Talk:Soursop

Anti-cancer effect

The article is wrong about the fact that there is no medical evidence that it is effective.. There is actually a lot of peer-reviewed reasearch confirming anti-cancer properties for this plant :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27224241

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25860620

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27730025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9702062P (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This[1]. Those sources are unreliable for any statements about therapeutic use; we need WP:MEDRS for that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the studies could be included as, "Ethanol extracted from Annona muricata L. has been shown to kill cancer cells in vitro, and inhibit tumor growth in vivo in animal models, but has not been studied in humans, has not been approved for therapeutic use in the United States, and currently there is no medical evidence that consuming the fruit has any impact on any metric of health." If added that way it at least indicates it's being studied while expressly stating that it is not fully studied nor approved for medical use in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300D:302:9100:E437:303D:6F41:6298 (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No because we need WP:MEDRS for any WP:Biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is outdated as there have been numerous reviews to show anticancer properties. SurgeonRT (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091294/#__ffn_sectitle SurgeonRT (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Soursop and Annona muricata merge

I just noticed that Soursop is not linked to its Russian version Сметанное_яблоко. Guess that both items should be merged:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1709343
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192147

but, not sure I know how to perform this. Can anybody help?

"Bogus" as a section header

I have no doubt that all the most reliable sources conclude that this fruit is not a cancer treatment, but does it make sense to have an entire section called "Bogus cancer treatment"? That doesn't seem like particularly encyclopedic writing. I am editing it to "False cancer treatment claims", which is similar to the phrasing used in the article for bleach. 2601:14A:C301:1360:9127:7C89:6E80:A89F (talk)

• That does sound better. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Change "False cancer treatment claims" to "Cancer treatment controversy"

Preclinical in vitro and in vivo research studies have shown antiproliferative effects of graviola extracts. There has even been one clinical case in which a woman with metastatic, treatment-resistant breast cancer stabilized after using an extract made from graviola leaves. It is simply a matter of scientific fact that annonaceous acetogenins are effective cancer treatments in animal models. No human clinical trials have been done to date, and it is not approved by government bureaucracies, but there is space in the page for nuance. The current article is biased. Raztastic (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In vitro and in vivo research means nothing for treatment in people, and case reports are no more than anecdote. Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Animal models with human cancer cell lineages are very meaningful in cancer research.

Considering that there is nuance to this subtopic and that the preclinical consensus is that the plant is effective in treating human cancers in animal models, the section heading needs to be changed to something less biased. Or if you prefer, we can add a new section specifically about the research.

Btw, how does an article from a peer reviewed journal fail validation criteria? The standards article says to maintain a neutral stance when reliable sources (which includes articles from peer reviewed journals) disagree. Raztastic (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The "effective in treating a diverse selection of cancer lineages" is not supported, and is particularly problematic in a lay encyclopedia where readers will be focusing on "treatment" meaning human treatment. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Table 1 in the cited article lists over 30 different cancer cell lines affecting eleven different organs against which graviola phytochemicals are reported to be effective: cervix, ovaries, skin, pancreas, breasts,

, colon, lsunlivertistomachric, prostate, ablood/bone marrow (leukemia)m The article itself uses the phrase "diverse cancer types". What is the Wikipedia standard of using the word "diverse"?ic. Raztastic (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The point is it is not a cancer treatment, and it's often used in health frauds with the claim that it is. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The point is that suppressing the data on its demonstrated efficacy in cancer treatment is biased. Not only that, suppressing information that could save someone's life is wildly unethical. Raztastic (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This editor is annoyingly glitchy. Let me try writing out the list again: cervix, ovaries, skin, pancreas, breasts, lungs, colon, liver, stomach, prostate, and blood/bone marrow (leukemia). Raztastic (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and[2]. This is all covered quite well in the CRUK source. Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that the in vivo data shows it is safe for normal cells and well tolerated in both animal models and in humans. Humans have been consuming it without issue for literally thousands of years. Very different from a bullet out of a handgun.

My point remains that the preclinical data is significant. Clinical trials need to be conducted before we can call it a human medicine for cancer, but the preclinical data is very good. In my country, we have what is called "informed consent" as well as "compassionate use" for patients, which means that people have the right to try experimental medicines when their life hangs in the balance. And as I pointed out, there is one documented clinical case. The article is incomplete without this data. Raztastic (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You have your opinions, but Wikipedia must reflect accepted knowledge. We can say there's been some research, but we must not falsely imply that means there is any clinical benefit. Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Accepted knowledge". Accepted by whom exactly? Are you the authority on whether or not peer reviewed research is "accepted knowledge"? Gaslight, gatekeep, Bon courage? To suppress information for the sake of appeasing some arbitrary fear of inference is ludicrous. Raztastic (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, a bit nasty/personal so I think I'll stop communicating with this one. Meanwhile, there is a third view.[3] Bon courage (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, was trying to be witty while making my point. Raztastic (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The answer is shown in WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Research on sousop extracts with unproven clinical applications is at the bottom of evidence quality, far too premature to mention in the encyclopedia. Further, as is true of any plant extract, the cost of building evidence through completion of all clinical trial stages, as done in drug development, is far too expensive in costs of patent protection, R&D expenses, and time to develop this extract for clinical use. There is no public evidence that any biotech company is devoting such resources to bring a soursop extract into a drug application which would require years of proof for safety and efficacy. Zefr (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a case report of a breast cancer patient effectively using an extract to stabilize a metastatic cancer for 5 years, so not quite the bottom of the pyramid. And if people do not know the preclinical results, how will more evidence be accrued from case reports? As you noted, it is expensive to run clinical trials, and there is not a huge profit incentive for a biotech company to research something that could be an effective treatment for cancer since they can't patent it. However, I will push back on the notion that it might somehow be unsafe after thousands of years of human consumption and multiple safety studies concluding that it is safe for human consumption. This isn't some chemical synthesized in someone's bathroom. Raztastic (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On the claim that the publication itself was dubious/predatory, the article about predatory publishing does not mention this journal but instead mentions several other journals from the publishing group. One of the ideas behind calling it "predatory publishing" is that the articles published do not get cited; the article in question about graviola's anticancer effects was cited by 36 papers according to pubmed. And as it was a review and not a research trial report, it cited over a hundred other articles from many different journals. The publisher's brand was damaged by the scandal and the retractions, but the specific journal was not mentioned, and this specific research review article does not fit the profile. Also, I found three articles published in 2019-2021 that tested graviola extracts against cancer cells. 2019 paper: "The growth inhibition of the cells by extracts was associated with cell cycle arrest at the G0/G1 phase, and phosphatidylserine externalisation confirms the anti-proliferation through apoptosis." The 2020 paper tested three extracts and found 40-80% reduction in growth, arrest in cell cycle, and apoptosis. The 2021 paper concluded that an ionic liquid extract of graviola fruit pulp "can be one of the promising anticancer agents due to its selective inhibition of energy metabolism and cancer cell proliferation." There is ongoing molecular research, so it is not an irrelevant inclusion. Raztastic (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What are the 3 extracts that were tested? 108.26.115.87 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)