Talk:Experimental cancer treatment

message: I've been following this company with interest for some time now:   I'm surprised they're not listed on this page.  Does it belong somewhere else or should it be added? 97.126.250.119 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been editing the Oncolytic Virus page where reovirus as a therapy is detailed. Perhaps this page could benefit from a section on oncolytic viruses in general? I already tried to add it but it was removed, I would appreciate some discussion on it. Viraltonic (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reovirus 

message: 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 
---
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)
thread_title:  Unregistered user's POV changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rife's "Beam Ray" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Insulin potentiation therapy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are Alternative Treatments really "Experimental"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This whole page needs critical review. See also my comments above. Jellytussle 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angiostatic based treatments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: The "definition" was boldly added by a new editor and is wrong.  I've removed it.  However, the general idea is correct, if you are looking at it specifically at a point in time.  Every normal cancer treatment that we have today was "experimental" from the day it was first created until the day that the FDA/EMA/similar agencies around the world declared that it was "approved". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Alternative Cancer Treatments]] 

message: Much of this article is outdated.  Some of it belonged at Alternative cancer treatments.  As a first effort, I have removed any drug that isn't currently being studied (i.e., with curative intent, not to manage side effects or for other purposes) according to https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/clinical-trials/search/
If anyone else wants to take a similar approach to other sections, I think that would be helpful.
Overall, IMO this article needs a little less about specific individual drugs and more about general concepts (e.g., p53 activation as a category of research, and maybe link to a few specific drugs as a passing mention).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning the article out