This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:Alcohol and cancer is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Incorrect and misleading heading
It's incorrect to say no research on alcohol as a potential risk factor has been conducted on the cancers listed. In reality, both alcohol and tobacco are typically investigated. The lists of risk factors are precisely that -- lists of factors that have been identified as increasing risk. The discussions don't list those factors that have not been found to increase risk. If they did, the list of excluded factors would be very long for each cancer. Rblarrimer (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note: This entry does not constitute original research according to Wikipedia guidelines:
“Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not ‘original research,’ it is ‘source-based research,’ and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.”
Thank you.David Justin 16:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Definition of 'moderate consumption'
It may be helpful to insert a definition of moderate consumption into this article, as defined by the sources from which this article was developed. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Plagiarized Material Notice
It appears much of this article has been lifted directly from the following address (which is one of the article references):
http://www2SPAM.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1109728149.html TimothyPilgrim 19:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed Breast Cancer and Ref sections
Please be careful when adding <ref> tags. Captainj
Duffy query
Reference: Duffy, S.W., and Sharples, L.D. Alcohol and cancer risk. In: Duffy, J.L., ed. Alcohol and Illness: The Epidemiological Viewpoint. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992. pp. 64-127. does not appear to be cited in the article. Anyone know anything about it? Nunquam Dormio 15:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- It could be a general reference, or perhaps created when the article was very short. My suggestion is to leave it, it can always serve as an external link if nothing else. CaptainJ (t | c | e) 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It was referenced but with a typo as Dufy. Now corrected.Nunquam Dormio 14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahlgren query
"However, some research finds moderate drinking to reduce the risk of this cancer." (Ahlgren, J. D., et al. Epidemiology and risk factors in pancreatic cancer Seminars in Oncology, 1996, 23(2), 241-250.) When I look at the abstract, it says: "Alcohol and coffee consumption have been reported as possible risks in some (but not in most) studies." which is not quite the same thing. Has anyone got access to the full Ahlgren paper and could summarize what it says about alcohol? Nunquam Dormio 14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of any response, I've changed this to a paraphrase of what Ahlgren actually said in the abstract. Nunquam Dormio 10:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
LIFE-SAVING INFORMATION It's life-saving information when something as simple as getting enough folic acid can eliminate the effects of alcohol on causing a horrible killer disease.Breast Cancer Survivor 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)— Breast Cancer Survivor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
POV
This article isn't confroming to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. I only had to read the first sentence to figure that out. Minipie8 05:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- That being "This article does not provide medical advice and none should be inferred." Nunquam Dormio 10:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Source
Hi Wham- Please note that I created this page on 6-10-05 using Drinking Alcohol and Cancer Risk as the Source. Therefore, it is not spam. Thanks. David Justin 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Source information
Hi Wham- Please note that I created this page (Alcohol and cancer) on 6-10-05 using Drinking Alcohol and Cancer Risk as the Source. Therefore, it is not spam. Thanks.David Justin 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Important
Hi Wham- Please note that I created this page (Alcohol and cancer) on 6-10-05 using Drinking Alcohol and Cancer Risk as the Source. Therefore, it is not spam. Thanks.David Justin 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Evem more important
David Justin / Dr. David J. Hanson, You have been persistently been spam linking to your sites mainly using sock puppets such as those blocked in this case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (2nd).
You claim that the page you created on 6-10-05 is based on http://www2SPAM.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1109728149.html and that entitles you to be credited as the source.
You made seven edits at that time but the page has had nearly 250 contributions from other editors. It seems rather egotistical to be seeking all the credit.
If we examine the page using the Waybackmachine http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1109728149.html , we find that at October 22 2005, http://web.archive.org/web/20051022201020/http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1109728149.html your page was extremely basic with just one reference.
You appear to have copied the text from Wikipedia into your own page some time around February 07 2007 in an attempt to bolster your claim that your page is the original source.
Did you really think your sleight of hand wouldn’t be found out? It is hardly likely to enhance your reputation as an academic. Wham Bam No Thank You Spam 08:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The source
Hi Wham- I never claimed this article as my own -- no one owns any article on Wikipedia-- nor am I egotistically "seeking all the credit" as you charge. I simply correctly noted the source of the article when I started on 6-10-05.
The history page makes it clear that I had to defend the entry against charges of both original research and of plagiarism. But, of course, I can't plagiarize myself. Thanks.David Justin 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Source of this entry
Hi Wham- Please note that on 3-5-06, TimothyPilgrim reported that "It appears much of this article has been lifted directly from 'Drinking Alcohol and Cancer Risk.'" That's because it was the source of this Wikipedia entry when I started it on 6-10-05. Thanks.David Justin 01:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops!
Hi Spiro Keats- Thanks you for reverting 74.116.135.9’s vandalism in deleting the section on breast cancer. However, in in doing so, you inadvertently deleted the contributions that I earlier made to the page.David Justin 21:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. Forgot to put brain in gear before putting mouse in motion! Spiro Keats 10:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who makes mistakes.David Justin 20:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Colorectal cancer
The evidence in "Colorectal cancer" is clerly inconsistent. Therefore, I have placed in that category.David Justin 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Bad science
For me the following quote sounds like directly lifted from something like "How To Cheat With Statistics". I mean that to conclude cocarcinogenic activity you must compare not "None" and "Both" columns in your spreadsheet, but those marked "Compound 1", in this case "Tobacco", and "Both".
In humans, the risk for mouth, tracheal, and esophageal cancer is 35 times greater for people who both smoke and drink than for people who neither smoke nor drink,[6] implying a cocarcinogenic interaction between alcohol and tobacco-related carcinogens.
--AgnosticMantis (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Identifying Consensus in Medical Science
It's obvious from the history and discussion pages that people have simply been pulling quotes from studies, putting them in the article and then arguing over what conclusions should be made. Nothing could be farther from the way scientific conclusions are made and it's led to conclusions inconsistent with those reached by science. This is unacceptable in an encyclopedia and a disservice to readers.
The scientific process involves first identifying all published research on the medical issue in question and then systematically and carefully examining each publication in detail to assess its quality and the weight that it should be given in making a scientific judgment.
Major criteria include the research design's strengths and weaknesses, the statistical alalyses used and their appropriateness, the quality of the publication in which the study is reported (usually based on its "impact factor," basically a measure of how often the publication is referenced in other scientific publications), and many, many other considerations. Because of the diffuculties in making valid conclusions about causality, science focuses on research design and other indicators of quality and it's why high quality studies carry so much more weight in making scientific judgments.
Determining if something is a risk factor isn't a matter of simply counting how many studies report positive versus negative findings. Finding some studies inconsistent with most others is to be expected. At the 5% level of statistical confidence, about 5% of studies are expected to yield false positive results. The actual proportion will be much higher because of publication bias that greatly increases the proportion of false positive studies published. This has been recognized for over half a century. Many other things increasing the number of false positive studies are described in textbooks on research methods.
We can't create scientific medical consensus ourselves by arguing over studies. We have to identify any consensus, or lack of consensus, that has been reached among scientists by determining what major medical organizations have concluded.Linda,LCADC (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
They're Not Motley or Irrelevant
There's nothing motley or irrelevant about the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Prostate Canceer Foundation, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the American Lung Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Academy of Dermatology, the Mayo Clinic, the American Thyroid Association or the Pancreatic Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.
They're among the world's more authoritative medical organizations and their conclusions about risk factors are highly relevant, being very objective scientific evaluations of the available reserch evidence. The conclusions of such organizations determine whether or not scientific medical consensus exists on specific risk factors.Linda,LCADC (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 7 August 2008, at 11:28.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Alcohol and cancer".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.