Talk:Neoplasm

message: The silliest guess masquerading as a fact is the notion that cancer is the human body attacking itself by having certain cells grow in an out of control way.  The link between cancer and common pathogens is completely unexplored by big pharma.  Not profitable.  But a link there mist certainly is, as demonstrated by the efficacy of antibiotics applied ad oncological medicine.   We know this because the common biofilm, showed up that connection.  Biofilm doesn’t even make it into the wiki discussion of neoplasm.  Pity.  Every woman who has breast cancer in the United States also has a biofilm slime mold slowly causing vet the implant, while exerting s uniform squeezing action that eventually crushes the implant.  Biofilms are programmed to grow and to exert a uniform squeezing action if the body part it has covered or infiltrated.  All implant related biofilm  operates this way.  An implant in a woman who has had cancer cannot avoid bacterial attachment (resulting in the slime mold).   
The article should describe biofilms as neoplasms.  Breast implant disease is no mystery.  Every such woman will get it.  So perhaps you should include biofilms in your article. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.85.25 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on. 208.126.44.104 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

message: I'd like to hear your thoughts on 'growth' in the context of Willis' description of neoplastic disease.  Must neoplastic growth be driven by an increased rate of cell division?  Is it good enough for the cells to accumulate through an extended (and dysregulated) lifespan? WhatamIdoing 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question. Since Willis' quote predates the discovery of apoptosis by ~20 years, I'm not sure it is an idea that he would have considered. However, since it is phrased with reference to "tissue", rather than individual cells, I'd say that the criterion "growth of which exceeds and is uncoordinated with that of the normal tissues" could be fulfilled by any process which causes the tissue to expand, either through more rapid cell division, delayed apoptosis, or both. The advantages of a vague definition. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly is growth?

message: There is more material on this subject at Neoplasm, which has plenty of room to merge this content.   Dlohcierekim  22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merger of [[Neoplastic cells]] to  [[Neoplasm]] 

message: I requested that move on Jan 9th. In the future, remember to make this request yourself. And please fix the  red link. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith D (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move of [[Talk:Neoplasia]] to [[Talk:Neoplasm]] requested

message: For the record, 62.225.112.236 is not me and I had no advance knowledge of today's edits. I do, however, completely agree with them, as per the earlier discussion on the same subject. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprisingly, I object to the removal of information from this article.  It would be helpful if the anon could explain his/her rationale.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article voluntarily kept short -- again

message: In modern use, all tumors are neoplastic, but surely the terms are not actually interchangeable.  Please check my attempt to clarify this for accuracy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the two terms are not interchangeable. This is why we have two separate articles. What matters is that the lay reader clearly understands that currently tumor = neoplasm. Google "tumor" and see for yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that this means that you've checked my re-write, and that I've introduced no errors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumor = Neoplasm ≠ Tumor? 

message: I've changed the definition of benign neoplasms slightly, to say that they usually do not transform into cancer, since they do have the potential, but it is not definite or expected as in the case of pre-cancerous. Hope this's okay. --76.203.223.245 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if it's actually benign, then it never transforms (by definition).  The situation you're talking about is misdiagnosis.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Benign tumor needs cites. Not slighting Robbins, but just one source doesn't cut it.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Benign 

message: In the article it states that moles never transform into cancer. This seems to be completely untrue, considering that I know (and the government campaigns about) many people who have had moles that turned into melanomas from UV radiation. Considering this, I am unsure what is meant by the sentence. En-AU Speaker (T)</span> (C) (E) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moles don't ever transform into cancer? 

message: User:Bernstein0275 added a huge amount of sourced material in April about Malignant neoplasms, and I'm wondering whether that really ought to be here, rather than over at Malignant neoplasms ("Cancer") with just a brief summary here.  What do you think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for  your suggestion.  However, I note that the Cancer article is mostly aimed at the disease, with sections on symptoms, causes, diagnosis, prevention, screening, management, prognosis, etc. Thus a large section on how cancers are formed in their early stages, emphasized in the Neoplasm section Malignant neoplasm may not be as appropriate there. Bernstein0275 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neoplasm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509064024/http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/cancer/other/glossary/act1-gloss4.htm to http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/cancer/other/glossary/act1-gloss4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: As of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neoplasm&oldid=917248294, article used the US spelling. (except in a link and with the UK) - overall, 60x vs 4x.)  I presume that's the established spelling in this article, and the edits to change it lacking consensus are thus against policy and revertable, no?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  US v UK spelin 

message: The "Neoplasm" wiki en article does not have a link to the "腫瘍" article on wiki ja, even if that one has a link to the "Neoplasm" wiki en article. That's because of the "Tumor" wiki en article having the link to "腫瘍", the problem is that currently "Tumor" is a redirect and you have to actively look for it so It would be more useful to exclude it and just have "Neoplasm" and "腫瘍" to have language links to the other.
Could someone please help me to do that edit?, thank you. --~~~~ Hiyorimax (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the Neoplasm not redirecting to the 腫瘍 article in japanese