Shark cartilage
pseudoscientific diet supplement
Shark cartilage is a dietary supplement made from the dried and powdered cartilage of a shark skeleton. Shark cartilage is marketed under numerous brand names, with advertising that it may prevent various illnesses, including cancer.
There is no scientific evidence that shark cartilage is useful in treating or preventing cancer or other diseases. Controlled trials have shown no benefit to shark cartilage supplements. Common side effects of taking shark cartilage supplements include nausea, gastrointestinal upset, and hypercalcemia.
Shark cartilage supplements are marketed using the misconception that sharks do not get cancer, a myth that was as popularized by the 1992 book Sharks Don't Get Cancer. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has taken legal action against such fraudulent promoters.
Tumors of different kinds, some metastatic, have been found in a number of species of sharks. The first shark tumor was recorded in 1908. Scientists have since discovered 40 benign and cancerous tumors in 18 of the 1,168 species of sharks.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Shark cartilage” is pseudoscientific diet supplement. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Shark, cartilage and pseudoscientific, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “pseudoscientific diet supplement” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q623418. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1992 and 1908.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Shark cartilage”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Shark cartilage primary sources, Shark cartilage archive and Shark research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Shark cartilage”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Shark cartilage” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.