this project as Kanzius himself, the knowledge and proof-of-concept of this idea would have never happened. Without the aforementioned individuals, Kanzius would have had selectively cooked hot dogs and steak as his proof of concept, rather than selectively cooked cancer cells, and unharmed human cells. Because of this, when another part of this team contributes to the project, it isn't reasonable to write off the results of their findings, as it pertains to this project, simply because they aren't John Kanzius.DigitalCatalyst 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I see your point: is the result of a collaborative group effort, not the work of one man. As this may be the case, why not to rename this article RF therapy in the treatment of cancer? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or better: RF therapy in Oncology ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing, except that this method is now, and has been for some time now, always been associated with John Kanzius. When referring to it, his name is always part of the name of the treatment. I agree with you, because of this, the other contributors are often overlooked. He often receives full credit for this research, as it not due, however incredibly significant his contribution has been. I actually like RF therapy in Oncology, except that it would have to be disambiguated, because of the already existent RF method, which is Radiofrequency ablation, which is an invasive procedure not at all like this Kanzius method. That, and Kanzius has been quite good about patenting everything, truly owning the method. I do agree with you on this point thoughDigitalCatalyst 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. So, what would be the next step? The disambig first? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this page would become a redirect page, and the article would be renamed. I'm still wary of renaming it, as this does seem to be the proper name (names?) for the method. Actually, taking Kanzius' name out of the picture, another article did cite the therapy as the "Kanzius non-invasive radio wave treatment", and I think even another called it the "Kanzius non-invasive radio wave cancer treatment". The new article would be called "Non-invasive radio wave cancer treatment" or "Non-invasive RF cancer treatment". My concern is that in renaming it, it would lose its specific meaning.DigitalCatalyst 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, while this is the collaborative effort of a group of people, the name of this effort, this project, this method, is attributed to Kanzius. I don't know how to reconcile that.DigitalCatalyst 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We reconcile that in the article's text. I will move this to Non-invasive RF cancer treatment, making the current article name Kanzius RF Therapy tp be a redirect to the new name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After having made the aforementioned changes, the subject of the article has been more clearly defined as being about the cancer treatment and its components, which may allow previously removed material to be re-added?DigitalCatalyst 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my friend. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your job isn't easy, thank you for picking on me and this article, I'm sure we're both better for it. Kind regards, DigitalCatalyst 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have have shown a lot of patience and willingness to address a fellow editor's concern and that is great. FYI, that is not the case in most content disputes in Wikipedia... I wish all editors I come across behaved the way you did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a "60 Minutes" article, Kanzius conceived of the idea of using nanoparticles. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/60minutes/main4006951_page2.shtml. "That's because Kanzius impressed Curley with another remarkable idea: to combine the radio waves from his device with something cutting edge - space age nanoparticles made of metal or carbon. They are so small that thousands of them can fit in a single cancer cell. Because they’re metallic, Kanzius was hoping his radio waves would them heat up and kill the cancer."..."I [Curley] proceeded to tell him [Smalley] what I wanted to do and that I thought they would heat. He looked at me with sort of a studied long look and didn’t say anything. And then he looked at me and said, 'It won’t work,'" Curley remembered. I am your hero (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
Radio waves don't heat up only metal: they heat up anything that absorbs them. This needs fixing in the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen
An anon has changed someone's name at least twice recently. I don't know anything about this field, but the name Nguyen does not appear anywhere in listed source. If anyone else is watching this page, please help me keep our text true to our sources. And if the anonymous editor ever reads this, you can't just stick someone's name in a Wikipedia article. You must provide a reliable, independent source that supports it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Targeting?
Confusing. It mentions antibodies are being used for targeting, which is reasonable, if not standard. No mention of carbon/gold nanoparticles though. My interpretation is that the antibody is the delivery vehicle for the gold nanoparticles, but since the EGF receptor is not specific to cancer cells, that's a problem--the same problem that many anti-cancer drugs face. After reading the article, I am not clear as to how the gold particles are going to be inserted into the cancer cells, short of directly injecting them into each one (impractical). -- Bubbachuck (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculative article? Maybe AfD candidate?
There seems to be alot of OR going on here. There haven't even been any clinical trials, and there are lots of crystal ball type comments. I'm wondering if any notability is more in the line of newsreleases, rather than from actual in vivo research. This is definitely an experimental treatment, based largely on theory, as explained in the article. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for announcing or advertising such methods. When actual clinical trials have been performed and we have some PubMed references, maybe this might be a decent article, but right now I'm in doubt about whether this is a misuse of Wikipedia. If every experimental method and theoretical idea were to get published here, we wouldn't be taken seriously. Does this sound like an AfD candidate? -- Fyslee (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the thing to do is to remove information that is both unsourced or improperly sourced and likely to be biased or inaccurate. That would give us some notion of what we're really looking at.  What do you think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm, I agree that this article sends up a number of red flags (I have been reading far too much cancer cure cruft of late), but the actual physics on this one is sound. Size-selected nanoparticles are fine (hnh, actually the article does not mention how they control size (probably solgel, though mass spectrometry is cooler) - that will affect pick-up efficiency); RF heating is easy; attaching nanoparticles to various organics is done all the time to enhance luminescence signals; getting a drug to migrate preferentially to a tumour site is highly non-trivial, but can be done. Paring it down to 'here is the proposed principle, here is the development of the idea, here is how it has been received' would be fine, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could I convince you to have a stab at reducing at least some of the cruft? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. And by done I mean by the time I got through de-cruftifying, it fit just fine in John Kanzius. If someone could confirm that nothing important has been lost and complete the merge by redirecting this article there, I would appreciate it. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. I've redirected it.  The target page will need to lose the "Main" link.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal Raymond Rife
What was wrong with the Rife link?84.104.135.86 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a reference indicating the prominence of the one topic to the other, nothing. As it stands, though, inserting a pseudoscience link into what is basically a science article does a disservice to our readers. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way is Rife Therapy not "Non-invasive RF cancer treatment"? 84.104.135.86 (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way is Rife Therapy a notable subject that is supported by significant, independent reliable sources? That's what's required for things to be discussed in Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)