This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
User:Alexbrn, congratulations on a very nice and useful list. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hulda Clark's nonsense might deserve a spot here, especially since she claimed to be able to cure ALL diseases, including all cancers. Then she died of cancer.... -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I created a new article on the bogus Zoetron therapy to have something with more detailed information to link to from here, but it's been marked for speedy deletion on the (incorrect) basis that it is duplicating existing material from this page. Would be grateful for more eyes on this ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Germanic New Medicine as propagated by Ryke Geerd Hamer may deserve an entry or is it there but I missed it? Other healers, electrical devices , chemical and herbal remedies and also (interestingly) prayer are listed in this reference: Cancer Quackery: The Persistent Popularity ofUseless, Irrational 'Alternative' Treatments ONCOLOGY. Vol. 26 No. 8 August 20, 2012 by Cassileth et al. Ochiwar ( talk) 08:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Working area to list some things which might be included in the article.
Rules of thumb for inclusion:
New to this, so sorry if I don't do it correctly. There doesn't seem to be any listing of cannabis related products. Here is a good article covering the controversies: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/ 87.104.38.123 ( talk) 17:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This one came up in a favourite place of mine only today, in all seriousness. I've been banned from there, so was restricted to shouting at the monitor screen, and vowing to suggest Chaga for this article? Like Green Tea, there are possibilities for this stuff, but reading the full article, seems to be a low likelihood. I've lifted the text from the main article. Comments? (If this gets rejected I shall have to partake of some of that smoking material noted above.) -- Roxy the dog ( quack quack) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I do like this article !
I have been posting the link to this page on some of my pet cancer forums as a jumping off point for discussion and further research for believers who might ask about, say, Garlic Poultices in the cure of advanced pancreatic cancer etc. and one person said...
"What about Noni Juice, Rox, it isn't on the list and I eventually unfriended one old friend who kept spamming me with it"?
I can't as yet find anything showing Noni Juice/Plant etc touted as a cancer cure, so my question is, should I include this as my contribution to the article - there is a good ACS page to cite? -- Roxy the dog ( patronize me) 09:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This article has been given multiple tags labeling it as having some issues that need improvement. I am removing them as they don't apply. This is because:
It's also worth mentioning that some of these stylistic topics are being discussed in the peer review this article is currently undergoing. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have had an interesting exchange with User:Lindberg G Williams Jr about in-text attribution and other matters. I mention this here as the exchange is pertinent to the editing of the article, and shouldn't be stranded on a user's talk page. Any responses should be posted here please. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The list could get very long depending on inclusion criteria. As of this time, I suppose, I only recommend that the attention of more than one, maybe more than two, cancer research organizations or caveat emptor agencies be requisite (or even merely ideal) for an article's inclusion in the list and likewise an article's referencing of the list. So, that is one issue, whereas another is the wording. The American Cancer Society uses somewhat opinionated or subjective rhetoric (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch) in criticism or counter-advising, which probably ought not bleed over into Wikipedia. No doubt, however, the Society is absolutely right whenever it states that there is no scientific evidence that a given product is an effective treatment of cancer; a statement which—to delve into style—does not need to be repeated for every item in a list, but signified as a footnote with a symbol like an asterisk or a dagger (typography). As we can see, I am all over the place, but the first sentence of this comment block pertains to the topic of "in-text attribution." -- Lindberg 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr ( talk • contribs)
Jettparmer posted this comment on 6 September 2013 ( view all feedback).
Solid overview, should include link to "proven effective" or current accepted cancer treatment modalities
Any thoughts?
Jmvernay ( talk) 09:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
yes thoughts!!! lol
scientific medecine do not cure cancer either lol! it's not on the list! so a least of current accepted cancer treatment?! there isn't one because there is no cure lol! although fasting and the original primate diet of the human...do cure cancer! but tell that to the wikipedia pseudo-scientist lord! lol wikipedia started good but is a fraud!
Hi - and thanks for your feedback on this article. The scope of the list is just ineffective treatments, and it is quite long (horrifyingly so) already; I think if we start mixing in effective treatments it will dilute the scope and could make the list enormous. The nearest equivalent on Wikipedia to a list of effective cancer treatments is the Management of cancer article, though this is not a list.
I find this article really factious and not objective at all. It looks like it's written by big pharma. My mother in law got cancer and I read tons of study and books in the last weeks. Why Chemotherapy in example is not included as an ineffective treatment in example? It is probably the treatment with the most studies and 90% of them are showing how ineffective it is. Often it even kills you before than the cancer would do! And also for most of the alternative methods it's stated that "there is no evidence that it is working". This doesn't mean at all that is proven scientifically that it is not working!!! And in example for Soursoup (Graviola) there are several studies showing that it is effective at least for some types of cancer, but probably for more. And the diet guidelines of alternative methods like Gerson Therapy are partially confirmed also by the various national Cancer Associations! Not to count that almost half of the cancer patients die of malnutrition rather than the cancer itself. I find this article really misleading and partial. Big pharma is putting its hand also on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phidias81 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Any editor with ongoing concerns about undeclared COI should raise them at WP:COI/N. Pursuing them on an article Talk page is disruptive (and has been the bane of the Talk page of many articles treating fringe topics). Talk pages are for discussing edits to the article. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with this article being unscientific, also I happened to notice the overwhelming reliance on a couple of sources well funded by industry which in itself is evidence of bias. Where are the plethora of actual photochemical trials from respected journals of scientific herbalism represented in the references? 85 percent of pharmaceuticals are based on photochemistry. How do they find new promising leads for new pharmaceutical treatments? From studying plant chemistry and traditional (folk) medicine provides the leads, so how can herbalism possibly be ineffective? There are masses of scientific studies on most of the plants mentioned showing positive results, over ninety thousand on cannabis alone, Wikipedia is going to the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iseesomenonsense ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
"List of ineffective cancer treatments" => I suggest replacing it with "List of alternative cancer treatments" or "List of unconfirmed alternative cancer treatments" or something similar in nature; "ineffective" for one may actually be "effective" for another. All statements provided by various Cancer Societies quoted in this article simply say that there is no data to back up the claims. But maybe in time they will collect (or be given) such data. For the time being, it should be considered 'research in progress'. If someone has already be given a death sentence by official medical world, what difference does it make for him to try whatever else he things can help? Most of the things on the list won't hurt him anyway, and what if something actually helps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.203.18 ( talk) 16:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Neil, what you are saying is not correct, in particular this sentence "have been found – after scientific study or review – to lack medical evidence of effectiveness" is really misleading. I would think that studies have been done and they proved the remedy not to be effective. But if you look at the sources, that's actually not true. They are not accepted by traditional medicine (not difficult to believe) because it's not proven that they are effective (actually some in the list have positive studies instead) that is completely different than be proven to be ineffective! It means just "we don't know if it's effective" it doesn't mean "we know that it's ineffective" comment added by phidias81
Hey guys! I've worked on copyediting the lede to tighten the wording up a bit and to link to the effective cancer treatments at management of cancer. Here's the proposal:
Ineffective cancer treatments are therapies that have been recommended to treat or prevent of cancer in humans but have been shown to lack scientific and medical evidence of effectiveness. Unlike accepted cancer treatments, such treatments are generally ignored or avoided by the medical community, and often labeled pseudoscience.
Despite this, many of these therapies have continued to be promoted as effective, particularly by practitioners of alternative medicine. Scientists considers this practice quackery, [3] [4] and some of those engaged in it have been investigated and prosecuted by public health regulators such as the US Federal Trade Commission, [5] the Mexican Secretariat of Health [6] and the Canadian Competition Bureau. [7] In the United Kingdom, the Cancer Act makes the false advertising of cancer treatments a criminal offense.
Let me know what you think. — Neil 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a list of ineffective cancer treatments. [formulaic opening; however according to the comments in peer review, this is no longer a favored style for list ledes] These are some of [so, not a comprehensive list] the substances, procedures and approaches which have been considered or proposed [somebody, somewhere, must have connected the treatment to cancer] for the treatment or prevention of cancer in humans [so we exclude things which are purely limited to lab experiments], but which have been found – after scientific study or review [so, not just opinion] – to lack medical evidence of effectiveness. [i.e. the null hypothesis has not been countered]
I think the new proposal of Neil is much more objective, even if I still see a bias toward the traditional medicine. In this sentence "This practice has been categorized as quackery" it should be specified who is categorizing so, since it looks like it's an universal truth, but it's not. Also some of the alternative treatments are legal in some countries, like Iscador (fermented misteltoe) in Germany, as there are some approved clinic like for Gerson Therapy in Hungary and Mexico. phidias81
I'm not a doctor so I don't feel like suggesting any real suggestion, but just not to say more than studies says or don't say. In example the title is completely misleading. Rather than Ineffective, would be better something like "not proven" "not verified" "not approved" phidias81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.43.240 ( talk) 11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed that this article's content be merged into Alternative cancer treatments. Please comment on this on that article's talk page and not here, so that discussion is kept to one place. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 09:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
There is some very good scientific research that seems to indicate that fasting benefits cancer patients.
Some sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3245934?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18378900
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18184721
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/
http://defeatosteosarcoma.org/2011/04/fasting-as-an-adjunct-to-treatment-for-cancer/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20733612
http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/31029/Cancer-Research-Findings-Explained
http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/071012/page5
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/02/fasting-and-cancer
I would like to propose an alteration to the statement on fasting that indicates that this is a therapy that shows some promised and is being actively researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.185.128 ( talk) 13:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I also appreciate the rewording of this article. Rather than labeling a plant based treatment as "ineffective," we need to gather resources together to investigate the chemicals from the plants that work rather than butting heads. Because if we are to be honest some of the best chemotherapies and immunotherapies available only work for so long. We have to work to advance medicine not restrict it. Thanks to all of you for trying to improve this article, and rather than labeling everything as "ineffective" - actually study it first, and don't just take one source's word, take multiple studies and do a compare/contrast so the reader can understand the pros and cons of the chemical agents within the plants. I know this isn't supposed to be a "medical help" place, but Wikipedia is useful to people who are researching their own sicknesses, so we have to do what we can to help. We shouldn't promote not getting treatment that is standard of care, but we should be able to provide research and evidence of what may help ease their pain or perhaps prolong their life if they are out of other options, rather than making them feel dismal and without hope. So thank you for rewording the way this article was written. The original way it was written seemed very spiteful and hateful. I understand sometimes people think that herbal medicines are a bunch of hooplah, but truly some of our best medicines come from plants and fungi. Where would we be without aspirin? Where would we be without quinine? Where would we be without cordycepin? Where would we be without cannabinoids and the discovery of g protein coupled receptors? Some new research shows benefit and shrinkage of tumors with curcumin, milk thistle, flax, rosemary, hibiscus, frankincense, and many others. I know you guys deleted the whole debate we had about primary and secondary sources but even the bigwigs at these big cancer organizations are having to backpeddle on some of their previous stances. Although people should always, always, always tell their physician what herbal treatments they are on and always be cautious with what they take because certain things like pau d'arco can interact badly with things like heparin or warfarin, even though pau d'arco has anticancer properties it can be toxic at too high of a dose. So I do understand the purpose of this article is to educate, but we must tread lightly because many herbal, plant based and fungi based medicines may actually slow the growth of tumors, sometimes even kill the tumors (at least for a while). So thanks to the editors who actually saw some problems with bias in the way this article was originally written. Yes we have to educate people on what has been proven to be bogus, but some of the herbal/plant/fungal stuff really isn't bogus, sometimes its all about method of delivery and potency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:59B9:9608:8DB8:3084 ( talk) 21:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
nw
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).qw-zoetron
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).bbb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hi all. I am just putting forward a few possible additions and one possible retraction.
Additions:
1 - Apricot kernels. On the main page it says they have been marketed as a cancer cure but found to be ineffective.
2 - Turmeric. The main page doesn't say anything about it being a supposed cancer cure, but it is being touted as a cure for cancer, and many other things. I suggest it be added.
3 - Black salve. Again, the main page says it is a 'dangerous and controversial alternative cancer treatment.' It should be added.
I am not saying that I personally disbelieve in these treatments, but by Wikipedia's criteria, correct or not, they should be added.
Possible retraction:
Sodium bicarbonate. This page says: .. "evidence also does not support the idea that sodium bicarbonate works as a treatment for any form of cancer .." Actually I know of one study which disputes this claim, published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. The title of the paper is: "Bicarbonate increases tumor pH and inhibits spontaneous metastases." The URL is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19276390 You can also see similar articles listed on that site. By Wikipedia's criteria, sodium bicarbonate should be removed from the list. Thanks for listening, Cheers, blucat David. 1.178.112.138 ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC) I see that the first remark was answered bu blucat David within ten minutes and the second was removed within minutes. The link refers to in vitro so not in a human body but rather in glassware. A human has a stomach with acid in it and it is very bad for a human to use a lot of what you refer to as sodium bicarbonate or baking soda. The baking soda in shops is made more acid with additives. In certain health stores they sell sodium bicarbonate as a special item without aluminium at a much higher price. They also say that one should drink the sodium bicarbonate with molasses. These are snakeskin oil salesman tactics. Many people use this and so far they could not find any cures from this.
Turmeric is probably the most potent anti-inflammatory and cancer preventatives know to man. Strictly speaking it might be classified under "Ayurvedic medicine", it being central to that practice, but in other contexts t would be difficult to isolate and or marginalize the effects in any study of trials of just ingesting turmeric and it's active ingredients, curcuminoids. It should be excluded from this list in the same way that oxygen, a useful chemical that obviously is central to life can't be said to fight cancer except if applied in a novel method, but its usefulness to the body through other mechanisms is unquestionable. Lambchowder ( talk) 04:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)LambChowder
Exerdoph has been repeatedly adding text like this to the article:
While not curative, cannabis and related cannabinoids are useful in the treatment of cancer. The US National Cancer Institute currently claims FDA approved "commercially available cannabinoids, such as dronabinol and nabilone, are approved drugs for the treatment of cancer-related side effects". Furthermore, several studies have observed THC and other cannabinoids to be antitumorigenic and to increase the efficacy of chemotherapy. [2]
This shouldn't be here because:
Alexbrn ( talk) 08:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Will be adding this to the page in 12hrs or upon approval from : Alexbrn:
The main constituents of cannabis, THC and CBD have been identified as signaling molecules that may play an active role in cancer signaling pathways. In an extensive review of cannabinoids role in the signaling pathways of several cancers, It was concluded that "Cannabinoids exert a direct anti-proliferative effect on tumors of different origin. They have been shown to be anti-migratory and anti-invasive and inhibit MMPs which in turn degrade the extra-cellular matrix (ECM), thus affecting metastasis of cancer to the distant organs". [2] Exerdoph
References
( talk) 18:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn "since most users smoke it mixed with tobacco, and this complicates research" Such a claim would have to be supported by some statistic but none is referenced in http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The topics and entities of this wiki is hotly contested in the U.S. What helps one person may or may not help another, and discoveries continue to unfold on many of these approaches. It would be more neutral to state that, rather than take what appears to be a political stand. Given that wikipedia is commonly used as a definitive source for the average person who may not have time or access to science articles, it seems to me a reponsibility to avoid bias one way or the other.
History shows that medical opinion changes over time and that it is often through grassroots efforts that solutions to unsolved medical problems occur. I believe the way this article is written it does a disservice to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonix ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Homeopathy is the favorite punching bag of late night young adult edutainment programs because it is so positively without merit that anyone could see and deduce that in a moment's consideration. It's a poor example because like 95% of these other treatments, while we may feel one way or the other, most of us would be hard-pressed to make a strong, coherent argument against more than a handful on our own. Most of the treatments on this list might be justifiably believed to have at least one plausible avenue of action that might benefit the body or fight cancer in some way. Homeopathy requires particularly strenuous, unsupportable conclusions; too many to even mount the attempt.
In the main I regard your characterizations of these treatments as having basis in "mythology" rather than anecdote, to be a reflection of hostile mistrust and not from serious appraisal. Most of the qualifications in this article seem to simply reference official medical bodies, most notably the AMA. This needs to be improved. I'm very dubious regarding any claims that the preponderance of these treatments have been clinically disproven rather than that they simply haven't been investigated owing to difficulty in procuring interest, and thus financial support and professional sponsorship for research through official channels. Lambchowder ( talk) 05:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)LambChowder
I revised "Injecting insulin to try and boost cancer drug effectiveness – unproven and dangerous" to "Injecting insulin to try to boost cancer drug effectiveness – unproven and dangerous" as a simple grammar correction. Please advise any displeasure.-- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 09:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked deeply into this treatment (or therapy) but it isn't listed so, if someone gets the time.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed "Hallelujah diet" from the list of disproven treatments because I checked the ref and found the author says this diet is low in fat and high in fruit and veg and that "It is well established that low-fat eating lowers blood cholesterol levels and that high intakes of fruits and vegetables are associated with lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and certain cancers".
The author criticises various companies and supplements, but he certainly doesn't "disprove" the diet as a cancer treatment.
Here's the text I removed: * Hallelujah diet – a restrictive "biblical" diet based on raw food, claimed by its inventor to have cured his cancer. [[Stephen Barrett]] has written on Quackwatch: "Although low-fat, high-fiber diets can be healthful, the Hallelujah Diet is unbalanced and can lead to serious deficiencies."<ref>{{cite web|title=Rev. George M. Malkmus and his Hallelujah Diet|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/malkmus.html|date=29 May 2003|accessdate=|author=Stephen Barrett, M.D.}}</ref>
. Great floors ( talk) 09:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The diet section contains entries "disproven" by being criticised by one doctor.
Being denounced by some well-respected cancer agency is worth noting, as is being disproven by a study in a decent peer-reviewed journal. But being criticised by a doctor in a book does not mean an idea is disproven. (Remember, books aren't peer-reviewed.)
I've now removed these two entries:
* Kousmine diet – a restrictive diet devised by [[Catherine Kousmine]] (1904–1992) which emphasized fruit, vegetables, grains, pulses and the use of vitamin supplements. There is no evidence that the diet is an effective cancer treatment.<ref>{{cite book|author=Jean-Marie Abgrall|title=Healing Or Stealing?: Medical Charlatans in the New Age|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kel6_1aN5JwC&pg=PA83|date=1 January 2000|publisher=Algora Publishing|isbn=978-1-892941-28-2|pages=82–83}}</ref> * [[Moerman Therapy]] – a highly restrictive diet devised by Cornelis Moerman (1893–1988). Its effectiveness is supported by anecdote only – there is no evidence of its worth as a cancer treatment.<ref name="qw-moerman">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/moerman.html|author=Stephen Barrett, M.D.|date=11 December 2001|accessdate=|title=The Moerman Diet|publisher=[[Quackwatch]]}}</ref>
. Great floors ( talk) 09:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Scanning down the list of references, one sees many links to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, a Rockefeller-controlled institution and long known to be one of the biggest fraudsters in cancer research. As far as MSKCC is concerned, if it isn't synthetic and can't be patented, it doesn't work. They're hardly an authoritative resource. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum) T @ 19:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The citation for ginger's effectiveness being unproven is no longer available. New research shows that ginger is effective. Ginger should be removed from this article. "taxol, even though was highly active in monolayer cells, did not show activity against the spheroids even at 10000 fold higher concentration compared to 6-shogaol" http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137614 75.169.39.121 ( talk) 22:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "sbm":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Could Pygeum Africanum (Prunus Africana) be listed as a possible aid, 24 February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.80.17 ( talk) 16:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a lot of evidence pointing to querceting being a powerful therapy and adjunt to conventional therapy for a veriety of cancers as well as being a safe anti-cancer dietary supplement. Here are a few studies that have been done that show it possessing potent anti-cancer ability.
Administration of quercetin lead to ~5 fold increase in the life span in tumor bearing mice compared to that of untreated controls. [1]
Apart from antioxidant activity, Qu also exerts a direct, pro-apoptotic effect in tumor cells, and can indeed block the growth of several human cancer cell lines at different phases of the cell cycle. Both these effects have been documented in a wide variety of cellular models as well as in animal models. Quercetin and Cancer Chemoprevention (PDF Download Available). Available from: [2]
Phytochemicals in Cancer Prevention: A Review of the Evidence: [3]
Effects of low dose quercetin: Cancer cell-specific inhibition of cell cycle progression [4]
This is just a small sample of the available research.
Quercetin clearly is a powerful therapeutic anti cancer agent. Leaving it on this list misleads people and reduces the credibility of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.244.250.10 ( talk) 05:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
References
A very useful recent reference on the cyclic phenomenon of 'a year away from a cure' news stories. Could be good in the lead, or to finad additional examples for the list?
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 04:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Fasting should be removed from the list of unproven and disproven cancer treatments: Fasting for Health and Longevity: Nobel Prize Winning Research on Cell Aging. Japanese cell biologist Yoshinori Ohsumi won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2016 for his research on how cells recycle and renew their content, a process called autophagy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kat Kristar ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
here should be mentioned radiation therapy which is the worst treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.224.83 ( talk) 19:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It is mentioned in this article: /info/en/?search=Autophagy#Cancer which is linked in the fasting article. -- 101.98.159.75 ( talk) 08:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Phosphorylethanolamine should be added to the list. In 2016, the Brazilian Medical Association, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology and ANVISA (regulatory agency for drugs) all declared that there was no evidence of safety or efficacy of this substancy in cancer. The Supreme Court forbade its medical use. Sorry for not providing any source, I just remember very well the controversy because it was a big thing here 179.178.2.139 ( talk) 05:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry...we only use sources that qualify under WP:MEDRS here. - Sumanuil ( talk) 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to add the information below, either to this article, or else somewhere on Wikipedia. can anyone please advise on some good places where I might be able to do so? thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
==Possible cures based on immune cells and t-cells==
There has been significant research that is based upon finding ways to enable the body's own immune system to fight cancer cells, i.e by using t-cells and white blood cells.
In January 2020, researchers in Britain announced they had discovered a new type of immune cell which might perhaps prove to be a general cure for many types of cancer. [1] [2]
thanks.
References