Welcome!
Hello, Geraldwgaines, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Jytdog (
talk)
01:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
{{
unblock-un|your new username here}}
on
your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
07:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Sorry for the unintended name violation, would have thought you would want disclosure of related-party posting, was not meant as advertising. Depressionrecoverycenters ( talk) 11:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Geraldwgaines ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Requested username:
Accept reason:
Hi Geraldwgaines. I saw your posting over at Testem's Talk page, where you provided this link. A couple of notes. Please read our WP:COI guideline, with special attention to the section on Wikipedia's Terms of Use. If editing Wikipedia is part of your job, and your contributions would be considered "paid contributions", you would need to declare that as per the Terms of Use. Separately, if you have a financial conflict with regard to people and doctors choosing to use ketamine, you should follow the COI guideline. We also have a "plain and simple guide" for editors with a COI - please see here: Wikipedia:PSCOI. I also want to give you a heads up about advocacy on Wikipedia -- please see WP:Advocacy. There is a thin line between the two.
I've also added a standard "welcome" message above, which has links to key " policy and guidelines" (PAG) that govern our behavior and interactions here. Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being a radical democacy - "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - our PAG have evolved over the years to form a foundation for what we do here. Without them, this place would be an ugly, wild west kind of place. With them, this place can be exhilarating and even beautiful. One of the hardest things for new editors to grasp, is that PAG exist and provide the foundation for what we do here, and how we do it. I hope you are able to get grounded in them - glad to help if you have any questions. Finally, a quick note about passion. This is a volunteer project, and many folks who edit do so out of passion for some issue. This is a double edged sword. That passion can drive productive contribution, but it can also drive people to edit like advocates, and to behave tendentiously. Disputes among advocates - people here to drive their point of view into the encyclopedia, are among the ugliest and most protracted conflicts that break out, around here. I hope you can avoid that, and keep your eyes on our mission and the PAG through which we try to achieve it, together. There is a lot to learn, and it takes some time, reading (please do read the links I provided above!), and watching, to get the hang of things. Good luck! and as i said, glad to help. Jytdog ( talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
Thanks for the good advice. I won't cross any of the wiki ethical or practice guidelines because all I care about is the truth, and I don't assume any corner on that market. The fact of the matter is that with regard to ketamine wiki is dangerously out of date with the facts on the ground. All I'm trying to do is make it accurate, with appropriate caveats, so it is a level playing field for the uninitiated compared to those who are already benefiting either as patients, providers, researchers or investors.
My motivation is simple - that page is going to explode in use, if it hasn't already. I say this as someone who founded a ketamine clinic that has taken about half of the ECT business in town in one year of operation. I hate to guess the % of people that make medical decisions based on wiki alone, but whatever it is it is we would probably agree it is too high.
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I think I am totally in the wiki spirit by not wanting readers to be mislead by a flawed page? Not trying to be harsh, but the page was and is to some extent littered with unfounded propaganda using studies that are not relevant to the point the author makes. There have been some very strong hidden agendas in the writing, I prefer open agendas myself.
I am also concerned about exploding abuse as people try to self-medicate for emotional and pain illnesses since the medication is cheap but the treatment right now is expensive. I think an accurate wiki page can go a long way to helping people make good decisions.
As for process of change and wiki wars, I have neither the time nor the patience. If someone edits a contribution, we've discussed that like civilized people until they realize I'm right :) - OK, until I change the entry to meet wiki standards, with their often expert help. Works for me - I'm big on delegation. The active editors want an accurate page - I'm just giving them fresh data and suggested language. Now that I know better, I can keep all of that off the page until it is more settled language. THEN, it will get interesting.
Thanks again,
Ger Geraldwgaines ( talk) 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
First, thanks for being so helpful. Having read your very reasonable standards on the Conflict of Interest Question, and on the standards for sourcing edits, I wanted to check with a real person as I have no interest in anything other than an accurate page. Simply, we have more data on the use of ketamine for depression than any clinic or research facility in the world. By we, I mean a 35-year experienced research scientist/entrepreneur, a 30-year experienced PhD. Psychologist and and 20 plus year experienced Anesthesiologist. We've conducted over 700 infusions, and I know more than a little about collecting the right data. Frankly, having already making a couple of fortunes, that is not my main goal, although I seldom turn money down. More to the point would be helping people like my three adult children not suffer needlessly from an illness that has an effective treatment.
So, path one is I take $250,000 from my family foundation and pay for an academic study that will take two years and be immediately challenged if even allowed to be published. Path two is I freely offer our data for anyone to review, and I suggest some conclusions that result from that data, and try to get it as broadly published as possible. I am trying to follow both paths. My question is that, with full disclosure, and assuming that my specific editing actions are completely within the wiki spirit and guidelines, do you feel this approach is appropriate?
Thanks,
Ger Geraldwgaines ( talk) 02:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes Wikipedia can take a little time to get used to. There are two very important things on WP. 1) paraphrasing 2) use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. This is 90%. Drop me a not if you have questions. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
MrBill3. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Ketamine without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. The above message is generated by a template and is not completely applicable (you did provide an appropriate edit summary). The content you removed is supported by specifics with references later in the article. If you feel Moore and Turner's deaths and the reference given doesn't support that by all means make a case on the talk page. If consensus supports the removal I will remove it. It would seem that as you have disclosed information that would create a conflict of interest regarding this article it would probably be appropriate to propose changes on the talk page and get consensus rather than editing directly and boldly.
MrBill3 (
talk)
02:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The removed content had no source. That is grounds alone for removal from wiki, on any page, much less a medical page. The link in the sentence has nothing to do with the content of the sentence. I'll let your change stand for now but, really? And as far as I know, the same point is made in my delete, but I'll check.
Geraldwgaines (
talk)
05:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. I want to strongly suggest you post a clear conflict of interest notice. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the core policy here Verifiability and the guideline WP:MEDRS. Note that WP is not the place to right great wrongs. If information is not published in reliable sources it does not belong on WP. If you run a clinic which administers Ketamine a conflict of interest clearly exists in relation to the article on Ketamine. All that said, if you have suggestions for content backed up by quality sources post them to the talk page of the article for consideration and if they are supported by consensus they will be included. If there are not MEDRS quality sources for biomedical information it doesn't get on WP. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia and continue to contribute. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this what you want wiki to be? Recreational use of everything from skateboards to cars has resulted in "high=profile deaths". Is that in their first section in wiki?
No one has died of an overdose of ketamine.
The indirect deaths referenced are already in the recreational use section, where this sentence belongs anyway, if at all.
Where is the language to put the number of deaths in the context of the number of lives saved?
Where is the COI disclosure of the poster, and is it really complete? I know mine is.
Is the source according to the wiki medical guidelines?
Every time a sentence about abuse is edited to put it in some context, it is deleted. There is an undisclosed COI agenda working this page, IMHO. Geraldwgaines ( talk) 02:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Mrbill3 and the wiki community at large - As I have on the ketamine page, I will not edit anymore directly and instead seek competent help that has the time to do so. I will post on talk pages as the preparation is much less and the timeliness less critical. As for my tone, I mean no offense, but I also am not known for my subtlety when I think direct methods are called for - and this is one of those cases. I think people would assume from my COI disclosure that I am interested in editing this page to promote the use of ketamine for emotional disorders. That is not the case. It is the unintended consequences of having a grossly inaccurate page I am worried about. Based on my reading of the situation, the rush to ketamine to treat various disorders that a compound that causes dramatic neurogenesis works on is now becoming an inevitable wave. I've seen these technical tsunamis hit industries multiple times and I don't think this is going to be any different. And the wiki ketamine page is going to be the first stop of many people in deciding whether they should seek medical treatment or self-medicate. With treatment prices at $5,000 per hour in some cases, you are going to get a lot of self-medicating going on. And thus a lot of abuse. Wiki can help people make good decisions by accurately representing the medication as one used in standard medical practice at controlled doses that has been used as a drug of abuse at high doses.
Unfortunately, as it stands, the ketamine page is a classic case in lying with statistics, using studies with very limited subjects, in limited exposures, to make claims that are often out of the scope of the research. This is not the kind of thing on this scale that happens accidentally - it does not take conspiracy theory to realize that a generic medication with no economic support is not going to fare well against tens of billions of dollars in sales of patented medications. I have been on the board of directors in large companies in multiple similar instances and it would be considered a management failure not to dedicate a million dollars or so to manage the wiki page. That is just real life. Most importantly, the very sources that wiki depends on are not reliable in a case of a generic vs. patented medication. The FDA has been funded primarily by pharma since the mid 1990's. The vast majority of the medical journal editors and the research they review is sponsored by large pharma. It is not even close to an even playing field for a generic medication. There is no conspiracy, just economics. They teach this stuff at Harvard Business School.
Finally, and I am really amazed by the lack of knowledge here, is that there is no serious money behind the neurotransmitter theory of mental illness anymore. This is what is meant by the euphemism that there is "nothing in the mental health pipeline". The neurotransmitter-based drugs have been proven multiple times over to not work any better than placebo. All of the money in mental health research is in neurogenesis or epigenetics. And no one is talking or publishing. The only people who still believe in the neurotransmitter theory are drug salespeople and practitioners. The patients certainly don't believe anymore. Ketamine is at the front lines of those battles as it binds to receptor sites in the brain, causes neurogenesis in what may be an anti-inflammatory mechanism and is also known as a strong epigenetic compound. Oh, and it lowers ego boundaries in a way that facilitates effective therapy. Wiki is missing out on all of this due to the publishing standards, but I would ask editors to consider what should be included in the non-medical sections to properly reflect what is happening on the ground.
Mrbill3, if you are interested in help, I would be happy to review your edits and suggest more data or different interpretations to help make the additions be more accurate and contextually correct. Based on your comments, we don't have a difference in objectives, just a difference in perspective regarding the challenge of this wiki page. Oh, and you're a much nicer guy (assumption on gender) than I am.
Geraldwgaines ( talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the kind of response that makes me question other COI around here. I clearly stated I was no longer posting other than the talk page, and the advice after 500 words is for me to post on the talk page?? Mmm. And I clearly have stated the need to maintain high medical standards in posting, and I'm accused of suggesting a lowering of the standards? Mmmm. I'm called an "Advocate" when I give full disclosure about my position and my credentials to analyze data objectively? Mmmm. I would point out that this response is a beauty of disinformation that makes it appear as if I've suggested the things listed when I have expressly not done that. Just like the Ketamine page itself. Mmmmm. Interesting. Geraldwgaines ( talk) 19:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog has found a pair of reviews and some other sources discussing ketamine for depression (see the talk page of the article). UCSD also seems to have developed a protocol see Kaplan, Arline (April 2011). "Ketamine: A possible role for patients who are running out of options?". Psychiatric Times. 28 (4): 9.. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Geraldwgaines, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Jytdog (
talk)
01:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
{{
unblock-un|your new username here}}
on
your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
07:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Sorry for the unintended name violation, would have thought you would want disclosure of related-party posting, was not meant as advertising. Depressionrecoverycenters ( talk) 11:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Geraldwgaines ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Requested username:
Accept reason:
Hi Geraldwgaines. I saw your posting over at Testem's Talk page, where you provided this link. A couple of notes. Please read our WP:COI guideline, with special attention to the section on Wikipedia's Terms of Use. If editing Wikipedia is part of your job, and your contributions would be considered "paid contributions", you would need to declare that as per the Terms of Use. Separately, if you have a financial conflict with regard to people and doctors choosing to use ketamine, you should follow the COI guideline. We also have a "plain and simple guide" for editors with a COI - please see here: Wikipedia:PSCOI. I also want to give you a heads up about advocacy on Wikipedia -- please see WP:Advocacy. There is a thin line between the two.
I've also added a standard "welcome" message above, which has links to key " policy and guidelines" (PAG) that govern our behavior and interactions here. Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being a radical democacy - "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - our PAG have evolved over the years to form a foundation for what we do here. Without them, this place would be an ugly, wild west kind of place. With them, this place can be exhilarating and even beautiful. One of the hardest things for new editors to grasp, is that PAG exist and provide the foundation for what we do here, and how we do it. I hope you are able to get grounded in them - glad to help if you have any questions. Finally, a quick note about passion. This is a volunteer project, and many folks who edit do so out of passion for some issue. This is a double edged sword. That passion can drive productive contribution, but it can also drive people to edit like advocates, and to behave tendentiously. Disputes among advocates - people here to drive their point of view into the encyclopedia, are among the ugliest and most protracted conflicts that break out, around here. I hope you can avoid that, and keep your eyes on our mission and the PAG through which we try to achieve it, together. There is a lot to learn, and it takes some time, reading (please do read the links I provided above!), and watching, to get the hang of things. Good luck! and as i said, glad to help. Jytdog ( talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog,
Thanks for the good advice. I won't cross any of the wiki ethical or practice guidelines because all I care about is the truth, and I don't assume any corner on that market. The fact of the matter is that with regard to ketamine wiki is dangerously out of date with the facts on the ground. All I'm trying to do is make it accurate, with appropriate caveats, so it is a level playing field for the uninitiated compared to those who are already benefiting either as patients, providers, researchers or investors.
My motivation is simple - that page is going to explode in use, if it hasn't already. I say this as someone who founded a ketamine clinic that has taken about half of the ECT business in town in one year of operation. I hate to guess the % of people that make medical decisions based on wiki alone, but whatever it is it is we would probably agree it is too high.
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I think I am totally in the wiki spirit by not wanting readers to be mislead by a flawed page? Not trying to be harsh, but the page was and is to some extent littered with unfounded propaganda using studies that are not relevant to the point the author makes. There have been some very strong hidden agendas in the writing, I prefer open agendas myself.
I am also concerned about exploding abuse as people try to self-medicate for emotional and pain illnesses since the medication is cheap but the treatment right now is expensive. I think an accurate wiki page can go a long way to helping people make good decisions.
As for process of change and wiki wars, I have neither the time nor the patience. If someone edits a contribution, we've discussed that like civilized people until they realize I'm right :) - OK, until I change the entry to meet wiki standards, with their often expert help. Works for me - I'm big on delegation. The active editors want an accurate page - I'm just giving them fresh data and suggested language. Now that I know better, I can keep all of that off the page until it is more settled language. THEN, it will get interesting.
Thanks again,
Ger Geraldwgaines ( talk) 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
First, thanks for being so helpful. Having read your very reasonable standards on the Conflict of Interest Question, and on the standards for sourcing edits, I wanted to check with a real person as I have no interest in anything other than an accurate page. Simply, we have more data on the use of ketamine for depression than any clinic or research facility in the world. By we, I mean a 35-year experienced research scientist/entrepreneur, a 30-year experienced PhD. Psychologist and and 20 plus year experienced Anesthesiologist. We've conducted over 700 infusions, and I know more than a little about collecting the right data. Frankly, having already making a couple of fortunes, that is not my main goal, although I seldom turn money down. More to the point would be helping people like my three adult children not suffer needlessly from an illness that has an effective treatment.
So, path one is I take $250,000 from my family foundation and pay for an academic study that will take two years and be immediately challenged if even allowed to be published. Path two is I freely offer our data for anyone to review, and I suggest some conclusions that result from that data, and try to get it as broadly published as possible. I am trying to follow both paths. My question is that, with full disclosure, and assuming that my specific editing actions are completely within the wiki spirit and guidelines, do you feel this approach is appropriate?
Thanks,
Ger Geraldwgaines ( talk) 02:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes Wikipedia can take a little time to get used to. There are two very important things on WP. 1) paraphrasing 2) use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. This is 90%. Drop me a not if you have questions. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
MrBill3. I noticed that you recently removed some content from
Ketamine without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. The above message is generated by a template and is not completely applicable (you did provide an appropriate edit summary). The content you removed is supported by specifics with references later in the article. If you feel Moore and Turner's deaths and the reference given doesn't support that by all means make a case on the talk page. If consensus supports the removal I will remove it. It would seem that as you have disclosed information that would create a conflict of interest regarding this article it would probably be appropriate to propose changes on the talk page and get consensus rather than editing directly and boldly.
MrBill3 (
talk)
02:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The removed content had no source. That is grounds alone for removal from wiki, on any page, much less a medical page. The link in the sentence has nothing to do with the content of the sentence. I'll let your change stand for now but, really? And as far as I know, the same point is made in my delete, but I'll check.
Geraldwgaines (
talk)
05:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. I want to strongly suggest you post a clear conflict of interest notice. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the core policy here Verifiability and the guideline WP:MEDRS. Note that WP is not the place to right great wrongs. If information is not published in reliable sources it does not belong on WP. If you run a clinic which administers Ketamine a conflict of interest clearly exists in relation to the article on Ketamine. All that said, if you have suggestions for content backed up by quality sources post them to the talk page of the article for consideration and if they are supported by consensus they will be included. If there are not MEDRS quality sources for biomedical information it doesn't get on WP. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia and continue to contribute. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this what you want wiki to be? Recreational use of everything from skateboards to cars has resulted in "high=profile deaths". Is that in their first section in wiki?
No one has died of an overdose of ketamine.
The indirect deaths referenced are already in the recreational use section, where this sentence belongs anyway, if at all.
Where is the language to put the number of deaths in the context of the number of lives saved?
Where is the COI disclosure of the poster, and is it really complete? I know mine is.
Is the source according to the wiki medical guidelines?
Every time a sentence about abuse is edited to put it in some context, it is deleted. There is an undisclosed COI agenda working this page, IMHO. Geraldwgaines ( talk) 02:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Mrbill3 and the wiki community at large - As I have on the ketamine page, I will not edit anymore directly and instead seek competent help that has the time to do so. I will post on talk pages as the preparation is much less and the timeliness less critical. As for my tone, I mean no offense, but I also am not known for my subtlety when I think direct methods are called for - and this is one of those cases. I think people would assume from my COI disclosure that I am interested in editing this page to promote the use of ketamine for emotional disorders. That is not the case. It is the unintended consequences of having a grossly inaccurate page I am worried about. Based on my reading of the situation, the rush to ketamine to treat various disorders that a compound that causes dramatic neurogenesis works on is now becoming an inevitable wave. I've seen these technical tsunamis hit industries multiple times and I don't think this is going to be any different. And the wiki ketamine page is going to be the first stop of many people in deciding whether they should seek medical treatment or self-medicate. With treatment prices at $5,000 per hour in some cases, you are going to get a lot of self-medicating going on. And thus a lot of abuse. Wiki can help people make good decisions by accurately representing the medication as one used in standard medical practice at controlled doses that has been used as a drug of abuse at high doses.
Unfortunately, as it stands, the ketamine page is a classic case in lying with statistics, using studies with very limited subjects, in limited exposures, to make claims that are often out of the scope of the research. This is not the kind of thing on this scale that happens accidentally - it does not take conspiracy theory to realize that a generic medication with no economic support is not going to fare well against tens of billions of dollars in sales of patented medications. I have been on the board of directors in large companies in multiple similar instances and it would be considered a management failure not to dedicate a million dollars or so to manage the wiki page. That is just real life. Most importantly, the very sources that wiki depends on are not reliable in a case of a generic vs. patented medication. The FDA has been funded primarily by pharma since the mid 1990's. The vast majority of the medical journal editors and the research they review is sponsored by large pharma. It is not even close to an even playing field for a generic medication. There is no conspiracy, just economics. They teach this stuff at Harvard Business School.
Finally, and I am really amazed by the lack of knowledge here, is that there is no serious money behind the neurotransmitter theory of mental illness anymore. This is what is meant by the euphemism that there is "nothing in the mental health pipeline". The neurotransmitter-based drugs have been proven multiple times over to not work any better than placebo. All of the money in mental health research is in neurogenesis or epigenetics. And no one is talking or publishing. The only people who still believe in the neurotransmitter theory are drug salespeople and practitioners. The patients certainly don't believe anymore. Ketamine is at the front lines of those battles as it binds to receptor sites in the brain, causes neurogenesis in what may be an anti-inflammatory mechanism and is also known as a strong epigenetic compound. Oh, and it lowers ego boundaries in a way that facilitates effective therapy. Wiki is missing out on all of this due to the publishing standards, but I would ask editors to consider what should be included in the non-medical sections to properly reflect what is happening on the ground.
Mrbill3, if you are interested in help, I would be happy to review your edits and suggest more data or different interpretations to help make the additions be more accurate and contextually correct. Based on your comments, we don't have a difference in objectives, just a difference in perspective regarding the challenge of this wiki page. Oh, and you're a much nicer guy (assumption on gender) than I am.
Geraldwgaines ( talk) 11:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the kind of response that makes me question other COI around here. I clearly stated I was no longer posting other than the talk page, and the advice after 500 words is for me to post on the talk page?? Mmm. And I clearly have stated the need to maintain high medical standards in posting, and I'm accused of suggesting a lowering of the standards? Mmmm. I'm called an "Advocate" when I give full disclosure about my position and my credentials to analyze data objectively? Mmmm. I would point out that this response is a beauty of disinformation that makes it appear as if I've suggested the things listed when I have expressly not done that. Just like the Ketamine page itself. Mmmmm. Interesting. Geraldwgaines ( talk) 19:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog has found a pair of reviews and some other sources discussing ketamine for depression (see the talk page of the article). UCSD also seems to have developed a protocol see Kaplan, Arline (April 2011). "Ketamine: A possible role for patients who are running out of options?". Psychiatric Times. 28 (4): 9.. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)