Talk:Cancell

Merger

These articles should remain separate, but linked. Entelev, although the original product, has a slightly different history. Cancell was the same product for most of its history, but then marketed as a transparent and ineffective version for some years, before returning to the original formula (the one supported by abundant testimonials and the NCIs own suppressed information).

If you've got sources for the history of the formulation, it could go into the appropriate section (Cancell#Formulation) of this article. It seems that if Cancell and Entelev have been essentially identical for most of their histories, there's no need to duplicate the material across two articles.

If there is suppressed NCI information, reliable sources should be included to that effect in the Cancell#Efficacy section. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health fraud

The Category "Health fraud" is subjective and pejorative. "Fraud" isn't quite the right word for this particular entry. Why isn't Homeopathy also marked with this tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.189 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point 136.186.1.189. I have added category Health fraud to Homeopathy. Promoting or selling a product as a cancer treatment while knowing that it has been proven ineffective is a fraud. There is nothing subjective about it. PS, my addition of Category:Health fraud to Homeopathy has been speedily deleted by the twinkle bot with the comment that Homeopathic promoters may be delusional, but I don't think they're intentionally defrauding anyone..using TW. Maybe we should create a category called Health delusions. I will work on that one.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True-believer syndrome is much more accurate for these types of cases, I think.136.186.1.187 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Edit

In the spirit of a more balanced article & the Alternative Medicine WikiProject, I would like to propose a small edit to address some of the points regarding NCI's statement and the results from their tests. These points have been attempted in previous edits but I'd like to take a more verifiable and prudent approach.

My proposed edit would add to the 2nd paragraph of the Formulation and Efficacy section, my additions in italics:

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) tested the constituents of Cancell in animal experiments in 1978 and 1980 and in vitro on human tumors in 1990 and 1991. They concluded that the compounds comprising Cancell could not be taken in doses high enough to kill cancer cells in the body, and that further study was not warranted. However, the results of the in vitro tests (obtained through a Freedom of Information Request) show a significant reduction in the size and mass of the tumors over the 2-day test regimen designed for toxic therapies. Proponents point out that because Cancell is a non-toxic therapy that works by a different means, a longer test would be required to show cell death.

For the first sentence added, one source sited would be NCI's test results from 1990 which can be found on http://alternativecancer.us/testr.htm at the bottom of the page & (summarized in graph form) in Tanya Harter Pierce's book "Outsmart Your Cancer" (ISBN-10: 0972886788). The results compare the performance of Cancell vs Perillyl Alcohol (control) vs Taxol (an approved chemotherapy drug). The results show a significant reduction in tumor mass through Cancell for all cancer types tested. When taken as a whole, the results are better than Taxol, although Taxol has more 100% reductions (complete cell death).

This brings us to the second sentence added, which is added for clarification and can site both alternativecancer.us & Pierce's book. These are the proponents that make this point.

Please let me know your comments on this proposed edit. Thanks. Gtg926y (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source suggested is a low-quality primary source, being used to attempt to "debunk" good-quality secondary sources. From the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, that's a no-no. (Speaking as a scientist – and purely as an aside – I note in passing that the 're-analysis' of the NCI raw data offered in your link is...not very good. It looks like the individuals responsible didn't really understand the data and experiments they were analyzing, leading them to grossly misunderstand, misinterpret, and/or misrepresent the results. For example, they refer repeatedly to measurements of "tumor weight", even though the assay involves no tumors and measures no weights.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]