Talk:Clinica 0-19

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Medicine Low‑importance

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

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Drive-by tagging[edit]

I have removed the POV template: As the POV article says, “Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.” RobP (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've put it back, though. This is heavily dependent on a single critic, is overly focused on cost without any picture as to whether or not those costs are inline with expected amounts for treatments, and gives a more negative view than what is in the less-biased sources. - Bilby (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is still very heavily dependent on only a couple of critics - one accounts for the vast majority of the article. While this perspective could be correct, this dependence on a single view remains a problem. - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that this heavily dependent on one source, making claims with no apparent possibility of balance. Gorski is used 18 times, and covers the vbulk of the content. While Gorski is reliable enough, there's a lock counter views, and we see a small number of references used repeatedly. So when we say things like "it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars" we don't know if this is significant - in fact, if paid for without government subsidies or health insurance, this is surprisingly consistent with other cancer treatments. I understand that this is a relatively new, and relatively secretive clinic, and thus there isn't a lot on it, but that lack of content is what creates the POV problem. - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not heavily, no. There are multiple sources, for example around Annabelle Potts, "cured" and then deceased within the original prognostication just days ago. More sources would be good, but the sources do not impact ont he neutrality of the article (if anything the news sources are excessively credulous). Bear in mind the MO of fraudulent cancer clinics: they claim all positive signs as their unique gift, wave away negative signs, and portray survival even one day beyond the original prognosis as validation of their quackery, even though cancer prognosis has error bars. That's what Burzynski does, it's what the Oasis of Hype does, it's what Gerson, Budwig and all the others did, so we have to focus on the actual medical claims and the evidence for them (which, in this case, is apparently absent). Guy (Help!) 14:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I though that claim was fallacious. RobP (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't fallacious - it was addressed, at least to a point. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citations[edit]

I'm going to address as many of these "citations needed" items as I can tonight and hopefully remove the tag noting they are needed. TheYarnBender (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Some of the items marked as "citation needed" were supported by the last preceding citation in the same paragraph. Is citing the same source in consecutive sentences within the same paragraph required/preferred by Wikipedia style guidelines, or is it assumed the citation supports all statements until another citation is added? I couldn't find a quick answer to this in the style guide. TheYarnBender (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In no publications have I ever seen a citation used to support material FOLLOWING that citation. So unless you find proof that WP operates in a very non-standard manner in this regard, I’d say assume it’s the case here as well. RobP (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this editorial in Lancet Oncology could be useful? It is freely-accessible with registration. Note that it does refer to this Wikipedia article for more info, but I think it's still citable. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]