![]() | This 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. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Please view the talk page of the mitragyna speciosa article. It is explained why the "sourced content" is misinterpreted and inconsistent with the policy on medical sources. The source cites a case study and anecdotal evidence (which was removed the other day for other content showing benefits of Kratom for the same reason) but for some reason this inconsistency is allowed and continually reverted to without discussion. The sources says the mentions of convulsions and psychosis are "haphazardly reported" and then the article uses it as evidence for them. It is bad sourcing and misrepresenting the source. ThorPorre ( talk) 01:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi James, in the article Prostate massage I've just removed a lot of "alternative medicine" and primary study stuff, but from the aggressive tone of the talk page Talk:Prostate massage (lots of personal attacks at the end of that page such as "idiot", "lies", "racist" etc), it's sure to be replaced soon. I wonder if you could keep an eye on it or make it editable by registered users only? Perhaps a clean-up of the talk page is warranted too. Thanks, Cusco-maya ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Many thanks for all your edits to medicine-related articles. Their high quality and sheer number are really appreciated. kashmiri TALK 12:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I didn't see it there in the research section. I've added one of the refs, as it's not a printed journal. peterl ( talk) 23:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I was without internet the past week and just saw your message. You can ask at d:Wikidata:Bot_requests for a bot operator to generate such a table and keep it up to date. I'm not sure if we have a bot operator in the task force yet. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 12:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
CiteULike is about sharing sources of research information. You seem to to promoting ignorance, rather than helping provide more detailed information, or promoting your views regarding specific issues. This appears to be a recurring problem with some medical and support article editors and administrators who prefer to pursue their own and their own cultural interests dolfrog ( talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly, and for the perspective on my intellectualizing. It's nice to know someone finds your contribution helpful, you know. JamesEG ( talk) 02:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I noted a bot adding the previously discussed box for lists of MEDRS to the talk page of a number of medical articles on my watchlist. I noted in this thread a suggested wording, and still think it would be better to not imply that all pubmed reviews are automatically MEDRS compliant, which is what I think the new box implies. Any way we can get the wording adjusted? Yobol ( talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind weighing in on the recent changes and comments re: organizations on the schizo talk page? Or could you refer me to other editors who can comment? Thanks. Rmlewinson ( talk) 21:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not mean offence. I just need to ask you that from Schizophrenia why you have not cared to remove the wikilinks of common terms like thought or emotional but only symptoms, all of which occur in the article lead. Pardon my allegiance but I sense a gap in the logic. It is definitely not necessary to link common terms, but it does not require to be reverted either, neither does it affect the quality/presentation of the article. Diptanshu Talk 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 14:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 14:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile your entry on the WP:MED talk page has been adequately discussed and I get the essence. Thanks anyway. Diptanshu Talk 13:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
About Wernicke. It was just an accident.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Some American doctors expressed satisfaction by as are the references. I do not think that the change that you propose would be useful. There pioneers like Harper remain references. But a change of approach about references seems appropriate in Medical Wikipedia: only PMID and numbers . Instantly would be achieved more information with less lines written. Cheers, Luis
It is unacceptable to have removed some of the common causes of Wernicke's encephalopathy: Excessive vomiting, Prolonged parenteral nutrition, anorexia, malabsorption of nutrients, gastric syphilis, thyrotoxicosis and renal dialysis. This is well documented in the references. I would appreciate more prudence and research on what they are modifying. The article has been reviewed and accepted by other American physicians. I can only accept my limitations in handling the language and the rules of Wikipedia. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis cerni ( talk • contribs) 16:16, July 9, 2013
I see you've edited on beriberi. They are usually multi deficiency situations as Wernicke, and should be clarified. Under the name of beriberi more classifications. I send materials to help you improve that page. Thiamine deficiency may also result in other manifestations such as dry beriberi (neuropathy), wet beri-beri (neuropathy with high-output congestive heart failure), gastrointestinal beriberi (abdominal pain, vomiting and lactic acidosis). -African (Nigerian) seasonal ataxia and gastrointestinal beriberi (Adamolekun and Ndububa 1994; Nishimune, Watanabe et al. 2000; Donnino 2004) -Dysphagia and classic symptoms. PMID 12003921*
You are editing a subsection that makes reference to solutions used. The entire category is conjecture because there is no "medical" solutions used. Nasal irrigation is not medicine, not medically prescribed and not administered by a doctor and is therefore not medicine. Nasal irrigation as a methodology has been studied and their are some good references in the article itself. Research has shown that antibiotics are quickly becoming ineffective in the use of sinus infections. Most doctors in ENT practice today recommend that their patients perform daily nasal irrigation which is not a medical procedure but akin to washing your hands. If you read the article and eliminate all references that are not medical and properly referenced you would edit the entire entry to a short article that wouldn't do anyone any good because they wouldn't understand what it is, how to do it and what to use. To eliminate my information with the research we have performed and the patents which we have applied for in a non-medical application is absurd. The FDA classifies nasal sinus irrigation solutions as cosmetics. Please look at the paragraph I edited below and see how you would eliminate the entire subheading following your response to my posting. You can't irrigate without having a solution. Sunuwash ( talk) 07:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"While nasal irrigation can be carried out using ordinary tap water, this is not safe and additionally can be uncomfortable because it irritates the mucous membranes. Therefore an isotonic or hypertonic salt water solution is normally used, i.e. water with enough salt to match the tonicity of the body cells and blood. For the same reason, lukewarm water is preferred over cold water, which in addition to irritating nasal membranes can also exaggerate the gag reflex during irrigation. Use of distilled, sterile or previously boiled and cooled water over ordinary tap water is advised. Tap water safe for drinking is not necessarily safe for nasal irrigation due to risk of rare but fatal brain infection. A small amount of baking soda is sometimes employed as a buffering agent to adjust the pH of the irrigating solution to that of the body. NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER. All common knowledge but no science in this
Many pharmacies stock pre-manufactured sachets of pharmaceutical grade salt and baking soda designed to be used with the volume of water their corresponding device uses. Sometimes manufactured solutions such as a lactated Ringer's solution is used.[citation needed]NO CITE HERE, TRUE BUT NO RESEARCH IN THESE STATEMENTS. It is also simple to make a salt-baking soda mixture.[32] LINK TO A SITE WHICH IS NOT A VALID RESOURCE. Optional additives include xylitol which is claimed to draw water into the sinus regions and helps displace bacteria.[33] WRONG, RESEARCH IS ON LUNG TRANSPLANTS Xylitol is commonly used to prevent acute otitis media in Europe and dental caries in the United States,[34] but research into xylitol use in the sinus cavities is lacking. Another nasal irrigation additive is aloe extract, which helps to prevent nasal dryness.[citation needed] NO CITING, NO RESEARCH. Sodium citrate and citric acid help not only to balance the pH, but also to improve the sense of smell.[citation needed]" NO CITING, NO RESEARCH.
FYI, I noticed you posted to the talk page of Cupco. That user has been permanently banned as a sock puppet ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dualus). He is likely still around using another account somewhere as he creates new accounts regularly to avoid the bans. Morphh (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
you wrote sure but the evidence supports that it (FDA) does now (support sunscreen use), removed old FDA ref. Do you have a ref please?
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I'm too mean to spend the money to look at the comments on the Queensland study, but it appears to have attracted at least five which would normally be adverse (unless you know better) The best the Burnett et al paper can come up with is " (sunscreen) has not been demonstrated to adversely affect the health of humans"
They don't amount to the FDA having changed its mind, or really being in a position where it will inevitably do so.
The text before my edit was I felt more or less a direction to readers "use sunscreen to avoid cancer", and I added the alternative for balance. Perhaps it would go better alongside No medical association recommends not using sunblock.[citation needed]
My edit to omega 3 fatty acids being linked to prostate cancer. You reverted it. You indicate I should not refer to "primary" but to "secondary sources". I cited an abstract published by the National Cancer Institute in their online Journal, as well as a press release from the study's author.
The existing article cites to an article in JAMA for a diametrically opposed conclusion. Clearly JAMA's earlier "review" is not the whole story here. I was citing an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. How is that not a high quality source? What do you mean by the distinction between primary and secondary sources? Rather than reverting, could you simply have cleaned it up? I was not citing a news article on the subject, I was citing the primary source of the information. The abstract is one page, so there is no need for specific page references in it. What needs to be added?
I took a look at the definition of secondary and primary sourcing. In this context, the study I am citing is based upon two earlier studies. Those earlier studies would be considered primary sources and the study I am citing, which relies on the earlier studies in part and then comfirms them is both a primary and a secondary source. Therefore I contend it is a reliable secondary source. Moreover, the JAMA study referred to in the earlier reverted version could easily be considered both a primary and a secondary source because it reaches its own conclusion and analyzes earlier studies.
I believe that my edit is important and should not be reverted.
Please respond.
Thanks.
PS: Should I cite something like this instead: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (2013, July 10). Link between omega-3 fatty acids and increased prostate cancer risk confirmed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 11, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2013/07/130710183637.htm ? Moe ( talk) 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
We’ve redesigned the Grants:IdeaLab to make awesome collaborators and shiny new ideas easier to find.
You’re invited to the (re)Launch party!
Come visit and create a profile, share or join an idea, and tell us what you think about the updates!
Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) ( talk) 19:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Take your comments only to the subject Talk. I have started a discussion in Cancer Talk. Thank You. 32cllou ( talk) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to be without internet (on holiday) since Friday for 2 weeks, so it may be wiser to wait until I am back. On the other hand I am not completely comfortable with the pathophisiology section, although I am not sure if I will be capable of improving it (I have not been able yet to take a look at your edits today). -- Garrondo ( talk) 14:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the template is great, and it is probably one of the best ways of encouraging wise editing (to the point I would add similar templates to mainspace instead of all the tagging of low quality...).
I have nevertheless noticed that in the case of Huntington's disease it makes a strange thing saying potentially useful sources of information about Huntington%26%2339%3Bs+disease . I suppose it will not be the only case. Maybe you can solve it.
Bests. -- Garrondo ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That was a quick response. :-)
I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to review them. You may also want to take a peek at User:Djdubay/MedNav/Project. I believe the navigation template system we have is really a key part of our page's usability. Unfortunately, only English speakers get to use them. The barriers to moving them to other languages is pretty steep, which is why no one's done it before, but I believe if we can get the support and cooperation of WP:MED, we can eliminate some of those barriers and get it done. Once we've done it in one language, it will be significantly easier to do it in more. Your thoughts are most welcome.
Djdubay ( talk) 00:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new, but was reading the autism article. The following paragraph seems outdated, with the most recent reference being 2009 in a field that has progressed rapidly.
"Interactions between the immune system and the nervous system begin early during the embryonic stage of life, and successful neurodevelopment depends on a balanced immune response. Aberrant immune activity during critical periods of neurodevelopment is possibly part of the mechanism of some forms of ASD.[71] Although some abnormalities in the immune system have been found in specific subgroups of autistic individuals, it is not known whether these abnormalities are relevant to or secondary to autism's disease processes.[72] As autoantibodies are found in conditions other than ASD, and are not always present in ASD,[73] the relationship between immune disturbances and autism remains unclear and controversial.[65]"
In particular, researchers at UC Davis, including J Van de Water and DG Amaral (both of whose older works are cited) have moved forward in their studies of maternal antibodies, identifying the proteins in developing brain that these maternal antibodies target [1], and showing that injection of these human IgGs into pregnant macaques results in autistic perturbations that manifest later in the offspring exposed during the 1st and second trimesters of pregnancy [2]. The estimates of what proportion of autism MAR- (maternal autoantibody related) autism may account for range from 12 to 23%, depending on which of these papers you read. Precise mechanisms remain to be elucidated, as does a fuller understanding of the timing of blood-brain barrier development. Nevertheless, in my opinion as a biologist (not a neurobiologist or psychologist) these findings warrant an update to the quoted paragraph. Greenleaf53 ( talk) 07:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
OK Doc, corrections made.
No it is not. In fact the link I removed from this wiki just now is what I classify as spam. Its two redirects to some random spammy page with no information on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler
Some would say the same thing about wikipedia. But its all about a matter of opinion now isnt it? And it does have a place on a medical article because it was about treating said topic of discussion. Which was then backed up again with another citation, this time by an Australian hospital stating many of the same things. I think you just not to particular of herbal remedies,considering your medical background, I can understand why. Factual, well documented proof is what you require, is it not? Not thous which-doctor herbs? Anyways Im done, have fun with your poop page.
-- Franciaio ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
regarding your note on the Polish Wikiproject Medicine, I think that Catscan could produce rough and approximate data about number of medical articles in the Polish language. There are two categories to scan pl:Kategoria:Nauki medyczne that is broader and encompasses also a number of basic medical sciences (anatomy, microbiology, histology, etc.) and pl:Kategoria:Medycyna that should collate articles strictly on medical topics but no guarantees. As for page view data I suppose there's stats.grok.se but perhaps our technically-able people could produce data in another way ?
Regards,
Kpjas (
talk)
08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Please view the talk page of the mitragyna speciosa article. It is explained why the "sourced content" is misinterpreted and inconsistent with the policy on medical sources. The source cites a case study and anecdotal evidence (which was removed the other day for other content showing benefits of Kratom for the same reason) but for some reason this inconsistency is allowed and continually reverted to without discussion. The sources says the mentions of convulsions and psychosis are "haphazardly reported" and then the article uses it as evidence for them. It is bad sourcing and misrepresenting the source. ThorPorre ( talk) 01:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi James, in the article Prostate massage I've just removed a lot of "alternative medicine" and primary study stuff, but from the aggressive tone of the talk page Talk:Prostate massage (lots of personal attacks at the end of that page such as "idiot", "lies", "racist" etc), it's sure to be replaced soon. I wonder if you could keep an eye on it or make it editable by registered users only? Perhaps a clean-up of the talk page is warranted too. Thanks, Cusco-maya ( talk) 04:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Many thanks for all your edits to medicine-related articles. Their high quality and sheer number are really appreciated. kashmiri TALK 12:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I didn't see it there in the research section. I've added one of the refs, as it's not a printed journal. peterl ( talk) 23:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I was without internet the past week and just saw your message. You can ask at d:Wikidata:Bot_requests for a bot operator to generate such a table and keep it up to date. I'm not sure if we have a bot operator in the task force yet. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 12:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
CiteULike is about sharing sources of research information. You seem to to promoting ignorance, rather than helping provide more detailed information, or promoting your views regarding specific issues. This appears to be a recurring problem with some medical and support article editors and administrators who prefer to pursue their own and their own cultural interests dolfrog ( talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly, and for the perspective on my intellectualizing. It's nice to know someone finds your contribution helpful, you know. JamesEG ( talk) 02:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I noted a bot adding the previously discussed box for lists of MEDRS to the talk page of a number of medical articles on my watchlist. I noted in this thread a suggested wording, and still think it would be better to not imply that all pubmed reviews are automatically MEDRS compliant, which is what I think the new box implies. Any way we can get the wording adjusted? Yobol ( talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind weighing in on the recent changes and comments re: organizations on the schizo talk page? Or could you refer me to other editors who can comment? Thanks. Rmlewinson ( talk) 21:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not mean offence. I just need to ask you that from Schizophrenia why you have not cared to remove the wikilinks of common terms like thought or emotional but only symptoms, all of which occur in the article lead. Pardon my allegiance but I sense a gap in the logic. It is definitely not necessary to link common terms, but it does not require to be reverted either, neither does it affect the quality/presentation of the article. Diptanshu Talk 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 14:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 14:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Diptanshu Talk 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile your entry on the WP:MED talk page has been adequately discussed and I get the essence. Thanks anyway. Diptanshu Talk 13:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
About Wernicke. It was just an accident.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Some American doctors expressed satisfaction by as are the references. I do not think that the change that you propose would be useful. There pioneers like Harper remain references. But a change of approach about references seems appropriate in Medical Wikipedia: only PMID and numbers . Instantly would be achieved more information with less lines written. Cheers, Luis
It is unacceptable to have removed some of the common causes of Wernicke's encephalopathy: Excessive vomiting, Prolonged parenteral nutrition, anorexia, malabsorption of nutrients, gastric syphilis, thyrotoxicosis and renal dialysis. This is well documented in the references. I would appreciate more prudence and research on what they are modifying. The article has been reviewed and accepted by other American physicians. I can only accept my limitations in handling the language and the rules of Wikipedia. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis cerni ( talk • contribs) 16:16, July 9, 2013
I see you've edited on beriberi. They are usually multi deficiency situations as Wernicke, and should be clarified. Under the name of beriberi more classifications. I send materials to help you improve that page. Thiamine deficiency may also result in other manifestations such as dry beriberi (neuropathy), wet beri-beri (neuropathy with high-output congestive heart failure), gastrointestinal beriberi (abdominal pain, vomiting and lactic acidosis). -African (Nigerian) seasonal ataxia and gastrointestinal beriberi (Adamolekun and Ndububa 1994; Nishimune, Watanabe et al. 2000; Donnino 2004) -Dysphagia and classic symptoms. PMID 12003921*
You are editing a subsection that makes reference to solutions used. The entire category is conjecture because there is no "medical" solutions used. Nasal irrigation is not medicine, not medically prescribed and not administered by a doctor and is therefore not medicine. Nasal irrigation as a methodology has been studied and their are some good references in the article itself. Research has shown that antibiotics are quickly becoming ineffective in the use of sinus infections. Most doctors in ENT practice today recommend that their patients perform daily nasal irrigation which is not a medical procedure but akin to washing your hands. If you read the article and eliminate all references that are not medical and properly referenced you would edit the entire entry to a short article that wouldn't do anyone any good because they wouldn't understand what it is, how to do it and what to use. To eliminate my information with the research we have performed and the patents which we have applied for in a non-medical application is absurd. The FDA classifies nasal sinus irrigation solutions as cosmetics. Please look at the paragraph I edited below and see how you would eliminate the entire subheading following your response to my posting. You can't irrigate without having a solution. Sunuwash ( talk) 07:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"While nasal irrigation can be carried out using ordinary tap water, this is not safe and additionally can be uncomfortable because it irritates the mucous membranes. Therefore an isotonic or hypertonic salt water solution is normally used, i.e. water with enough salt to match the tonicity of the body cells and blood. For the same reason, lukewarm water is preferred over cold water, which in addition to irritating nasal membranes can also exaggerate the gag reflex during irrigation. Use of distilled, sterile or previously boiled and cooled water over ordinary tap water is advised. Tap water safe for drinking is not necessarily safe for nasal irrigation due to risk of rare but fatal brain infection. A small amount of baking soda is sometimes employed as a buffering agent to adjust the pH of the irrigating solution to that of the body. NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER. All common knowledge but no science in this
Many pharmacies stock pre-manufactured sachets of pharmaceutical grade salt and baking soda designed to be used with the volume of water their corresponding device uses. Sometimes manufactured solutions such as a lactated Ringer's solution is used.[citation needed]NO CITE HERE, TRUE BUT NO RESEARCH IN THESE STATEMENTS. It is also simple to make a salt-baking soda mixture.[32] LINK TO A SITE WHICH IS NOT A VALID RESOURCE. Optional additives include xylitol which is claimed to draw water into the sinus regions and helps displace bacteria.[33] WRONG, RESEARCH IS ON LUNG TRANSPLANTS Xylitol is commonly used to prevent acute otitis media in Europe and dental caries in the United States,[34] but research into xylitol use in the sinus cavities is lacking. Another nasal irrigation additive is aloe extract, which helps to prevent nasal dryness.[citation needed] NO CITING, NO RESEARCH. Sodium citrate and citric acid help not only to balance the pH, but also to improve the sense of smell.[citation needed]" NO CITING, NO RESEARCH.
FYI, I noticed you posted to the talk page of Cupco. That user has been permanently banned as a sock puppet ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dualus). He is likely still around using another account somewhere as he creates new accounts regularly to avoid the bans. Morphh (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
you wrote sure but the evidence supports that it (FDA) does now (support sunscreen use), removed old FDA ref. Do you have a ref please?
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I'm too mean to spend the money to look at the comments on the Queensland study, but it appears to have attracted at least five which would normally be adverse (unless you know better) The best the Burnett et al paper can come up with is " (sunscreen) has not been demonstrated to adversely affect the health of humans"
They don't amount to the FDA having changed its mind, or really being in a position where it will inevitably do so.
The text before my edit was I felt more or less a direction to readers "use sunscreen to avoid cancer", and I added the alternative for balance. Perhaps it would go better alongside No medical association recommends not using sunblock.[citation needed]
My edit to omega 3 fatty acids being linked to prostate cancer. You reverted it. You indicate I should not refer to "primary" but to "secondary sources". I cited an abstract published by the National Cancer Institute in their online Journal, as well as a press release from the study's author.
The existing article cites to an article in JAMA for a diametrically opposed conclusion. Clearly JAMA's earlier "review" is not the whole story here. I was citing an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. How is that not a high quality source? What do you mean by the distinction between primary and secondary sources? Rather than reverting, could you simply have cleaned it up? I was not citing a news article on the subject, I was citing the primary source of the information. The abstract is one page, so there is no need for specific page references in it. What needs to be added?
I took a look at the definition of secondary and primary sourcing. In this context, the study I am citing is based upon two earlier studies. Those earlier studies would be considered primary sources and the study I am citing, which relies on the earlier studies in part and then comfirms them is both a primary and a secondary source. Therefore I contend it is a reliable secondary source. Moreover, the JAMA study referred to in the earlier reverted version could easily be considered both a primary and a secondary source because it reaches its own conclusion and analyzes earlier studies.
I believe that my edit is important and should not be reverted.
Please respond.
Thanks.
PS: Should I cite something like this instead: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (2013, July 10). Link between omega-3 fatty acids and increased prostate cancer risk confirmed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 11, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2013/07/130710183637.htm ? Moe ( talk) 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
We’ve redesigned the Grants:IdeaLab to make awesome collaborators and shiny new ideas easier to find.
You’re invited to the (re)Launch party!
Come visit and create a profile, share or join an idea, and tell us what you think about the updates!
Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) ( talk) 19:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Take your comments only to the subject Talk. I have started a discussion in Cancer Talk. Thank You. 32cllou ( talk) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to be without internet (on holiday) since Friday for 2 weeks, so it may be wiser to wait until I am back. On the other hand I am not completely comfortable with the pathophisiology section, although I am not sure if I will be capable of improving it (I have not been able yet to take a look at your edits today). -- Garrondo ( talk) 14:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the template is great, and it is probably one of the best ways of encouraging wise editing (to the point I would add similar templates to mainspace instead of all the tagging of low quality...).
I have nevertheless noticed that in the case of Huntington's disease it makes a strange thing saying potentially useful sources of information about Huntington%26%2339%3Bs+disease . I suppose it will not be the only case. Maybe you can solve it.
Bests. -- Garrondo ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That was a quick response. :-)
I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to review them. You may also want to take a peek at User:Djdubay/MedNav/Project. I believe the navigation template system we have is really a key part of our page's usability. Unfortunately, only English speakers get to use them. The barriers to moving them to other languages is pretty steep, which is why no one's done it before, but I believe if we can get the support and cooperation of WP:MED, we can eliminate some of those barriers and get it done. Once we've done it in one language, it will be significantly easier to do it in more. Your thoughts are most welcome.
Djdubay ( talk) 00:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new, but was reading the autism article. The following paragraph seems outdated, with the most recent reference being 2009 in a field that has progressed rapidly.
"Interactions between the immune system and the nervous system begin early during the embryonic stage of life, and successful neurodevelopment depends on a balanced immune response. Aberrant immune activity during critical periods of neurodevelopment is possibly part of the mechanism of some forms of ASD.[71] Although some abnormalities in the immune system have been found in specific subgroups of autistic individuals, it is not known whether these abnormalities are relevant to or secondary to autism's disease processes.[72] As autoantibodies are found in conditions other than ASD, and are not always present in ASD,[73] the relationship between immune disturbances and autism remains unclear and controversial.[65]"
In particular, researchers at UC Davis, including J Van de Water and DG Amaral (both of whose older works are cited) have moved forward in their studies of maternal antibodies, identifying the proteins in developing brain that these maternal antibodies target [1], and showing that injection of these human IgGs into pregnant macaques results in autistic perturbations that manifest later in the offspring exposed during the 1st and second trimesters of pregnancy [2]. The estimates of what proportion of autism MAR- (maternal autoantibody related) autism may account for range from 12 to 23%, depending on which of these papers you read. Precise mechanisms remain to be elucidated, as does a fuller understanding of the timing of blood-brain barrier development. Nevertheless, in my opinion as a biologist (not a neurobiologist or psychologist) these findings warrant an update to the quoted paragraph. Greenleaf53 ( talk) 07:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
OK Doc, corrections made.
No it is not. In fact the link I removed from this wiki just now is what I classify as spam. Its two redirects to some random spammy page with no information on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler
Some would say the same thing about wikipedia. But its all about a matter of opinion now isnt it? And it does have a place on a medical article because it was about treating said topic of discussion. Which was then backed up again with another citation, this time by an Australian hospital stating many of the same things. I think you just not to particular of herbal remedies,considering your medical background, I can understand why. Factual, well documented proof is what you require, is it not? Not thous which-doctor herbs? Anyways Im done, have fun with your poop page.
-- Franciaio ( talk) 14:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
regarding your note on the Polish Wikiproject Medicine, I think that Catscan could produce rough and approximate data about number of medical articles in the Polish language. There are two categories to scan pl:Kategoria:Nauki medyczne that is broader and encompasses also a number of basic medical sciences (anatomy, microbiology, histology, etc.) and pl:Kategoria:Medycyna that should collate articles strictly on medical topics but no guarantees. As for page view data I suppose there's stats.grok.se but perhaps our technically-able people could produce data in another way ?
Regards,
Kpjas (
talk)
08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)