Talk:Cancer/Archive 3

Carcinogens vs mutagens

Statements

"Substances that cause DNA mutations are known as mutagens, and mutagens that cause cancers are known as carcinogens."

and

"Many mutagens are also carcinogens, but some carcinogens are not mutagens."

are contradictive. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.164.244 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another query

This sentence from the Molecular biology section (top of paragraph 10) is baffling to me:

"Mutation of tumor suppressor genes that are passed on to the next generation of not merely cells, but their offspring can cause increased likelihoods for cancers to be inherited."

Can someone clarify what this is supposed to mean?--DO11.10 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chipotle is the cure for cancer!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.181.141 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Basics of CANCER

"Acidosis" is the scientific term for a body that has a pH below 7.0. In this state, the body is deprived of oxygen causing one to be more susceptible to colds, flus and other diseases/infections. This state also contributes to accelerated aging.

Our modern lives give us ample opportunity to become acidic. Commonly-consumed acid-forming foods and beverages include meat, dairy products, sugar, coffee and alcohol. Environmental exposure to solvents, herbicides, pesticides and other chemical toxins boost our tendency to become acidic.

Acidosis is the cause of America's #2 killer-cancer. In order to understand the basics of cancer, we must first understand the acid/alkaline balance. Understanding the acid/alkaline balance, the following summary makes perfect sense: The prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.

Over 75 years ago, Dr. Otto Warburg was awarded two Nobel prizes for demonstrating that cancer results when weakened cell respiration occurs due to lack of oxygen at the cellular level. According to Warburg, damaged cell respiration causes fermentation, resulting in low pH at the cellular level.

Dr. Warburg, in his Nobel Prize winning papers, described the environment of the cancer cell: A normal healthy cell undergoes an adverse change when it can no longer take in oxygen to convert glucose into energy. In the absence of oxygen, the cell reverts to a primal nutritional program to nourish itself by converting glucose through the process of fermentation. The lactic acid produced by fermentation lowers the cell pH and destroys the ability of DNA and RNA to control cell division. Cancer cells then begin to multiply without restraint.

The lactic acid simultaneously causes severe local pain as it destroys cell enzymes; the cancer appears as a rapidly-growing external cell covering with a core of dead cells. We know cell masses of this description as "tumors."

Subsequent research by Keith Brewer, Ph.D and H.E. Satori has shown that cancer cannot exist when the body's pH is raised to 8.0.

Dr. Brewer developed a protocol to therapeutically raise pH with the element cesium in conjunction with potassium.

Cancer can simply not exist in a properly oxygenated cellular environment.

MILK Linked to OVARIAN CANCER

A 2004 Swedish study, which followed more than 61,000 women for 13 years, has found a significant link between milk consumption and ovarian cancer. According to the BBC, "[Researchers] found that milk had the strongest link with ovarian cancer - those women who drank two or more glasses a day were at DOUBLE the risk of those who did not consume milk at all, or only in small amounts." source: BBC News Milk link to ovarian cancer risk 29 November 2004 Dr. R Hope 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Dr. R Hope 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about an hour ago i found out that my uncle (my great uncle) who is 67 has been diagnosed with incurable cancer & he has decided not to get treatment we find out in a week how long hes got please help me in finding the strength to not break down when i call my grandmother

lost in emotions age 13

Whilst I am sympathetic, I would advise you to read WP:TPG. DoktorDec (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer in animals

I can't help but notice that there isn't a great deal of attention given to cancer in non-human animals. It is of course made clear that they develop cancer just like humans, but there is very little information on the subject. A section on this, including their use in research (I just recently saw an article on the news about using eggs in cancer treatment for example) and their similarities and differences with human forms of cancer would be good to see, and would certainly round the article out nicely. Richard001 08:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard of a ANTI CANCER MEDICINE called UKrain. i couldnt find it on wikipedia, but maybe someone can make it or give me the redirect link?

Sea urchin cure?

I have heard that there is a certain chemical that is in sea urchins that can cure cancer, but would cost so much money to replicate it, nobody's doing it. Can somebody clarify if this is true? 69.249.48.122 02:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Alberta mitochondrial theory

Are either of the above last 2 mentions reeferring to the mitochondria-affecting method that some University of Alberta researchers recently went public about? Apparently their method of "fixing" cancerous cells will not make drug manufacturers any money so they are having challenges getting funding for tests...

See Google news: University+of+Alberta+cancer+mitochondria

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=University+of+Alberta+cancer+mitochondria&ie=UTF-8&filter=0

199.214.24.129 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Google News links was the "Y Files", which has a LOT of detail about "CDA" (the mitochondrial treatment).

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/225cancer_drug/

199.214.24.129 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dichloroacetate

Not sure where this goes but potential cure for cancer see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html and http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/ 03swalker 16:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It goes in the interesting compound hyped by researchers which have not even had a phase 1 trial yet section.Jellytussle 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better than hyped by companies; this should be mentioned... and since it is a pre-existing drug it already has a track record of use in humans. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I came to the page looking for information on DCA. It should be mentioned in the article. Jeffrey.Rodriguez 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for information on DCA, why did you come to the Cancer article? I think you wanted to go to the Dichloroacetate article. You might notice that Cisplatin, while it is one of the most common cancer-fighting drugs, isn't mentioned at all in this article. --Mdwyer 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solid point, but people will come here as well; and we should wikilink to that sub-article on Cancer... rather than sending smoke signals on the talk page. Cisplatin isn't news at the moment, Dichloroacetate is. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate external links ???

I have made a link * "Cancer - A Biophysicist's Point of View" - new research linking cancer to entropy

What is "inappropriate" in this link ? Why are you removing it ? Do you have a sufficient background to make this judgment ? Actions like that will result in Wikipedia loosing its credibility as a source of good / diverse information and points of view ....

Resposnse from Mdwyer (part 1)

My background isn't in question. Your link is. We prevent links to preserve Wikipedia's credibility. I removed your link because of WP:EL; specifically, "Links should be kept to a minimum." To get your link accepted you will have to convince editors of its notability on the Talk:Cancer page. Why is your link more apropriate than the myriad other links that have been removed from this page?

Until you can convince us of that, your actions of adding the link back aren't helping your case. You are acting like a spammer. Avoid these tactics to maintain your own credibility. Instead, read the guidelines at WP:EL and WP:SPAM, gather a case, post it to the talk page, and you link may be welcome! "Good diverse information" is welcome at Wikipedia, but you must respect our guidelines. --Mdwyer 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Sunlight001 (part 1)

Your ability and background is in question since I am not a spammer and information provided in the paper is very important for researchers in the field and for the patients, since it can save many lives. Your actions undermine credibility of your function and credibility of Wikipedia.

Resposnse from Mdwyer (part 2)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Cancer. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Mdwyer 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am under the three-revert rule, as well. If you add your link back one more time, I will not be able to remove it. --Mdwyer 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Sunlight001 (part 2)

Your actions are harmful to Wikipedia and people who have cancer and look for the most relevant and current information. I provide in my paper this kind of information. Maybe you should read it yourself ? I am surprised that you have no problem with 4 links to American Cancer Society which collects donations and has outdated and misleading information on cancer (for example fact that there is no link between hydrogenated fats and cancer). I think that you should explain your actions. I wonder who's interests are you representing ? Certainly not Wikipedia's, not patients', not honest researchers' ....

Reply from Mdwyer (hardly)

This is your paper? Then I was even more justified in removing your link. Wikipedia forbids original research -- see WP:OR. In addition, you'd be breaking the conflict of interest clause in WP:EL.

PS: I reformatted the page again to matche the recommendations of WP:UW. --Mdwyer 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RULES (comment by sunlight001)

Rules are made as a guidelines, to direct people. Rules without logical thinking and honesty are worthless.

Here are my objections:

you have no credentials to make judgment about the paper's merit
you are blindly applying "rules" without logical thinking and honesty
you did not answer any of my questions and comments
Wikipedia should block your actions, since they are harmful
you will have blood of mislead patients on your hands

You are not telling us what you've been adding. Without this, your rant is pretty much meaningless. JFW | T@lk 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight001 seems unwilling to learn the formatting syntax of Wikipedia, too. I've cleaned it up a little with some headings, but the fully-arranged rant can be found on my talk page. The short version is that I didn't think the link at the top of the rant (digitalrecordings) fit here. Mdwyer 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCA

RoyBoy (talk · contribs) reinserted material that dichloroacetate is effective in vitro. Well, so are hundreds of other compounds that did not make it into the New Scientist. Can we wait until this actually reaches at least phase II trials? I generally discourage addition of anything before phase III for the obvious reasons unless truly groundbreaking (Nobel Prize caliber). JFW | T@lk 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason those other compounds did not make it into New Scientist should be apparent; especially to a doctor. Please put the section back as it is potentially groundbreaking (and if so then it is defacto Nobel Prize caliber), and will be reinserted by others for good reason. While your criteria for discouragement is sound, it is simply not applicable to this compound because it has been mentioned by New Scientist. Your expertise and knowledge of many other compounds which failed effects your judgment in that it makes you overly pessimistic and cautious. A good thing in medicine to be sure, but not necessarily as well suited to assessing encyclopedic additions.

I encourage every effort to make it clear it is in preliminary stages of testing, but to not mention it does not make sense to me given the attention it is receiving because it is a pre-existing and used compound; hence the New Scientist mention. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 12:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I put DCA in the "Cancer research" section, rather than the Treatment section where it was put previously. Regardless of your criteria of notability, DCA is a candidate for cancer research. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute that DCA may be a promising drug. But until phase I and phase II trials have been completed there is no way of knowing whether DCA will join the dumpheap of failed compounds or not. Only time will tell. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The science is fascinating of course (many cancers cells switch to glycolysis rather than FFA, which is the principle of 17-FDG PET). JFW | T@lk 15:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. However, I do not see how this involves a crystal ball or in any way violates what Wikipedia is not. You'll have to find a specific relevant policy on WP:SCIENCE, for me to not escalate this issue further. While criteria 5 clearly states one article (even in New Scientist) is insufficient for inclusion; this story is gaining momentum and we should reflect that now; [1] not months from now. Months from now we can easily update the article to reflect its actual progress/promise; then a complete demotion to See also if circumstances dictate. (also it should be mentioned if 17-FDG PET is expensive, DCA would not be, again making it inherently more notable)

Further to quote an ABC article:

There is the medical equivalent of a tsunami wave building out there, only we don't know where this one is going to land.[2]

Wikipedia at the very least needs to mention and Wikilink to the appropriate article to handle the inevitable flood of traffic and interest. I would remind you Wikipedia is not a medical textbook/journal; we need to address issues as they arise in NPOV terms, not in relation to efficacy. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The ABC article just reflects hype. I have asked one of our oncologists (User:Jellytussle) for his opinion, and will also leave a message on WP:CLINMED. Can you please wait until others have responded here? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is driven by knowledge in context, not by hype. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting, but I did decide to re-add my DCA addition after it was re-mentioned by another anon. The "knowledge in context" is indeed what I'm trying to achieve; whether that knowledge brings us a breakthrough, or yet another failure; its my current opinion we should mention it while it is prominent. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me to comment JFW. I think it is important to get things in perspective. All of the media coverage is based on a single journal article (Bonnet et al Cancer Cell. 2007 Jan;11(1):37-51) and probably some press briefings. The popular media, internet etc have run with this. That includes New Scientist, which is a good journal, but does not publish original peer-reviewed research, and does not in itself lend any extra authority to the DCA affair. It is also worth noting that the quote by RoyBoy of the abc article:

There is the medical equivalent of a tsunami wave building out there, only we don't know where this one is going to land.[3]

is very selective. To my pleasant surprise this article is of good quality and urges caution on the matter of DCA, and I think it is worth quoting back another passage from the end:

"I am acutely aware that there are cancer patients out there who are fighting every day for their survival, hoping that there is one last chance to get a treatment that may prolong or save their lives. For some of you out there to inappropriately make them feel that DCA is the answer to their prayers based on this single early-stage report in a medical research journal is, in my opinion, not acceptable at best — and despicable at worst."

Of course it was selective, I quoted it to make a point! *sigh* I read the entire article prior to quoting it and I agree with your assessment. As such mentioning DCA in Cancer helps lead people to the sub-article context such as that. I would add to your point, that its based on a single preliminary journal article. While I am aware of that, it does still seem sufficient to Wikilink while hype persists. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCA is an interesting compound, and the theory behind it is interesting, possibly justifying further research, but DCA has not yet had a phase 1 trial for cancer. In vitro work can give helpful clues as to whether a compound has useful pharmacological properties, but it is simply not a safe basis for speculation about clinical efficacy. Remember that thousands of promising compounds are screened for every one that turns out to be clinically useful. With respect to big pharma not being interested etc, this is not necessarily a barrier. There are lots of public grants and charitable funds to support translational research in Canada, Alberta in particular, and in the rest of the world. A general search for DCA shows that it does have toxicities, and that there has been concern that DCA itself may be carcinogenic.

In summary: there has been a recent interesting report of pre-clinical work using DCA, a compound with known human toxicities. There has been immense hype and gossip, playing up something which might normally only merit a note in the news columns of general science and oncological journals. In Wikipedia, DCA may deserve a mention in Cancer Research, or its own page on Wiki, but it does not yet merit inclusion on this page. We have seen this before with other compounds and remedies and we will see it again. Jellytussle 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted yet again, though I disagree with the approach. Makes for a stable more encyclopedic article to be sure, but is significantly less helpful and streamlined (Wikilinked) for readership. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist were scolded for their careless reporting. I agree with Jellytussle that the big pharma conspiracy theory stuff doesn't necessarily hold – cancer is a hugely well (some say over) funded health issue. Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. Colin°^Talk 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects Wikipedia is Wikinews (being timely), and that news you brought up should certainly be added (in the DCA article) to provide appropriate context. We can't avoid being Wikinews as things break. I'd hasten to add that doesn't necessarily detract from my position that breaking news can/should be mentioned in brief. Either because it is a breakthrough, but also if it is not. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Jellytussle and Colin here. The Dichloroacetic acid article should probably be expanded and improved, given the surge in interest, but listing a compound here that's never been studied in humans with cancer, on the grounds of one cell-line/mouse study and some irresponsible hype, isn't warranted - as has been pointed out, any number of compounds have shown similar or greater promise in cell culture and mouse models, only to prove disappointing in humans. The pharmanoia is patently ridiculous. For Pete's sake... who funded the studies of DCA in mice and in kids with lactic acidosis (PMID 16651305)? The NIH, the FDA, the CIHR, private charities... drug companies are far from the only source of funding for clinical research (although the way Bush keeps shrinking the NIH budget, it feels that way sometimes). The argument that "it works, but drug companies won't allow clinical trials" is ridiculous. Wikipedia should be generally conservative when reporting on breaking scientific research, rather than trying to be out in front on the cutting edge. Can we at least wait for a trial in humans, even a Phase I, before putting it here, and instead try to improve the Dichloroacetic acid article? MastCell 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope you're not unfairly attributing pharmanoia to me. The mention of public funding wasn't initially written by me (although I did re-insert it with my initial rewrite); it merely seemed to go along with the interesting factoid it wasn't patented. I'm aware of public funding, as I was trying to communicate by saying: "Better than hyped by companies" in the above section that I merely prefer publicly funded hype over pharma hype. I've done extensive research in medical journals; and am routinely frustrated with the lack of accessibility to publicly funded research, forcing me to the local university. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to JellyTussle & MastCell (and Colin of course) for their input. I hope this settles the issue. Wikipedia is now grownup enough not to be driven by hype (as it was wont to in the past). JFW | T@lk 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not driven, reacting to hype can be appropriate... depending on notability of course. I'd like to thank JellyTussle & MastCell for their less than flattering inferences. I'm not new to this guys... I'm also not new to being wrong; I just need a little more grown up rationale on Wikipolicy (which we can apply as we go forward), and less basic information I already know. I would like to sincerely thank Colin for following up on the DCA story and providing additional context. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, I didn't notice any "less than flattering inferences" or even any personally-aimed statements. This is an article talk page, not your user-talk page but I can see how you might feel defensive. The statement you added "but clinical trials on cancer patients would require public funding as it is a generic drug" was sourced to a reputable (if not authoritative) source and I don't see how you did anything wrong as a Wikipedian. I suggest the "pharmanoia" attribution was directed at the New Scientist editorial rather than you. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as they were possible inferences there weren't any statements; concur with you on the pharmanoia meme, as ironically I haven't really looked into the informal discussion/hype surrounding the issue. I should say "less than flattering" isn't bad, just not good either. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have been more clear... I was referring to the pharmanoia implicit in some of the outside hype on DCA, not implying that RoyBoy was being unreasonable. I have a lot of respect for RoyBoy and remember working with him on other controversies way back when. In terms of policy, I do think this falls under ...not a crystal ball. A drug with zero data in human subjects with cancer is just too new, and too much of an unknown quantity, to single out here at this point. I do think we should work on the dichloroacetic acid page, though, as I think it's getting a lot of traffic as a result of the word spreading. That's really where most readers will look, rather than here - and discussion of the in vitro/animal studies, hype, and patent issues is more relevant there than here. MastCell 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MastCell, it was a little confusing trying to thread through the points and I should have known better given our past collaboration. As to crystal ball, I still disagree; from my perspective to not mention DCA is as much a crystal ball as to mention it. Granted no mention is conservative; but its also confusing to readers who expect to find something given DCA is in line for future research.

It doesn't seem Wiki enough... and to put my position in summary policy form: I think DCA merits temporary inclusion in Cancer based on its popular notability rather than its scientific notability which you guys seem to be almost exclusively focused on. (I can appreciate why, since Cancer is a core FA science article) I'm referring to popular notability from WP:SCIENCE#General; if I've misapplied this concept... then my bad. :"D - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, DCA already meets criteria 5 and 6. One criteria is enough for the DCA article, my feeling is two criteria is enough for a parent article mention (Cancer)... and regardless of DCA's outcome it may even hit criteria 7 by tweaking the focus of cancer research. That hasn't happened yet of course, but would I be correct in asserting that would make a Cancer mention a lock? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it hits notability criteria - I think we just differ on whether it should be mentioned in this article, as opposed to, say, cancer research or a more specific subheading. The other items mentioned here under "Cancer Research", monoclonals and targeted therapy, have both already crossed over into widespread human use and had a major impact on how cancer is treated. I just don't think DCA is anywhere near there yet, although I think the scientific and popular issues are notable enough for mention in its own article - which is where people will look anyway. I don't feel incredibly strongly, but that's my 2 cents. MastCell 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Cancer research" is a misleading header? This entire discussion seems to have spawned from my (mis)perception of what that section should be. If that's the case should that section header be tweaked and/or a new section for "Experimental cancer research" be added to Cancer? Looking at the mention in cancer research, the header is "Concerns about Cancer Research"; kind of a negative header, which isn't even explained in the content. Also it would seem the Cancer research isn't sub-articled very well. There should be a main article heading (done now), and my Wiki philosophy is the sub-article should be summarized (or the lead copy and pasted) to the parent article. If the former, then DCA should be mentioned here, if the latter then probably not. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over to dichloroacetic acid and tried to improve the "Therapeutic Uses" section. The problem with an "experimental cancer research" section is that it's really hard to keep up to date as therapies appear and disappear rapidly on the radar screen. This same issue has come up at AIDS/HIV. We have to set the bar somewhere; my feeling is that excluding therapies that have not even been tried in humans yet is a good start. But again, I'm not that committed here; I'd rather spend the time improving the DCA article. MastCell 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent precedent and I guess that'll have to do; but I would add Wiki is capable (and IMO should) wikilink to radar blips. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RoyBoy, I agree that Wikipedia should document important trends, even when unproven. There is mounting evidence (e.g. oncologists being asked about DCA trials) that this thing is unbelievably overhyped, and perhaps one day we will cite a commentary from NEJM: "DCA, hype or a new dawn in oncology?" This is an excellent case study in post-internet epistemology. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... though I can't help wondering if any Wiki-novice medical professionals will come to Cancer seeking the latest hype on DCA. A rare occurrence I suppose. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be using the DCA article as the starting point. You don't look up the mechanism of action of rosiglitazone by looking at the diabetes mellitus, because it is too detailed.

I notice another editor tried to put DCA back, claiming that there was no consensus here. I strongly dispute this assertion. We've had JellyTussle, MastCell, Colin and myself all opposing, and RoyBoy simply asking that this "radar blip" is documented here. JellyTussle and MastCell are practicing oncologists. If Eric Kvaalen (talk · contribs) has new points in this discussion he is asked kindly to offer them here. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big C

I can't find the term the "Big C" in the article, but films like "Love Story" were affected by the silence over it (okay, it wasn't exactly skin cancer, but all the same). Xiner (talk, email) 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a good "social impact" section. As I've noted elsewhere, some cancers have a much better prognosis than some non-malignant medical catastrophes, such as amoebic meningitis, subarachnoid haemorrhage or myocarditis with left ventricular failure. The whole "Big C" thing is a result of this weird preoccupation in the public discourse with malignant disease, and it is reflected in donations to funding (stroke research is still massively underfunded e.g. compared with certain rare cancers). JFW | T@lk 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of mortality?

I think it'd be worth including a subheading in the pathophysiology section that explains how different kinds of cancer lead to mortality especially, but other generalized clinical symptoms as well. Opinions?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.151.250.39 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That is almost impossible. Every tumour behaves differently. The "final common pathway" of cancer is like any other chronically debilitating disease: overwhelming infections, respiratory and cardiac failure. JFW | T@lk 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to brain death 71.168.113.85 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is addressed on many, many pages dealing with specific cancers. Both location and histology are important, and increasingly Wikipedia has individual cancer location pages and cancer histology pages. On this page I suggest merely mention that this is the case. --Una Smith 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two additions deleted.

Two additions were deleted.

One dealt with vitamins and the source was a CBC report, the other was sourced to the US government report dealing with probiotics.

Please advise.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I did that. If you look in the page history you will see that I left an edit summary. The edit summary was "please do not use news articles; they disqualify as WP:RS in science-dominated articles; also suspect Dr Koren's results need to be replicated".

I have removed your reinserted material. This is a science-oriented article. The claims you make are not claims that can be supported by news articles, because journalists are good at grabbing headlines but very bad at science (see the DCA discussion above).

Dr Koren's study is interesting but obviously needs to be replicated before this can be given any weight. Generally, one ought to be suspicious of vitamins preventing "all sorts of cancers". That usually means there's an orthomolecular quack around the corner somewhere.

With regards to the probiotics, much of this is still in the embryological stages and should not be brought as established fact. As an encyclopedia we have a duty in being somewhat skeptical with everything radically new unless this is widely recognised as such. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your conflict of interest...for example garlic, time tested useful Along comes some 'scientific' study fueled by some pharmacetical, whether they own the publication or not, is a good question, the history of Vioxx, should show that even some of these 'accredited' sources are not really...

Anyway, I don't believe we addressed the one source that was the US government...

As far as the CBC quote, it also appears on the Univesity site, so I will try to look it up.

Keep up the critical analysis ! The details that are allowed in are very, very important.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on the point being made here. MastCell 05:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wolff's pointed edit summary read:

"please do not use news articles; they disqualify as WP:RS in science-dominated articles; also suspect Dr Koren's results need to be replicated."

He's right on. What is considered RS varies depending on the type of article. Especially on science-dominated articles it is important to maintain a high standard for at least two reasons:

it raises the quality of the article by using higher quality references.
it makes the article more stable. News reports of non-duplicated research come and go.

News reports are interesting, and may often be the first harbinger of major breakthroughs that really are reliable, but the first messenger often amounts to no better quality than the words of a gossiper. Duplicated research is much more reliable, stable, and much less vulnerable to being exploited by quacks and unethical researchers who milk the slightest positive mention for all its worth, and then conveniently fail to inform their customers or sponsors of the next piece of good research that demolishes the first report and dashes the hopes of often talented researchers. That's life in the world of science, and scientists are aware of this. They have learned from the history of scientific research that for every single advance there are a hundred failures. They are therefore very wary of pinning all their hopes on news reports. "Reliable" also has to do with "stability" in this type of situation.

Dr. Wolff, how about working on getting "stability" worked into the definition of WP:RS for science-dominated articles? When dealing with scientific matters, we're dealing with falsifiable information, hence it is legitimate to raise the stakes and only use the best resources available. We're not dealing with rumors here. That stuff might be fine for a "breaking news" or "current events" section in an article on a Hollywood star. In that context, reliability has a totally different meaning. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer institutes

I added a list of institutes within the U.S. which is continuously deleted by wolff, The inclustion of such a section (disregarding americocentricity) should, to my thinking, not be of any large concern. In that case, the inclusion of specifically stated american cancer institutions should not be a problem. As soon as i find a european list i will post it however, just becasuae one cannot be found is not a reason to exclude other pertinant infromation about cancer treatment facilities. If you have concerns about its focus on america add other institutions but don't delete information that belongs there.

I hadn't seen ColmanJ's comment when I wrote the comment below:

ColemanJ (talk · contribs) has now twice inserted a list of American cancer hospitals. But Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. I agree that most innovative work in cancer is being delivered in the USA, but one simply cannot ignore some very large and extremely high-quality cancer centres in the rest of the world; again, I need only mention the Royal Marsden Hospital. Qualifying that the list is American does nothing to improve its relevance. In what way does it improve the encyclopedic aspects of this article? JFW | T@lk 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to ColmanJ's message:

It is not being "continuously deleted". It is you who keeps adding it in without considering my points and see whether this list needs to be here.

Apart from been Americocentric, it also creates a different problem. There will be tendency of patients to be dissatisfied with the care they are receiving locally, because their local facility is not in that magical list. How was the survey conducted? Was patient satisfaction measured? What weight should we attach to such surveys to begin with? JFW | T@lk 21:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JDWolff. Quite apart from the fact that the list is incomplete for N. America (where is PMH Toronto?) the list has no relevance to cancer and its treatment as an encyclopaedic subject per se. Also, if one included all the notable cancer research institutes worldwide (divisive and controversial) from UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, sweden India, HK Australia etc etc then the list would get much too unwieldy for the Cancer page. would be more relevant to include the main cancer research organisations (RTOG, ECOG, NCIC,EORTC, CRC etc.) Might justify its own page but would likely get adulterated by others wanting to be included. Conclusion: a bad idea. Jellytussle 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ColmanJ, you'd probably be better off with the NCI list of cancer centers rather than using the somewhat arbitrary list provided by US News. Those on the NCI list had to go through some very rigorous peer review to get there. The US News list is selected by some magazine editor sitting in a cubicle. Perhaps you could start a new article NCI Cancer Centers and link to it from the cancer article? Jpbrody 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight and Cancer

I don't think the evidence is "speculative". Have a look at the reviews of the science and it seems pretty solid. The main stumbling block appears to be that many health departments and cancer charities have the fixed notion that sunlight = skin cancer, and they are unwilling to even look at the evidence. Comments? --Sciencewatcher 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be handled carefully. Vitamin D is a hot topic right now, and may very well turn out to have important implications in cancer, but the specifics remain to be determined. The correlation with sunlight is intriguing, but of course one could think up any number of co-variates which also vary with sunlight exposure (activity level, environmental factors, etc), so without a defined biological mechanism it's more hypothesis-generating than conclusive. I'm also wary of a blanket statement that sunlight is good, since I see way too many young folks with metastatic melanoma - but maybe that's selection bias. MastCell 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link appears to be vitamin D specific (at least for colorectal cancer), as shown by PMID 17296473. I have seen some papers discussing the theory behind the link, but I haven't really looked into it in much detail. Maybe someone else can comment on this. But if large epidemilogical studies are showing that vitamin D/sunlight is a factor in reducing cancer risk, is this not enough to at least mention it? Do we know the exact biological mechanism behind the other cancer risks? My contribution (which was removed by jfdwolff) was just a short paragraph summary taken from a recent review, and I think it is appropriate to put it back in. --Sciencewatcher 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know that sunlight is crucial in the prevention of bone disease, and we know that sunlight exposure is inversely correlated with multiple sclerosis incidence. I agree that the skin cancer thing can be a bit too much of a good thing, but then melanoma is a truly ghastly cancer.

But the link you want to write about, as I explained in my edit summary, is probably not ready for prime time yet. There are many other things that appear to be linked to cancer risk (either positively or negatively), and writing "just a short paragraph" on all of them would bloat the article beyond recognition.

I'd be much happier if we could split out these topics to a subpage of some sort. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studies show that the risk of certain cancers is reduced by between 30 and 50% with increased sun exposure, so I would say this is highly significant and deserves a short paragraph at the very least. The link does definitely not appear to be "speculative" as you stated in your edit summary. Have you looked through the individual studies and the reviews? --Sciencewatcher 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References please. Jellytussle 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4563336.stm, PMID 17296473, PMID 16886683. --Sciencewatcher 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a correlation between increased sun exposure and a 30-50% risk reduction. Does going out in the sun cause the reduction, or are there confounders (the most obvious of which is physical activity, which clearly reduces cancer risk and is conceivably associated with greater sun exposure)? There's certainly suggestive evidence that vitamin D (and, indirectly, sun exposure) are responsible, and some studies have tried to control for activity level, etc., so I'm not blowing that off. But the transition from "Sun exposure is correlated with a risk reduction" to "sunlight prevents cancer" is what I'm wary of. We may be heading in that direction, and there's certainly biological plausibility to the idea that vitamin D has an anti-cancer effect, but I don't think we're all the way there yet. With that caveat, I'm not opposed to brief mention of sunlight/vitamin D/cancer - it's clearly in a different category than, say, DCA (see above thread). MastCell 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put a short paragraph into the Prevention section. I haven't added any references, as it is just a short overview, but I can if you want. Let me know if you have any comments. --Sciencewatcher 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I just requested a reference before I saw this comment :) Yeah, that's certainly a new one on me, so I'd say you really ought to have a reference for that one... --Jaysweet 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted, and rightly so. Sciencewatcher, could you please seek consensus first before reintroducing material that others have challenged? JFW | T@lk 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff: I thought I DID seek a consensus by posting here, and my edit reflected that consensus. I give up - someone else can do this. --Sciencewatcher 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links - Support and advocacy section

I propose that we replace the links in this section with:

{{dmoz|/Health/Support_Groups/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/|Cancer support groups}}

Thoughts? -- MarcoTolo 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. MastCell ^Talk 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle a good idea, but that list is not very good.Jellytussle 11:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you so...

See why we should be responsible enough not to join in the DCA hype. JFW | T@lk 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, unfortunately this one looks like a perfect storm. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected

This article is being vandalised numerous times on a daily basis. Most IP edits are useless or plain vandalism. I have now sprotected the article, and would advise against its unprotection for the time being. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Long overdue.Jellytussle 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to unprotect? 192.114.175.2 (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melatonin, daylight as risk factors.

From the lifestyle factors section: There is also a growing body of research that correlates cancer incidence with the lower levels of melatonin produced in the body when people spend more time in bright-light conditions, as happens typically in the well-lit nighttime environments of the more developed countries.[11] This effect is compounded in people who sleep fewer hours and in people who work at night, two groups that are known to have higher cancer rates.[12]

One of these refs is from Med Hypotheses, the other from a non-peer reviewed piece of journalism. Not good enough. I have not seen this issue raised in any mainstream oncology journal or conference, or reported in any proper epidemiological study. References please, otherwise I move that this section is deleted. Jellytussle 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that the Wikipedia-specific impact factor, and # of citations, for Medical Hypotheses rivals or surpasses that of Science or Nature? A sad commentary. To be fair, there are some data on night-shift work and cancer risk from reputable sources, although the picture they paint is not entirely clear. For instance, PMID 16357603, PMID 16829554, PMID 11604480, PMID 12783938, PMID 16596303, etc etc. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tumor / Tumour

There is inconsistency between the variant spellings in the article. Seeing as how Tumor is the preferred spelling on the relevant article perhaps this article should be edited for consistency. I would have done so myself, but the page is protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.181.251.66 (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

cancer bacteria

JDF:

You write 'why should Wikipedia include information on cancer bacteria when the NCI considered the subject debatable in the 1970's?' The 1970's my dear JDF was over three decades ago; a whole slew of research has been performed since then as I alluded to in my most recent revision which you again and inappropriately deleted. Is the information on "cancer" in Wikipedia only on orthodox ideas, or should less orthodox---though scientifically substantiated information-- be included in, as you are fond of pointing our, an "encyclopedia"? I have not included heresay, conjecture, or suppositions. I HAVE INCLUDED REFERENCES TO STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE. How can you, in good conscience, claim yourself the sole arbiter and judge of such information which exists in the current scientific literature?? You state that you won't visit my website, http://members.aol.com/CAbacteria/articles.html which is a clearinghouse of all of the aforementioned studies and research I discuss. Then by what standard and measure of proof do you claim to dispute the information I am trying to convey? On a final note, I would like to add that I haven't included the information on cancer bacteria as a CONCLUSION nor a challenge to the medical profession, but only as additional information that any responsible person interested in cancer should have access to---to which you appear to be acting as an official CENSOR of. Lastly, you claim to agree with the H.pylori evidence which IS MAINSTREAM, yet you see fit to have deleted THIS information as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronsword (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't understand why you've refactored this post. Your appeals to my professionalism and conscience are not on-topic here. What does matter is that apart from specific examples (e.g. Helicobacter), bacteria are not regarded to be main players in oncogenesis. Your homepage is not a reliable source, and individual article citations are not necessarily suitable for inclusion here. I have asked you to await consensus on this talkpage before reattempting to insert your work. Please have a look at WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and actually follow my suggestions to wait for a response here? JFW | T@lk 07:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you subscribe to the views of a researcher who has found mycobacteria in scleroderma, cancer and sarcoid, and has coined Cantwell's law: "Most physicians are wrong in their understanding of most diseases, most of the time."[4] JFW | T@lk 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Ronsword, please don't erase posts you've made ([5]) - see the talk page guidelines. If you change your mind about something you've posted, use strikethrough (by putting an <s> and </s> around the part you want to strike out). On the issue of mycoplasma and cancer, the problem is that there are dozens of ideas about cancer which have a handful of hypothesis-generating studies behind them. Until a hypothesis has proven at least some relevance in human cancer, we generally haven't included it here. This is in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies such as WP:RS and WP:SYN, which enjoin against presenting primary sources and drawing our own conclusions about their significance, as well as WP:NOT, which states that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". In other words, it's not meant to be positioned at the cutting edge of every brand-new hypothesis - we need to wait for demonstration of an idea's relevance before including it here. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cancer bacteria removed once again

JFD:

You urged me to present my points on the talk page, but you avoid answering each one of my queries.

Sir or madam, I am quite concerned that your repeated deletion of information on mycoplasma fermentans and cancer amounts to blatant and unwarranted censorship. Do you agree? The studies I have recently added to the CANCER article are peer-reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals. The studies clearly demonstrate a causal effect between M. fermentans and oncogenesis, M. fermentans and malignant invasiveness, M. fermentans and genetic interfaces with malignancy and more. These studies are not heresay, conjecture, opinion, or theory. They are bona-fide scientific/medical studies available in the public domain and published according to peer-review that substantiate as much of a link between certain aspects and types of cancer, and Mycoplasma fermentans---as that link established with viruses. Yet you see fit to allow the 'virus' information free reign in the CANCER article. How, then, do you justify the continued deletion of potentially critical information on the link between a virus-like bacterium and cancer??

Do you consider yourself more an authority and overseer than the dozen scientists and peer-reviewed journals who have published the aforementioned studies? Can you please explain your data and the basis for your continued and blatant deletions?

Meanwhile, I am concerned that if Wikipedia selectively allows information in based on the pre-conceived biases of its self-appointed arbitrators, then whence is the accuracy of anything else appearing in this encyclopedia? This is a real issue not only from the standpoint of cancer bacteria, but from that of everything else appearing in Wikipedia (Ronsword 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Wikipedia functions by consensus. It would be best to start trying to convince other editors of why the cancer-bacteria link should be included, rather than attacking them. A number of objections to the inclusion have been raised here and at User Talk:Jfdwolff. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and "undue weight", as well as the descriptions of preferred sources. Everyone has their pet theories, and some may be correct, but such things are described on Wikipedia in relation to their acceptance in the scientific/medical communities. MastCell ^Talk 16:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed the contributions on cancer bacteria I never suggested this deletion was permanent. Rather, I felt that the material probably was not suitable (I have given various arguments) but that consensus had to be achieved on this very talkpage.

Accusing me of censorship is a failure to assume good faith. Out of necessity, an encyclopedia cannot possibly endeavour to mention every single theoretical cause for cancer, especially when these have generally been labeled as highly tentative by cancer experts. I wish you would address these arguments rather than accuse me (and effectively other editors) of bias and selectivity. JFW | T@lk 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay JFD (and other contributors):

I have calmed down. Please forgive my spirited verbal sparring; I am new to Wikipedia and am learning all the time how to negotiate the fairly complex avenues of forming consensus and working according to the "good faith" principles of the Wiki. Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress and so am I. If I have offended anyone, I apologize. I simply believe in the science I am trying to convey and my purpose is to share information I believe is pertinent to cancer research.

So in a spirit of frank and honest dialogue, let me thus address the various objections which have been made in this talk section (i.e., that the research on Mycoplasma fermentans is tentative; that it's not established science; that it's representative of 'pet theories.').

The Mycoplasma fermentans research I cite is not a 'pet theory.' Theories are one thing, the rigors of scientific experiment are another. There are at minimum now in the scientific literature, two dozen studies which demonstrate a relationship between M. fermentans and cancer. How much quantity or proof does one need to at least cite this as credible research without forming an opinion or conclusion (which I may have been guilty in doing in my first contributions)? None other than the Armed Services Institute of Pathology in the nation's capital has sponsored the Mycoplasma research.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the purpose of an encylopedia should be (that it is only for the purpose of well established, status-quo information as opposed to now-being-established, non-yet-status quo information?). But then, how could an encyclopedia article on CANCER be considered comprehensive and objective when new information---which has passed the muster of peer review---is summarily removed? Again, I cite the paragraphs on virus research in the Wiki CANCER article.

Virology is not an orthodox staple of cancer research as it was in the 1970's; in fact, some of the viral associations that have been claimed with cancer (such as hepatic carcinoma) have been made on what is referred to as a "gold standard of causality" rather than on acutal and observable in vivo cause and effect. Now I am not trying to argue for or against the thrust of cancer virus research as I believe it is significant. But I again raise the question: why are there two paragraphs allowed on cancer viruses, but none allowed on Mycoplasma research which isn't so far afield of the former (both viruses and Mycoplasma share common characteristics)?

And even if you are tempted to call the mycoplasma association 'theoretical', then why, at least, not even allow a reference to H.pylori and cancer---which has gained mainstream medical support and is even now being used as a platform for treatment? You must admit, one could infer here that there simply seems to be a bias or inherent dislike of anything "bacterial" as it applies to cancer.

I also question why there are references to "alternative and complementary" medicine in the CANCER article---certainly not above the classification of being 'theoretical' or 'pet-theoresque' and yet somehow, peer-reviewed studies of Mycoplasma fermentans are not given such equal exposure in what you describe as a "high profile" encyclopedia?

Would you be kind enough to address the above points and concerns one by one? I would appreciate that very much. I would also be more than happy to submit to you direct quotes or statements from scientists themselves with whom I've corresponded and by whom studies have been published, as well as a full listing of all available peer-review on the subject I am trying to contribute. (Ronsword 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I just wanted to add that I followed MastCell's suggestion and read the guidelines on equal vs. undue weight. An example was given of an article on the Earth and brief mention of Flat Earth theory (i.e. that a minority view shouldn't supercede a majority view). I believe that mention of Mycoplasma fermentans---though a minority view---is not competing with the equal weight status of the overall majority view of established CANCER information. I also reiterate that unlike the Flat Earth theory example--the Mycoplasma data I am providing, though a minority view, is not a theoretical view, but the result of factual and published research, and thus deserves at the very least, brief mention. This would seem to meet the 'undue weight' criteria perfectly (Ronsword 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Still under review? Ronsword 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following are study abstracts showing a definite correlation between Mycoplasma and cancer. Further proof that my wish to include a few paragraphs in the CANCER article---repeatedly deleted for reasons that are not clear to me---is not based on 'pet theories' or idle conjecture:Ronsword 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1: Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Dec;19(12):7995-8002. · Mycoplasmal infections prevent apoptosis and induce malignant transformation of interleukin-3-dependent 32D hematopoietic cells (Feng SH, Tsai S, Rodriguez J, Lo SC.) live Mycoplasma fermentans or M. penetrans infection for 4 to 5 weeks induced malignant transformation of 32D cells. Mycoplasmal infections apparently affected the fidelity of genomic transmission in cell division as well as checkpoints coordinating the progression of cell cycle events. PMID 10567525 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2005 Aug 15;249(2):359-66. Infection of human B lymphoma cells by Mycoplasma fermentans induces interaction of its elongation factor with the intracytoplasmic domain of Epstein-Barr virus receptor (gp140, EBV/C3dR, CR2, CD21). · Balbo M, · Barel M, · Lottin-Divoux S, · Jean D, · Frade R. This is the first demonstration that Mycoplasma fermentans, in infecting human B cells, generates a p45 Mycoplasma component that interacts with CD21, which is involved in B cell proliferation. PMID 16054780 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Int J STD AIDS. 2001 Aug;12(8):499-504. An association of disseminated Mycoplasma fermentans in HIV-1 positive patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ainsworth JG, Easterbrook PJ, Clarke J, Gilroy CB, Taylor-Robinson D. Genitourinary Medicine Section, Division of Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK. We examined the relationship between the haematogenous dissemination of Mycoplasma fermentans and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in 265 HIV-1 positive patients. …. We found a statistically significant association between the presence of M. fermentans and the development of NHL in the combined cohort

4: Nat Med. 1998 Feb;4(2):133. Nat Med. 1997 Nov;3(11):1266-70. Mycoplasma origin of tumor cell protein. · Flanagan BF,Newton DJ, Johnson PM. · 5: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Oct 24;92(22):10197-201. Mycoplasmas and oncogenesis: persistent infection and multistage malignant transformation. (Tsai S, Wear DJ, Shih JW, Lo SC. American Registry of Pathology, Department of Infectious and Parasitic Disease Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC 20306-6000, USA.

Instead of acute transformation, a multistage process in promotion and progression of malignant cell transformation with long latency was noted; after 6 passages (1 wk per passage) of persistent infection with M. fermentans, C3H cells exhibited phenotypic changes with malignant characteristics that became progressively more prominent with further prolonged infection…..Further persistent infection with the mycoplasmas until 18 passages resulted in an irreversible form of transformation that included the ability to form tumors in animals and high soft agar cloning efficiency. …. Mycoplasma-mediated multistage oncogenesis exhibited here shares many characteristics found in the development of human cancer.

7: Mol Cancer Ther. 2005 Jul;4(7):1031-8 p37 Induces tumor invasiveness. · Ketcham CM, · Anai S, · Reutzel R, · Sheng S, · Schuster SM, · Brenes RB, · Agbandje-McKenna M, · McKenna R, · Rosser CJ, · Boehlein SK. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32610, USA. Previous studies have shown a statistically significant correlation between human carcinomas and monoclonal antibody detection of a Mycoplasma hyorhinis-encoded protein known as p37…..these observations suggest that M. hyorhinis can infect humans and may facilitate tumor invasiveness via p37. These results further suggest that p37 may be a molecular target for cancer therapy.

8: Urology. 2005 Feb;65(2):411-4 Can mycoplasma-mediated oncogenesis be responsible for formation of conventional renal cell carcinoma? · Pehlivan M, Pehlivan S, Onay H, Koyuncuoglu M, · Kirkali Z.

Department of Internal Medicine, Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Ataturk, Turkey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between Mycoplasma sp. infection and conventional renal cell carcinoma (RCC). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between mycoplasma infection and conventional RCC has been investigated for the first time, and a significantly high existence of Mycoplasma sp. DNA was found in the tissues of patients with conventional RCC compared with that found in a healthy control group. This suggests that mycoplasma-mediated multistage carcinogenesis may play a role in the development of RCC.

9: Lung Cancer. 2004 Jul;45(1):129-30 Does Mycoplasma sp. play role in small cell lung cancer? · Pehlivan M, Itirli G, Onay H, Bulut H, Koyuncuoglu M, Pehlivan S. PMID 15196745 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

10: Ai Zheng. 2004 May;23(5):602-4. [Mycoplasma infection and cancer] [Article in Chinese] · Ning JY, · Shou CC. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Beijing Institute for Cancer Research, School of Oncology, Peking University, Beijing, 100034, PR China.

Mycoplasma infection can be detected in many tumor tissues, continuous infection of mycoplasma can lead to transformation of mammalian cells, up-regulating expression of oncogenes, and some biologic changes of tumor cells, suggesting association of mycoplasma infection with tumorigenesis.

11: World J Gastroenterol. 2001 Apr;7(2):266-9 Mycoplasma infections and different human carcinomas. · Huang S, · Li JY, · Wu J, · Meng L, · Shou CC.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Beijing Institute for Cancer Research and Peking University School of Oncology.No.1 Da Hong Luo Chang Street, Western District, Beijing 100034, China. 6201@us.sina.com

AIM: To explore relationships between human carcinomas and mycoplasma infection. CONCLUSION: There was high correlation between mycoplasma infection and different cancers, which suggests the possibility of an association between the two. The mechanism involved in oncogenesis by mycoplasma remains unknown.

12: Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2001 May 25;81(10):601-4. [Mycoplasma infection in human gastriointestinal carcinoma tissues]Huang S, Shou C, Wu J. BeiJing Institute for Cancer Research, Peking University School of Oncology, 100034, China.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between the carcinoma and mycoplasma infection by immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSION: The high infection of mycoplasmas in carcinoma tissues suggest an association between mycoplasma and cancer. The mechanism involved in oncogenesis by mycoplasmas remains to be elucidated.

13. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1997 Apr;214(4):359-66.

High-level expression of H-ras and c-myc oncogenes in mycoplasma-mediated malignant cell transformation. Zhang B, Shih JW, Wear DJ, Tsai S, Lo SC. Department of Infectious and Parasitic Disease Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, District of Columbia 20306-6000, USA.

C3H mouse embryo cells, which normally have low inherent spontaneous transformation, underwent malignant transformation while chronically infected with Mycoplasma fermentans or Mycoplasma penetrans. This mycoplasma-mediated oncogenic process had long latency (more than 7 weeks of persistent mycoplasmal infection) and showed multistage progression characterized by reversibility and irreversibility of malignant properties upon removal of M. fermentans from culture. ….. Interestingly, after a further prolonged (18 weeks) infection with either M. fermentans or M. penetrans, C3H cells revealed prominent chromosomal changes, expressed constitutively (with or without the presence of the transforming mycoplasmas) at high levels of both H-ras and c-myc mRNA and became permanently transformed. These cells were able to form tumors in animals.

14: BMC Cancer. 2006 May 4;6:116. Alteration of gene expression profiles during mycoplasma-induced malignant cell transformation.Zhang S, Tsai S, Lo SC. Department of Environmental & Infectious Disease Sciences, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC 20306-6000, USA. zhangs@afip.osd.mil

…… Our previous studies show that some mycoplasmas are able to induce malignant transformation of host mammalian cells. This malignant transformation is a multistage process with the early infection, reversible and irreversible stages, and similar to human tumor development in nature………A prolonged infection by mycoplasmas lead to the expression of more cancer related genes at the irreversible stage. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the expression profiles correspond with the phenotypic features of the cells in the mycoplasma induced transformation process. The early mycoplasma infection stage shares a common phenomenon with many other acute infections, genes with increased expression significantly outnumbering those with decreased expression. The reversible stage is a transition stage between benignancy and malignancy at the molecular level. Aberrant expression of oncogenes and tumor repressors plays a key role in mycoplasma-induced malignant transformation.

Helicobacter should be mentioned here as predisposing to gastric cancer and gastric lymphoma. This is not a theory anymore.

Mycoplasma fermentans, however, seems to be much less established. In vitro studies are interesting, but what we need is evidence that there is a clinical link. Most above articles do little to support a clinical link (i.e. satisfying Koch's postulates).

If you had to provide a single published source supporting this link, which one would it be? You will understand that 14 references would be quite disproportionate to the other content in the cancer article. JFW | T@lk 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFW: Allow me to address the Koch Postulates issue. Asking me to provide clinical evidence that Mycoplasma causes cancer in humans via such a standard of proof creates a series of problems. How, for example, does one test the carcinogenicity of Mycoplasma in vivo? Obviously, the fullfillment of Koch's postulates would present “ethical problems regarding man and proving” disease etiology (see Manos and Walker in Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1983 May-Jun;13(3):201-6. Also note, as pointed out by the American Academy of Microbiology this past June:

“Koch’s postulates, still seen by many as a necessary tool for proving causative links between microbes and disease, is not equal to some of the particular problems of chronic illnesses. Many of the causative organisms involved in chronic illness cannot be cultivated using recognized techniques, and others position themselves in tissues that are difficult to access for sampling, making them hard to detect in the afflicted. In some cases, the span of time between infection and disease onset is too long to carry out meaningful studies of the effect of reintroduction. New tools must be developed to circumvent these problems and criteria must be established against which evidence of causality can be measured in cases where Koch’s postulates are not appropriate.”

Such has been the case with cancer virus research. For instance, the long latency between infection and malignant transformation between HBV and liver cancer renders the Koch model useless, not to mention the ethical issues. In addition, the H.pylori evidence has been primarily based on in vitro study and guilt-by-association, yet you feel this evidence is not 'theoretical.' Why or how, then, should the Koch standard be applied to Mycoplasma?

I agree that there is, indeed, a lack of clinical specificity regarding Mycoplasma and human cancer. It is true that while EBV, HBV, HPV are all viruses associated with specific cancers and thus, presumably, can be better argued as being causative, Mycoplasma seem to be more broad based and haven’t been associated with any single cancer. Yet, Huang et al are confident enough to write in their study of human cancers that: “ There (is) a high correlation between Mycoplasma infection and different cancers, which suggests the possibility of an association between the two” (11: World J Gastroenterol. 2001 Apr;7(2):266-9, and in another paper argue that “The high infection of Mycoplasmas in (GI) carcinoma tissues suggest an association between Mycoplasma and cancer.....” Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1997 Apr;214(4):359-66.

Since you are suggesting a reference to H.pylori in the CANCER article, would it be such a leap to reference in a few sentences “ongoing Mycoplasma research”, as the latter are also bacteria that are now being associated with, and investigated in human cancers as Huang noted above?

If not appropriate for the CANCER article, perhaps in the MYCOPLASMA article, or as you suggested earlier, in the CARCINOGENESIS article? Ronsword 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the discussion over on this? Or should I go ahead with the proposed insertion? Ronsword 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear what JFDWolff has to say. From my perspective, the difference between mycoplasma and H. pylori is clear. If you crack open an internal medicine or oncology textbook, you'll find discussion of H. pylori's role in oncogenesis. Therefore it warrants mention here. You are unlikely to find much, if anything, on mycoplasma as a carcinogen. Since Wikipedia is designed to reflect the current state of knowledge, rather than advance it (or be in front of the leading edge), I'd favor mention of H. pylori but not mycoplasma. If/when the link with mycoplasma is well-established enough that it starts making it into the textbooks and review articles (i.e. secondary sources), then let's include it. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If you're interested in advocating the mycoplasma link, then there are many appropriate venues for doing so; however, Wikipedia is not one of them. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the suggestion to include Mycoplasma in an article on CANCER incurs the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" problem. According to the "crystal ball" defintion:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles......must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

Now first let me say, the papers and research I cite are verifiable; they're a matter of record and are not 'unverifiable speculation.' Please see my references above.

But I also agree that the research I cite is not of 'sufficiently wide' 'interest' to warrant an article. However, I am not 'proposing an article'. I am simply proposing a few sentences or a paragraph on Mycoplasma after mention of H.pylori, as both reference currently ongoing research into cancer bacteria. I am not advocating a point of view or promoting some type of propoganda as you suggest in the "Wikipedia is not one of them" reference. Thus, such a paragraph might read:

"In addition to cancer virus research, scientists are also exploring possible associations between bacteria and cancer. The bacterium H.pylori has been linked with various forms of gastric carcinoma via epidemiological and laboratory analysis. Scientists are also conducting research into possible associations between cancer and Mycoplasma which are among the tiniest forms of bacteria, and which also display virus-like properties."

What is untrue, inaccurate, or unverifiable about the above paragraph? Ronsword 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a mention that brief would not be a problem in terms of undue weight, so I wouldn't have a problem with text like the sample you give above. By the way, I applaud you for providing a sample of proposed text; that's often the best way to solve these things. Well done. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also just about to quote WP:WEIGHT. However, I feel the publications that are cited to support a Mycoplasma link are - while interesting - not groundbreaking and certainly not regarded as such by the oncology community. As a result, they are probably below the notability horizon and should not be mentioned in this article. Scientists are conducting research into myriad things - are we to mention all of them in this article? It would turn into a complete PubMed.

Ronsword, why are you interested in this Mycoplasma theory? Why is it better than the prevalent views in explaining oncogenesis? JFW | T@lk 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<I was also just about to quote WP:WEIGHT. However, I feel the publications that are cited to support a Mycoplasma link are - while interesting - not groundbreaking and certainly not regarded as such by the oncology community. As a result, they are probably below the notability horizon and should not be mentioned in this article. Scientists are conducting research into myriad things - are we to mention all of them in this article? It would turn into a complete PubMed.”

I agree, there are myriad avenues of research in cancer, but they fall under a smaller subset of main headings; for example, GENETICS, VIROLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL, CARCINOGENESIS, etc. Mention of Mycoplasma doesn’t necessarily represent an entirely different subset of topics, but falls somewhere in the genre of “viruses” “microorganisms” etc., of which EBV, HPV, HBV, etc. are receiving considerable discussion (as is H.pylori) and all of which have been given proper discussion in the CANCER article. Thus, if cancer viruses and H.pylori can be mentioned, why not a brief reference to ongoing bacteria research other than H.pylori? Shouldn’t the public be made at least aware that there are other possible bacterial associations being investigated---without promoting or pushing such an idea? It so happens that the Mycoplasma research is the only other research I am aware of, beside H.pylori, which has garnered the attention of scientists in different quarters of the world and has been published in the peer reviewed literature.

As for the WEIGHT issue you mention, I’m not sure you are applying it correctly to my position here. Wikipedia’s explanation of WEIGHT is as follows:

“Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.”

I am not trying to give Mycoplasma as much detailed weighting or airing, if you will, as other inclusions in the CANCER article, but am only recommending brief mention of it. Thus, if most of the majority of points in the CANCER article can be considered a majority viewpoint, I am certainly proposing, at best, a ‘distinct minority’ point, as proposed in the previously suggested paragraph to MastCell.

I’m also wondering why it is okay to include a paragraph on alternative and complementary therapies in an article on CANCER---with references to such controversial treatments as “the grape cure” or “the cabbage diet” but then worry about three sentences describing ongoing scientific research on Mycoplasma as being too ‘weighty’ or not ‘groundbreaking' enough? Can you earnestly say that all the information in the CANCER article is, in fact, groundbreaking? And should 'groundbreaking' be a criterion for inclusion of information in the CANCER article?

<Ronsword, why are you interested in this Mycoplasma theory? Why is it better than the prevalent views in explaining oncogenesis? JFW | T@lk 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC) >

JFW, my interest in Mycoplasma originated via research conducted for 3 books published on complementary cancer therapies. Since those publications, however, I learned that alternative claims could be and were often flawed, and how some of the earlier proponents of a bacterial theory of cancer could also be flawed via faulty scientific methodologies and presumptions. But though they may have been flawed, this fact shouldn't negate or suppress the emergence of later scientific studies using molecular biology and genetic applications which have helped to clarifiy some of the cancer bacterial associations now suspected---thus leading to our new and accepted data on H.pylori, and the growing body of data being chronicled on Mycoplasma.

As per your last point, please note that I have never suggested research surrounding Mycoplasma is ‘better than the prevalent views in explaining oncogenesis’, but only a view that should be noted in a comprehensive and informative article on cancer. I am not an advocate, but a medical journalist trying to report on research that I feel has not been adequately, nor accurately reported on. Ronsword 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so persistent, but my points (please see above) were never addressed. One point (or question) being the following: 'why is mention allowed of "cabbage" and "grape" treatments for cancer in the CANCER article, but such resistance to a few sentences mentioning Mycoplasma research? Thank you. Ronsword 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ronsword has provided an excellent review of the literature on mycoplasma and cancer, and should probably publish his results in a peer-reviewed journal. The problem, Ron, is that the data you show here, while voluminous, is not etiologic. If mycoplasma is truly etiologic in cancer, we will hear about this, and then it will go on the page. Causing cancer in a cell line is not worthy of Wikipedia; there are probably tens of thousands of papers about agents that can do that. Finding DNA in a tumor specimen is tantalizing, but not etiologic. I think a negative line works best: this is a well-studied phenomenon that has yet to yield any fruit. I, as an oncologist, have never employed anti-mycoplasma therapy to treat cancer, nor would it be responsible for me to do so. So until we have that degree of evidence, this will continue to be just one Interesting Theory of Carcinogenesis among many. It's relevant the way p53 is relevant: we don't have targeted therapies based on p53 or mycoplasma, but maybe we will in the future. Stay tuned.--Dr.michael.benjamin 05:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, cabbage and grape stuff excised--Dr.michael.benjamin 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise: I suggest create an article specifically about cancer bacteria, and discuss this topic there. --Una Smith 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few objections. See #Cancer bacteria (reprise) below. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifiable risk factors

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67725-2 looks at 9 risk factors and the benefits on cancer incidence if these were modified. Sounds like a very good cite for the intro, doesn't it? JFW | T@lk 09:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth protection?

To whom it may concern:

This article appears to be protected, based on the "view source" link, but there is no "lock icon box" at the top indicating that it is protected, and containing the link for requesting unprotection.

So-called "stealth protection" of pages is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Either add a proper protection template to the article or unprotect it. In particular, if you want it protected you must incur the cost of receiving requests for unprotection and must not discourage or make difficult such requests by avoiding using the template boxes with the request-page link, even if you'd rather not be bothered by such requests. This is necessary to maintain the proper balance between protection of pages and maximum openness of editability of the Wikipedia; dodging the immediate negative consequences of protection removes an important disincentive and makes "creeping protection" of Wikipedia happen, whereby the encyclopedia becomes increasingly uneditable by unregistered users, and (in the case of full protection) even by registered ones.

Another problem is that a "stealth protected" page isn't identifiable as being fully protected versus semi-protected. I don't know whether logging in will let me edit this article or not without actually logging in and trying it, because the template box is missing.

Either unprotect the article or add a protection-info box at the top of it, and refrain from protecting articles a) unnecessarily or b) stealthily in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Easy there. I don't see anything about "stealth protection" in the protection policy, so I'm not sure where that accusation is coming from. I also don't see anything mandating that a template be added, although it's often done as a courtesy to editors. Am I missing something? Because it sounds like you're taking an unecessarily accusatory and uncivil tone for no apparent reason. The page appears to be semi-protected, based on its log and the fact that registered users have been editing it many times a day. I'll add the lock-box icon; if you want to request unprotection, you could leave a message for the protecting admin, or use this link to request its unprotection. Either way, I'd suggest modifying your tone. If you check the page logs, you'll be able to know the protection status of a page regardless of whether there's a template or not. If you note the link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection somewhere handy (like your userpage), you won't need the icon to find it. Is there anything else we can help you with? MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take the blame for not adding the box. However, I make no apology for "creeping protection" or whatever you want to call it. The ratio of bona fide edits vs vandalism from anonymous editors was becoming so asymmetrical, and the vandalism was so copious, that I felt this was the only way forward. It is deeply galling for hard-working editors to see their work defaced with profanity several times a day. Cancer, by its nature, attracts people trying to shock others from the anonymity of their PC. I have instated similar protection measures on obesity, where pretty much the same thing was happening.

You (74.104.131.76) seem to be knowledgeable about the subject. If you register and make bona fide edits to other pages for a short period of time you could be of much assistance. Consider making the effort, and don't let yourself be discouraged by measures that are in place to protect the content that has been stable for such a long time. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a tiny silver lock icon is adequate. All protection should be accompanied by a large banner at the top of the page, including a prominent link for requesting unprotection. There must be a cost (in nuisance unprotection requests or otherwise) to protection to limit the scope (in space and time) of protection; protection is intended as a temporary measure for edit wars and vandalism sprees, rather than to be chronic, except for protection of the main page. Yet increasingly I see a lot of chronic protection of other article pages, where the page is continuously or nearly-continuously protected (or semiprotected) for days, weeks, and even months without remit. It's getting to the point where this is no longer "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" at all, and registration while supposedly optional is defacto required.

Furthermore, I don't see what forcing people to jump through registration hoops to edit accomplishes; determined vandals will do exactly that and continue to vandalize, and if blocked quickly reregister until blocked by IP. Semi-protection does nothing to stop these, though it does stop anonymous users from correcting the vandalism, and full protection stops most users, including registered ones, from doing anything at all, effectively freezing an article as "final, won't be changed", when used elsewhere than templates and the main page. Registration isn't a useful defense against vandalism so long as it remains relatively easy to accomplish.

Likewise, protection isn't meant as a chronic defense against vandalism; that's what blocking vandal IPs is for. Protection is for temporary, acute situations. Unprotection is supposed to be done quickly, when an edit war is resolved in the talk pages or a particular spree vandal is blocked. Until that occurs, the page's protected state should (except for the main page) be glaringly obvious and clearly abnormal and temporary. The use of discreet little lock icons, or worse, no lock icons, encourages not unprotecting a page as soon as the acute problem is over, and therefore encourages chronic protection. Chronic protection is bad. Making users have to click several extra links to reach the "request unprotection" form is also bad. If you don't like getting pestered to unprotect stuff, then cut down on excessive page protection. Spend more time blocking vandals by IP; protecting a page vandals often target and then leaving it that way for eons is taking the lazy way out. Instead have volunteers monitor the page vigilantly (a frequent target page will be monitored automatically anyway by its very nature) and block vandals that pop up.

I've toyed with the notion of making it so only a small set of sysops can protect pages; that would limit the frequency with which protection could be done and increase the hoops that someone would have to jump through to get a page protected, so discouraging excessive protection. But it would probably likewise discourage unprotection, leading to even more chronic protection of pages, so I now think that that is a terrible idea also. But I do have some other ideas.

Possibly mark certain pages (major articles for example) as one-strike pages -- any obviously unconstructive edit earns an immediate block.

Alternatively, change semi-protection to "anyone can edit, except users on probation", use it chronically on sensitive pages (maybe even the main page?), and IP addresses go on a probation list when vandalism is noticed from them but they aren't being immediately blocked.

One place where protection is needed but underemployed seems to be templates; these need constructive edits infrequently and are prime targets for vandalism. Many of the infobox templates are unprotected or semi-protected, though very stable, and vandalizing one can put spew on thousands of articles at the same time, including this one. So I argue we should use full protection on templates, add a probationary status for IP addresses that gets applied much sooner than blocking, and change semi-protection to bar only probationers from editing. Then chronic semi-protection is acceptable on stable articles. (Probationary status applies based on the IP address making an edit, regardless of whether it's a logged-in user or what user name. Possibly with an exception for logged-in, established users with numerous good edits to their credit, so people sharing a dynamic IP range with an occasional vandal can get whitelisted and stop being affected by the vandal's tending to put all the range's IPs on probation here.)

Another alternative is for stable articles to be handled specially -- a protected (or semi-protected) stable form exists, but so does a sandbox version anyone can edit (unprotected). Edits to the sandbox version are cloned to the stable version when they seem of sufficient merit. The sandbox version would appear as an extra tab, i.e. "article sandbox discussion view source edit sandbox history". That might be considered as adding too much complication; then again, having a stable vs. developmental version of major articles would be of use in those preparing canned (CD-ROM, for instance) editions, for those who need more confidence from the article than they feel they can get from one "anyone can edit", those who want to refer to something in it and be reasonably assured it won't become a dangling link (whether a true hyperlink or references like "the first paragraph of the section titled 'Foobar'"), and so forth.

This would also mirror a common pattern of software development, which is to have a stable version and a beta or experimental branch of some sort. Many open source projects, including the Linux kernel, appear to follow that pattern. Often even-numbered versions are stable and odd-numbered ones are developmental, e.g. 1.4.4 is the latest stable version and 1.5.4 is the experimental one, and changes to 1.5.4 (making it 1.5.5) may be backported to a 1.4.5 after enough testing, or appear in an eventual 1.6.0. With Wikipedia, the version numbering would be avoided; edits to the sandbox would simply sometimes be backported and sometimes not, or even removed from the sandbox version. Vandalisms in particular would simply be removed, and would never show up in the stable version of the article, if the stable version was fully protected or editable only by some set of designated users specific to that article. As many wikipedia articles already have self-appointed volunteer "keepers", this would fit in tidily with the existing culture -- those "keepers" would be granted write access to the stable version, but expected to update it to include meritorious changes made to the unstable version in an objective and unbiased manner. Making the "keepers" for a given article include several level-headed people including ones leaning towards each side of any particular POV-axis applicable to that article would help maintain neutrality while avoiding edit wars; more uncompromising or extremist editors would not make it onto the "keepers" list, but could still edit war in the unstable version to their hearts' content (subject to 3RR and the like, as they already are). The "keepers" of course have to sort out the wheat from the chaff, but they already do that, in looking at recent changes and deciding what to revert; they'd just look at the sandbox version's changes instead, and revert some changes, leave others alone, and copy still more to the stable version. Fortuitously, the "diff" format of history entries seems preadapted to facilitate this type of "version control". I have the impression that established super-editors have some sort of one-click revert functionality and other edit-accelerating tools; adapting these to the proposed system, and in particular to support backporting sandbox changes to the main article, would be simple.

The term "sandbox" should probably not actually be used for an implementation of this, so as not to confuse it with the existing sandbox for test edits and general goofing off. It might actually be made invisible except to "keepers" or whoever; regular users would just see "article discussion edit this page history", with "article" showing the stable version of the article plus their submitted changes, and "edit this page" usage producing more such submissions. The article view might show submissions not yet put in the stable version in grey or something. This version makes the job of keepers harder, as it's no longer one-click if different users' submissions edit-conflict with one another. Remember though that it would only apply to relatively stable, major-topic articles.

Of course, a far simpler thing to do is to implement the "probation" status and change semi-protection to permit anonymous non-probationers to edit (and not let non-anonymous probationers do so). And no matter what, a lot of templates (especially infobox templates) seem to need to be protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For a reply to the tag issue, take a look at User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. And yes, many editors have auto rollback tools that revert edits with a single click, including in monobooks. There is a recurring idea of stable versions - someone posted the links on the main page discussion you started - but I don't know whats happening with that. Ultimately, page protection is a last resort, and it is believed to be far better to block editors - though editors with dynamic IP addresses are practically impossible to get rid of, unless you rangeblock, which required a Checkuser, which a very very few users have access to. Also, when user accounts are blocked, IP addressed associated with them are sometimes autoblocked if it is enabled, and account creation can be blocked too, for a possibly extended period of time. That said, I may have something wrong there, I'm not an admin. I like your idea of a sandbox version though - thought about suggesting it at the policy Village Pump, as someone suggested on the main page talk? RHB - Talk 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better handled at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for page protection or the Village Pump, as it seems to have less and less to do with this article specifically and more to do with a general grievance about how things are being done on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, it seems unfair to accuse "us" (Wikipedia) of "laziness" for employing semi-protection on heavily vandalized pages, while simultaneously claiming you're entitled to 1-click access to WP:RFP and shouldn't have to go through the onerous process of bookmarking it or clicking on the lockbox. Currently, about 0.05% of pages on Wikipedia are semi-protected; Jimbo Wales has also stated that "anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community", so you may have an uphill battle. Regardless, this doesn't seem like the right forum for it. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Warfare Against Cancer

I recently sat in on a lecture presented by John Bell, PhD.; a profressor of Medicine at University of Ottawa. He was presenting research that was being done at his lab in Ottawa where they have created, using very tame viruses in humans, such as VSV, to target cancer cells and recruit the immune system to kill the tumor, in mice and humans (some of these modified viruses are in clincials presently) there has been 100% cure rate in mice and patients who have received the virus; the only side affect was a flu. While this only applies to cancers where there are tumors and in solid form, I think this is a absolutlely facinating breakthrough, it gives you hope..I was wondering if someone would write a blurb on this new treatment. this treatment is known as: Oncolytic Virus.

Thanks

This is clearly experimental. Gene therapy with viral vectors has been tried in some cancers (e.g. glioblastomas). People are not mice. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my previous statement in the Human Clincials, 100% of otherwise terminally ill patients have been cancer free for years now. Thanks --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by McMundy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If perhaps we could verify your claims it would be much easier to address them. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ohri.ca/newsroom/05132004.asp <- This is article about the 2 million grant from the Terry Fox Foundation. While it doesn't go indepth about the human trials they do say, that it has had equally promissing results. This is also from 2004...

http://www.chrcrm.org/main/modules/pageworks/index.php?page=002&id=72 A biography on Dr. John Bell, the one he delievered the original lecture, and one of the many Canadian scientists who have pioneered this new research.

Regards, McMundy

ASCO

Is there any reason why you didn't include the American Society of Clinical Oncology in the sources?

I've always understood that most oncologists first present their best research at the ASCO annual meeting. The ASCO web site has the abstracts online free to the public after the annual meeting, and after 90 days they have the audio of podium presentations with videos of the slides free as well. It's usually the best place to go for current research before it's published in the journals. Nbauman 20:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll include that. I totally agree that as a professional organisation the ASCO is second to none. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Novel Approach?

I'm a layman with a wide interest in science subjects. I have Asperger's syndrome, and for the past 20 years my main area of research has been the etiology of autoimmune, psychiatric and neurological disorders, which I believe have common causes. I hope to write a paper on this later this year.

Both my parents died of cancer, and this got me interested in the subject of a cure. I believe I have come up with an idea which could prove to be a very interesting line of research. I can think of no better way of disseminating this idea to the cancer research community than by putting it on the Wikipedia Cancer discussion page.

Radiation therapy works by creating double strand breaks in the DNA. This could result from the beta particle hitting both strands, or by the generation of destructive free radicals in the cytosol (particularly hydroxyl), or a combination of both direct and indirect effects.

The DNA strands in a cell nucleus contain several billion phosphate groups. These phosphate groups are incorporated into the strands by protein kinase enzymes which use the molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as a substrate donor.

The substrate for the creation of ATP is creatine phosphate, also known as phosphocreatine. It is believed that the body manufactures about a gram of creatine a day from the amino acids methionine, glycine and arginine. Another gram comes from food. It is then converted to creatine phosphate by the enzyme, creatine kinase.

About 60% of the creatine in the body is in the form of creatine phosphate. I would therefore expect about 60% of dietary creatine to be in the phosphorylated form. I have not been able to find anything on the subject of the body's uptake and use of dietary creatine phosphate. My idea depends on the assumption that it is taken up and used intact by the body.

If that is the case, then taking supplemental creatine phosphate which has been made in a laboratory using radioactive phosphorus, would result in radioactive phosphorus being incorporated into the DNA strands. This would occur in rapidly dividing cancer cells with much greater frequency than it would in normal cells.

When the radioactive phosphorus atom in the DNA strand emits its beta particle, I believe the recoil energy would result in the phosphorus atom becoming detached from the DNA strand, resulting in an automatic single strand break. Again, this has proved a difficult area to research, but I believe it to be the case. So how many such beta emissions would there need to be for there to be a 50% chance of a lethal double strand break?

There are two different phosphorus radionuclides, P32 and P33. P32 has a half life of 14.3 days and its beta particle travels a maximum of 20 feet in air. P33 has a half life of 25.4 days and travels 18 inches in air, and so would probably be the safer option. Wm C. Davidson (14 May 2007).

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a venue for the publication of original research, hypotheses, or novel syntheses of old ideas. There are plenty of suitable arenas for exploring a scientific hypothesis, but Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which reflects and summarizes existing knowledge, not a tool for advancing new ideas. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What MastCell says. But I wish you luck with your research. Radioactive phosphorus is used in the treatment of some malignancies. You should be able to find lots of references with a careful search on pubmed, or try Stryer's Biochemistry for creatine etc.Jellytussle 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto MastCell. If you could turn your little paragraph there into thirty pages, that would be called a grant. As it stands now, it should be deleted.--Dr.michael.benjamin 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cancer bacteria

How does the following paragraph sound:

Ronsword 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poll request

I'd like to poll readers on the Talk forum, as per the guidelines suggested by Wikipedia, as to a "yes" or "no" regarding inclusion of H.pylori and ongoing research into virus-like bacteria---specifically Mycoplasma. I would just like to reiterate, the inclusions don't, in my view, present a "weight" issue as they merely comprise two sentences in a 3,000 word article; nor is this information radical or unusual, as it reflects objective facts published by non-partial researchers in the peer-reviewed literature and is, in a sense, an extension of ongoing cancer virus research---both dealing with microogranisms that might be associated with cancer. Thanks for your consideration. Ronsword 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentences are reasonable, except for the part about the mycoplasma resembling a virus...I will add them to the article.--Dr.michael.benjamin 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to objectively review the discussion points that have been made. I also think the article inclusion as it now reads is fair and objective.Ronsword 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTH--Dr.michael.benjamin 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this was discussed extensively above. There's a couple of ancient references, but no present-day researchers attach any importance to mycoplasma in carcinogenesis. I have removed this, and really expect this to be discussed prior to reinsertion. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Dr. Benjamin chooses to insert a sentence or two mentioning mycoplasma research, and Jfdwolff keeps deleting that sentence. What is so inappropriate, Jfdwolff, about pointing out for historical accuracy, the fact that "mycoplasma" are being investigated, along with H.pylori, in a 3000 word article on cancer? I think the public has the right to decide, for itself, whether mycoplasma research is relevant or not. By the way, you make the assertion that the aforementioned studies you refer to are 'ancient' and that no 'present-day' researcher is interested in the mycoplasma/cancer association. Pardon me for saying, but you are flat out and blatantly wrong.

The following article was published this past February in the prestigious journal : Can J Microbiol. 2007 Feb;53(2):270-276.

Please note the underscored text as it refers to current and contemporary research involving mycoplasma and human cancer:

Mycoplasmal membrane protein p37 promotes malignant changes in mammalian cells.Liu W, Ren T, Jiang B, Gong M, Shou C. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Peking University School of Oncology and Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, 52 Fu-Cheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100036, People’s Republic of China.

Evidence of Mycoplasma hyorhinis infection in human gastric cancer tissues has been found in previous work. In this study, we demonstrate that the expression of p37, a membrane lipoprotein of M. hyorhinis, in mammalian cells induces antisenescence, enhances clonogenicity in soft agar, and co-operates with human epidermal growth factor receptor-related 2 to inhibit cell adhesion. Conversely, truncated p37 protein, with the first 28 amino acids deleted from its N terminal, promotes cell senescence. Taken together, our findings suggest that p37 promotes malignant changes in mammalian cells. With the identification of this molecular component, which is responsible for mycoplasma malignancy-promoting activity, it is possible that a better understanding of the relationship between M. hyorhinis infection and human gastric cancers will lead to novel diagnostics and therapeutics.

Ronsword 14:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, you are (intentionally?) ignoring a key concept here: preclinical research may or may not turn out to be clinically relevant. I agree with Dr. Wolff that mycoplasma really doesn't belong in the article, but for different reasons. Right now, it's not all that relevant. There are literally thousands of "leads" being researched in a similar fashion to the Can J Microbiol research. If you ever spent any time in a medical library, you know how much medical research is out there.

Most of it is of marginal importance to patients and doctors. Time ultimately determines which ideas are relevant and worthy of inclusion in references like Wikipedia, and which are of marginal importance. A citation in Can J Microbiol does not a relevant concept make. Ask yourself, is this something incorporated into mainstream medicine? H. Pylori certainly is--we measure it and treat it in patients. What about mycoplasma? We treat infections with it, but so far, and despite ten or twenty years of research, we still do not have critical breakthroughs that affect patient care.

Kudos to the researchers that continue to look for mycoplasma's contribution to carcinogenesis. When they figure out how it works, we'll put it in the article.--Dr.michael.benjamin 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, but wasn't it you who added the latest inclusions on mycoplasma, and the re-insertion after it was deleted? I haven't added any text on mycoplasma in months. So why are you changing your mind?

<Ask yourself, is this something incorporated into mainstream medicine?> No. But is all of the virus and genetic research you cite in the article being incorporated into mainstream medicine, or is much of it still theoretical and not fully understood? Yet, it is still included. Seems like you have a double standard here. Ronsword 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The virus and genetic research is almost incontrovertible. In contrast, your mycoplasma hero states that "Most physicians are wrong in their understanding of most diseases, most of the time".[6] Please find people willing to support your additions (apart from yourself), and otherwise please leave us alone. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a sentence mentioning mycoplasma would not be harmful, but it's not critical, since the research is so preliminary. True, some of the research about viruses and genetics is also preliminary, but we are also seeing some clinically relevant advances from the fields of cancer virology and cancer genetics. We have targeted therapies to treat specific genetic abnormalities in cancer (bcr/abl translocations), identification of hereditary tumor suppressor mutations (BRCA1 and 2, now p16 and MSH/MLH too) can save lives, and we are getting viral vaccines aimed at preventing cancer (like Gardasil). These developments point to meaningful, relevant progress in these fields. On the other hand, we do not have the same level of evidence in the field of mycoplasma cancer research. We just have a bunch of papers observing that there is biological plausibility, but there are thousands of papers out there observing oncogenesis with almost any substance under the sun. Obviously, we can't include them all. I think, then, the litmus test should be clinical relevance--if it has applications in clinical medicine and is making a difference to patient care, we should definitely include it.

I liked my final sentence that was just deleted by Dr. W: Despite more than ten years of research, scientists are still struggling to understand the relationship of mycoplasma to cancer pathogenesis, and research is ongoing. I'll put this back in, and remind Dr. W that Wikipedia is not committee-driven. One voice doesn't speak any louder than the rest.--Dr.michael.benjamin 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for trying to be impartial. I agree, there is more clinical relevance with viral and genetic research. But allow me to clarify one point which I may have not conveyed properly.

I am not challenging the incontrovertibility of viral or genetic research. I was simply trying to state that much of that research remains theoretical and has not been applied to the clinical setting. For example, cancer virus associations are still often made (or suggested) via the gold-standard of causality (NCI's words, not mine), or via laboratory/cell line evidence as opposed to a more established standard such as Koch's Postulates. Ronsword 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The theoretical aspects of viral and genetic research form the underpinnings of specific clinical tests and treatments, so they are important to report here. The idea that mycoplasma causes cancer is not the same sort of overriding concept; it's merely an example of how microorganisms might cause cancer. Right now, the evidence only supports an "ongoing research" sentence, no more. If the evidence improves in the future, the sentence can be expanded. Maybe, as you seem to think, we are making an error in underreporting the importance of this idea; as of June 14, 2007, we don't have enough knowledge to say more. It's human nature to recognize patterns--right now recognizing mycoplasma as a critical factor in cancer pathogenesis is overreading the pattern. You seem like a reasonable person, Ron, I'm sure you can recognize what I and the others are trying (imperfectly) to express.--Dr.michael.benjamin 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC) ---please see response, below Ronsword 02:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. W: Just for the record, Alan Cantwell MD is not my 'hero' and I don't appreciate your sarcasm; it's not really useful to a constructive dialogue is it? But for your information, he has researched and published about a dozen papers in peer-review on Kaposi's Sarcoma, HIV and Mycoplasma, so I have utilized him as a source. Ronsword 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Benjamin, there was a long discussion about mycoplasma earlier on this talkpage. Please peruse this. It is not my voice that is speaking louder than the rest - it is me who tries to make sure the article is not flooded with non-notable hypothesis.

I read it, and I still think the preponderance of evidence supports a "throwaway" line that can be expanded when the evidence is more persuasive.--Dr.michael.benjamin 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronsword, my sarcasm is a reaction to your incessant posting on this talkpage without evidence that the mycoplasma theory has a wide support base (either in the scientific world or on Wikipedia). Dr Cantwell is the originator of the theory, and is therefore open to criticism. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed continually posted scientific abstracts supporting my thesis Jfdwolff, including the last which was a reponse to your criticism of mycoplasma research being 'ancient.' However, after you level an accusation, am I not allowed to respond? Please try in future to address the substance of what I am saying, and don't resort to personal attacks.

Perhaps my "incessant" postings don't represent a 'wide support base' but you seem to still be missing the point; I never said that mycoplasma had a wide audience, nor that it is a dominant, majority theory. I AM saying, it deserves a few sentences for the sake of historical, scientific record as representative of ongoing research, in light of the H.pylori research. What is so utterly implausible about that??

Correction: Dr Cantwell is NOT the originator of the mycoplasma theory of cancer. All of the scientists I sight above are probably not even aware of Cantwell's work, and it has been, in fact, Doctor Lo of the Armed Services Institute who first reported in the literature a cause and effect between Mycoplasma fermentans and oncogenesis. Please don't continue to misrepresent and misquote what I have been diligently and accurately trying to say here. Ronsword 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Benjamin:

I don't feel you are making "an error in underreporting the importance of this (mycoplasma) idea". It might seem I am implying that because I have been so vigilant over the last few months in trying to get a 'fair hearing'. In fact, I am quite happy with your edits as you have constructed them. As I've said earlier, I feel you are being fair and impartial. I also realize that, given the nature of the mycoplasma evidence now available, the subject can't be given undue weight, and the outcome has to remain open. All I have been asking for is brief mention of the mycoplasma research as a matter of record. I think your edits are fine. Ronsword 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to oppose this unless other editors can persuade me to support you. If major medical textbooks are not mentioning this, why should Wikipedia? Chapter 159 of Harrisson's Textbook (16th ed.) is entirely about mycoplasmas. Not a word about a role in carcinogenesis. I'm sure Dr McCormack would have added that if he thought it was important? Undue weight is indeed the relevant policy. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a further look at your website, Mr Falcone. All I see is "medical heretic" Victoria Livingston, our friend Dr Cantwell (who says that we are wrong all the time) and of course Ralph Moss and his Cancer Industry book. There is an agenda being pushed here. JFW | T@lk 11:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am jumping into this argument midstream, but would have to agree with JFW about undue weight being given to the mycoplasma theroy of carcinogenesis. Who knows, maybe with some time, the story will mature, but it's not in the same realm e.g. as HPV. Andrew73 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My ‘agenda’ is to tell the truth, and as clearly posted on my non-profit website, “to educate the lay and professional public by compiling, disseminating, and updating pertinent scientific information on the subject of cancer bacteria” in the hopes of “open-minded dialogue concerning this alternative area of research”. All are welcome to peruse, criticize, comment and offer feedback on the website (http://members.aol.com/CAbacteria/homepage.html).

Website nonwithstanding, mycoplasma and ongoing research therein is an absolutely, unequivocably true and accurate FACT. Whether you choose to report or delete that fact is your choice and there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise.

BTW, please leave Ralph Moss out of it. He has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, and it is silly even mentioning his name. Not sure if you knew it or not, but Dr. Moss is the founding member and a chairperson of the Alternative Medicine Program Advisory Council at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. The NIH seems to like him. Ronsword 18:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not a scientist, otherwise you would avoid passing any theory off as "truth". Even if every bit of the mycoplasma research is true, it is still too fringe to be included. There have been numerous users trying to explain this to you, and I will stop trying to do the same.

Whatever Ralph Moss does, he remains an alternative practicioner whose views are at odds with most scientists with an interest in cancer. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again Dr. W., please don't misquote me; I never said in this forum that mycoplasma was a "true" theory, but simply that mycoplasma research is a true fact, it is ongoing, and I am trying to report that fact truthfully.

No, I am not a scientist and don't profess to being one. However, the scientists I do quote and cite are experts, so I defer to them. I'm only the messenger.

I find it interesting that you say, 'Even if every bit of the mycoplasma research is true, it is still too fringe to be included.' Can I ask you, how can research which is ongoing and being performed at legitimate universities and by legitimate scientists be in the fringe? What, exactly, does 'fringe' mean? And who decides what is, or isn't in the 'fringe'? Shouldn't such a determination be made by the reader? Or should such information be withheld from the reader? If you can provide me with a satisfactory explanation to these questions, I will let this issue rest once and for all Ronsword 22:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe" doesn't mean that the research isn't true, it's just that it's not in the "mainline" of cancer research. The Wikipedia article on cancer isn't meant to be exhaustive and cover every single aspect of cancer research, just the main points. I don't get the sense that connection between mycoplasma and cancer is considered mainstream. Andrew73 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it isn't mainstream. But wouldn't mycoplasma research be considered a logical extension of the H.pylori/cancer research which has recently emerged and which is becoming mainstream---since both H.pylori and mycoplasma are both bacterial entities? Since mention of H.pylori in the Wikipedia article appears acceptable, why omit very brief mention of mycoplasma research which is also ongoing? Ronsword 01:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The role of H. pylori in the etiology of certain gastric lymphomas, at least, is extremely well established. I believe that antibiotic treatment of H. pylori alone is actually a first-line treatment for that disease (see [7], for example). This connection has support all the way from purely basic to purely clinical research, and is now part of routinely accepted clinical knowlege. It is a unique and interesting example - a bacterium causing a cancer - and thus merits brief mention in the article devoted to all of cancer. We have to be very judicious in what we allow in this article - for example, there is not even a mention, much less a real discussion, of most of the known varieties of cancer because there simply isn't room. There are thousands of interesting hypotheses out there about various things that *might* cause cancer, on the basis of a few studies. However, it is only appropriate to mention the most firmly established and unique concepts on this page. The mycoplasma-cancer link fails to meet those criteria, period. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see the harm in mentioning the mycoplasma. For example, "Despite further research, scientists have failed to identify other bacteria that contribute to cancer in a measurable way." I appreciate your edits, Rusatvo.--Dr.michael.benjamin 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-mutational genetics and cancer

I detected a distinct "mutational POV" in the article (half-joking). People, other things besides mutations can cause cancer! Can anyone add a little more meat to the translocation and aneuploidy section? There is a lot out there, and the article doesn't yet do it justice. --Dr.michael.benjamin 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be in carcinogenesis. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most common cancer?

It was my understanding that non-melanoma skin cancers(SCC and BCC) were the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the US, with prostate (in men) and breast (in women) diagnoses falling far short of the million plus skin cancer diagnoses. Am I just being dim, or is there some subtlety that I'm missing? Thanks! Jprawn 21:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Usually the statistics are reported as "top non-skin cancers," since SCC and BCC are so rarely invasive or malignant-behaving. The skin cancer statistics are of critical importance to dermatologists, though!--Dr.michael.benjamin 07:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

I've had a bit of a discussion with Dr.michael.benjamin (talk · contribs) on the size of this article. I agree that certain topics were not being addressed properly (e.g. other causes than mutations), but I feel that things are presently getting a bit too heavy. An entire section on grilled meat is probably just a bit too much; I would favour a shorter article that appropriately branches off into the relevant subarticles. Carcinogenesis is the article that much content can be moved to.

In contrast to expansion, we need much better referencing! I dispute that Ralph Moss is a neutral authority on the history of cancer, and would prefer a more academic source for the material presently cited from him. I can go on. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I think we need better referencing and a broader article. There are many pertinent concepts that were (and still are) incomplete. For example, an environmental and food section that does not include well-documented data on grilled meat? A genetics section that ignores aneuploidy and translocations? Molecular biology, but no microRNA? These are not fringe concepts, people, they just aren't that well-known outside the research community. Philadelphia chromosome has its own page, but why no mention on the cancer page? Perhaps patients and doctors would be interested in learning more about non-basic concepts using an accessible reference, like Wikipedia. My perspective is that the article is a too-arbitrary compendium of oncology "greatest hits."

We know about mutations in cancer. But why was the mutation section of the article not organized around a framework of tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes? Where is there a line about the difference between SNPs and mutations, or the impact of the human genome project? What about microarrays? The key to a comprehensive article is not hewing to popular subheadings, but accreting details. I feel my edits have improved the article by assigning an architecture more in line with the current scientific thinking on cancer. The article previously had a slapdash feel to it.

Expansion is inevitable and welcome. Different editors bring different knowledge to a page, and thus, we get the magical growth of Wikipedia. Check out some of the articles in Brittanica for example--they're pretty darn long, and that's not a problem. Check out the Virginia Tech massacre article--it's darn long too. Recently lauded in the New York Times.

Some topics are necessarily broad--what does a researcher want from an article called "Cancer?" Let's not make too many choices for the reader; let's just stick everything in there, try our best to organize it conceptually, and let the people do with it what they will.

You know, there was a section on grilled meats in the cancer article before I edited it and added four references. Maybe instead of singling my edits out for criticism, we could all work constructively in making the article more comprehensive and better referenced.--Dr.michael.benjamin 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not taking my points on board at all with regard to size. Of course we need to mention grilled meats, just not in a seperate section. It is not just your edits I'm "singling out for criticism", it is the bloated state of the article that concerns me. Please see WP:AGF. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the size of the article do you think is bad? Is it disorganized? Are there too many sections? What is it?--Dr.michael.benjamin 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 93 KB, almost entirely text. Since I made my last edit on the 14th, it has grown by another 4 KB. If an article gets that big, it becomes hard to navigate and digest, and the need for appropriate sub-articles arises. Most material that you have added is relevant in principle, but could be condensed a lot more - with more room for elaboration in sub-articles.

Not all topics require their own sections. I would personally prefer far fewer individual sections with less bits of facts and more of a general outlook. Without being a new synthesis, an article should still be allowed to systematise.

I have already commented above that I will continue to oppose mention of Mycoplasma fermentans. You may have noticed that this bacterium does not have its own page on Wikipedia. You may also have discovered that it is extremely fashionable as an explanation for a raft of unexplained medical conditions. Most Google hits point to either an AIDS-related complication or sheer quackery. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where Dr. W., is there mention of Mycoplasma fermentans in the article? The Dr. Benjamin revision only describes mycoplasma and ongoing research which is an absolutely, unequivocably true and accurate FACT d'jour. Whether you choose to report or delete that fact is your choice, and I respect it, but don't agree with it. No hard feelings Ronsword 18:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above about using POV terms like "fact" or "truth". I appreciate your comment re "no hard feelings". My only interest here is that we present the material as it is. Most other editors that have commented here have now stated that mycoplasma vs cancer is below the notability horizon. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Jdwolff on that. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most other editors" do not determine Wikipedia content, Dr. W. You must have enough experience on Wikipedia to know this by now, yet you keep citing this as a reason why you keep deleting the mycoplasma sentence. I think that's not a valid reason. Your other reason is that Google and Wikipedia searches are uninformative, and I think that's not a very good reason either. Hopefully that is not the extent of your research when investigating a new topic! Ronsword has done an admirable job in presenting you the scientific literature about mycoplasma and cancer, and I think one would at least have to dignify that with a sentence in the article. You should look at Pubmed, where the search "mycoplasma cancer" reveals 698 citations. I think your POV in keeping the mycoplasma sentence out of the article is based on an agenda, and not so much on the state of the current research. I think it's a true statement to say that scientists haven't made any breakthroughs with this research, but continue to work on (and publish on) this issue. BTW, Rustavo, love the edits.--Dr.michael.benjamin 20:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We may just have to agree to disagree as to whether the mycoplasma-cancer research is notable enough to merit mention in the main Cancer article - I think it isn't, but it certainly should be discussed on more specialized pages. It is necessary to make hard editorial choices in creating a concise, readable article on a topic as broad as cancer, and people shouldn't take these things too personally. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a paragraph in the Mycoplasma article wouldn't be a bad idea. Though I agree with Dr. Benjamin, I don't see the harm including a brief segue sentence peripheral to the H.pylori reference in this article. If you were describing, for example, some of the early HBV research and its association with liver cancer, and then included a "by the way, scientists are also looking at HPV for its role" in certain reproductive system cancers, I wouldn't see how that reference would be problematic because the two are viruses and the discussion is about viruses. I see a similar textual concept with H.pylori and mycoplasma but others don't, and I respectfully acknowledge that.

One other thought I wanted to mention; I think if we're going to be that vigilant about such issues as 'notability horizon' and hold brief mention of mycoplasma to such a high standard, then references to such things as 'mistletoe' in this article should be omitted. Mistletoe is certainly not above the notability horizon and as a matter of fact, represents quite a controversial drug (Iscador) which has been sold on the black market for decades. Other subjects quoted in the article which don't strike me as being above the notability horizon are botanical medicine, acupuncture and visual imagery.Ronsword 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many headings

OK, I just did a bunch of work on the article, much of it in the department of reorganization. I'd like to make a modest proposal: can we try to refrain from adding fourth-order and, when possible, third-order headings to this particular article? (I think third-order headings are needed in section 2). The article is too long at present, and before I got to work on it, the ToC was about two screens long (now its a bit over one). By enforcing fewer headings, we can prevent ugly ToC sprawl, and at the same time, encourage people to keep their contributions to already long sections as concise as possible. Just my $0.02 -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 05:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Any more than ====Fourth level==== impairs readability. It is possible to create headers without TOC entry by prefacing the relevant text with a semicolon. See multiple sclerosis where this has been used. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I figured there was a trick for that, but couldn't find it. I still think it is a good rule to discourage people from, say, adding a fourth-level header for a discussion of the role of grilled meat avoidance in cancer prevention. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I guess I am using a different definition of "level" as such: ==First level==, ===Second level=== ====Third level==== etc. I don't consider the title itself a "level", but perhaps there are guidelines that contradict me. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have added some references to content. This will need to happen a lot more. Ideally, every claim should be supported with a good reference - preferentially review articles that summarise the relevant research in an accessible way rather than original research articles of which the impact can't easily be assessed.

The paragraphs "signs and symptoms, biopsy and screening" are filled with nostrums that every classically trained clinician will be able to confirm. I thought PMID 17493982 would perhaps be useful to support mention of "alarm symptoms". JFW | T@lk 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary versus secondary prevention

I think secondary prevention is not the same thing as treatment, and I don't think it's too much of a reach to split the prevention section into primary and secondary. You guys may want to check out the Wikipedia article on Prevention (medical), which discusses the concept of primary versus secondary prevention. Diet is not a treatment for cancer per se, though I get at least one patient per day asking whether there is a special food they can eat to treat their cancer. People could get the wrong idea based on the organization of the article.--Dr.michael.benjamin 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I agree with that revert (and thanks for NOT restoring the unnecessary subheadings).-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer targeting nanotechnology promising

Gold nanoparticles enter into cancer cells which can then be targeted by lasers. Alternatively, such nanoparticles could be directed specifically into individual cancer cells, carrying cancer drugs. For details about the advances made in cancer diagnosis, treatment and prevsntion please visit the following sites: [1]http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/2007/june/nanotech_news_2007-06-14b.asp. [2]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114268680/ABSTRACT. [3]http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/Cancer_Nanotechnology.pdf.

History section

Thanks to Axl for restructuring the article. The "history" section has a number of weaknesses, such as a lack of references and the insistence that Ralph Moss is a mainstream authority on medical history. Does anyone have a Roy Porter classic that we can quote in its stead? JFW | T@lk 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the separation of "causes" and "pathophysiology" was a smart way to break up a big section. On the other hand, moving preventative "diet" and "vitamin" , as well as "genetic testing", "screening" and "vaccination" out of "Prevention" and into "Epidemiology" doesn't make any sense to me. I'm going to go ahead and move them back. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 00:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, put those sections back in "Prevention"; reserve "Epidemiology" for incidence data: who gets cancer, when, where, and perhaps also basic survivorship trends. --Una Smith 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

I moved sections around so that "Signs and symptoms" is followed by "Diagnosis" and then "Treatment". "Causes" and "Pathophysiology" now are followed directly by "Prevention". "Epidemiology" and "History" belong together, perhaps even as one section. Also, "Classification" and "History" are related, so I suggest putting them together. "Research" perhaps should follow "Pathophysiology" directly. --Una Smith 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought... Perhaps it is time to create a new page, Cancer genetics, and move there much of the "Pathophysiology" section and part of the "Causes" section. --Una Smith 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the section on Treatment reprises other pages and IMO it adds nothing. I suggest condensing all the subsections on concentional treatments, and clinical trials, into very concise pointers to the other pages. But probably keep hee the CAM and palliative care sections. --Una Smith 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraphs

I'm removing the "life-threatening" before the mention of metastasis; benign tumors also can be life-threatening, and use of this word here distracts from the metastatic / benign comparison. --Una Smith 14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving some of the discussion from the lead to relevant sections? The lead is much too long and goes into too much detail on some topics. --Una Smith 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer bacteria (reprise)

Una Smith (talk · contribs) added a "see also" to an article, created by that user today, called cancer bacteria. After the very long discussions with Ronsword, it is striking that this is making its reprise through the back door. When one googles for "cancer bacteria", the first hits are all alternative medicine pages.

I see no grounds to have an article titled "cancer bacteria", let alone linking to that article from that page. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicobacter pylori is well-recognized to cause gastric carcinoma and MALT lymphoma. The evidence for Mycoplasma is weaker. Axl 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Which is the thrust of the interminable discussion we've been having with Ronsword. Obviously the Helicobacter link is beyond doubt. But the mycoplasma thing should not be presented for more than it is - some vague results with absolutely no satisfaction of Koch's postulates.

Respectfully, Wikipedia's own article on Koch's Postulates reads as follows: "Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite their not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates.[5]. Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, fulfillment of all four postulates is not required to demonstrate causality.[6]." Ronsword 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that Una Smith was trying to work out a "compromise" by creating a subarticle on cancer bacteria.[8] While I'm open to persuation, the whole thing risks becoming a WP:POVFORK, and at the moment I oppose its linking from this article. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a POV fork. The pages in question are cancer and cancer bacteria. The cancer page is about what cancer is, how it is treated, what kinds there are, etc., with very little about cause (which in most cases is unknown). I expect the cancer bacteria page would be all about theories and evidence for bacteria and other unicellular organisms as one cause of certain cancers. Cancer bacteria would not be a "subarticle". --Una Smith 04:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. W: I would hope that you wouldn't cite "Google" searches as a basis for the validity or lack thereof regarding the subject of cancer bacteria and/or mycoplasma. I believe Dr. Benjamin already addressed this. I would highly recommend doing a search of Medline as well as re-reading the citations included throughout this Talk discussion; objective assessments about science shouldn't be made on the basis of Google searches IMHO. I can also enter the searchword "cancer" on google and find hundreds of bizarre links, etc.

I think a separate article on "cancer bacteria"---and not necessarily one focusing only on mycoplasma---would be a good idea. Good, bad, or neutral, cancer bacteria research does represent a historic and scientific aspect of medicine which has been ongoing since Glover's first studies at the Public Hygiene Service in 1926 (now NIH). Given the current and contemporary admission that bacteria do, in fact, cause cancer (an idea that was largely disregarded 20 years ago), a dedicated article detailing this research would seem to be journalistically valid and logical.Ronsword 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronsword, I find Google immensely useful for these questions. Obviously it is not a scientific experiment (although see doi:10.1136/bmj.39003.640567.AE). It is not what one can find, it is what Pagerank says other people find. The concept of bacteria causing cancer, with the exception of Helicobacter, is not mainstream medical thinking, and I will continue to oppose any attempt to label it as such. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. W, you write: "The concept of bacteria causing cancer, with the exception of Helicobacter, is not mainstream medical thinking." Isn't that a contradiction? How can mainstream medical thinking accept H.pylori (and thus by association, a bacterial cause of cancer), and yet reject a bacterial cause of cancer?

re: google, I'm quite baffled. You have repeatedly challenged and largely dismissed the science I've presented throughout this discussion which includes very compelling conclusions by qualified, degreed scientists at respectable universities as somehow not being valid or mainstream enough, and yet you seem to favor the sentiments raised by Google searches? Are you saying, in effect, that you're more concerned with what people think about cancer bacteria research, as opposed to what scientists are actually publishing and saying about it? Ronsword 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge body of scholarly research on the topic of cancer bacteria. A PubMed search for "bacteria [titl]", and limits (1) topic Cancer and (2) links to free full text, returns over 500 free full text articles, including 23 review articles, some of which are directly relevant to "cancer bacteria". There must be thousands more articles that are not free full text. A brief look at the reviews brings up an interesting chicken-and-egg question: which comes first, (undetected) cancer or invasion by bacteria? --Una Smith 03:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a good question. The 'mainstream' view up until recently has been that cancer bacteria are opportunistic infections after the fact. H.pylori challenges that assumption as do the studies I cite above.Ronsword 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are getting a large number of spurious hits in your PubMed search. I did the search as you described ("bacteria" [titl] with Topic: Cancer and Free Full Text limits) and got 542 matches. Of the first twenty, however, only four appeared to have any relationship with cancer (determined by searching for the string "cancer" in the full text): two discussed the uncontroversial H. pylori link to gastric cancer, one commented on the possible correlations between oral carcinomas and various bacterial species, and the fourth (Yang 2006) suggested that a relationship between colonic flora and cancer may exist. My sample size is small, but I would suggest that you screen a few more of the matches before claiming "500+ hits". -- MarcoTolo 04:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious hits are the norm. Re the search results, I did write some of which are directly relevant to "cancer bacteria". The topic Cancer is applied by trained indexers. Thus, the topic may be applied even when an article concerning cancer does not use the word cancer, but other words such as carcinogen, tumorigenesis, neoplasm.

Cancer bacteria? vote!

Re each question, simply edit this section and add your vote at the bottom of the list.

Create cancer bacteria?

yes: there is already a long article worth of content about cancer bacteria on Talk:Cancer. --Una Smith 04:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no: it yields only to the pressure of one vocal editor, not to significant consensus from other users. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no - I'm not convinced the concept can be referenced per WP:RS while avoiding the WP:OR issues. -- MarcoTolo 01:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco, take a look at the article now. It is well-referenced. Axl 08:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes - an entire history book can be written about cancer bacteria research dating back to the 1920's; reliable sources include articles appearing in the New York Times, Lancet, many other peer reviewed sources, the National Cancer Institute, and more recently, citations involving H.pylori and also those as cited throughout this Talk discussion. An objective article doesn't imply an endorsement of, but rather a historical accounting of a real occurrence---much of which has yet to be resolved. Ronsword 03:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, but maybe later, To begine, information from reliable sources should be added to the existing article. The article may end up supporting, or denouncing the hypothesis, depending on what the available sources say. If the article becomes sufficiently long, this topic can be broken out into a separate article. Please be careful not to create a POV fork. Jehochman ^Hablar 04:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes if there is material for it. But why are we voting? The article exists, so fill it up with the content you claim already exists. It will be edited mercilessly, as you know. (SEWilco 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
yes: "Ron" with it!--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - thanks Dr. Benjamin for being open-mindedRonsword 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am expanding it. Axl 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Found this through Una's AN/I posting, and agree per Verifiability, not "Truth". Esp. since "Truth" in this case seems to depend on the specialty of the doctor editing the page at the time. Include facts, let readers pursue their own research. ThuranX 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link from cancer to cancer bacteria?

yes: the topics are related. --Una Smith 04:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no: if it was important enough (which it is not), it would have been linked from the article body. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no - Since my opinion is that cancer bacteria shouldn't be a standalone article, no linking is possible. -- MarcoTolo 01:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(not sure) - Out of consideration to the idea of keeping that which is mainstream in its own place, providing a link to a subject which appears to provoke much debate might not be in the best interests of both articles. Ronsword 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - change to YESgiven the objectivity and comprehensive referencing of the CANCER BACTERIA article as it now appears Ronsword 17:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no need to decide now - Obviously if an acceptable article is written, the two related articles should be linked. Until there is an acceptable article, avoid needless debates. Jehochman ^Hablar 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wait until something worth linking to exists. Then you'll know where it should be linked from. (SEWilco 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yes. Axl 08:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The current Cancer bacteria article looks thin and small, but fully sourced. Fully sourced information about a serious topic belongs here. That the research may LATER be contradicted means the ARTICLE can later be edited. ThuranX 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move relevant text from cancer?

(Move it to virus cancer link and cancer bacteria, leaving behind links from cancer to those pages?)

yes - Any content debate over infectious causes of cancer belongs on those pages. Here, it isn't a content debate: it is suppression of a content debate. --Una Smith 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm a registered Independent. Can I still vote? :-)Ronsword 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Can you play nicely with others? :-) --Una Smith 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. I'm much more plain vanilla than I sound (LOL)Ronsword 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming the page to Cancer causing bacteria. We know that H.pylori should go on that page. Other suspects could be listed too with an appropriate citation to a reliable source. Perhaps this should start out at a section within an article Causes of cancer. Jehochman ^Hablar 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so that's what causes bacteria! Thanks! :-) (SEWilco 05:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Shades of a dog eating man. --Una Smith 05:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I think that he means Cancer-causing bacteria. Axl 08:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer causes: infectious diseases

Oh, wow--looks like Una Smith took it upon him/herself to make a major excision of this section, no comment in the discussion section. I think the section after she edited it is far too vague and general, and there was no previous issue with it before. I think, for example, people will be interested in knowing that a virus probably causes cervical cancer and that the HPV vaccine can prevent that--that's information that belongs in the cancer article.--Dr.michael.benjamin 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the edit summary, I moved the text to cancer bacteria and virus cancer link. Thanks for the heads-up; I will edit the cervical cancer page accordingly. --Una Smith 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.michael.benjamin reverted my edit, including this:

Some cancers may originate from a viral infection; this is especially true in animals such as birds, but also in humans, as viruses are responsible for 15% of human cancers worldwide.^{[citation needed]} Some other cancers may be caused by bacteria.

I also joined the sections infectious diseases and immune compromise, because the two topics are intimately connected. See the archive of my edit. --Una Smith 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be merit in moving the "immune" section, but I agree with Dr Benjamin that the content on bacteria and viruses should not have been removed. On a complicated article like this, please continue to seek consensus for major alterations. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the POVfork be on your heads. --Una Smith 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a threat...if not an accusation.--Dr.michael.benjamin 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what you mean by that, Una Smith. By returning this content we've actually done the exact opposite, namely to preserve information that was about to disappear into articles that were bound to become POV forks, especially cancer bacteria. You have not sought consensus for such a move. The fact that there is consensus for the creation of such articles does not mean that it comes at the expense of the quality of this article.

I have already shared with you what happens when you type "cancer bacteria" into Google. We are dangerously blurring the lines between mainstream medicine and personality-driven alternative medicine where a major proponent of these theories also believes that AIDS was introduced deliberately to kill off homosexuals. JFW | T@lk 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. W: First let me say, for the record, I agree with you; I do not feel references to H.pylori and viruses should have been removed from this article without consent. I hope this issue has an agreeable resolution.

Let me also say, I totally agree there are many weird and bizarre theories on cancer bacteria, HIV and government sponsored conspiracies 'out there'. I do not support these views, and often find them nutty and disturbing.

I take issue with your position in that, you tend to blur the actual science that I and others are trying to convey with the bizarre positions held by people as expressed on Google, etc. and this is quite closed minded. Yes, there is a ton of junk about cancer bacteria (as well as "cancer" itself), but should that 'junk' circumvent the history and science that needs explaining? Are Dr.s Lo, Zhang, Tsai, et al., part of a conspiratorial community or are they doing serious science under the auspices of such organizations as the Armed Forces Institute? It seems that your position has been one of throwing out the whole bushel because there are some bad apples. I disagree and feel this closed-mindedness is not consistent with your editorial saavy. Nor, BTW, do I think it appropriate that an editor refer to a contributor and "his buddies" in a derogatory or sarcastic way. Not very professional or kind.

You keep talking about 'agenda' and 'personality driven motives; yet that position can also be applied to an editor who consistently attempts to block scientific and journalistic facts about cancer bacteria research from being published, could it not?

Think what you wish, but my objective on Wikipedia is to convey the history and/or science of cancer bacteria research as objectively and journalistically truthful as I possibly can. It is a worthwhile and current piece of medical history and one the public is obligated to know about. Read the Cancer Bacteria article and I think you'll see its encyclopedic merit, integrity and currency. There isn't one mention of AIDS, or any inferences that bacteria represent the grand cause of all cancers. If anything, it is rather critical against a cancer bacteria position in a number of areas.

I ask you, Dr. W., in a spirit of cordiality that you try being more open minded, and try and separate science from conjecture and personal biases when referring to concepts and contributors who deserve a proper airing.Ronsword 14:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this very talk page we discussed creating cancer bacteria; I guess I did not ask exactly the right question, which would be can we move the entire content dispute over cancer bacteria to that page? So I'll go do that now.

By the way, I got into this dispute because I find this page not only long but also beyond tedious, due to its thumbnail sketches of everything and anything having to do with cancer. If I want to read about a cause of cancer, I can go to that page. Here, I would like to see a list of causes, each a link to another page. --Una Smith 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SABCS diet and breast cancer

JFW removed my sentence about diet interventions and breast cancer. These data were presented at a major peer-reviewed breast cancer conference in 2006, and the results came from a randomized, controlled trial. The conference has been going on for many years, and is the premiere breast cancer meeting in the world. Ok, so there is no Wikipedia entry on it, but it is still relevant, I think. In addition, this diet trial came after preliminary data also showed that a low-fat diet can reduce breast cancer recurrence. I think the data are potentially interesting to the lay population, and represent mainstream, validated findings presented in a peer-reviewed setting. I can't think of a more appropriate context for inclusion in the article. This is the some of the first scientifically validated data that diet can influence the recurrence of cancer; while somewhat preliminary, I think inclusion in the article is warranted.--Dr.michael.benjamin 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. The problem is that whoever added that section should have given the academic citation to begin with. As you will know better than me, at clinical conferences literally 1,000s of abstracts may be presented - many of which never to be transformed into a full peer-reviewed paper. I'm glad you were able to find the correct citation. JFW | T@lk 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the vast majority of abstracts at these conferences never see the light of day as full-blown articles. You should also know that, at least in oncology, abstract presentations are often instantly practice-changing. Patients read the newspaper, and they demand the "latest" treatments, often first presented as abstracts. For example, the presentation of herceptin for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer was first made at ASCO I think in 2005. In an educational session, no less, not a plenary session! No matter, the following week, patients were demanding adjuvant herceptin for early breast cancer, and plenty of doctors were recommending the treatment right away as well. The FDA approval, of course, didn't come until much later, but the preliminary results were so favorable and the data from other indications so positive that hardly anyone waited for the full journal article to come out.

Now, we happen to have a journal article in this case, so it's a moot point, but I just want you to be aware that just because something only appears as an abstract is not grounds for automatic exclusion. Many of these meetings are academically rigorous, and many of the presentations are extremely relevant to patient care. Among other things, Wikipedia remains a resource for patients and their families, and should reflect developments in the field in a timely fashion. People are going to want this information, and they will turn to WP. My idea is to create an MD-only version of Wikipedia, which I have done, but so far, nobody has signed up to edit! I will leave out the URL, but let me know if you want more information.--Dr.michael.benjamin 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"An MD-only version of Wikipedia." Similar to Ganfyd? Axl 09:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Benjamin, this is my point EXACTLY. Just because something has appeared in an abstract and gets devoured by the media instantly should not be grounds for automatic inclusion until the issues have been settled academically.

I will refer to the issue of DCA. This was added uncritically to the Wikipedia article after the New Scientist article sang its praises. Only a little while later did it emerge that New Scientist was severely criticised for its exuberance, and that people are now buying DCA from unreliable suppliers, thereby risking severe complications.

I remain of the opinion that we should stick steadfastly to guidelines agreed on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS). There is a clear hierarchy in the types of sources we should rely on. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to WP editing (today)... I just read the Reliable Sources article, and I understand. But being a kidney cancer patient (stage 4 RCC) myself, I'm left wondering - if not WP, where do people go for the currently-most-reliable information on new treatments? (I didn't say "reliable," I said currently-most-reliable.) It seems there could be a place for info like Dr. Benjamin's, in a category such as "New but not yet up to WP standards." That would be all I need to know; more important to me, it would be infinitely more valuable to me than some of the assertions that do appear, without citations.

I hope to become a useful figure around here, so I'm trying to contribute, not argue... deBronkart 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello deBronkart and welcome to Wikipedia. Over the years, I've learned to favor eMedicine as a source of medical knowledge in the web. I just looked at their renal cell carcinoma page and it looks fine. I really cannot recommend WP for medical advice, too many activists. I wish you the best. Emmanuelm 12:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of cancer

Anyone know what tells a cell to become cancerous or why? I've seen people that have horrible diets live well into their 90s and be fine and yet vegans who exercise very often get it in their 20s or 30s. Seems almost random. --Somedude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.81.0 (talk • contribs) }

Try Cancer#Causes. -- MarcoTolo 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ever heard of Carcinogens??? 124.184.70.211 09:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history of treatments and antibody-based treatment wrt Coley

I was reading this article which discusses Coley's Toxins and connects them to current antibody-based treatments. It also mentions that some older peoply (including Imhotep) that may have used a similar technique to treat cancer. Would this be a good addition to the history section, or is it more appropriate to add it to the Coley's Toxin page? Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long to-and-fro on Coley's Toxins about 18 months ago. See point 6 in the 2006 archive. Some advocate kept putting up prose which was not defensible. This kept getting deleted. Eventually it settled down. Sounds familiar for this page. Jellytussle 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I agree that the link to Coley is probably enough (although the history section is short). Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cancer cells always present in our bodies?

i have just heard a theory, supposedly factual, that cancerous cells are ever present in our bodies and it is only when the t-cell count drops that a cancerous tumor grows. is there even a speck of basis in scientific fact for this? also if anyone could link to sources to do with this, it would be helpful (Or even just a name of this theory) 124.184.70.211 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Genetically abnormal (not necessarily cancerous) cells are probably being created and destroyed in the human body all the time.

2.Cancers commonly occur in people with normal T-cell function. AIDS patients with compromised T-cell function can develop a characteristic set of cancers.Jellytussle 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So as i thought it was mainly drivel? thanks 124.184.70.211 08:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This fits with Chinese medical theory. Suggested reading: Chi Kung for Health and Vitality by Wong Kiew Kit, it's all there (Incidentally I have nothing to gain from promoting this publication).

Phase II trials show promise for reovirus

“This novel therapy has shown success because the reovirus replicates in and destroys the cancer cells within the patient’s body,” said (Monica) Mita. “Cancer cells have several molecular and genetic abnormalities. In normal, healthy cells, the reovirus is unable to reproduce because of an enzyme named PKR. The enzyme is suppressed in cancer cells, and therefore the reovirus can replicate in the cancer cell and kill it.” [9] Brian Pearson 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flip of genetic switch causes cancers in mice to self-destruct

"Our research implies that by shutting off a critical cancer gene, tumor cells can realize that they are broken and restore this physiologic fail-safe program," said Felsher. [10] Brian Pearson 03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} I would like to add a link to the Lymphoma Research Foundation http://www.lymphoma.org on the Wiki page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cancer under the Professional and research headings either directly above or below the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Barisa Berner

done. Od Mishehu 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section's Organization

"Prognosis" section would be better, below "Causes" one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.22.23.66 (talk) 05:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

List of Cancer

We know there are many types of cancer, shouldn't we make a list of them? Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 01:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better people than you or me have tried and failed, but Wikipedia is different and may succeed where others have failed, so I like your idea. You can start with the List of oncology-related terms, then look at the ICD-O, which is apparently an improvement over SNOMED but is still laughable. There is also the WHO Tumour classification series of books. They are much better but some books are incomplete and not all organs are covered so far. One has also to take into account the multiple names for the same tumour, the constant changes in classifications, the personal differences between pathologists and the new molecular tools that have already introduced major rearrangements in the classifications. Finally, each tumour is unique and, no matter how good the classification is, there will always be a good number of them that will not fit neatly in the box. Emmanuelm 02:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well anyone can take the credit for making the list, as I don't have the time, or much imformation on cancer. The only ones I know are:~~

Mesothelioma

Lung cancer

Leukaemia

Throat cancer

Mouth cancer

~~Anyone can make the list for me and they can add any that they know of. Just make the edit summary: Created page on behalf of Efansay.~~ Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I've gone through the lists and when through the Internet and I've done it. Check it out here Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 09:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone come to the List of Cancer types page and help improve it by categorizing it as well as adding any other cancers to it. Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 05:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treatments

Cancer is definitely curable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.31.184.60 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is. About 40%-50% of cases are cured by surgery, chemo or radiotherapy. I thought the article already reflected that? JFW | T@lk 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-DNA-related cancers?

The article states that "Nearly all cancers are caused by abnormalities in the genetic material of the transformed cells.". What are the other kinds of cancer, that don't involve genetics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.90.43 (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you quote is poor and should be rephrased. all cancers are caused by cellelar transformation due to genetic alteration.Jellytussle 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What studies have been carried out on Genetic links versus Work environment, and habits for this reaserch conserning genetic inherited Cancer!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.70.232 (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats about Childhood cancers

I modified the text to reflect the opinion of the US NCI about the incidence of childhood cancers. The previous text referred to local studies and quoted an environmental activist, not exactly reliable sources. When it comes to statistics, the larger the better. Therefore, NCI stats should be favored here. Emmanuelm 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer counseling

Under Emotional Impact, I changed "self-help (sometimes called peer counseling)" to just "peer counseling." Peer counseling is valid, but afaik, it's not the same as self-help, which is not a form of counseling. deBronkart 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VA and CDC

Chaveso (talk · contribs) added a short paragraph on the fact that the VA dept seems to have been withholding cancer statistics information. There are several problems with this addition. Firstly, the main source is Dr Ralph Moss' "Cancer Decisions" website; I don't think this should be regarded as a reliable source. Secondly, this seems to be an incident in the American health system; this article aims to discuss cancer in much broader terms, and unless an incident really changes the landscape of cancer diagnosis and treatment I'd be very reluctant to include this incident here. Perhaps the VA article itself may be more suitable. JFW | T@lk 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a story in the New York Times within the last week or two about the VA withholding statistics. The problem was with the VA's interpretation of medical confidentiality laws. It was a real problem, and is affecting the validity of cancer treatment statistics, because it introduced a substantial bias. VA patients tend to have certain characteristics (large minority representation, etc.), and they also tend to receive the best treatments and have the best outcomes. I don't have the citation handy yet. Nbauman 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, the second contrib I made (that was also removed) included that NY Times article reference. I think that this is a significant, and underreported issue and necessarily belongs in the Cancer article...Maybe it could be included in a new sub-section for problems in data collection in the Epidemiology section? Chaveso 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been finding a number of articles and presentations on how HIPAA has affected, and continues to affect data collection by cancer registries.Chaveso 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to talk about problems inherent in collecting cancer epidemiology data, fine. But there is a bigger picture. We cannot simply mention the VA incident and not devote time (a lot more time) to the questionable use of death certification data etc etc. When one of my patients dies of a pneumonia, but he had prostate cancer which weakened his immune system, it is by no means certain that the prostate cancer ends up on the MCCD. Using these for statistics, then, underestimates the role of cancer in mortality.

There must be good sources that deal with the problems of collecting cancer epidemiology data. I think that one news article and a website by Ralph Moss does not do justice to this complicated field. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With an eye toward maybe working out that subsection on problems in data collection in the future, I put the VA story in there citing the original source in Lancet Oncology, the NYT article and one more. It has been reported in more places as well. Got rid of Moss since he seems to be such a lightning rod for negative judgment. Also mentioned HIPAA briefly with an IOM report on the subject. These are showing up as systemic problems, not just an incident, imo.Chaveso 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Moss is a lightening rod for negative judgment. This is an alternative practitioner who claims to be a more authoritative voice for the oncology community than mainstream oncologists.

You are now using three sources for one particular contemporary problem. What I would much prefer is find a resource that outlines the general problems with cancer epidemiology, which we can use to paint a section in much broader strokes, and then perhaps mention the VA incident as an example. I have left a note with Dr.michael.benjamin (talk · contribs), of our longstanding oncology contributors, to see if he can help out here. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest working this content into HIPAA rather than here. A long while back, I added a few paragraphs of sourced content on the negative effects of HIPAA (which I experience firsthand on a near-daily basis). The HIPAA article needs attention anyway - it's essentially a long, legalistic rehash of the text of the statute with little or no context, plus a bunch of spam links to "HIPAA consultants". Anyhoo, I'd suggest that the content under discussion here is notable, but more worthy of inclusion there than here, given its Americocentricity etc. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both sides have valid points. First of all, the cancer article didn't really define what a cancer registry *is*, so before you get your panties in an uproar over the VA cancer registry, let's at least establish what it is, and what the data is used for. How can you discuss registries without at least mentioning SEER? By the way, how can you discuss lead time bias without actually calling it such?

Then, once you establish what a cancer registry is, you have a framework to discuss the potential problems of cancer registries. Of course there are privacy concerns with cancer registries. There should be. Frankly, with all the privacy violations occurring in other domains, like banking and universities, I wouldn't want an organization putting data out into the public domain that was less than 100% clean. The idea that there's some sort of conspiracy out there, that *they* (the government) are not telling us things about cancer, shouldn't be a part of the cancer article. The idea that there are cancer registries out there, and not everyone agrees on how to report them, that's worthy of inclusion in the article.

Bears repeating, also, Chaveso, that one of the top cancer registries (SEER) is not only free to everyone, but is also provided as a public service to all humanity by good old Uncle Sam, the same US government that is supposedly cheating us out of VA data due to (you think) ridiculous privacy concerns. You sound like you are not familiar with that resource--if you spend an hour or so with it, you will understand how powerful the tools are, and how many different questions you can answer using the data available there.--Dr.michael.benjamin 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Dr Benjamin. That was exactly what I was looking for. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better! Thanks doc. It could probably use a smoother transition into the paragraph, though. My brain is too fried at the moment to have a go at it. I did know about SEER but admit I'm new to this area and still don't know how it all fits together. so thanks for the right emphasis and I'll be very interested to delve into info about them ... And hey now! don't put words in my mouth about how ridiculous i think privacy concerns are. I'm all for genuinely trying to balance things for the public good. Also...you DO know, don't you, that the government isn't all one thing? And that sometimes money and politics <insert scary music here> get put before the public good? :)Chaveso 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immune system and cancer

The article misses the role of immune system in protection of the organism against cancer.

I've heard that immune system can somehow detect and kill cancerous cells. Is it true? The article should address this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porton (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumed from the fact that in chronic immune deficiency states, cancers are more common. There is not much direct evidence, although the use of monoclonal antibodies and vaccines in cancer treatment suggests that the immune system can be directed to destroy cancer cells. The article also explains (in the immune system dysfunction paragraph) that certain immune deficiencies are associated with an increased cancer risk. JFW | T@lk 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

The WHO citation in the article summary states that cancer causes 13% of all deaths; the Adult cancers subsection cites an article that cancer causes 25% of all deaths. I was hoping someone more familar with the article and stats could sort this out and get this major statistic right. Tyro 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In statistics, larger is better. For cancer, the most reliable stat source is therefore the NCI, especially its SEER program. Surprisingly, the % of all deaths is not easily found in the NCI web site. The closest I found was the Probability of Dying from Cancer] between age 0 and 95, estimated for 2002-2004 as 21.3%. A more useful number for both doctors and and their unfortunate customers is the probability of developing cancer during one's life, estimated as 40.9%.

The large difference between the two numbers is the best existing evidence that doctors do good. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Deletion of Image:Cancer vs crab.jpg

I created this image in Aug 2006 to illustrate why Hippocrates used the word "crab" to describe cancer. I never saw a similar image before but all anatomical pathologists know what he meant. I thought this would be a cool contribution to Wikipedia. I specifically chose a Flickr image of a crab because this allowed me to inform the author via a comment to the picture. He never answered; I took this as consent. It was, however, not enough to the WP copyright police. User:Cecil deleted the image today.

I am disgusted by their attitude. I tried to contribute useful content to WP and my work was tossed like dirt over a technicality. Did they create a new image to replace this one? Did they warn me of this deletion in my user page? Of course not. They do not really care about WP's content or usefulness. They are nothing but delete robots. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version of the picture added, sans the crab of death. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would a cancer become if we were to tame it?

...y'know, if somehow a way were found to turn cancer cells into some sort of regular cell or more helpful thing, one that isn't disorderly like some sort of berserker, multiplying all over the place incoherently. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would a cancer look like if it were to be removed from a human and some way were found to feed it?

Kinda related question. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to your first question: impossible in practice. To answer your second question: a cancer cell line, e.g. the HeLa cell line derived from a cervical cancer in 1951 and still growing in laboratories worldwide. Keep asking questions! Emmanuelm (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See cell culture. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider question number 1 to be "impossible in practice"? That being said, what would it look like? 204.52.215.107 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many cell lines are essentially cancer cells. Some, like HeLa are directly derived from tumors, others are "transformed" to become immortal. This often involves mutating the same genes that we associate with natural tumor formation. The cell culture article pretty much has all the info you need, but in basic "feeding" is performed by adding nutrients to a buffered saline solution called culture medium. What they "look like" is generally nothing. The cells grow in a thin layer across the bottom of a plastic flask. Without a microscope, a fully confluent layer of cells will be barely visible by eye as a very subtle "smoked glass" effect across the bottom of the flask. DoktorDec 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above. But to clarify. A lump of breast cancer cells (for example) cut out of a patient looks like a bloody lump of gristle and nothing more in most cases. It is not possible to grow the lump in a pot, because it would require blood vesels, which are very difficult to grow, and which require a living organism to support them (which is why tumours are commonly grown in lab rats and mice.) It is possible to grow the cancer cells as a very thin sheet of cells in a dish or as a suspension in a bottle, immersed in a supporting fluid. This is the cell culture referred to above. The appearances of tumour cells in culture are not very dramatic. Jellytussle 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-redirect from Neoplasia and Tumor to Cancer

Hello everyone, last week I shortened the Neoplasia and Tumor articles, transforming them into soft-redirect pages. I am meeting a lot of resistance, with arguments reminescent of the ones we had in this page a year ago. You may want to have a look and comment at the WikiProject Medicine, Neoplasia and tumor talk pages. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamins - Contradiction?

Do vitamins help prevent cancer or not? First the article says: "... vitamin supplementation is largely not proving effective in preventing cancer". Then, two sentences later it says: "The Canadian Cancer Society has advised Canadians that the intake of vitamin D has shown a reduction of cancers by close to 60%, and at least one study has shown a specific benefit for this vitamin in preventing colon cancer." Does this seem like a direct contradiction to anyone else? Deepfryer99 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information?

I think this article is missing a key idea: is cancer on the rise, or is it in a decline? For instance, look at these two statistics from the article:

"Cancer causes about 13% of all deaths."

"According to the ACS, 7.6 million people died from cancer in the world during 2007."

What I'm wondering is, how do these two statistics compare with past years? As a percentage of the Earth's population, are there more or less people dying of cancer? I think we should compare the 2007 data to last year, to the 1990's, 1980's, etc. Perhaps a "statistics" section should be created, or this information could be added to the "history" section. Deepfryer99 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfryer99, I agree, this is the most useful aspect of stats, but we are all overworked, especially this time of year. Why not help? Look up the SEER stats in the web and write it up! Emmanuelm (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for long-term trends in the SEER web site and found only one document for all cancers, 1950 to 2000. Not to brag but Canadian stats are much easier to find, all summarized in a yearly publication by the CCS, the latest available online here. Pages 35 to 39 contain trends for the major cancer types, 1978 to 2003. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with racial cancer stats at the US?

Why do US agencies insist on compiling cancer stats based on race? The concept of race is based on essentially no scientific basis. What does it bring to understanding the disease? Do you guys realize that the US is the only western country that does that? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oncologists know from experience that some cancers are associated with race. Race is a cultural and political concept, but it exists, and it's a marker for cancer incidence. For example asian women are less likely to get breast cancer than other American women. When they immigrate to the U.S., they assume the American incidence of breast cancer. Those who get lung cancer without smoking are more likely to be asian. Black men are more likely to get prostate cancer than white men, even when they are in a similar environment, such as the U.S. military officer corps. Race is also a marker for socioeconomic inequality, and for lack of access to health care. Nbauman (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "race" is a risk factor, among many others like smoking, obesity, poverty, etc. This is true in all countries. My question is: why is the US the only country that classifies all medical stats according to race? What about the other risk factors? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you ask the national statistical bureau (or whatever it is called), then come back to tell us. It is a very interesting question. Although I can think of a number of compelling reasons, it would be nice to have the official answer.Jellytussle (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial carcinogens

Mmmmtmmmm (talk · contribs) added the view that cancer rates have increased since the industrial revolution, and that this is due to industrial pollutants, and that 50 industrial poisons are found in the average person's body and that they interfere with hormonal function.

I have some concerns about this. The industrial revolution most definitely changed a lot, but to suggest that cancer rates have definitely increased is doubtful. The whole concept of cellular pathology was only introduced by Virchow after the IR had already started. We therefore do not know for certain whether people died of cancer or not before the IR. Moreover, people also died from typhoid, cholera etc at a very young age. There is simply no way of knowing whether - if they had survived these diseases - they would have developed cancer later in life. I suspect there is no reliable source that will support the view Mmmmtmmmm is propagating.

Similarly, it is rather conjencturous to suggest that those 50 industrial chemicals definitely cause cancer. Hormonal function has only a very indirect relationship with carcinogenesis.

In short, I am not suggesting that the additions are wrong, but I think we have insufficient data to claim these relationships as definite. They could perhaps be added if they have a vocal support base (Nobel Prize Winner etc) but no evidence base. JFW | T@lk 08:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There plenty of reliable sources that support it -- among them are the Environmental Protection Agency and the American Cancer Society. I have listed a few of the hundreds of them I found with a quick Google search on the subject. The only sites I found claiming that it wasn't true, were neoconservative political sites -- the same types that prove that global warming and evolution are not real. Unless you can show me a study that says that there has not been a large increase as a result of chemical pollution, I think it is completely ridiculous to remove my edits, which are based on numerous scientific studies.Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several studies have shown a strong correlation between hormone replacement therapy and increases in cancer rates. It has a very direct relationship. Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a large number of scientific studies which have shown a strong positive correllation between chemical exposure and cancer rates. I have listed a few such studies. I can provide hundreds more, as well as a very "vocal support base" including just about every major non-profit cancer group or environmental protection group.

breast cancer rates were higher in the 339 U.S. counties with hazardous waste sites and groundwater contamination than in counties without such sites, according to a 1989 EPA study published in Archives of Environmental Health. Suffolk County on Long Island, New York, has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the country. There, radiation from four nuclear reactors and contaminants from 22 Superfund hazardous waste clean-up sites seep into soil, water and air. A 1985 study in Preventive Medicine found that breast cancer rates in New Jersey -- where 21 counties have hazardous waste disposal sites -- were the highest in the country.

Phthalates and vinyl chloride, which may be present in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products, are suspected carcinogens and hormone disruptors. A 1977 study published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine (JOM) found that female workers breathing vinyl chloride vapors showed a 36% increase in breast cancer fatalities. Lab rats fed PVC dust and exposed to vinyl chloride vapors developed breast cancer, even at low doses, as reported in JOM in 1994. Bisphenol A, an ingredient in the polycarbonate plastic used for some baby bottles and the lining of some food cans, also makes breast cancer cells grow

Bisphenol A, APEs, phthalates and organochlorine pesticides have been found in wastewater and septic systems in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, which has a breast cancer incidence rate approximately 20% higher than the rest of the state. Researchers at the Silent Spring Institute have been studying drinking water contamination by hormone disruptors as a possible explanation, as Cape Cod has a history of heavy pesticide use, and its sandy soils increase the likelihood of seepage.

The American Cancer Society estimates that over 90% of cancers are induced by environmental carcinogens*. 2004 statistics indicate that the lifetime risk of males to develop cancer is one out of two, and for females, one out of three. In 2002 cancer became a bigger killer of all Americans under age 85 than heart disease. The scope of exposures is truly immense and represented by, not only the complex chemical milieu from industrial, domestic, and commercial sources, but also through air, water, and food sources. Also included in this mix are hormone-like compounds, mycotoxins, microbial agents, genetically altered foods, nuclear radiation, and electromagnetic exposure, to name just a few. This pervasive exposure to carcinogens has become pandemic in nature.

I would also suggest reading these:

I personally feel that due to the fact that the vast majority of cancers are caused by environmental carcinogens, and that the amount of exposure to environmental carcinogens has drastically increased since the dawn of the "chemical revolution", that it is very reasonable to include this data.

Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst environmental carcinogens (notably tobacco) and industrial exposure (vinyl chloride, asbestos etc) are important, it is important not to overstate the issue in the context of cancer epidemiology as a whole. There are a number of serious problems drawing conclusions from comparisons of pre-industrial and present day society. Historical epidemiology was generally very poor: data collection was generally incomplete, non-rigorous, and the pathology was unsophisticated. Cancer was underdiagnosed for a number of very clear reasons. Also, cancer is mainly a disease of later years: it is a function of an ageing society. In the early 19th century, people died younger, and tended to die of infectious diseases. This is a major confounder. In the developing world, infectious diseases accidents and conflict are the primary cause of death. Wait around until after the age of about 60-65 and cancer incidence starts to rise. The other thing to note is that cancers have occurred historically and still do occur commonly in non-industrial societies: Burkitt's lymphoma in rural Africa, Nasopharyngeal Cancer in SE Asia, Oesophageal cancer in Iran. Jellytussle (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't overstate the issue. I didn't say that all cancers arise from industrial pollution -- just that it has caused large increases in cancer rates. You said yourself that polyvinyl chloride (in almost every American household) and asbetos (not as common anymore) are both significant contributors to cancers. These and hundreds of other known carcinogens that are present in ever-increasing amounts are exactly what I am talking about. [11]

Old age has nothing to do with many of these cases -- there have been increases in cancer rates for all age groups from children through aging people. And the argument that people live longer now doesn't hold either, because if you look at the statistics for each age group you will see increases there too -- e.g. the percentage of 60 year old women with breast cancer has increased steadily for decades (note that I said percentage not number -- if it was just numbers, you could attribute that to longer lifespan).

I understand that for a long time, cancer was underdiagnosed. But that excuse doesn't work for the past few decades, which have seen steadily rising cancer rates even with modern detection techniques. Also, the number of cancers that are detectable with modern techniques that were not detectable before doesn't account for anywhere near the number of new cases we're seeing each year.

As far as the argument about people in the developing world -- it is true that cancer is not the leading cause of death. But I never said anything about cancer rates being the leading cause of death in third-world countries. I don't think that is applicable to this discussion. I just said that cancer rates have increased and that the amounts of chemicals in our food, air, and water that are scientifically proven to cause cancer are increasing. People who live in areas that have higher levels of these chemicals present are much more likely to get cancer than people that don't. People that work with these chemicals are much more likely to get cancer than people that don't. This has nothing to do with old age, testing methods, or data collection. These are modern studies on people from a wide variety of different age groups

I've shared a few sources. I'll be back in a bit with more. But I haven't seen any reliable sources stating that industrial pollutants haven't caused cancer rates. I understand that your views might differ, but until some has some reliable sources that state that increased levels of carcinogens in people's living enviroment doesn't increase cancer rates, I'm going to revert the article back to stating that industrial pollutants have increased cancer rates significantly.

Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmtmmmm, could you please not reinsert your contribution without making the modifications requested by myself and Jellytussle? You still seem to confuse the presence of compounds that cause cancer in a Petri dish with the presence of "real-world" cancer. The sources simply do not exist to support your assertions. JFW | T@lk 16:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources I listed, none of them are talking about cancers in "petri dishes" they are talking about cancers in people (i.e. "real world" cancers). The sources do indeed exist, there are six of them above. There are, however, no sources I know of that prove that increased exposure to carcinogens does not increase cancer rates.

As far as the modifications you suggested: if you feel like adding modifications, go right ahead. As long as you provide sources, nobody should delete them. But please make modifications, instead of deleting my work. And if you do make modifications, please make sure to back it up with reliable sources.

Do you have any reliable sources that show that exposure to arsenic (40,000,000+ lbs per year released from industrial pollution in U.S. alone) or polyvinyl chloride (one of the most commonly used plastics in the world) do not cause cancer? I've never seen such studies, but obviously you seem to know of some. Please share them with me.

Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be reversing the burden of proof. You added quite a lot of content that made several significant (perhaps extraordinary) claims. I don't disagree that there may be more industrial pollutants, and nor do I disagree that these pollutants may play a significant role in a perceived increase in cancer rates. I will again outline my concerns, and hope they will enable us to find consensus on this:

We cannot prove beyond doubt that cancer rates were less before the industrial revolution. We should therefore be careful to imply such a relationship.
We cannot attribute the effect of carcinogens on interference with hormones. Most carcinogens are mutagens rather than interfering with hormones. Obviously certain substances might cause cancer by interacting with one hormonal axis or another, but there are not many reports on this.

For articles like cancer we try to base our content on either peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals or on highly authoritative reports from major organisations (e.g. the NCI, the IoM, the Royal College of Physicians, the National Institute of Healthcare and Clinical Excellence). If you intend to reintroduce your additions, please try to support them with reliable sources of that calibre. A quick Pubmed search using "cancer pollution" as search terms and restriction to "review" quickly yields the following papers: PMID 18055160, PMID 17692309, PMID 16843042, PMID 16425269 (children), PMID 16123121 (free, emphasis on biomarkers). JFW | T@lk 19:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and PMID 14757710 looks good - from the IARC and freely available. Enjoy! JFW | T@lk 19:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources Jfdwolff. They were very informative. I'd be glad to incorporate them into my edit. What I don't understand is why, since the sources you gave support what I was saying, you didn't just add them to what I had said instead of deleting what I had written?

I pulled these from the articles you listed, many of which were things I had said above:

Over the last 2-3 decades, alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking in men have significantly decreased in Western Europe and North America.
There is evidence that the environment has changed over the time period preceding the recent rise in cancer incidence, and that this change, still continuing, included the accumulation of many new carcinogenic factors in the environment.
Age is not the unique factor to be considered since the rising incidence of cancers is seen across all age categories, including children, and adolescents.
We have recently proposed that lifestyle-related factors, screening and aging cannot fully account for the present overall growing incidence of cancer.
Several studies have reported an increased risk of lung cancer risk from outdoor air pollution: on the basis of the results of the largest study, the proportion of lung cancers attributable to urban air pollution in Europe can be as high as 10.7%.

Of course, this was also in there:

The available evidence on cancer risk following exposure to other environmental pollutants, including, pesticides, dioxins and electro-magnetic fields, is inconclusive.

But I never said that ALL environmental pollutants cause cancer. Only that many do, and that there are a large number of studies with results that ARE conclusive.

And then there was this:

The weight of the epidemiological evidence indicates no increased risk for childhood cancer associated with exposure to traffic-related residential air pollution.

True, but that is "traffic-related residential air pollution in children" is a VERY specific category. There are over 70,000 chemical compounds in common use today, hundreds of which cause cancer, thousands of which are suspected to, and most of which have not been conclusively studied. The fact is, that while cancers in children attributed to traffic-related air pollution might not have increased, there are many other types that have.

And by the way -- you said:

We cannot prove beyond doubt that cancer rates were less before the industrial revolution.

I understand that this time period is still considered by some to be a "grey zone", which is why after the first time I edited the article, I changed it to saying that since the chemical boom in the 1940s and 1950s. I still think, however, that it should be mentioned in the article all evidence from the time period where it HAS been studied properly points to a strong correlation, and that there is no evidence that industrial pollutants which cause cancer in people now, wouldn't have done so 100 years ago. Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You said yourself that polyvinyl chloride (in almost every American household)..."

No I didn't. I mentioned vinyl chloride not PVC. Vinyl chloride is quite different, and has been clearly linked to the very rare malignancy of hepatic haemangiosarcoma in vinyl chloride factory workers.

Can I refer you to the excellent and academically rigorousCancerstats monographs from Cancer Research UK:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/

The following extract may help settle the age issue:

Risk - An individual’s risk of developing cancer depends on many factors, including smoking behaviour, diet and genetic inheritance. Overall, it is estimated that more than one in three people will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime (38% of males and 35% of females)... Cancer is primarily a disease of older people, as the difference between the estimates for the percentage of a cohort who develop cancer by age 65 and over a lifetime show. For instance, a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer by age 65 is less than 6% but the overall lifetime risk is 11%. For men there is a less than 2% risk of developing lung cancer by age 65 but this increases to 8% over a lifetime. Life expectancy in the UK is increasing, with more elderly people alive today than ever before. In 2002, a woman aged 65 could expect to live to the age of 84, while a man could expect to live to 816. If current agespecific cancer incidence rates remain the same, by 2025 there will be an additional 100,000 cases of cancer diagnosed each year as a result of the ageing population.

and I think the comment on cancer incidence trends is useful:

Incidence trends - In the ten year period 1993 to 2002, the overall age standardised incidence rates for cancer have remained fairly constant in males and have increased slightly (by 3%) in females (Figure Five1-4).The trends for individual cancers vary enormously. Large decreases (more than 25%) in incidence rates occurred for bladder cancer in both males and females, cancer of the cervix, lung cancer in males and stomach cancer in females.The most rapidly increasing rates in men were for prostate cancer (48%) and malignant melanoma (42%) - the former trend fuelled by the increasing use of PSA testing since the early 1990s, that detects invasive cancers at an earlier stage as well as latent tumours that might otherwise have remained asymptomatic and undiagnosed

during the man’s lifetime1. For women the most rapidly increasing rates were for malignant melanoma (27%) and kidney cancer (20%). Many other cancers showed smaller increases. For a more detailed look at trends, see UK Trends in the incidence and mortality. Jellytussle (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, sorry JellyTussle about the misunderstanding. I misread what you had written. I brought up PVC due to the large body of evidence suggesting that vinyl chloride (a common byproduct from the manufacture of PVC) and dioxins (which are released from PVC as it breaks down) cause various cancers.

Thanks for the link to the UK Cancer Research Stats. I haven't had time to look through it all yet, but it is making for interesting reading.

As far as the article, I'd like to post what I had added to the introduction on my last edit, and ask specifically what you all would like to see changed:

Nearly all cancers are caused by abnormalities in the genetic material of the transformed cells. These abnormalities are often due to the effects of carcinogens, such as tobacco smoke, radiation, chemicals, or infectious agents . The occurrence of these types of cancers has significantly increased due to a steady increase in the numbers of carcinogens in the environment due to industrial pollution.

Please note that it does not say that all cancers have increased, or that all industrial pollutants cause increases in cancer. What is wrong with this statement that you would like to see changed? Mmmmtmmmm (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmtmmmm, you asked me why I removed your contibutions instead of adding sources. That is for two reasons. Firsty, I disagreed with several statements (e.g. unsupportable - because unfalsifiable - claims on epidemiology), and secondly, the content needed substantial rewriting after the sources had been examined.

I have now added the study that Jellytussle is alluding to - the Danaei et al 2005 study. This mentions both urban air pollution and domestic solid fuel use. Obviously if you would like to cover more ground we could always consider this. JFW | T@lk 15:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]