Talk:Alternative cancer treatments

message: The fact of the matter is that the biggest problem with Wikipedia is that much of the time, many articles are written by non-experts in the field. Not to incite any hostilities, but many of the articles written on Wikipedia are done so by non-experts in the field, with no real background in the topic they are covering. When someone with a background in the field makes a correction, it gets deleted, and an edit war ensues. Many of the non-experts have all kinds of awards that they wear like a badge on their talk pages, while the rest of us are actually in college studying the very things the so-called arm-chair "scientists" tell us we are wrong about. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. And this fact scares me because Wikipedia is a popular go-to source for information. Much of the time bureaucracy and rules laid forth by the wiki-editors inhibit consensus, and dialogue is impeded. I truly wish that all of the articles dealing with biology could be dealt with by people who actually have a background in biology and chemistry. Most biologists would laugh at the notion that CRUK calls for the punishment of people who promote "superfoods" such as broccoli (literally! UK from what I have read actually punish people for using the word "superfood" in advertising!), when in fact, some of the chemicals in broccoli such as 3,3′-Diindolylmethane are now being isolated and investigated for its strong anticancer properties by the National Cancer Institute. So why are the so called experts policing words now? And why do the armchair "scientists" take what CRUK says as gospel truth? Seems to me like CRUK is about 60 years behind the USA in oncology. So how can they be cited as a reliable source of biological information? I'd far rather trust NCI than CRUK. But the author of this article seems to cite CRUK more often than any other source; I assume the author is from the UK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:14D0:C5C3:9B8C:5B41:AFEC (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If an expert in the field makes a statement backed up by a quality reference citation, how can a legitimate edit war ensue? The first reversion (deletion) qualifies as vandalism by any standard of WP. Right?--Quisqualis (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The biggest problem with Wikipedia 

message: This paper:
has some updated information on the risk of dying.  They conclude that the biggest cause of excess mortality among people who use alternative cancer treatments is due to refusing or delaying conventional treatment. 
This is a recent primary source, and while it's a large study in a reputable journal, I think it would be best to make a mental note about this work, and check back later to see whether it's been cited in other papers, and see how they evaluate it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess mortality 

message: I do not think this is a fair summary of https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/aromatherapy-pdq "Other symptoms, including dry mouth, procedure-related pain, and sleep problems, have been shown to have some benefit from aromatherapy, although the studies are very small."
source says
"Studies of aromatherapy have shown mixed results. There have been some reports of improved mood, anxiety, sleep, nausea, and pain. Other studies reported that aromatherapy showed no change in symptoms."
This is summarized as "The effects of aromatherapy are unclear". Expecially with there being no peer reviewed RCTs on the topic.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally intended as a summary of several sources before many of them were deleted.Theyellowdart22 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Again, part of the confusion in wording comes from the fact that no RCTs have been done in cancer treatment, but they have been conducted in the world of symptom management, which is what this sub-section is about. No one is claiming that RCTs have been done in aromatherapy for its cancer-fighting properties. Theyellowdart22 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

text: User:Doc James thanks again for taking the time to go through all this! Any ideas for how the page can otherwise be improved? Theyellowdart22 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: First identify a problem. One issue I see is some old sources (like cancer survival rates cited to a source from 2010). Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I identified several problems, including overgeneralization and poor readability of the first section. But your edits suggest you disagree. Which data in particular do you feel is worth keeping in this section? And what is your basis for keeping the first sentence? Whose definition is that? My definition referenced a reputable source. In addition, your "reference" you pointed out is automatically updated. The site was created in 2010, but you can clearly see that data exists past that. Theyellowdart22 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not reference dynamic content. The way this works is you need to get consensus for changes you want. Your edit lost too much information in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide me with a link to Wiki rules saying not to use dynamic content? Still learning about the editing world. Which parts need to remain, specifically? I can retry to edit for clarity but I'd like to know what you think is important to keep. Theyellowdart22 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no specific rule, but dynamic content will fall afoul of WP:V policy. I don't see any particularly pressing problems with the lede as-is. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it violate it/fall afoul?Theyellowdart22 (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because our text can can deviate from what the source says. Alexbrn (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Which sources from the curcumin section did you feel were unreliable? I tried to make sure that they were all review articles from decent journals or brand-name websites (MSK, Mayo). Theyellowdart22 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Quite possibly, as the scope of the article is explicitly set in the first para as "alternative or complementary treatments for cancer". It goes on to say such treatments are not supported by evidence. For treatments of side-effects which are supported by evidence, another article would seem appropriate, and indeed this is already covered in Medical cannabis. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that there is no evidence for any alternative or complementary treatments? See top of talk page for discussion of definition. I don't know where that comes from. Just because something isn't part of the standard of care does not mean there is no evidence. Theyellowdart22 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative medicine is, by definition, not medicine. If is was well-evidenced it would be. Alexbrn (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "Just because something isn't part of the standard of care does not mean there is no evidence." Any evidence must meet WP:MEDRS. But you knew that. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 14:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancer.gov

message: ===== LEAD =====
The lead section gives a very good, but detailed, overview of the concept of alternative cancer treatments. As someone who has a medical background, this section was readable and understandable to me. However, it uses quite a bit of medical jargon and is at a post-graduate reading level. I wonder if you can work on this section and make it a bit more readable to the general audience. Overall, I think this section sets up the article well and really helps define what is meant by "alternative cancer treatments."
:--> Thanks. Have retooled some of the lead section and readability is now at grade 14 per Hemingway app. Could be improved still, but I think it's at a good point. I still have one piece of primary literature in the lead, which may need to be removed at some point. 
===== CONTENT =====
I think the layout of your page is really great! I like how you start with a terminology section and then get into the details. I wonder if you could add a section on examples of alternative therapy? Or maybe incorporate this into the unproven and disproven treatment sections?
:--> This is pretty well addressed in the "Untested and disproved cancer treatments page, which is linked in the lead." I don't know how much to duplicate. 
One thing we talked about in the intro sessions was to minimize the use of primary literature and direct quotations in the Wikipedia articles. Both the prevalence and people who choose alternative treatments contain quite a bit of data and direct quotations from specific studies. I am not sure how much of this you added or what was already there before you started.
:--> most of it was there before I started. It's somewhat difficult to find reliable review articles, so sometimes this is the only data we have. I can try to pare some of these down. 
===== TONE AND BALANCE =====
For an inherently biased topic, I think you did a really good job of keeping a neutral tone. You presented facts, and did not make any opinionated comments about alternative cancer treatments or people who choose them.
In terms of balance, it seemed as if complementary therapies were talked about in almost equal amount as alternative therapies. I was a bit confused about this -- are complementary therapies a subset of alternative therapies, or are they entirely separate?
:--> In most of the literature, they are spoken of in one breath: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). However, this page is only labeled "Alternative cancer treatments." This is another question mark in my mind; do we change the title to include complementary therapies or create a new page for them?
===== SOURCES and REFERENCES =====
This page is very well cited. One think about the sources that I mentioned previously is that there seem to be quite a bit of primary studies cited rather than reviews.
:--> Got it. Will work on it. 
===== ORGANIZATION =====
Overall, well organized and the article flows well. I think if you wanted to, you could add a section for "examples of alternative cancer therapies" after terminology. The alternative theories of cancer sections is a bulleted list - I wonder if you could instead of making each theory a different bullet point, make it a different subheading? Just a thought!
:--> Done. Thank you. 
===== IMAGES and MEDIA =====
I don't think this is very applicable to your article. I don't know if you can find an image about the alternative theories of cancer? If not, I think that is also okay!
:--> I'm not sure where I would start, or stop. It would be several random images. But if someone thinks that this page would benefit from pictures, I'm happy to look. 
===== OVERALL IMPRESSIONS =====
Overall I think you did a really good job with this page, despite it being a complicated page to edit. You added some really great information and good sources! I am very impressed by how you were able to keep the page very neutral. Great job!
:--> Thank you!
KateF87 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: -->Theyellowdart22 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  PEER REVIEW 

message: Overall I think you did a really good job with this page, despite it being a complicated page to edit. You added some really great information and good sources! I am very impressed by how you were able to keep the page very neutral. Great job!
:--> Thank you!
KateF87 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: -->Theyellowdart22 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  OVERALL IMPRESSIONS 

message: What is the history of alternative cancer treatments?
Lyang82 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  QUESTIONS