This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's clear that whoever wrote this page has an agenda. Equally clear is that this individual has no personal experience with Cansema--it's all based on hearsay from others with an agenda (such as Quackwatch, which is run by Stephen Barrett, whom a California Appeals Court found " biased and unworthy of credibility." This material has therefore been removed). Having used this product, I've revised this article to reflect a more NPOV.
As I said on the Greg Caton talk page, "Anyone who claims this [that escharotics are harmful] has never tried it or is willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting it. I, among many others, have used it numerous times with no negative consequences. www.naturalnews.com/028306_Greg_Caton_FDA.html unreliable fringe source? This page] includes a letter from Dr. Brian O'Leary, a former astronaut, to the judge in Caton's case, saying the same thing."
Moreover, whoever wrote this page did a bait and switch. The page is ostensibly about Cansema, a branded product, but the author uses it as a platform to attack all escharotics. Except where unavoidable, I've restricted the focus of this page to Cansema, since that's the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.170.36 ( talk) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "Multiple Issues" banner to this page. The page reads like an attack on 'Cansema' or Black Salve. MrAnderson7 ( talk) 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this page is massively biased. What worries me most is that the product "Cansema" is somehow equated to "Black Salve", while Cansema is only one product of many. For starters, this page should be moved to Black Salve, and the contents should be less biased. I'm not sure what the writer's agenda is (maybe promote Cansema as the only black salve that is available?), but his bias is very clear. Just quoting sources is not good enough - the bias lies within the choice of sources itself. Varange2 ( talk) 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Reverted to original post after vandalism from user:Hob53 Jettparmer ( talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To paraphrase another entry on the Biography RfC page, which fits this case perfectly: I'm attempting to bring NPOV to this article, because I find that nearly every paragraph has a criticism, veiled or stated outright, of the article's subject, and most of the article is written from a critical POV. I see poor writing, poor sources, and all-around bias. I revised the page, and the user responsible for most of the previous content accuses me of vandalism. I tried to discuss it with him on his user page, but his response is hostility and unsubstantiated claims. He admits to a bias against holistic healthcare, so probably cannot be considered objective enough to apply NPOV to articles on that subject. Since he has already assumed my quest for NPOV means that I have ulterior motives, I'd ask third parties to review this article as a whole and evaluate it. 96.237.170.36 ( talk) 10:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
How are you in a position to state that he clearly didn't invent it? He describes the process of developing it from old patent records, including a long, detailed list of the patents. However, it can't be patented now, as Caton points out in a list of facts about escharotics (#6): "They're Non-Patentable. They cannot be meaningfully patented. Those escharotics that have been patented could not be reasonably defended. Without a basis to secure a monopoly, no faction with the drug industry could possibly condone the public becoming knowledgeable in the use of escharotics."
He also says, "Cansema® was registered with the U.S. Trademark & Patent Office in 2004 by Herbologics, Ltd., a Louisiana corporation I created in 1993"--which you could have looked up in the US trademark database.
Aren't you even a little ashamed at making these outlandish claims that have no basis in fact? And you criticize me for COI because I do know the facts?
I see no point in continuing this argument. If you want to draft the article along the lines discussed on the Caton talk page, we can take it up here if necessary. 96.237.170.36 ( talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Responding to RfC: The current revision looks mostly well referenced and factual. A couple of issues: the words 'quackery', 'graphic' and 'unwitting' should not be used in their current context (see WP:LABEL), and in fact I'd prefer the two sentences about quackwatch to be removed (it doesn't sound neutral enough to be a reliable source). I'm taking it on trust that the other references support the claims for which they're cited. 96.237.170.36, I'm afraid that your last revision seems to engage in too much special pleading, and rely on low quality sources such as 'herbhealer.com' and the archived website of the products's creator. If you can, feel free to add reliably sourced info in support of the product, but your last edit seems to show more bias in favour of the product than the current version does against it. Finally, I'd ask both of you to try to avoid revert wars. Thomas Kluyver ( talk) 00:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Responding to RfC: I guess you might expect most of the article to be critical of Casema because 'Cansema is listed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as one of 187 fake cancer cures'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This article fails to reference the other side (successful cases) nor the chemistry of the theory behind it. Check Jim Carraba on the AlphaOmegaLabs channel on Youtube. There's a worthwhile article in Suppressed Inventions and other Discoveries as well as many many traditional reference books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.87.27 ( talk) 10:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Further to this, how can this page be considered to have a NPOV when Jettpalmer is obsessed with editing it to his own agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.87.27 ( talk) 10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is subject to repeated vandalism WP:VAN and trolling. There is a difference WP:VVT. This is evidenced by the insertion of unsupported rhetoric, altering quoted references and claims. There is little changing in the content of this article and consideration should be given to a lock. WP:PROTECT Jettparmer ( talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add a line on the Cansema page refering to published pre-clinical studies of the Cansema ingredient sanguinarine as a potential cancer treatment. I have been advised to come to the Talk page to seek consensus. I addressed initial concerns raised by editors about quality of references, number of references and weight given to the new information. I thought I was onto a winner with a single sentence backed up by multiple published, peer-reviewed studies, but now the information apparently has "nothing to do with Cansema" and I am in something called an edit war :( There is already information on sanguinarine provided in the Cansema article, so it made sense to add a line refering to the studies, especially as the studies are related to cancer treatment and Cansema claims to be a cancer treatment. The sanguinarine studies do not endorse the Cansema product and I don't make that claim at all, but sanguinarine is a key, active ingredient so I definitely think it is relevant information. The line I added is below, along with the references. I am not sure how this "Talk" section works - what do I need to do to get a consensus? Thanks!
Numerous published, pre-clinical In Vitro and In Vivo studies have demonstrated that this key ingredient of Cansema causes targeted apoptosis in human cancer cells, and recommend future development of Sanguinarine as a potential cancer treatment. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "doi:10.1186/1471-2121-7-13" ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Black salve is not a branded product, it's a traditional formula. It has many uses beside skin cancer. With its focus on quackery, this article is nothing more than an attack piece. Notwithstanding its proponents' claims, mainstream western medicine does not have a monopoly on science, much less all knowledge. This bias is regrettable. Please do your job, editors. ThomasMcLeod ( talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I would totally agree with everything that Alexbrn has said here as I have uesed Black Salve myself with great results. Glen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.253.114 ( talk) 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Black Salve remains a dangerous corrosive with no scientific basis of any type Jettparmer ( talk) 14:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Black salve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's clear that whoever wrote this page has an agenda. Equally clear is that this individual has no personal experience with Cansema--it's all based on hearsay from others with an agenda (such as Quackwatch, which is run by Stephen Barrett, whom a California Appeals Court found " biased and unworthy of credibility." This material has therefore been removed). Having used this product, I've revised this article to reflect a more NPOV.
As I said on the Greg Caton talk page, "Anyone who claims this [that escharotics are harmful] has never tried it or is willfully or ignorantly misrepresenting it. I, among many others, have used it numerous times with no negative consequences. www.naturalnews.com/028306_Greg_Caton_FDA.html unreliable fringe source? This page] includes a letter from Dr. Brian O'Leary, a former astronaut, to the judge in Caton's case, saying the same thing."
Moreover, whoever wrote this page did a bait and switch. The page is ostensibly about Cansema, a branded product, but the author uses it as a platform to attack all escharotics. Except where unavoidable, I've restricted the focus of this page to Cansema, since that's the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.170.36 ( talk) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "Multiple Issues" banner to this page. The page reads like an attack on 'Cansema' or Black Salve. MrAnderson7 ( talk) 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this page is massively biased. What worries me most is that the product "Cansema" is somehow equated to "Black Salve", while Cansema is only one product of many. For starters, this page should be moved to Black Salve, and the contents should be less biased. I'm not sure what the writer's agenda is (maybe promote Cansema as the only black salve that is available?), but his bias is very clear. Just quoting sources is not good enough - the bias lies within the choice of sources itself. Varange2 ( talk) 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Reverted to original post after vandalism from user:Hob53 Jettparmer ( talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To paraphrase another entry on the Biography RfC page, which fits this case perfectly: I'm attempting to bring NPOV to this article, because I find that nearly every paragraph has a criticism, veiled or stated outright, of the article's subject, and most of the article is written from a critical POV. I see poor writing, poor sources, and all-around bias. I revised the page, and the user responsible for most of the previous content accuses me of vandalism. I tried to discuss it with him on his user page, but his response is hostility and unsubstantiated claims. He admits to a bias against holistic healthcare, so probably cannot be considered objective enough to apply NPOV to articles on that subject. Since he has already assumed my quest for NPOV means that I have ulterior motives, I'd ask third parties to review this article as a whole and evaluate it. 96.237.170.36 ( talk) 10:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
How are you in a position to state that he clearly didn't invent it? He describes the process of developing it from old patent records, including a long, detailed list of the patents. However, it can't be patented now, as Caton points out in a list of facts about escharotics (#6): "They're Non-Patentable. They cannot be meaningfully patented. Those escharotics that have been patented could not be reasonably defended. Without a basis to secure a monopoly, no faction with the drug industry could possibly condone the public becoming knowledgeable in the use of escharotics."
He also says, "Cansema® was registered with the U.S. Trademark & Patent Office in 2004 by Herbologics, Ltd., a Louisiana corporation I created in 1993"--which you could have looked up in the US trademark database.
Aren't you even a little ashamed at making these outlandish claims that have no basis in fact? And you criticize me for COI because I do know the facts?
I see no point in continuing this argument. If you want to draft the article along the lines discussed on the Caton talk page, we can take it up here if necessary. 96.237.170.36 ( talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Responding to RfC: The current revision looks mostly well referenced and factual. A couple of issues: the words 'quackery', 'graphic' and 'unwitting' should not be used in their current context (see WP:LABEL), and in fact I'd prefer the two sentences about quackwatch to be removed (it doesn't sound neutral enough to be a reliable source). I'm taking it on trust that the other references support the claims for which they're cited. 96.237.170.36, I'm afraid that your last revision seems to engage in too much special pleading, and rely on low quality sources such as 'herbhealer.com' and the archived website of the products's creator. If you can, feel free to add reliably sourced info in support of the product, but your last edit seems to show more bias in favour of the product than the current version does against it. Finally, I'd ask both of you to try to avoid revert wars. Thomas Kluyver ( talk) 00:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Responding to RfC: I guess you might expect most of the article to be critical of Casema because 'Cansema is listed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as one of 187 fake cancer cures'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This article fails to reference the other side (successful cases) nor the chemistry of the theory behind it. Check Jim Carraba on the AlphaOmegaLabs channel on Youtube. There's a worthwhile article in Suppressed Inventions and other Discoveries as well as many many traditional reference books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.87.27 ( talk) 10:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Further to this, how can this page be considered to have a NPOV when Jettpalmer is obsessed with editing it to his own agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.87.27 ( talk) 10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is subject to repeated vandalism WP:VAN and trolling. There is a difference WP:VVT. This is evidenced by the insertion of unsupported rhetoric, altering quoted references and claims. There is little changing in the content of this article and consideration should be given to a lock. WP:PROTECT Jettparmer ( talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add a line on the Cansema page refering to published pre-clinical studies of the Cansema ingredient sanguinarine as a potential cancer treatment. I have been advised to come to the Talk page to seek consensus. I addressed initial concerns raised by editors about quality of references, number of references and weight given to the new information. I thought I was onto a winner with a single sentence backed up by multiple published, peer-reviewed studies, but now the information apparently has "nothing to do with Cansema" and I am in something called an edit war :( There is already information on sanguinarine provided in the Cansema article, so it made sense to add a line refering to the studies, especially as the studies are related to cancer treatment and Cansema claims to be a cancer treatment. The sanguinarine studies do not endorse the Cansema product and I don't make that claim at all, but sanguinarine is a key, active ingredient so I definitely think it is relevant information. The line I added is below, along with the references. I am not sure how this "Talk" section works - what do I need to do to get a consensus? Thanks!
Numerous published, pre-clinical In Vitro and In Vivo studies have demonstrated that this key ingredient of Cansema causes targeted apoptosis in human cancer cells, and recommend future development of Sanguinarine as a potential cancer treatment. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "doi:10.1186/1471-2121-7-13" ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Black salve is not a branded product, it's a traditional formula. It has many uses beside skin cancer. With its focus on quackery, this article is nothing more than an attack piece. Notwithstanding its proponents' claims, mainstream western medicine does not have a monopoly on science, much less all knowledge. This bias is regrettable. Please do your job, editors. ThomasMcLeod ( talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I would totally agree with everything that Alexbrn has said here as I have uesed Black Salve myself with great results. Glen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.253.114 ( talk) 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Black Salve remains a dangerous corrosive with no scientific basis of any type Jettparmer ( talk) 14:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Black salve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)