Talk:Hoxsey Therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Editorial Concerns

This article needs to seperate the difference between discussion of the Hoxsey Therapy/Method and the life of John Hoxsey (which could/should be its own biographical article). ju66l3r 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Hoxsey family history surrounding the method is multigenerational, since it was invented by John, but made famous under Harry, who had the noteworthy battles with the AMA and FDA. I tried to focus only on the parts of his biography that had bearing on the therapy and its associated clinics.--Rosicrucian 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
After performing the merge (and thus getting closer to the info/text), I guess just the items to the end of the History section (he got cancer, used modern medicine for a cure, died) were the only parts I thought could be seen as less important to the Hoxsey Therapy..except he did try his method and it failed him which is pertinent. I'm less concerned with splitting off that info into a John Hoxsey article now than I was before. Of course, if anyone were to feel ambitious enough to want to create the Hoxsey biographical article, it'd be a reasonable (i.e. notable) addition to the wikipedia. ju66l3r 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Discussion

I couldn't find this article when I was looking for "Hoxsey method", so I created a new one... then found this one. Should they be combined?Kyouran 21:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of doing that now. ju66l3r 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've completed the merge. Please read through the article to be sure that I haven't duplicated or garbled any information in the merge process. ju66l3r 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GMTA

Heh. More or less the same thought process I went through when I made the article, Kyouran. Was getting a little lonely editing it by myself. Hopefully we can work together to make a stronger article.--Rosicrucian 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The merge looks good, I think it hits on all the major points well. I'm curious to see how the case with this kid in Virginia works out. Kyouran 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

A lot of this article is taken verbatim from the American Cancer Society article linked at the bottom. Specifically the History and Side Effects sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.23.185.142 (talk • contribs) .

Okay. Thank you for the info. I didn't write the text (only merged 2 articles). I'll take a look at the possible copyvio and rewrite those sections. Anyone else is welcome to also do this as I'm a bit bogged down at work this second. ju66l3r 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Reworked the side-effects section to avoid copyvio. Going to look at the history section next.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Just got home and read through the rewrite. Nice work. Thanks for taking care of it. ju66l3r 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

Umm... it really should be mentioned in the lead that the Hoxsey Therapy is considered entirely ineffective by the scientific and medical communities. I'm open to discussing the phrasing, but it should be in there. This is generally in line with how most unproven therapies are handled. Also, WP:LEAD says we should include "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." And there has. MastCell 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. After looking at the policy page you point out, I agree that notable criticism belongs in the lead section. Someone might like to add other information to the lead section to balance it. At the moment I don't see anything obviously suitable. --Coppertwig 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem... like I said, I'm not set on the current phrasing and I'd be open to other suggestions. I agree that the lead in general could certainly stand to be expanded. MastCell 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Neutral Point of View

Articles such as this one are inevitably controversial. Where research cannot definitively prove the efficacy of a treatment, it is open to a range of good faith interpretations from support to opposition. There's also the challenge of precise editing to avoid weasel words, without oversimplification or including unsupported claims.

An example - the statements "Hoxsey Therapy is a cure for cancer" and "Hoxsey Therapy has no value at all" are currently unverifiable. By contrast, "Hoxsey Therapy is promoted as a cure for cancer" is entirely accurate and does not prejudge the therapy either way.

If all this sounds like statements of the blindingly obvious, here's the point:

  • I believe a recent series of anon IP edits have taken the article away from a neutral point of view towards outright support for Hoxsey Therapy. This includes deleting sourced material which casts doubt on its effectiveness, changing the opening sentence to "HT is a cure for cancer", and so on.
  • I have (again) reverted the article to what seems to be the last neutral version.
  • I have outlined the above to explain the reasoning for what I have done.
  • In the interests of consensus, I welcome a discussion with the anon editor (or anyone else) about changes to the page to improve its neutrality. However any changes must be sourced and due regard must be given to conflicting evidence, and I don't believe these standards have been met in the recent anon edits.

Comments, suggestions welcome. Euryalus 09:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You have done correctly by my account. None of the IP edits appear to approach neutrality and some seem downright antagonistic. I'm sorry I haven't been on wikipedia lately to help out, because this is a page on my watchlist since I put in a good amount of effort to clean it up the first time. The semi-protection should force the discussion with this anonymous editor and if it doesn't then it's clear that their intentions were not to the benefit of the article anyways and future edits should probably be considered intentionally disruptive. ju66l3r 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ausubel Research Book Reference

Kenny Ausubel wrote an in depth book about Hoxsey, his life and his formula entitled When Healing Becomes a Crime. This book provides a fair account of what Hoxsey underwent and is somewhat sympathetic. However, Ausubel does an excellent job at remaining fairly neutral on the subject and as a documentarian is well suited to cover the subject. There is also a video on the same subject that should be referenced. It may be valuable to include references to both materials in this article but because I have a personal bias toward the Hoxsey formula I have disqualified myself from adding materials.

The role that the Nurse Mildred Nelson played in the administration and promotion of the formula is essential to this subject. She had first hand knowledge of its use and provides numerous accounts of how it has worked. To be sure Hoxsey was a showman but just because he played the role or "snake oil salesman" doesn't mean that the formula helped no one. He was understandably distrustful of the JAMA relationship with the FDA and the background of the people that worked to undermine Hoxsey's efforts should be brought to light as well. Again, I clearly have a bias about this but to make the article comprehensive it is essential to include the impact of the lawsuits that Hoxsey filed and the incredibly shaping of the current structure of the FDA and its questionable relationship with JAMA.

One person that could be contacted that is still living is a licensed naturopathic doctor that lives in Oregon named Steve Austin. He visited the Hoxsey Clinic in Mexico and spent time speaking with Mildred Nelson. His reputation is beyond question and his scientific bona fides are well established. Having his comments added to the article could make it even more valuable. Ausubel briefly references Dr. Austin but I have had a couple of long discussions with him about his visit to Mexico and he has an objective take on the Hoxsey approach.--Prole Writer (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While Dr Austin might certainly have an interesting perspective, our focus here needs to be on what has been published by reliable sources on the topic. This isn't really the venue to do our own investigative work; Wikipedia does not publish original work, new findings, or novel interpretations of material. MastCell Talk 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've formatting the external link to Kenny Ausubel's book to match our external link guidelines. I'm still not clear that this is a notable enough reference to include - it seems to have a low sales rank on Amazon, is published by a small specialty publishing house, and most importantly I cannot find evidence that this book has been reviewed by any reasonably notable sources. The alt-med webosphere is predictably sympathetic, while Quackwatch equally predictably dislikes the book, but without any mainstream reviews it's unclear that this is an encyclopedic link. I'll leave it for now and await comment. The IMDB link is not appropriate and has been removed. MastCell Talk 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what Amazon sales rank has to do with probability of interest to readers. This seems to be the only book on the subject, and contains thousands of useful endnotes that will be of interest to anyone wanting to research the topic of this article further.
The documentary film also seems to be the only on the subject and contains numerous interviews with people familiar with the subject of the article, including government officials, and those who have used the therapy. The external link guidelines describes as appropriate links to "meaningful, relevant content...such as...interviews." Clearly a reference to a documentary on the subject of this article meets that criterion. Further, as this is "a link to a page that is the subject of the article" it does not fall within the range of "Links normally to be avoided." Is it the fact that the page is on IMDB that makes it inappropriate? I believe the video is on google video as well. The link could be to that page instead. Jweiner (talk) 08:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The sales rank is one indication, albeit a highly imperfect one, of the popularity, reach, and prominence of the book. I don't mean it to be a red herring, though - a better indicator of prominence and weight is whether the book has been reviewed by mainstream media or acacdemic outlets. Anyhow, I'm at a bit of disadvantage having not actually read the book, hence the reliance on major reviews (or their lack) and so forth. I'll check it out of the library. MastCell Talk 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still lost. I've reviewed the external link guidelines page and I see no reference to "popularity, reach, prominence" or "weight" as standards for including "external links that are not citations of article sources." The standards I see mentioned are "further research that is accurate and on-topic," and "useful, tasteful, informative, factual." The Ausubel book and film meet all these criteria. Further, the page lists 15 categories of external links that normally should be avoided. Neither the book nor the film fall into any of those categories. Are you perhaps conflating the standards for including external references with those for source citations?
Also, I'm still not clear whether your statement that the IMDB reference is inappropriate is an objection to a link to that particular website, or to any mention of the film whatsoever. Jweiner (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: A quick online search reveals that the Ausubel film has in fact been reviewed by numerous mainstream newspapers: The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, New York Newsday, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, Seattle Times, Christian Science Monitor, and probably others. According to the interview with the director on the DVD, after its theatrical release the film was sold to HBO, where it garnered "the highest viewer response of any documentary they had ever shown." I'm still very interested in what your grounds for removing the reference to it from this article are. Jweiner (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's been reviewed by those outlets, then I don't have a problem with it. I suppose I do wonder how useful an IMDB link is to a reader, but noting the existence of the documentary seems reasonable in light of the fact that it's achieved a reasonable degree of prominence. MastCell Talk 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict F. Fitzgerald, Jr

I've temporarily removed the section on the testimony of Benedict F. Fitzgerald, Jr. In order to assess how to work this in and to assess its context, we need something more than a link to the Congressional Record, which is a primary source. The only mention I can find of this report is in the alt-med Webosphere, where admittedly it's something of a recurrent meme, but I'm unable to turn up any reliable secondary sources that discuss it. An excerpt from the Congressional Record is very difficult to use in isolation - what was the context of Fitzgerald's report? How was it received? Did any action result? Was it one person's opinion or was there additional testimony? How was it relevant to the struggle between the AMA and Hoxsey? We need a reliable secondary source to answer those questions. I have not read Ausubel's book - does he mention it? Are there other reliable secondary sources that mention Fitzgerald's testimony? MastCell Talk 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fitzgerald's report is a secondary source. The records of the court cases on which he is reporting are the primary sources. I have personally read the published opinions of the cases Fitzgerald refers to, and as far as I can tell (Fitzgerald certainly had access to more complete records of the trials and appeals than I have) his summary of the record is accurate. As well it is a "reliable" source by any measure of the word. I don't think there is any question that Fitzgerald was who he claims and that he wrote what is published in the Congressional record. The content of the quote is not his opinion, but rather the opinion of the fact-finders in the discussed court case who heard first-hand the testimony presented on the question of the effectiveness of Hoxsey's treatment, which is after all the topic of this section of this article.
May I caution against being distracted by the personal differences between Hoxsey and the AMA in this section. The passage referring to the Journal Editor's professional history should perhaps be excluded from this quote as it is not quite on point. I left it in there with the idea of perhaps later excluding it; as you can see from the ellipses I already edited out some of the passage and I didn't want to remove too much of it before people had a chance to read it.
As far as Ausubel's book goes, I have already returned the copy I was reading to my library, but I do remember there is a reference to a contemporary newspaper report on Fitzgerald's report and apparently to his professional credentials. I personally do not have the time or resources at the moment to track down that article, but if you're interested the citation is in there. However, as I've said, I don't see that it really matters, since, as I've said, there's no real issue as to the reliability of the quoted passage. Jweiner (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
For Wikipedia's purposes, a record of Congressional testimony is generally considered a primary source (see WP:PSTS). I'm actually interested enough to read Ausubel's book once I get to the library; if there's coverage in there, then we can cite it, but I'm not comfortable citing at length from a (Wikipedia-defined) primary source without any information about context, due weight, etc. MastCell Talk 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What you've written here, and what the No Original Research page you rely on says are so inconsistent I can only wonder if you have actually read that page.
First, the No Original Research page does not say that the Congressional Record is a primary source.
Second, the No Original Research page defines "secondary sources" as "accounts at least one step removed from an event." The quoted passage from the Fitzgerald Report refers to the opinion of the jury, and the testimony of "leading pathologists, radiologists, physicians, surgeons, and scores of witnesses" as well as of the Editor of the AMA Journal. Fitzgerald did not directly hear any of this testimony himself. Since Fitzgerald (unlike the trial judge) did not hear directly from those giving testimony, he was "at least one step removed from [the] event." Thus by the definition given on the No Original Research page, this report is a secondary source.
Third, the No Original Research page explicitly says that "transcripts of...trials" are primary sources, and that, "[s]econdary sources may draw on primary sources...to create a general overview." Clearly the Fitzgerald Report draws on trial transcripts to create a general overview, therefore by this second definition provided in the No Original Research page, the Fitzgerald report is a secondary source.
Fourth, even if for some reason you are still somehow convinced this report, one step removed from the trial transcripts, is a primary source, you will please note the No Original Research page says that "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia...with care." The Congressional Record is clearly a reliable source. Thus, even if this report were a primary source--which is is not--that fact alone would not justify prohibiting its use. More particularly, the No Original Research page says that "anyone...who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." In this case, the "Wikipedia passage" is a verbatim quote from the Fitzgerald Report. There can be no greater degree of "agreement" than an exact quote. If you doubt that I have accurately quoted the Report, then I invite you to visit your local government documents depository to confirm the textual agreement for yourself. Furthermore the No Original Research page says that "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should...only make descriptive claims...[and] make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." The only claims I made about the quoted passage are (1) that it came out "some years after the trials" and (2) what the name and professional title of the author are. Clearly these are descriptive claims and are neither "analytic," "synthetic," "interpretive," "explanatory," nor "evaluative." Thus even by the Wikipedia standards required of primary sources, this passage is appropriate to this article.
Finally, you express concern about "context, due weight, etc." Regarding context, I don't know what standard you are referring to. but the context is given: the quote is from the report of a Special Counsel to a Senate Committee. With regard to undue weight, the guidelines say that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (my emphasis). The operative phrase here is "in proportion." If you believe that including this quoted passage from the Report would give the view represented by the quote too much or too detailed of a description as compared with an alternate view that you prefer, the solution is to provide a more detailed description of your preferred view (with reference to published reliable sources), not to remove the reference to the significant view with which you disagree. As far as "etc" goes, I don't know what you mean by that.
In summary, (1) by the published Wikipedia definitions, the quoted Report is a secondary, not a primary source, (2) my use in including it was careful enough to meet the requirements for primary sources, and (3) if you have a problem with the proportion of descriptions of different significant views, you should add what is missing, not delete what you disagree with.
Now that I have provided you with as much of a response to your objections as any reasonable person could demand, would you care to undo your "temporary" removal of the edit I took the time to make, or shall I? Jweiner (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have, in fact, read WP:NOR. It describes examples of primary sources as including "...historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews..." (emphasis mine). A transcript of public hearings on the topic of the Hoxsey Therapy is a primary source. That said, primary sources can of course be used as you note above. But since this particular primary source presents one side of a controversial issue, the question is how much weight to assign it in a proportionate and contextual presentation of the subject. The passage as written provides quite a bit of weight to this primary source. I'm asking for a secondary source - that is, books, newspaper coverage, journal articles, etc - which describe FitzGerald's testimony in some sort of context. Was is rebutted? Was it accepted? Was it acted on? Was it read in a Friday afternoon session to an empty session and subsequently ignored outside the alternative-medicine webosphere? I don't know the answers to these questions, and without them I don't know how much weight this particular source should carry or how to accurately present it. I am of course not the last word on this (or any) subject; if you find this request for context and due weight irrational, then the next step would be to request a third opinion or outside comment on the subject to move toward consensus. MastCell Talk 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Fitzgerald Report is a report. It is not "testimony" as you incorrectly characterize it. Senator Charles W. Toby, Chairman of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee assigned its Special Counsel to draft the Report. Special Counsel Fitzgerald reviewed the primary source documents referred to and wrote the Report. By the time Fitzgerald was finished, Senator Toby was no longer the Chairman of the Committee. Fitzgerald then submitted the report to the Committee, care of Senator John W. Bricker. Fitzgerald never appeared in person before the Senate. Fitzgerald never testified in any hearing. The Report was accepted and was not rebutted. Some time later, Senator William Langer acted on the Report by obtaining a copy of it and inserting it into the Congressional Record.
The Report is not a diary.
The Report is not census results.
The Report is not a transcript of surveillance.
The Report is not a transcript of a public hearing.
The Report is not a transcript of a trial.
The Report is not a transcript of an interview.
The undeniable fact that this Report is a secondary and not a primary source could not be any clearer. If you persist in so mischaracterizing it, I shall be compelled to question your willingness to accurately comprehend the English language, in particular the meanings of the words "transcript" and "hearing." Jweiner (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Jweiner, your post above is coming remarkably close to a personal attack. The discussion is an interesting one but needs to stay focused on the content not contributors. Not that big a deal, just a polite reminder. Euryalus (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice you've since edited it - thank you. Euryalus (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Material taken from the Congressional Record coincides most closely with the definition and examples of primary sources given by WP:PSTS. Also, if this report is a notable and meaningful source or event, why is there zero coverage of it in reliable, independent secondary sources? I've been looking and literally finding nothing on this report beyond a handful of alt-med discussion forums and unreliable websites. I'm not sure how we can proportionately and accurately represent it without some sort of reliable secondary-source coverage to give it context. In your edit, it sounds like the FDA and AMA shut down Hoxsey's clinics as making unsupported claims, but then a Congressional report proved otherwise. That is not an accurate impression. I will continue looking for sources. MastCell Talk 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Whether the Fitzgerald Report is a Primary or Secondary Source

Two editors of this article are in disagreement as to whether a particular source document is a "primary source" or a "secondary source" within the meanings given on the No Original Research page.

[edit] Facts

In the 1940s and early 1950s, Mr. Hoxsey, whose cancer treatment is the subject of this article, was a party to a number of lawsuits in which the effectiveness of his treatment was an issue necessary to outcome of the lawsuits. At the trials a number of witnesses testified. The witnesses included medical experts, the then editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and some of Hoxsey's patients. The cases were tried to juries, which heard all the witnesses testify and rendered their verdicts. The judges trying the cases also heard all the witnesses testify, took the jury verdicts, and issued judgments along with written decisions. These written decisions were published in the relevant court reporters and can today be found in law libraries and in online legal databases.

Some years after the trials, the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the US Senate, by request of its Chairman Senator Charles W. Toby, directed its Special Counsel, a lawyer named Fitzgerald, to supervise a study of organizations conducting cancer research and to submit to the Committee a report (hereinafter referred to as "The Report"). Among those organizations included in the Report was Hoxsey's Cancer Clinic. In drafting the report, Fitzgerald studied the court records of the above-mentioned trials, which presumably included the published decisions written by the judges, as well as transcripts of the witnesses' testimony. In his Report, Fitzgerald summarized these cases, in particular describing the positions of the different parties, the qualifications of the witnesses, the jury verdicts, and the outcomes of the cases, both at trial and on appeal.

Fitzgerald was not at the trials himself. He did not himself hear any of the witnesses testify. All his information came from the written court records. By the time he had finished his Report, Senator Toby was no longer the Chairman of the Committee. Fitzgerald sent his Report to Senator John W. Bricker and the members of the Committee. Fitzgerald did not testify in any hearings on the questions decided in the court trials. Some time after Fitzgerald submitted his report, Senator William Langer obtained a copy of the Report from the son of the then-deceased Senator Toby, and with permission of the Vice President of the United States, had the report inserted into the Congressional Record. The Report was published in the Appendix to the Congressional Record by the US Government Printing Office, and is today available in law libraries.

[edit] The Question

The question in need of resolution by a third opinion is whether the Report's description of the court trials is a "primary source" or a "secondary source" within the meanings provided on the Wikipedia No Original Research page.

[edit] Standards

The Wikipedia No Original Research page both defines and gives examples of the terms "primary source" and 'secondary source."

[edit] Primary Sources

[edit] The Wikipedia No Original Research page provides these definitions of "primary source":
  • "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic."
  • A primary source "provid[es] an inside view of a particular event."
  • "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period."
  • "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied...and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."

[edit] Given examples of primary sources are:
  • an eyewitness account of a traffic accident
  • archeological artifacts
  • photographs
  • historical documents such as
    • diaries
    • census results
  • video or transcripts of
    • surveillance
    • public hearings,
    • trials
    • interviews
  • tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires
  • written or recorded notes of
    • laboratory and field research
    • experiments
    • observations
  • published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research
  • original philosophical works
  • religious scripture
  • administrative documents
  • artistic and fictional works such
    • poems
    • scripts
    • screenplays
    • novels
    • motion pictures
    • videos
    • television programs

[edit] Secondary Sources

[edit] The Wikipedia No Original Research page provides these definitions of "secondary source":
  • A secondary source is "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon."
  • A secondary source "is generally at least one step removed from the event."
  • "[A] secondary source analyzes and interprets primary sources, is a second-hand account of an historical event or interprets creative work. "
  • "[A] secondary source analyzes and interprets research results or analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries."
  • "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."

[edit] The Wikipedia No Original Research page gives no examples of secondary sources.

[edit] Arguments

[edit] Reasons why the Fitzgerald Report is a Primary Source

Awaiting editor's position.

[edit] Reasons why the Fitzgerald Report is a Secondary Source

The Report is a secondary source because it is one step removed from the trials it describes. The Report is based on trial transcripts which are themselves primary sources. The Report is a secondary source because the author was not present at the trials, but wrote the Report years after the trials. The Report describes the opinions of the medical experts who testified at the trials and the jury verdicts and published court opinions, but the Report itself was not authored by any of those experts, juries, or courts. The Report does not fall into any of the example categories of primary sources.

[edit] Source that Hoxsey was a Vaudevillian

Does someone have a source for the claim that Hoxsey was a vaudevillian, which appears in the first paragraph of the "History" section of the article? Neither of the two sources cited at the end of that paragraph contain that information, and I have not been able to find any source to verify that claim. Jweiner (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in our sources to the effect that he was a vaudevillian. The Cantor article describes Hoxsey as leaving school after 8th grade and working in the coal mines in Taylorville, IL as well as selling insurance before he began marketing his treatment. I've updated the article accordingly. MastCell Talk 21:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
While I believe I was the one who originally added the claim, I cannot locate my original source on the matter. I suspect it may have been some confusion on my part due to Hoxsey's association with Baker, who was a vaudevillian before becoming a radio personality.--RosicrucianTalk 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably. I've seen some sources which indicate that Baker in particular, and in association with Hoxsey, promoted their treatments at fairs which included vaudeville performances, but that's about the extent of it. MastCell Talk 00:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing info

Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) has one mention in this article, under Side-effects - "Pokeweed has caused deaths in children." It is not listed with herbs and minerals under Treatment, nor do any of its other common or regional names appear elsewhere. 172.163.205.196 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society article referenced mentions Pokeweed (and was one of my main sources when initially writing the article and the accompanying side-effects section). It seems that since that revision a different source has been used to revamp the ingredients under "Treatment".--RosicrucianTalk 00:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)