Talk:Black salve

NPOV

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. 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)

Please do not delete sourced information from this page. Further acts will be considered vandalism. Contributions based upon supported, encyclopedic information are welcome. Jettparmer (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your "sourced information" is a thinly veiled attempt to disparage escharotics and Cansema, based on your own biases. 96.237.170.36 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The sourced information compies with Wikipedia's standards for verifiabnility WP:RS. Your continued deletions and revisions may be construed as vandalism and need to stop. Additions in a separate section containing unsupported information - ie non-scientific are appropriate. Jettparmer (talk) 14:38, 22 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)

And now the edits have been undone! MrAnderson7 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article represents vetted, well sourced information on the escharotic known as "black salve" , "cansema", blood root" or a host of other names. Its use is identified a dangerous by numerous health and regulatory agencies across the globe. Many substances were once thought to be beneficial to health, however, later evaluation revealed them to be either non-helpful or dangerous. This is not a violation of WP:NPOV as the facts are well understood and accepted. Altering the article with anecdotal evidence, testimonials or conspiracy theory writings in a violation of WP:VAN Jettparmer (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of 'un-referenced' comments which I consider crucial to the balance of this article. Some of the areas which I have flagged have not been mentioned in the references quoted. Perhaps you need to re-consider the references, or choose a different way of saying what you need to say. MrAnderson7 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a more specific description to areas which you consider WP:NPOV. I have scrubbed through the text and frankly find little that is objectionable and not widely accepted. Jettparmer (talk) 19:24, 6 July 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)

Varange2, you may not have noticed, but you are commenting in a very old thread. You should probably start a new thread at the bottom. Although most articles are started by one person, the results you see are the work of many editors, so any bias is now a reflection of the bias in the sources. If reliable sources are biased against something, then the article is supposed to show that bias. NPOV does not equal a false balance.

If you wish to create an article about a brand called Black Salve, start collecting sources and then start it in your own private userspace. Any unfinished article found in mainspace will be deleted rather quickly, so don't "go public" until it's pretty much in a finished state. Once it is moved to mainspace, it will no longer be yours, and it will be edited mercilessly, and likely deleted, unless you have done this before. You are welcome to ask me or any other experienced wikipedian for help. That will increase the chances your article will end up becoming a permanent part of the encyclopedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverted to original post after vandalism from user:Hob53 Jettparmer (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your articles on Greg Caton and Cansema do not constitute NPOV and have been reverted. Perhaps you can accept that not everyone shares your negative viewpoint about holistic remedies and manufacturers and would like to hear both sides. You are writing about Caton and Cansema simply on the basis of web research; I have firsthand knowledge. If you want to discuss this, feel free. If the pages are simply reverted again, I will take it up with admin.

Incidentally, you yourself may wish to review the WP:VAN policy (and be careful whom you accuse of vandalism). The policy says this:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). 96.237.170.36 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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)

This is not a biography. Jettparmer (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted WP:RFC tag for proper category.Jettparmer (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

However, it's closely related to the Greg Caton article, so editors who review that will be aware of the issues here. Added the bio category to the tag. 96.237.170.36 (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Cansema is affiliated with Caton only by his personal claims, unproven, to have invented it (which he clearly did not - nor did he patent or trademark the product). The addition is good for completeness. Jettparmer (talk) 15:37, 24 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)

Trademark does not equal invention. By your own comments, Caton reconstituted the black salve / cansema formula from old patent files - invalidating his invention claim. His trademark was for the word cansema, not the formula. A reading of the trademark register would clearly demonstrate the difference.

I consider the discussion on cansema closed, comments appear to support the original format. I will revert to the Greg Caton article. Jettparmer (talk) 16:39, 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)

The prevailing view on this page is to avoid the unsourced and unverifiable claims. I have reverted to Noq's edit. I would requets that (talk stop adding such material. Jettparmer (talk) 00:33, 28 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)

Response to RfC: Broadly, I agree with the other responders above. NPOV does not mean that the article must only say positive things. Articles should be based on reliable sources.

Bear in mind that many treatments have support from *somebody* (otherwise they wouldn't be notable) even though reliable sources, such as the FDA, consider them to be fake, ineffective, or outright quackery; so simply finding a positive mention written by John Q. Somebody doesn't mean that the article must be rewritten to show Cansema in a wholly positive light.

If you are ever uncertain about what to write, ask yourself: what do reliable sources say?

If you are never uncertain about what to write, then I would recommend reading [1] or [2] :-)

bobrayner (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive bias in reporting of this article

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)

Repeating Vandalism Countermeasures

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)

Information on Cansema ingredients

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.

Well, as none of the references talk about Cansema and the conclusions are directly opposite the cited conclusions about Cansema there does not appear to be any reason for it being in this article. It is in the article about Sanguinarine so why duplicate it here. Unless you can show that the refs about Cansema with refs that refer to Cansema this does not belong here. noq (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I think I see your point, although I am not sure why the existing statements about Sanguinarine and non-Cansema salves and escharotics are okay if this is a page just for information on the Cansema product? It gives the misleading impression that there is no other evidence or opinion when there is actually a significant minority of people who have a differing opinion, and dozens of published studies (I referenced a limited subset) conducted by universities and research labs around the world that do document and analyze the potential benefit of developing one of Cansema's active ingredients for cancer treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.84.136 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly biased toward mainstream western medical viewpoint

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMcLeod (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)