Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as
Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as
astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as
psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments received a
peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Nicholas Gonzalez (physician)#Gonzalez protocol|Gonzalez protocol]] The anchor (#Gonzalez protocol) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Much of the sourcing for cancer in that article failed
WP:MEDRS, so I gave it a heavy trim. The question for inclusion in this article would be whether NDV has been "promoted to treat or prevent cancer in humans". Has it?
Alexbrn (
talk)
05:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I think it can definitely be said that NDV has been "promoted to treat cancer in humans" since the 1960s, at least. I googled "newcastle disease virus and cancer." Here are some leading references (cut and pasted as text, not as properly Wiki formatted citations; please edit to proper markup if you think it would be helpful).
And many more NDV - Cancer references from google,
Pubmed, and in the sidebars of the references, above. If you agree that it belongs in the main article, I hope that you can add it according to best Wiki practices.
I'm seeing sources that describe it being researched, but not promoted - we really want sources saying it was being sold/recommended/advertised etc., and discussing that. I suppose a virus is quite a difficult product to sell! The nearest parallel I can think of is
RIGVIR (which definitely has been promoted as a cancer cure).
Alexbrn (
talk)
13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what "promoted" is supposed to mean. Paid advertisements? Public seminars? Clinical trials? (There were trials in Hungary. A 2006 NIH funded Clinical Trial to take place in Israel was withdrawn:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00348842?term=newcastle+disease+virus&draw=2&rank=1 Journal articles? Webpages at the NCI? Fifty Years of Clinical Application of Newcastle Disease Virus: Time to Celebrate!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344264/ Clinical trials have to be "promoted" in order to recruit patients. Newspaper articles and TV news stories and similar media "testimonials" by famous people are sometimes "promotions" fed to them by the drug companies as "news" in order to get around paid advertisement restrictions. (One early example was Eli Lilly's
Oraflex, q.v..)
NDV for cancer was "promoted" by Hungarian L. Csatary, M.D. starting in the late 1960s. I think he's dead now; I can't find a bio or obituary. His daughter, C. Csatary is a US M.D. who took over researching and promoting NDV for cancer. They established "UNITED CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE"
https://www.dandb.com/businessdirectory/unitedcancerresearchinstitute-alexandria-va-15773168.html in 1983 to "promote" NDV for cancer. BTW, I'm not making a value judgement on NDV, just suggesting that it be added to the Main article. However, many (e.g.,
Quackwatch, I think) consider NDV for cancer to be quackery.
Probably the meaning is close to that of "advertise" in the UK
Cancer Act: So, it if is offered as a treatment (outside a research setting), prescribed, or advised to be useful. Perhaps the lede should say "publicly promoted" to be clearer? If it's covered by QuackWatch that could be useful: link?
Alexbrn (
talk)
15:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Neuro Linguistic Programming has no claims that it will cure cancer.
The cited reference says:
"How is NLP promoted for use?
Imagery is said to be a relaxation technique, similar to meditation and self-hypnosis, that has physical and psychological effects, Promoters claim it can relax the mind and body by decreasing heart rate, lowering blood pressure, and altering brain waves. Some supporters also say that imagery can relieve pain and emotional anxiety, make drugs more effective, and provide emotional insights. Practitioners use imagery to treat people with phobias and depressioni, reduce stress, increase motivation, promote relaxation, increase control over one's life, improve communication, and even help people stop smoking. Imagery is also used in biofeedback, hypnosis, and neuro-linguistic programming. For people with cancer, some supporters of imagery report that it can relieve nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, relieve stress associated with having cancer, enhance the immune system, help with weight gain, combat depression, and lessen pain."
No claims are made that NLP is a treatment for cancer.
The reference then goes on to conclude that NLP _can_ be helpful in managing pain and discomfort that comes from chemotherapy treatment.
The same reference also states that NLP will not heal cancer (duh, NLP is psychological not physical), and NLP was not claimed or presented to be a treatment for cancer.
If this Wikipedia article wants to include all things that never claimed to cure cancer, this article would be near infinite.
From the source "They claim NLP can help people with ... Parkinson's disease, AIDS and cancer." Also that such claims are not supported by evidence. So, no.
Alexbrn (
talk)
19:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The cited reference does not say who/where/how NLP is promoted as a prevention or cure for cancer. The article itself makes that claim by itself, and then proceed to discuss why their own claim is false (a
straw man argument).
The same reference says NLP _IS_ a valid complementary treatment for chemotherapy (in the 'imagery' section), but then in the main NLP section it concludes NLP has no purpose in cancer treatment. Here is an NLP organization making a cancer claim the reference agrees with:
https://anlp.org/case-studies/how-nlp-removed-scan-anxiety-in-cancer-patient
At a minimum, this Wikipedia article needs one or more references that specifies WHO or WHERE that NLP was _promoted_ to prevent or cure cancer. I spent a lot of time searching for such a source, and I cannot find anyone or anything that has made such a claim.
It's not a matter of "not liking what they say", it's about references that use actual sources. If an article brings in data/claims but has no source, how is that reliable?
WP:ONESOURCE: "If you come across an article with only one source, the subject is unlikely to be notable enough to merit a standalone article."
212.58.102.125 (
talk)
18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The American Cancer Society is major medical organization and a top-tier source for cancer topics; its book on altmed in cancer is a golden source. You are however correct there is insufficient sourcing for an entire standalone article on "Neuro-lingustic processing and cancer".
Alexbrn (
talk)
18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)reply
What is best practice for old and updated references?
A
Cancer Research UK source has updated its content by dropping "or any other disease", possibly to limit it to the topic area of the organization, which is only cancer:
OLD:
Ayurvedic medicine – a 5,000-year-old system of traditional medicine which originated on the Indian subcontinent. According to
Cancer Research UK "there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease".[1]
CAVEAT: That wording was accurate at the time of inclusion, as evidenced by the
Internet Archive version.
UPDATED:
Ayurvedic medicine – a 5,000-year-old system of traditional medicine which originated on the Indian subcontinent. According to
Cancer Research UK "there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer".[2]
What is best practice here? The edit war needs to be settled. For once an IP is not vandalizing, but seems to have caught a problem. What do we lose by just accepting the newer wording? --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me)
14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Should probably use the updated version. We lose nothing since this article is about cancer treatment specifically anyway.
Alexbrn (
talk)
14:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Quote: "Fasting and intermittent fasting – not eating or drinking for a period – a practice which has been claimed by some alternative medicine practitioners to help fight cancer, perhaps by "starving" tumors. However, according to the American Cancer Society, "available scientific evidence does not support claims that fasting is effective for preventing or treating cancer in humans".[16] Professional societies in France and the United Kingdom reached similar conclusions.[17][18][19]"
I asked for a more thorough explanation on why you find the grammatical correction to be nonsensical. Instead, you reworded it to "makes no sense".
I'm new here, I'm not trying to pick fights with anyone, I'm trying to understand your logic. "Supportive" and "community" are modifiers to "aspects", therefore the correct reading should be "its aspects" if you remove the modifiers. "It is aspects" is not grammatical. If you disagree, I respectfully ask that you say *why* rather than just writing it off as nonsensical. I welcome other's opinions, too.
GoldenKiwiCat (
talk)
18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This page uses a outdated reference (2008), one that is no longer available, to suggest that Quercetin is unproven. Here are several sources from quality journals showing studies to the contrary.