Talk:Cancer/Archive 2

message: I'm known to favour clinical descriptions before pathophysiological discussions. This is for several reasons: (1) hard science puts people off, (2) cancer is not researched if it is not recognised or diagnosed, (3) it disrupts logical flow.
Before I shift everything around again, I'd like to get some views on whether the "diagnosing cancer" section should be high up or lower down in the article. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --WS 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Most medical articles follow the symptoms -> diagnosis -> pathophysiology -> treatment format. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been an outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Template since July 2004 describing preferred headers and order, but I think most people don't see it because it is at the bottom. It might make sense to split it onto its own policy page. --Arcadian 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has the clinical section given way to the pathophysiology? 

message: 84.153.85.91 has added some paragraphs about "macromolecule" therapy. I have not heard of this. The points are very non-specific. I have requested examples and references. Jellytussle 07:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. On the Richter scale, targeted therapy is several points higher than this. JFW | T@lk 11:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macromolecules 

message: It disturbs me a little to see the edit summary that accompanied the removal of the "religion" section saying "this is relevant to an article on religion, not medicine"; I am speaking from the perspective of someone who could never be called "religious" in any sense of the word.  This is an encyclopedia article; it is not an article in a medical textbook.  As such, consideration of the disease in its social context is in bounds and should not be so brusquely cast away as being irrelevant.  The social context of a disorder and its treatment is a major factor in the quality of life enjoyed (or not) by the persons afflicted with the disorder.  I trust that the medical professionals who edit this and other medicine-oriented articles are both aware and respectful of this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A line on an obscure Italian saint does not constitute a useful discussion of medicine and religion or medicine in society, let alone cancer. The social context of medicine is important, and may deserve its own page. Medicine and religion likewise. Possibly both of these should be part of the history of medicine. The Cancer page is not the place. Jellytussle 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Medicine and Religion section 

message: "In the days before antiseptics, surgery usually caused infection, but the rate of recovery from the cancer was high. This realization prompted William Coley about 100 years ago to develop a treatment method based on injecting bacteria into the tumor. According to Stephen Hoption Cann of the University of British Columbia, "He had successes you simply couldn't hope for today, curing even extensive metastatic disease" (New Scientist, 2 Nov., 2002). However, his method was not pursued because of the growing interest in radiation therapy. There is now some interest in re-examining his idea"
This should go in the vaccine/immunotherapy section rather than surgical.
The Hopton Cann article (or a very similar one) can be found for free at this journal:
Dr William Coley and tumour regression: a place in history or in the future.Hoption Cann SA et al Postgraduate Medical Journal 2003;79:672-680
And a slightly more detailed scientific discussion of the subject is:
Cancer vaccines Espinoza-Delgado I. Oncologist. 2002;7 Suppl 3:20-33.
I think this subject deserves a mention, but with respect your paragraph needs to be edited for style. The first sentence is unqualified. One could equally say that surgical mortality pre antiseptics was horrendous. I would lose the quote from Hoption Cann, which is journalese, and which suggests that a miracle cancer cure has simply been discounted.
If Coley's Toxins are mentioned, one should also discuss contemporary methods for gnerating non-specific immune response against tumours, such as intravesical BCG for superficial bladder cancer, and also interferon and interleukin studies. Vaccines to generate non-specific immune responses are the subject of intensive research for a number of tumours, notable malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.
Lastly, reading the Hoption Cann article I was struck by his idea that modern oncology has abolished the pyrexial infection with its (supposed) associated antitumour benefits. It is worth pointing out that the commonest cause of death from cancer is a pyrexial infection, usually pneumonia. Jellytussle 18:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coley's Toxins 

message: "...Mutations in proto-oncogenes will modify their function. If their function is modified so that they become overexpressed and thus produce more proteins of which they are coded for, thus becoming overactive."
:: I'm not sure the second sentence makes all that much sense grammatically. Also, a proto-oncogene can become an oncogene via a mutation that changes how the protein acts - not just through a mutation that induces over-expression. (i.e. production of a hyperactive product). For example, the rasD oncogene is produced through a point mutation inserting a glycine residue at position 12 - not through an overexpression of the normal ras product.--Sinkingpie 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right wrt the grammar. Go ahead and fix it. Maybe ..."Mutation of an  oncogene can modify its function, increasing or decreasing the amount or activity of the product protein." alteripse 23:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, remember to update the carcinogenesis page as needed. I just updated some of it, but it might require other updates. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oncogene definition 

message: This article was moved from "Cancer" to "Cancer aromatase" without discussion or move explanation. In the absence of a readily apparent reason, I have moved it back to "Cancer". — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: So I've heard various arguments from, sadly, a large number of people that the cause of cancer is actually caused by parasites, and that I am in fact a foolish rube for believing other wise.
So should we add a section or an article debunking causes/cures for cancers similar to how the moon landing article links to a page about moon landing hoaxes.
:See the section in Carcinogenesis on non-mainstream theories. There has been an ongoing debate about the merits of using space on this page to discuss alternative theories. The consensus seems to be that they should be discussed elsewhere. There are numerous alternative pages in Wikipedia. Jellytussle 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasites / Microbes? 

message: i have alot of friends who have been cancer (including me i am now a mirical child who is totally cleard of cancer (miraculusly) survivors and i encurage you to not give up if you have cancer fight the battle and win 
:One of the messages from this article should be that a diagnosis of cancer is no death warrant. Indeed, some cancers have a much better prognosis than more severe but less ill-reputed conditions such as stroke.
:I'm not sure whether we should refer to undergoing cancer treatment as "fighting and winning". Sometimes the cancer wins. If I were to be asked, I would prefer to focus on "dealing with the challenges", "remaining sensible", "following medical advice", "trying to lead a happy life despite the problems". A person does not change just because of a tumour. Sometimes it seems it's not the patients who has the cancer but the cancer has the patient (Kylie Minogue has already become synonymous with her tumour). JFW | T@lk 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouraging

message: Maybe this is of interest? --Striver 10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. A series of 3 patients doees not make a proper trial.Jellytussle 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitamin C

message: This phrase, e.g. "Up to half of" doesn't belong in a good scientific article, but it appears several times (err... up to 50 times :-P ).  For example, IF it's true that 1% of cancer is caused by x, THEN it must also be true that UP TO half of of cancer is caused by x.  Please, can we remove the phrase, which is normally only used by unethical marketers?  "Approximately" could be an appropriate replacement, but without a reference, it's impossible to know.    PS:JFW, kudos on lots of evident hard work on this article. -Elvey 18:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up to

message: I was looking for some historical info on cancer treatment & research. The history pages all seem somewhat cryptic. There's a good story about how the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was discovered in the 50's, and it seems that an Italian physician in the 19th century discovered a link between nuns and breast cancer.
:Are you sure its not nuns and cervical cancer? Nuns (ie virgins) don't get it (so to speak) since they have not been exposed to HPV. I agree that the history section could be expanded. I have moved the para on Coley's toxins to the history section: although it may be relevant to modern immunotherapy, it definately counts as history rather than as current practice.Jellytussle 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff.Please get a user name and sign your work.Jellytussle 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: JFW is right. This should be a section in Cancer research which is currently a fairly bad page. Cancer is getting a bit unwieldy. If History is moved, there should be some very clear linkage from the cancer page.Jellytussle 16:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of cancer treatment & research 

message: The number of links seems to expand by the day. Some of these are to internationally recognised organisations of high repute, with useful and accessable information. Others are either repetitive, parochial, or less useful. How do we decide which stay or go, apart from me wielding the delete button?Jellytussle 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some guidelines: Wikipedia:External links --WS 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to external sites 

message: Maybe it should be featured. If someone nominate the article, I alert Medicine WikiProject, and all medicine related contributors. It's an important topic, I created hungarian cancer article on the basis of this article, and it became featured. I help, if needed. NCurse work 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: The first para of the cheotherapy section need some expansion and editing.Jellytussle 22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of faults have you found in it? Maybe it would help in expanding. NCurse work 06:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemotherapy 

message: , now registered as , has been making extensive edits to champion a new form of cancer therapy based on Pattern Recognition Tumor Targeting. This is a discovery of Arnold Glazier, MD, in his (self-published) book. The idea is that by targeting cells that both proliferate and invade you cure every cancer. It is endorsed by Emil Frei III, leading oncologist, and the author thanks a lot more very big names in his acknowledgements.
Never mind that the contributions don't go into detail. What modality should be use? Something called targeted therapy perhaps? It all doesn't make a great deal of sense.
Given the complete paucity of Google hits for this innovative approach I suspect the Wikipedia article shouldn't devote attention to Pattern Recognition Tumor Targeting. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JFW: +1... We shouldn't devote attention to it. Now. NCurse work 09:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is most gratifying to see that people have taken the time to respond to my posting regarding Pattern Recognition Tumor Targeting.  My understanding is that the book was written by Dr. Arnold Glazier to help present this new and novel approach to the problem of metastatic cancer.  Pattern Recognition Tumor Targeting is a patented technology which is currently being reviewed by numerous oncologists throughout the country and to-date has met with extremely favorable views.  It is understandable and easy to recognize why one would want to immediately dismiss the concepts presented by Dr. Glazier, but before doing that I would appeal to you first to take the opportunity to review and read the book, which goes into much clearer explanations.  Or, if you prefer, you can get a synopsis of the technology by reading his peer-reviewed article in TIBETS, which has been published by the Windber Institute.  Once you have done that, I think further discussion would be more meaningful.  Dr. Glazier has received formal letters of support from numerous leading oncologists in the country and is currently in the process of planning a workshop of leading oncologists to present his work in a more formal manner. Respectfully, Jeff Glazier
We shouldn't need to read a book to understand the principles of PRTT. You have still not explained what treatment modalities are used - at the moment we have no way of knowing. Endorsement of a promising theory by bigwigs is not equivalent to notability. None of these endorsements are available online, for example. To say it more poignantly, really important science needs no letters by Emil Frei III - it is immediately quoted senseless in the literature. The fact that this hasn't happened makes me wonder.
We're all assuming good faith here, make no mistake. Possibly in 10 years all other cancer treatments will have been relegated to the rubbish heap. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not engage in unsustained speculation.
Just out of interest, is Arnold Glazier your dad or your brother? JFW | T@lk 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish the project well. It sounds like it is in far better hands than ours and I will watch for results. alteripse 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern Recognition Tumor Targeting 

message: Why is sex listed as one of the lifestyle factors of cancer? Is this a vandalism?
:No. Think about cervix carcinoma or carcinoma of the penis. These are sexually transmitted cancers. I mean absence of hygiene, etc. can lead to these. NCurse  work 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or rather, sexual contacts as such can lead to cancer - just like anything sexually transmitted. Sexual transmission of papilloma virus is a huge risk factor for cervix cancer. // Habj 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex as the cause? 

message: I removed the half-sentence "'and public health and vaccination programs are also important on a global scale." AFAIK cancer vaccins are pretty much in the stage of research. If there are vaccine programs anywhere, I do not know of them - granted I am no expert but I doubt you can say they are "important on a global scale". Regarding public health programs - this is so unspecific. The only thing I can think of is screening programs, like for instance for breast cancer. Maybe that could be included, but for now I just remove it. // Habj 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer vaccine programs important on a global scale? 

message: This section seems out of place in a mainstream cancer article, so I've removed it.  Biopsying tumors is standard procedure.  To suggest otherwise would represent a fringe practice that is outside the scope of standard medical practice.  This material may be more appropriate in an alternative medicine article.  Andrew73 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer and Biopsy in Nature Cure 

message: I mentioned p53 has two sites of action:nuclear transcription factor and cytoplasmic effecting cell cycle and apoptosis.
p53 maybe linked to Warburg effect.I believe I've read that half of all cancers have alterations in p53.Given the significance
it maybe worthwhile to have a specific section dedicated to it.GetAgrippa 03:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not overload this article with too much detail. For that we have carcinogenesis, which itself will probably need to be broken up. Please keep our readership in mind - not all of them are trained biochemists (not even ). JFW | T@lk 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "p53 section maybe needed"

message: I was surprised to find no mention of alkaline cures for cancer.
There are many sites that claim that raising the PH levels of the body to above 7.4 will cure cancer and that this can be done by ingesting alkaline minerals. there are also several books on the subject.
I came here to see if there was any truth to these claims and there is no mention.
here is one website claiming this:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/health/cancer.htm
here is another website claiming... im not sure what, it seems to be for it one sentence and against it the next, seems very badly worded.
http://www.knowledgeofhealth.com/report.asp?story=Calcium%20Does%20not%20Cure%20Cancer&catagory=Cancer,%20Calcium
all the sources I have seen place this cures discovery in the hands of Otto Warburg and Keith Brewer, I found plenty of articles here mentioning Warburg (although none mention an alkaline cure bein gone of his discoveries) and there doesnt seem to be a page on Brewer.
Can someone tell me if there is any truth to this? is this nonsense invented to sell placebo cures? or is there some real science here?
I think this page should have a section on this explaining what the real situation is and debunking any myths on this topic.  - Mloren 13:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alkaline Cure 

message: At the moment the opening para reads thus:
"Cancer research is the intense scientific effort to understand disease processes and discover possible therapies. Although understanding of cancer has greatly increased since the last decades of the 20th century, few radically new therapies have been discovered."
The second sentence is inaccurate on several levels. Jellytussle 07:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer research 

message: Is it possible to spread/transmit cancer via organ transplant, intercourse, or other means (dirty needles), similar to Canine transmissible venereal tumor disease? 
As well, just like CTVT Disease, do cancer cells in humans have more or less chromosomes than they normally should (46)?  Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catching Cancer 

message: Here is a link that states that flax seeds inhibits the growth of breast, colon, prostate, and uterine cancer.    It says that the best way to consume flax seeds is to ground them in a coffee grinder and eat the powder right away. Two to five tablespoons of flax seed powder a day is the recommened ammount. Considering all the evidence that flax seeds can prevent and help to contain certain types of cancer, can the link be added to the main article?  It is something people should know about. 204.80.61.10 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a commercial site selling snake, er.. flax oil, and making unfounded claims. No thanks. alteripse 15:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all:  It is Not a commercial site selling snake, er..flax oil.  The Medford, Oregon "Mail Tribune" is the town's Newspaper that has been serving Southern Oregon for Nearly 100 Years.  Second: At the Wikipedia article on Breast Cancer; there is a paragraph that states: "There is preliminary research that flax seed can significantly inhibit breast cancer growth".  There are Four references to back up this claim. .  Third: At www.google.com, putting the words "Flax" and "Cancer" into the search box will get One Million, Ten Thousand replies.  That is a lot of people, (and probably), almost all of them think that flax seeds should be included in a discussion of cancer prevention and treatment, based on the known evidence.204.80.61.10 17:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flax Seeds and Cancer

message: Paragraph 2 states, "If untreated, cancers may eventually cause illness and death, though this is not always the case." The grammar of the sentence implies if treated, no illness of death will occur. I suggest this be corrected.
Weffiewonj 12:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 2 query