While the issue of this pages factual relevance is questionable..... Further this page is aiding and abetting in the slander/libel of several company trademarks and as such will be ear marked as a further piece of evidence of such slander in proceeding litigation. — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
The article is too negative. SDT started with a Japanese researcher attempting to trigger a PDT agent with ultrasonic. He got some results, the Chinese and others picked up on it, and much of the SDT research coming out is coming from PDT researchers looking to extend the utility of their drugs.
I don't disagree, however, that there's lots of cranks overselling the research, that the research is still immature, but calling it plain crankery goes too far. If you do a search on nature.com, you'll find a ton of papers about the subject, mostly by the Chinese. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I suppose my edit is going to get reverted, but I'm not as informed on this subject as I'd like to be. If you seriously want to put up an SDT article, focus on quack SDT promoters instead of the treatment itself. Hope4Cancer, for instance, is pretty crappy. While PDT and SDT are lower risk than other cancer treatments, they are not zero-risk as with any medical procedure. Hope4Cancer claiming their SPDT is zero risk is distinct woo-promotion. On the other hand, I can also point to articles like this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4199795/, published in OncoTargets and Therapy. Is that a low-impact alternative medicine journal to you? — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk