Talk:Experimental cancer treatment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Unregistered user's POV changes

I see that some changes I made a couple of months ago have been reverted. There's a whole lot of POV stuff in here, and the material is lifted wholesale from an external source (which, I might add, is linked twice in the footnotes). I'm going to clean it up. Rhombus 9 June 2008

---


Gene therapy

totally blank here! that's a surprise...

The recently added "CAM" section in this article suffers a deficit of concrete facts which mentions "therapies" and "substances" but should mention some particular techniques, to at least orient the reader, and should mention those that are specific to cancer (the main article Complementary and alternative methods also suffers such problems). I have attempted to rewrite the section as less of a sales pitch for CAM and more factually oriented, but it still needs more work. -- Lexor 08:48, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Rife's "Beam Ray"

I recently learned about another 'dubious' cancer treatment that deserves mention here. Royal Raymond Rife invented a "Beam Ray" that has unfortunately become somewhat popular again. Google for 'Rife' and cancer and you'll see what I'm talking about. Anyone (knowledgable) care to add an entry? I guess I could take a shot, but I'd prefer not to. --Dan 18:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. That's a new one to me. While it may be appropriate to mention the most prominent crackpot theories in this article, I was under the impression that it was really meant for the more mainstream or 'serious' avenues for research. If we wanted to incorporate a blurb on every single dubious theory, this article would get awfully big. Perhaps we should have a List of alternative cancer therapies, or something...? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insulin potentiation therapy

I reverted additions to the section on IPT that suggested that the University of Illinois had proven the mechanism of action of IPT, and the implication that efficacy had been demonstrated. Although some IPT practitioners may have received degrees (MD, PhD) at the University of Illinois, I haven't seen evidence from UI supporting IPT itself.

The quoted statement from the NCCAM "The most likely positive outcome would be to show that this therapy is as good as standard chemotherapy but significantly less toxic, which would be a major contribution to humanity and medicine" is misleading—that is a testable hypothetical outcome, rather than any statement of efficacy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Are Alternative Treatments really "Experimental"?

The Gerson Diet and Insulin Potentiation Therapy are alternative cancer treatments. I have seen nothing experimental about them. They are not part of formal Phase 1-4 trials or translational research. It is doubtful that these or any other alternative therapies should qualify for inclusion on this page. Delete? Jellytussle 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angiostatic based treatments

How is this still listed as an experimental cancer treatment? Avastin (bevacizumab) was shown to produce a survival advantage in advanced colon cancer in a phase III trial. Should this paragraph be deleted from the article? —Brim 02:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole page needs critical review. See also my comments above. Jellytussle 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Alternative Cancer Treatments

I found the page in question at Special:Deadendpages. I don't know how useful the content is, but if you feel it would help this article, please include some of it here. After the merge is done, the other page can be changed to a redirect. - Bobet 21:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Neither page is satisfactory, but the merge would not help. Firstly, alternative cancer treatments are rarely experimental. This is due to lack of scientific rationale, and lack of clinical trial intent, let alone clinical trial data. As such, several of the paras in this page should be trimmed out. Re the current page, it might be better if the "experimental treatments" are discussed under a more general heading of Cancer research, possibly with a section on Translational research, phase 1 & 2 trials, new classes of drugs etc.Jellytussle 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with merge. Some of the alternative content here should be moved to that page.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)