This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Blood Feud (The Simpsons) may be an example of this. violet/riga [talk] 20:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not about to start an "In fiction" section just yet, but YBT was a plotpoint in s6e9 of Elementary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the "medical citations needed" tag given that this article is about to appear on the front page and, more importantly, I don't believe that it does need such references. There are no claims in this article that are unqualified. Please discuss. violet/riga [talk] 17:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Please give any examples where this article makes a claim that isn't sufficiently qualified or referenced. violet/riga [talk] 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Tests in mice have returned favourable results
Tests in humans have shown changes to biomarkers which relate to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.
Karmazin claims in an interview with New Scientist that "Whatever is in young blood is causing changes that appear to make the ageing process reverse".
carcinoembryonic antigens fell by around 20 per cent
stated that most participants showed improvements within a month
Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system.
News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.
Its a simple equation. In the article = secondary source. In the article= MEDRS compliant. The problem isn't whether we're talking about snake oil its about whether the snake oil is supported by secondary sources AND is MEDRS compliant. MEDRS is not necessarily an easy concept to get the hang of. It always helps me to think of this as an encyclopedia so research like articles aren't the what we're writing. We're citing what's already published and established and in research into human health that means:
Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials.
I know the frustration of working on something and then having it ripped apart. I'm sorry about that. The MEDRS compliancy has become a serious issue and is adhered to stringently because there seems to be indications that even physicians use WP. I don't like that but what can one do except make sure everything is supported in the sources so that when a reader or physician comes to Wikipedia they get the mainstream view and can look more deeply into the area. Then if they want something newer they can look for it somewhere else. Its a big responsibility to write these articles and I think you tried to do a good job in this. Wikipedia is collaborative and I've learned over time to not be attached to what I write. I've even walked away from information I know is incorrect because of a consensus. I know its frustrating to have your work destroyed. If there is a silver lining its that in repairing your own article you'll learn implementation of MEDRS more quickly than reading about it. A small lining and not so silver, but...:O}( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC))
I've attempted to find any information on related subjects in humans
Primary sources
Secondary sources
Company sponsored studies Complete, Incomplete
Natureium ( talk) 18:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
We're supposed to be building an encyclopaedia not wholesale deleting content. How pathetic. violet/riga [talk] 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thiel is not an investor. What the Inc source says is "Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing.". This incorrect thing being spread around based on a misreading of the Inc story was covered by this piece in Tech Crunch which reports that Karmazin "told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”" Jytdog ( talk) 23:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding content about the mouse research sourced to popular media. This is explicitly discussed in MEDRS. Please don't do it. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 23:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Blood Feud (The Simpsons) may be an example of this. violet/riga [talk] 20:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not about to start an "In fiction" section just yet, but YBT was a plotpoint in s6e9 of Elementary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the "medical citations needed" tag given that this article is about to appear on the front page and, more importantly, I don't believe that it does need such references. There are no claims in this article that are unqualified. Please discuss. violet/riga [talk] 17:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Please give any examples where this article makes a claim that isn't sufficiently qualified or referenced. violet/riga [talk] 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Tests in mice have returned favourable results
Tests in humans have shown changes to biomarkers which relate to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.
Karmazin claims in an interview with New Scientist that "Whatever is in young blood is causing changes that appear to make the ageing process reverse".
carcinoembryonic antigens fell by around 20 per cent
stated that most participants showed improvements within a month
Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system.
News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.
Its a simple equation. In the article = secondary source. In the article= MEDRS compliant. The problem isn't whether we're talking about snake oil its about whether the snake oil is supported by secondary sources AND is MEDRS compliant. MEDRS is not necessarily an easy concept to get the hang of. It always helps me to think of this as an encyclopedia so research like articles aren't the what we're writing. We're citing what's already published and established and in research into human health that means:
Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials.
I know the frustration of working on something and then having it ripped apart. I'm sorry about that. The MEDRS compliancy has become a serious issue and is adhered to stringently because there seems to be indications that even physicians use WP. I don't like that but what can one do except make sure everything is supported in the sources so that when a reader or physician comes to Wikipedia they get the mainstream view and can look more deeply into the area. Then if they want something newer they can look for it somewhere else. Its a big responsibility to write these articles and I think you tried to do a good job in this. Wikipedia is collaborative and I've learned over time to not be attached to what I write. I've even walked away from information I know is incorrect because of a consensus. I know its frustrating to have your work destroyed. If there is a silver lining its that in repairing your own article you'll learn implementation of MEDRS more quickly than reading about it. A small lining and not so silver, but...:O}( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC))
I've attempted to find any information on related subjects in humans
Primary sources
Secondary sources
Company sponsored studies Complete, Incomplete
Natureium ( talk) 18:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
We're supposed to be building an encyclopaedia not wholesale deleting content. How pathetic. violet/riga [talk] 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thiel is not an investor. What the Inc source says is "Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing.". This incorrect thing being spread around based on a misreading of the Inc story was covered by this piece in Tech Crunch which reports that Karmazin "told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”" Jytdog ( talk) 23:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding content about the mouse research sourced to popular media. This is explicitly discussed in MEDRS. Please don't do it. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 23:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)