![]() | 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. |
I hope that you, Doc James and your family have a Great Christmas and a Happy New Year!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I think - and have for some time - that the company, as a company, is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Now it has another product the article about Argus 2 will not suffice. You appear to disagree. How can we get a wider consensus on this point? Rathfelder ( talk) 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my COPD edits. I appreciate it! I noticed that you prefer the ncbi link removed from the references. These are put in automatically from the cite function. I can manually remove them after I have added a citation, unless you have any other suggestions. I usually use the cite function to add a new journal, and generate it using the PMID. I have tried the DOI, but it adds the journal's publisher. Hope you are having a nice holiday!
JenOttawa ( talk) 12:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
On 28 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article VSV-EBOV, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 22:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! For the last month or so, I've been working on the cerebral palsy article, and I've noticed that you've been fixing up some of my work there. Thank you for that! I began working there because I was looking for information about CP, but couldn't find much. I've created a draft article on one of the classification systems commonly used in CP discussions these days at Draft:Manual Ability Classification System. I would really appreciate your ideas on this draft, because the articles on the Gross Motor Function Classification System and Communication Function Classification System are so different in their presentation and content. Could you please have a look at it and give me your thoughts? Sorry for the awkward timing, but this is when I'm free-ish to write. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 02:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Doc James, 122.108.141.214 has given you this WikiLove template, for thank you!! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else this WikiLove template! Enjoy! |
Spread the goodness of this WikiLove template by adding {{ subst:Blank WikiLove}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Hi Doc James, Thanks for your note on my page re the above. Sorry about that.
It makes me wonder, though, whether perhaps this article might be better as two separate articles, one "toxoplasmosis in humans" and another "toxoplasmosis in non-human animals", as the current intro features not much overview of the non-human info.
Also, as the 'research' section applies exclusively to humans, it seems to me to make sense following the human info better, not following the non-human info.
Kind regards, -- Ty rS 03:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Doc, in reply to the message you left on my Talk page - I have ten years' experience editing Wikipedia and do not need patronizing "tips" on what consitutes a reliable source. The tone and content of your note imply that you view yourself as being entitled to dispense advice and corrections from on high. The point of contention here (i.e. the Syphilis article, and in particular the section on famous people who died of syphilis) involves historical facts for which 21st century scientific criteria of verifiability are not available. The judgment of competent biographers and historians in this case is just as reliable as peer-reviewed academic journals, if not more so. I think you need to do a bit of extra reading yourself: perhaps you could start with a lesson in epistemology, Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions for instance, or Foucault's Birth of the Clinic. You could supplement that with some background reading on hubris and nemesis. And then maybe cap the whole thing with a re-read of Wikipedia's policies on "ownership" of articles. - Wwallacee ( talk) 11:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
22:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear Doc James, I see we have an article on each of these topics, butI don't think they were linked to one another until just now, when I made each one into a See also. Should there be more discussion in each article about how they relate? I found the articles rather confusing, because I was not understanding whether they are separate conditions, or if not, how much they overlap, and how. Invertzoo ( talk) 14:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet talking
|
---|
Happy new year sir,i am bangari a medical student, this is my first edit in wikipedia,today accidentally in google search i found your article in wikipedia , i am so impressed ... by seeing your article i feel so happy. I want to participate in wikipedia editing.....I am final year medico, i am so much interest to write medical articles.. pl kindly help me. ( Medical.student ( talk) 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC))
I want to create a new article in wikipedia , already i selected a new subject and also i got reliable sources,,,i want to show this article and sources to you , before post to wikipedia.Is it possible? because if i do like this ,i can found mistakes in the article and my article will stay ... |
Sockpuppet talking
|
---|
|
i am Dr James MD , I was edited the article "hypertension" ,first i didn't see your user id, it is like my user id . But it is an accidental...after seeing edit history i observed this
( Doctorjames2017 ( talk) 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC))
later
FYI, I opened a new FAC where you can place any suggestions/opposition/support, etc. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm wholly shocked that you've aided and abetted disruption on Sinatra's talk page. Still, why am I surprised? Cassianto Talk 17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
You closed a discussion you were extensively involved in? Meh Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's me or something, but he comes after
one
IP user,
me, and you about the collapsing of the Frank Sinatra infobox. I don't mean to antagonize Cassianto, but I'm a little more worried about the delivery toward others. If starting another discussion so soon at
Talk:Frank Sinatra is disruptive, I won't
do it start another discussion... until Man walks into Mars? (I didn't imagine, honestly, that battles over infoboxes would be over the top.) However, I'd rather discuss Cassianto with an administrator, like you. What do you think?
George Ho (
talk)
22:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, Cassianto calls my arguments
a "strawman argument" and me "sad and desperate". Is that acceptable?
George Ho (
talk)
22:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, look at the
deleted content from his user talk page.
George Ho (
talk)
22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Doc James,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk)
23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
@ Doc James:, would you provide an opinion on Jytdog's expansion of ASU, SKI 306X, and phytodolor at osteoarthritis? The information he is adding is interesting and would go great on dedicated pages for each of those medications, and is not relevant to OA. Can we please put all this information on a dedicated page for each medicine and return the OA page to the way it was? Sthubbar ( talk) 23:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doc James,
now I see that you moved the pronunciation to infobox. Unfortunately it does not look good. Besides, the average reader can easily overlook it, like I did. I would leave the additional pronunciation in the main text at least for rhinitis because this word is more important and its pronunciation is less obvious. However whatever you do, I will respect your decision, because medicine is not my field. Regards :-)
85.193.240.37 (
talk)
07:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
First, Happy New Year, second do you know when we might see [3]editor stats 2016?thanks Doc James-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This article was created by me in November 2011.
I removed the COI tag you added to this article. Today I became aware of the tag after somebody posted to the talk page. I have no opinion on Earflaps but trust that the community made the right decision in banning him. That said, his edits here weren't in any way paid editing or promoting Jane Blalock. (How would drudging up an almost forgotten scandal be beneficial in any way) They were attempts to improve the article. I had many problems with his edits. Just look in my talk page archives or how I reverted [4] some deletions he made. Other edits of his had me exasperated. The present state of the article could still stand some tweaking but a COI on it is not justified. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Page views for the Norovirus article over the last 120 days | ||
---|---|---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
This WaPo article got me interested in this. I'll send an email on another topic in an hour or two. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
diff. diag. from flu - I don't particularly object to your changes, info distinguishing cold from flu is widespread on the web, and I don't feel a lot of detail is needed here. However the article cited https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/coldflu.htm cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/coldflu.htm did say (later para) "symptoms of flu can include fever or feeling feverish/chills, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, muscle or body aches, headaches and fatigue (tiredness)." D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James: thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I assume it refers to smoking and stillbirth? As I'm sure you know, one needs to appraise sources. It's not everything in 'high quality' sources [1] that is true or accurate. I'm sure someone with your level of training would not dispute that smoking cigarettes/tobacco can cause stillbirth. Ear-phone ( talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I see, it's to do with fathers having guilt at times. Maybe if you have a look at this. [2] Ear-phone ( talk) 11:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Holtzman Inkblot technique, seriously, as if Holtzman Inkblot is a proper name? Where do you get this stuff? You seem to have done a bunch of these. Where is this coming from? Dicklyon ( talk) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Doc James,
I agree with your general statement that more recent insights are to be preferred over older ones. There is, I think, one important exception: in history the original 'old' primary reference is usually preferred than the more recent 'new' secondary literature. That is what I changed. I regret that you entirely 'fixed' (read: removed) our suggestions.
I regret that you did not like and 'fixed' (read: removed) our entire addition of Thomas McKeown's findings that mortality from TB had already declined in the western world by 90 to 95% before streptomycin and BCG-vaccination were widely available. These findings have been confirmed for most infectious diseases, and as we showed in the (removed) figure, can also be found in the recent US-data from the CDC. McKeown's findings, corroborated by overwhelming more recent data a.o. by Noble laureates Robert Fogel (1993) and Angus Deaton (2015), still strongly influences the way how WHO, IMF and UNESCO fight the battle against TB (and other diseases of poverty). Yes, patients with TB need to be adequately treated by effective drugs, and high risk populations may profit from vaccination (although the evidence for that is very thin). But, as McKeown, not a small fish in British public health policy, has advocated for many years, with drugs and vaccines we may win the battle but will loose the war against TB. Thereto, our efforts and resources should be primarily directed toward improving the standard of living in low resource countries, and to improving the environment by providing clean water, sanitation, better housing, education, safety and justice, and access to medical care. Even if one disagrees with these non-medical public health measures, they have been more effective than drugs and vaccines. How much more effective? As shown by McKeown: 95% for public health improvement versus 5% to medical care improvement is not an unrealistic proportion. We therefore think that these figures from public health research deserve a righteous place on a Wikipedia page on TB, even if you do not like them personally.
Your sympathy for biomedical research and solutions for TB is clear from your advocacy for more research toward new drugs and new vaccines. We appreciate that, and therefore I wished not to correct all minor inaccuracies (e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation actually redirected their funding towards the official WHO policy and less to basic and disease specific biomedical research; see above). I did however correct what I think was a medical error: surgical intervention of pulmonary complications from TB is strongly discouraged by all our medical societies, and should only be reserved for highly selective cases: it is high risk surgery, and requires high standard intensive care facilities, it is therefore very expensive, not an option for most low resources countries and moreover, this dubious indication has not been tested according to medical research standards. It sounds heroic but it is bad practice. I saw that you changed our suggestions to make your advocacy for surgery even stronger. Thereby your overall very informative page looses much of its credibility. Please, I kindly suggest to soften your statements regarding surgery in TB.
Again, we really appreciate the page on TB, and recognize that you did a lot of valuable work on that page. One of the major advantages of Wikipedia is that mistakes and omissions can be repaired by others. I hope that, with this explanation, I have convinced you of the rationale for our minor adjustments, and hope that you agree and will 're-fix' them (or agree that I will do so).
Do not hesitate to reply to eventually get to the best value information on Wikipedia.
PS: 'I' wrote this reply, 'we' is our research group in Amsterdam.
Best regards from Ljstalpers ( talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
We can be certain that medical measures made no contribution to the course of tuberculosis before the twentieth century. ... Having excluded medical measures..., we are left with changes in the environment as the main reason for the trend of mortality from tuberculosis in the nineteenth century. ... It ... seems probable that improvement in diet made a significant contribution to the reduction of mortality from tuberculosis...
![]() | 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. |
I hope that you, Doc James and your family have a Great Christmas and a Happy New Year!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I think - and have for some time - that the company, as a company, is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Now it has another product the article about Argus 2 will not suffice. You appear to disagree. How can we get a wider consensus on this point? Rathfelder ( talk) 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my COPD edits. I appreciate it! I noticed that you prefer the ncbi link removed from the references. These are put in automatically from the cite function. I can manually remove them after I have added a citation, unless you have any other suggestions. I usually use the cite function to add a new journal, and generate it using the PMID. I have tried the DOI, but it adds the journal's publisher. Hope you are having a nice holiday!
JenOttawa ( talk) 12:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
On 28 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article VSV-EBOV, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 22:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! For the last month or so, I've been working on the cerebral palsy article, and I've noticed that you've been fixing up some of my work there. Thank you for that! I began working there because I was looking for information about CP, but couldn't find much. I've created a draft article on one of the classification systems commonly used in CP discussions these days at Draft:Manual Ability Classification System. I would really appreciate your ideas on this draft, because the articles on the Gross Motor Function Classification System and Communication Function Classification System are so different in their presentation and content. Could you please have a look at it and give me your thoughts? Sorry for the awkward timing, but this is when I'm free-ish to write. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 02:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Doc James, 122.108.141.214 has given you this WikiLove template, for thank you!! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else this WikiLove template! Enjoy! |
Spread the goodness of this WikiLove template by adding {{ subst:Blank WikiLove}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Hi Doc James, Thanks for your note on my page re the above. Sorry about that.
It makes me wonder, though, whether perhaps this article might be better as two separate articles, one "toxoplasmosis in humans" and another "toxoplasmosis in non-human animals", as the current intro features not much overview of the non-human info.
Also, as the 'research' section applies exclusively to humans, it seems to me to make sense following the human info better, not following the non-human info.
Kind regards, -- Ty rS 03:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Doc, in reply to the message you left on my Talk page - I have ten years' experience editing Wikipedia and do not need patronizing "tips" on what consitutes a reliable source. The tone and content of your note imply that you view yourself as being entitled to dispense advice and corrections from on high. The point of contention here (i.e. the Syphilis article, and in particular the section on famous people who died of syphilis) involves historical facts for which 21st century scientific criteria of verifiability are not available. The judgment of competent biographers and historians in this case is just as reliable as peer-reviewed academic journals, if not more so. I think you need to do a bit of extra reading yourself: perhaps you could start with a lesson in epistemology, Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions for instance, or Foucault's Birth of the Clinic. You could supplement that with some background reading on hubris and nemesis. And then maybe cap the whole thing with a re-read of Wikipedia's policies on "ownership" of articles. - Wwallacee ( talk) 11:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
22:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
KATMAKROFAN (
talk)
16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear Doc James, I see we have an article on each of these topics, butI don't think they were linked to one another until just now, when I made each one into a See also. Should there be more discussion in each article about how they relate? I found the articles rather confusing, because I was not understanding whether they are separate conditions, or if not, how much they overlap, and how. Invertzoo ( talk) 14:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet talking
|
---|
Happy new year sir,i am bangari a medical student, this is my first edit in wikipedia,today accidentally in google search i found your article in wikipedia , i am so impressed ... by seeing your article i feel so happy. I want to participate in wikipedia editing.....I am final year medico, i am so much interest to write medical articles.. pl kindly help me. ( Medical.student ( talk) 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC))
I want to create a new article in wikipedia , already i selected a new subject and also i got reliable sources,,,i want to show this article and sources to you , before post to wikipedia.Is it possible? because if i do like this ,i can found mistakes in the article and my article will stay ... |
Sockpuppet talking
|
---|
|
i am Dr James MD , I was edited the article "hypertension" ,first i didn't see your user id, it is like my user id . But it is an accidental...after seeing edit history i observed this
( Doctorjames2017 ( talk) 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC))
later
FYI, I opened a new FAC where you can place any suggestions/opposition/support, etc. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm wholly shocked that you've aided and abetted disruption on Sinatra's talk page. Still, why am I surprised? Cassianto Talk 17:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
You closed a discussion you were extensively involved in? Meh Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's me or something, but he comes after
one
IP user,
me, and you about the collapsing of the Frank Sinatra infobox. I don't mean to antagonize Cassianto, but I'm a little more worried about the delivery toward others. If starting another discussion so soon at
Talk:Frank Sinatra is disruptive, I won't
do it start another discussion... until Man walks into Mars? (I didn't imagine, honestly, that battles over infoboxes would be over the top.) However, I'd rather discuss Cassianto with an administrator, like you. What do you think?
George Ho (
talk)
22:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, Cassianto calls my arguments
a "strawman argument" and me "sad and desperate". Is that acceptable?
George Ho (
talk)
22:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, look at the
deleted content from his user talk page.
George Ho (
talk)
22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Doc James,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (
talk)
23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
@ Doc James:, would you provide an opinion on Jytdog's expansion of ASU, SKI 306X, and phytodolor at osteoarthritis? The information he is adding is interesting and would go great on dedicated pages for each of those medications, and is not relevant to OA. Can we please put all this information on a dedicated page for each medicine and return the OA page to the way it was? Sthubbar ( talk) 23:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doc James,
now I see that you moved the pronunciation to infobox. Unfortunately it does not look good. Besides, the average reader can easily overlook it, like I did. I would leave the additional pronunciation in the main text at least for rhinitis because this word is more important and its pronunciation is less obvious. However whatever you do, I will respect your decision, because medicine is not my field. Regards :-)
85.193.240.37 (
talk)
07:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
First, Happy New Year, second do you know when we might see [3]editor stats 2016?thanks Doc James-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This article was created by me in November 2011.
I removed the COI tag you added to this article. Today I became aware of the tag after somebody posted to the talk page. I have no opinion on Earflaps but trust that the community made the right decision in banning him. That said, his edits here weren't in any way paid editing or promoting Jane Blalock. (How would drudging up an almost forgotten scandal be beneficial in any way) They were attempts to improve the article. I had many problems with his edits. Just look in my talk page archives or how I reverted [4] some deletions he made. Other edits of his had me exasperated. The present state of the article could still stand some tweaking but a COI on it is not justified. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Page views for the Norovirus article over the last 120 days | ||
---|---|---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
This WaPo article got me interested in this. I'll send an email on another topic in an hour or two. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
diff. diag. from flu - I don't particularly object to your changes, info distinguishing cold from flu is widespread on the web, and I don't feel a lot of detail is needed here. However the article cited https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/coldflu.htm cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/coldflu.htm did say (later para) "symptoms of flu can include fever or feeling feverish/chills, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, muscle or body aches, headaches and fatigue (tiredness)." D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) ( talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Doc James: thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I assume it refers to smoking and stillbirth? As I'm sure you know, one needs to appraise sources. It's not everything in 'high quality' sources [1] that is true or accurate. I'm sure someone with your level of training would not dispute that smoking cigarettes/tobacco can cause stillbirth. Ear-phone ( talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I see, it's to do with fathers having guilt at times. Maybe if you have a look at this. [2] Ear-phone ( talk) 11:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Holtzman Inkblot technique, seriously, as if Holtzman Inkblot is a proper name? Where do you get this stuff? You seem to have done a bunch of these. Where is this coming from? Dicklyon ( talk) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Doc James,
I agree with your general statement that more recent insights are to be preferred over older ones. There is, I think, one important exception: in history the original 'old' primary reference is usually preferred than the more recent 'new' secondary literature. That is what I changed. I regret that you entirely 'fixed' (read: removed) our suggestions.
I regret that you did not like and 'fixed' (read: removed) our entire addition of Thomas McKeown's findings that mortality from TB had already declined in the western world by 90 to 95% before streptomycin and BCG-vaccination were widely available. These findings have been confirmed for most infectious diseases, and as we showed in the (removed) figure, can also be found in the recent US-data from the CDC. McKeown's findings, corroborated by overwhelming more recent data a.o. by Noble laureates Robert Fogel (1993) and Angus Deaton (2015), still strongly influences the way how WHO, IMF and UNESCO fight the battle against TB (and other diseases of poverty). Yes, patients with TB need to be adequately treated by effective drugs, and high risk populations may profit from vaccination (although the evidence for that is very thin). But, as McKeown, not a small fish in British public health policy, has advocated for many years, with drugs and vaccines we may win the battle but will loose the war against TB. Thereto, our efforts and resources should be primarily directed toward improving the standard of living in low resource countries, and to improving the environment by providing clean water, sanitation, better housing, education, safety and justice, and access to medical care. Even if one disagrees with these non-medical public health measures, they have been more effective than drugs and vaccines. How much more effective? As shown by McKeown: 95% for public health improvement versus 5% to medical care improvement is not an unrealistic proportion. We therefore think that these figures from public health research deserve a righteous place on a Wikipedia page on TB, even if you do not like them personally.
Your sympathy for biomedical research and solutions for TB is clear from your advocacy for more research toward new drugs and new vaccines. We appreciate that, and therefore I wished not to correct all minor inaccuracies (e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation actually redirected their funding towards the official WHO policy and less to basic and disease specific biomedical research; see above). I did however correct what I think was a medical error: surgical intervention of pulmonary complications from TB is strongly discouraged by all our medical societies, and should only be reserved for highly selective cases: it is high risk surgery, and requires high standard intensive care facilities, it is therefore very expensive, not an option for most low resources countries and moreover, this dubious indication has not been tested according to medical research standards. It sounds heroic but it is bad practice. I saw that you changed our suggestions to make your advocacy for surgery even stronger. Thereby your overall very informative page looses much of its credibility. Please, I kindly suggest to soften your statements regarding surgery in TB.
Again, we really appreciate the page on TB, and recognize that you did a lot of valuable work on that page. One of the major advantages of Wikipedia is that mistakes and omissions can be repaired by others. I hope that, with this explanation, I have convinced you of the rationale for our minor adjustments, and hope that you agree and will 're-fix' them (or agree that I will do so).
Do not hesitate to reply to eventually get to the best value information on Wikipedia.
PS: 'I' wrote this reply, 'we' is our research group in Amsterdam.
Best regards from Ljstalpers ( talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |via=
(
help)
We can be certain that medical measures made no contribution to the course of tuberculosis before the twentieth century. ... Having excluded medical measures..., we are left with changes in the environment as the main reason for the trend of mortality from tuberculosis in the nineteenth century. ... It ... seems probable that improvement in diet made a significant contribution to the reduction of mortality from tuberculosis...