Talk:Hoxsey Therapy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Editorial Concerns

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm in the process of doing that now.  ju66l3r 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: GMTA

message: 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)
replies: text: Reworked the side-effects section to avoid copyvio. Going to look at the history section next.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got home and read through the rewrite.  Nice work.  Thanks for taking care of it.  ju66l3r 23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Neutral Point of View 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ausubel Research Book Reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source that Hoxsey was a Vaudevillian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: Having had my attention directed here by MastCell's post to the Fringe Theories noticeboard, I've looked over the article and this talk page, and would like to express a few opinions.  First:  the Fitzgerald report is absolutely a reputable source.  A random piece of testimony to Congress is not a good source in general, but a report prepared at the behest of a Congressional committee by a staffer is as reputable as it gets.  Second:  I don't have great faith in the Guzley article.  I've never heard of that journal (I'm a biologist but not an M.D.), and I note that he has a very limited publication record.  I can't look at his paper from home, but I can probably download it when I'm next in the lab -- I want to see what evidence he cites for his statements.  Third: most of the changes that General Disarray has made are not good, but they are certainly not vandalism, and it seems to me that there is room for discussion.  Also I think one of his changes at least is a positive contribution, namely using the overview of the ACS article instead of a sentence extracted from the body -- I think it would be good to cite the entire overview, though, including, "It is not known if there are harmful effects of the combination of the herbs taken together. The paste made for external application can severely burn, disfigure and scar the skin." Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two things cited to that paper now, both of which are cited elsewhere in the article by different sources, so it may be reasonable to take it out, but given that there's independent confirmation (FDA on one fact, ACS on the other), I don't see a need.  SDY (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would find it helpful if we could get a third-party opinion on MastCells characterization of the alleged undue weight created by my contributions. Duke's one statement about the anitcancer properties of the herbs has been deemed WP:UNDUE; by these standards it appears that nothing challenging the AMA's published statements, whether they're verifiable in reliable sources or not, can be included here. I have provided verifiable reliable sources for EVERY contribution I've made, and EVERY one of them has been challenged based on undue weight, or by questioning the value of the sources themselves. This would appear to be the crux of the challenge we're facing here. DisarrayGeneral 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm understanding the situation correctly, Duke's statement appeared in an article by Ken Ausubel, published in the New Age Journal. This does not strike me as the kind of source we should be using for an article about a medical treatment, when we have statements by several different medical and scientific bodies. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the New Age Journal also publishes things like "21 Ways to Read a Tarot Card" I have substantial doubts that they're a reliable source for medical information.  SDY (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the statement is intrinsically unlikely:  herbs are rarely subjected to rigorous tests, because tests cost money and herbs are never money-makers since they can't be patented; also the mix contains a bunch of herbs. Looie496 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's also the issue that most herbs vary massively based on biological considerations like growing conditions.  The possible variation in active ingredients means that "ten ounces of foo" could be too little for a therapeutic dose, just right, or a massive overdose.  There's also a lot of money out there for cancer research because there's money to be made in treating patients (i.e. how Hoxsey himself got rich), so the economic argument is limited.  SDY (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looie, if you believe that "herbs are never money-makers", I'd suggest you look at the balance sheets of any large herbal-supplement company. The herbal market in the US was around $4.8 billion in 2007. The best-selling brands of ephedra, for instance, generated hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly sales and rivaled the larger prescription drugs (well, until ephedra was banned for safety reasons). Tests don't get done because there's absolutely no regulatory requirement that safety and efficacy be demonstrated for herbs, not because the money isn't there. MastCell Talk 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Duke is reputable (although 79 years old now), and there is plenty of information about him.  Try a Google search for "Jim Duke ethnobotanist", or look at .  The problem is that the statement you're quoting doesn't come from something Duke wrote, it's only something that Ausubel said that Duke told him.  The issue is Ausubel's reliability, not Duke's. Looie496 (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Or see James A. Duke, for that matter. Looie496 (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I turned up a lot of James Dukes, so I appreciate you addressing my question about this particular one's notability. I am not suggesting that all non-mainstream views be "suppressed"; however, I am asking for quality sources. I'm asking that we proportionately represent the opinions of experts in the field, which are easily demonstrated. And I'm asking that we accurately reflect our sources - I have in mind the Mohs citations here. MastCell Talk 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I have ≥6 PubMed-indexed articles to my credit (we'll throw in letters to the editor, apparently). And let's say I make a comment in my field of expertise to a journalist, who reproduces it in the New Age Journal. Would that comment be a notable addition to a Wikipedia article on a subject when numerous large, reputable medical bodies have already commented? Actually, that's neither here nor there.I appreciate the information on James Duke. I've learned something. I'm still not sure of the best way to work in an individual opinion, even from a qualified individual, when it is reported in a low-profile, fringe, borderline-reliable source. Most of the large bodies that have reviewed the data have concluded that some of the Hoxsey herbs have in vitro antitumor activity. Duke's statement, at least as reported by Ausubel in the New Age Journal, is that they "all" do. That seems a bit odd. MastCell Talk 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable primary source, unreliable secondary source.  If we had it "from the horse's mouth" it'd be great, but through the filter of a dubious magazine it's not useful.  If we could find the J. Duke comment in another source it'd be great, but I have reservations about the interpreter.  SDY (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a more reliable source, let's use it, but just because it's published means little about the reliability of its content.  Medical journal is not required, but we definitely want a reputable source of some sort.  There are enough reputable sources that talk about herbals in particular and CAM in general that there are relevant experts to consult.  Dr. Duke is a good example, but how can we even verify that Ausubel's reporting of what he said is not a gross overstatement or twisting of the facts given the apparent tone of his book?  "Healing Arts Press" does not appear to be a reliable publisher, given the comments above on what else they publish.  SDY (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see about the Healing Arts Press from their website and catalog, I would argue that Ausubel's book fails WP:RS. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions 

message: The word "tumor" in the lead is very important.  Historically, a tumor was a swelling.  A swelling might or might not be a neoplasm.  A neoplasm might or might not be a cancer. --Una Smith (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Few people other than Celsus would be disturbed by "tumor" being used according to the most common definition in current English usage.  Historically, referring to something as "artificial and awful" was a great compliment, not to mention the changes to that three letter word that starts with G.  It is neither misleading nor inaccurate in this context.  SDY (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I see I didn't get my point across.  Sorry.  I'll try again.  The problem is the first paragraph of the History section, which includes Hoxsey himself traced the treatment to his great-grandfather, who observed a horse with a tumor on its leg cure itself by grazing upon wild plants growing in the meadow.  Do you see the logical faults here?  Rewrite the above as The horse had a swelling.  The horse ate plants.  The swelling went away.  Ergo, eating the same plants cures cancer. --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that particular case, it appears that Hoxsey made that exact confusion, but the therapy doesn't claim to reduce swelling.  SDY (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumor 

message: I have a couple of concerns with this edit. I still have reservations about quoting Duke, though I agree an "Herbalgram" from the American Botanical Council is a better source than Ausubel's article in the New Age Times. I guess I'm wondering how his personal opinion, expert though he may be, should be weighted with the multiple expert bodies that have reached differing conclusions.
More importantly, the summary of the OTA report leaves something to be desired (incidentally, the relevant text is available here at Quackwatch). Specifically, the edit seems to have carefully combed the OTA report for everything favorable to Hoxsey, while leaving out any caveats from the report.
* "The OTA, at the request of Congress, was the first Federal agency to review the Hoxsey Therapy." This is just wrong. As we've discussed ad nauseum and as noted in the article, the FDA and NCI both evaluated Hoxsey's treatment long before the OTA. Both the FDA and NCI are federal agencies. (In fact, one might consider them more appropriate evaluators of the efficacy of a medical treatment than the Office of Technology Assessment).
* The description of Patricia Spain Ward is WP:PEACOCKing
* "[emphasis added]"? Why did you, the editor, add emphasis to a portion of a quote?
* You quote the OTA report on the virtues of pokeweed. Interestingly, you left out the OTA's note on its toxicities: "Pokeroot, a reported component of the liquid tonic, contains toxic mitogenic substances (agents that induce cell division and proliferation), and has been linked with poisoning, including some fatal episodes, in children and adults."
* Many less-than-favorable aspects of the OTA report are omitted from the summary, including that The Bio-Medical Center claims an 80% "cure rate", and blames the supposed 20% failures on the patient's "bad attitude".
* There is some interesting material on Hoxsey vs. the NCI - the NCI found Hoxsey's records completely unusable, while Hoxsey felt that it was the NCI's responsibility to do the legwork to verify his treatment's effectiveness, and ascribed the failure to do so to a conspiracy.
I'll propose some changes to the article. MastCell Talk 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find "first Federal agency to review the Hoxsey Therapy" in the OTA report; I scanned the Hoxsey section and tried Ctrl-F as well. Am I missing something? Can you provide a link or some direction to where this was taken "word for word"?The NCI actually did test and review the value of the herbs themsevles; the OTA report specifically notes: "OTA obtained results of testing for antitumor activity of the constituent Hoxsey herbs used in the internal tonic from NCI's Natural Products Branch." The results of the NCI's testing are given in the OTA report (see the link I provided). In any case, I'm OK with Duke being cited as he is currently if you are.Part of the material you added in  this edit quotes Patricia Spain Ward and states "[emphasis added]". (If you pull up the diff and use Ctrl-F, you'll see it). I don't understand who added the emphasis - did you add it, or did you cut-and-paste the report from another website which added its own emphasis?I think the general concern I had was that the OTA report was being mined for favorable information to "counterbalance" the negative evaluations by other bodies. Instead of looking to accentuate the positive, I think we should just represent what the report has to say, positive or negative. What I took away, anyway, was that the OTA was high on the in vitro antitumor effects of many of the herbs, but noted the lack of animal or clinical testing. MastCell Talk 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTA report 

message: In this edit, MastCell removed the link to alternative cancer treatments from the lead (now it is nowhere in the article). Why? It's an article which is likely to attract interest from the people who are reading this and it's a reasonable article to use in the lead. II | (t - c) 06:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have anything against the parent article. I can't remember exactly why I removed the link, but using forensic techniques to reconstruct my reasoning, I think it was probably just that the wording was redundant ("alternative medical therapy" in the first sentence, "alternative cancer treatment" in the second). I'd be fine with re-linking the article on alternative cancer therapies in the lead - ideally we can just tweak the wording so it reads well. MastCell Talk 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead adjustment and reasonable parent article alternative cancer treatments 

message: For what it's worth, I just want to cast my vote that deleting factual information from Wikipedia pertaining to Harry Hoxsey and his herbal cancer treatment is an abuse of censorship which would diminish resources available for those seeking to understand the truth behind a demonized man.  Suffering cancer patients deserve to have information made available to them so that they can decide for themselves how they feel about the validity of issues involved based on factual relevant information.  Even if the determinations drawn from such information are controversial, this does not legitimize the exclusion of facts.  Readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.  --— sloth_monkey 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we serve cancer patients - or anyone, for that matter - by presenting them with misleading information under the guise of avoiding "censorship". Removing or editing misleading material is not "censorship" - it's a fundamental part of creating a serious, respectable reference work. In terms of specifics, what "factual relevant information" do you think should be restored to the article? MastCell Talk 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: I am given to understand that Hoxsey sued Morris Fishbein (editor of the JAMA who accused Hoxsey of quackery) and won. During the course of this suit Fishbein was compelled to admit that the Hoxsey treatment worked on skin cancer. There seem to be photocopies of newspapers that back this information up. Are these newspapers photoshopped? Did Hoxsey not win this suit? Why would this major event not be included in the Wikipedia page? 
169.226.221.28 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do I have the wrong information?