Talk:Anticarcinogen

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links regarding the carcinogenic effect of cannabis smoke.

Elroch you know very well from the message I left on your userpage that there is plenty of evidence that smoking cannabis does not lead to lung cancer. There is also evidence that it might, but any evidence about whether cannabis smoke causes or doesn't cause lung cancer is completely irrelevant to this article. This article is about anti-carcinogens. You seem to have an intent on adding to this article studies which show that there might be an increased lung cancer risk from smoking cannabis. You could add the links that shows there is no increased risk but you don't. Why not? You seem biased. Anyway as I've said it's irrelevant. This article is about anti-carcnogens, a discussion on whether smoking cannabis might cause lung cancer is pretty irrelavent.

There are a number of ways that cannabis can be consumed that don't involve inhaling smoke, so unless you can show me that any of chemicals in cannabis cause cancer, 'using' vapourising or eating cannabis certainly doe not have any cancer risk. As I said it's irrelevant anyway, as the article is about anticarcinogens. Your additions wouldn't even really be relevant to the carcinogen article as the links you've provided don't establish whether any of the chemicals in cannabis cause cancer. Also some of the stuff you're referencing is pretty dubious to say the least, for example,

It seems to me like you didn't even read the abstact as it clearly says, no clear dose-response relationship was observed between the risk of lung cancer and the intensity or duration of cannabis use. A suggestion that it may be a risk is certainly not causative and it's dishonest to imply this in the artcle whilst quoting this study.Supposed (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you are, read this. The studies you've quoted are relevant there. You'll notice though on that article they strive to make the article from a neutral POV. Supposed (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at this after a long time, it gives the impression that Supposed was having an argument here with his shadow. Based on my review of the balance of research, I agree there is little evidence for any carcinogenic effects of cannabis, but unfortunately very strong evidence that its use is associated with some types of psychosis. This is a factor that could cause a drug to fail to be acceptable for medical usage (as well as a major concern for recreational users). No doubt, many recreational users of cannabis will be unwilling to accept the idea that their drug of choice might have a fault. 82.1.148.7 (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - Undue weight given cannabis

I'm not contesting the validity of marijuana but the weight given to it in this article may be too prominent given legalization political motives and debate popularity. Marijuana has anticarcinogen properties but it is not by far the best anti-carcinogen or most creditable anti-carcinogen in oncology. It is also misleading in the sense that someone with A1AD might actually get cancer from the smoke of cannibis long before realizing it's anticarcinogen effects unless it was lab USP grade 100% pure THC. No mention is made of various essential oils, cruciferous vegetables or other synthetic chemicals. There may be too much original research here. Please see the guidelines on proper weight http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/NPOV#Balance and round out this article --Johnhgagon (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No clear dose-response relationship was observed between the risk of lung cancer and the intensity or duration of cannabis use. This study suggests that smoking cannabis may be a risk factor for lung cancer."

Why does "oncostatic" redirect here?

What does it mean exactly? Equinox (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chemotherapy

Hi @علاء: do you think this article should stay? I suggest this article to be redirected to Chemotherapy. محمود (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]