|
Hello. your recent changes made to
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, have conflicted with our
neutral point of view and
verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide
reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek
consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you.
Unconventional2 (
talk)
21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Natureium. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Natureium (
talk)
18:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted your latest edits on the same page: once again the edits had problems with undue weight and unreliable sources. If you have been reverted on the same page several times, you really need to engage in a discussion on the corresponding talk page before making any further changes. Kolbasz ( talk) 22:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear ISB22
Doc James and other people claim that the article on Electrohypersensitivity ( /info/en/?search=Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity) is neutral. It's not at all - rather scientifically flawed, as such informations as the EUROPAEM EU doctors guidelines and facts about disability recognisition in several countries and existing diagnoses on EHS keeps being deleted by certain users. That's clear vandalism. You can see my sandbox here where I have made my edit on Electrohypersensitivity that is a handicap and a diagnosis in certain countries because EMFs are of course dangerous according to up to 25,000 studies according to the Swedish Professor Olle Johansson from Karolinska. They clearly write outdated content that relates to Electrophobia and not EHS, which is why the article needs a thorough edit, please look here:
Here is the correct and UPDATED article on EHS/Electrohypersensitivity /info/en/?search=User:Leksijensen/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leksijensen ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! ISB22,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Bradv
19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop one of us a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
—
ISB22 (
talk •
contribs) you have made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Unconventional2 (
talk)
20:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Unconventional2 (
talk)
17:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
ISB22. Thank you. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I guess a lot of us owe you an apology for assuming you were one of the pseudoscience brigade. The EHS article has been under determined attack from them recently and you got caught in the crossfire. I have chipped in to your conversation with with Bradv and suggested a safer home for your draft while it is worked on. Let me know if I can help in any other way, Wikipedia can be a noisy and daunting place for the newcomer. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
That's very gracious of you, thanks! Yes, I do feel rather daunted. I think my original draft has been rejected..... Is this correct? Or should I keep going with it? Am now trying to get some edits into what is there currently. ISB22 ( talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, that would be helpful. I have written edits to the current page, below, but I am assuming that the original entry I wrote has been revived? If so, all of what I have just written could be moved there as well? Thank you! ISB22 ( talk) 18:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
You can then tidy up this page if you like. I'll keep an eye out and try to help with any fiddly stuff, please don't be afraid to drop me a line, but sometimes I may be asleep and will take time to respond. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks heaps. Done...I have placed the text under the list of references, below a line of stars. Getting there! ISB22 ( talk) 16:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that until you've got the hang of this Wikipedia business, you're safer sticking to the Talk page. If you discuss any proposed edits and let someone else put them in the article should they achieve consensus, you're much less likely to end up tagged as a pseudoscience pusher and given the bum's rush. You seem like a nice person so this is friendly advice for you from an old hand. Guy ( Help!) 12:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I really appreciate this message, and your advice. I was wondering whether this would be a safer and more sensible way to continue. It sure does take some getting the hang of! But I did realise last night that you probably have a lot of different sorts logging in.....so am ready for a slower pace, under guidance17:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC) ISB22 ( talk)!
I think this needs to be moved to the
ISB22 (
talk)
18:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Sandbox. Is this something I do, or you?
ISB22 ( talk) 18:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)I will add some material from other non-provocation studies.
ISB22 ( talk) 18:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Professor Belpomme published research on blood samples that found both heat shock proteins (HSPs) and histamine levels were markedly altered in a highly significant proportion of those tested, in comparison to the control group. Heat shock proteins are large molecules containing amino acids that react adversely to heat, light and radiation.
Professor Belpomme and his team used a new diagnostic technique for testing that combines the Pulsed Eco-Doppler – a specialized ultrasound machine - with a computer to reveal brain perfusion (blood circulation) levels.
The results show that people with EHS/EFI have a reduced perfusion in the brain, mostly in the limbic area, compared to the control group. He points out that sufficient circulation to the limbic area is important as it controls the main body functions. However it is also likely that these effects would produce changes in the endocrine and hormonal systems, thus influencing mood and behavior. Professor Belpomme’s team also showed that dosage of histamine, of proteins S100B and of heat shock proteins HSP70- and HSP27 in the blood were significantly altered in sufferers from EHS. Changes rose and fell according to exposure.
They were able to conclude that these symptoms amount to “a real physical illness, like cancer or heart disease”. As a result of these findings, Professor Belpomme prefers to use the term: “Electromagnetic Field Intolerance Syndrome – EFI Syndrome”.
Ref: Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0027. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray P.
Another study found that "Our results identified laboratory signs of thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction and chronic inflammatory processes in small but remarkable fractions of EHS sufferers as potential sources of symptoms that merit further investigation in future studies".Ref: Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 May;30(4):299-306. doi: 10.1002/bem.20486. Blood laboratory findings in patients suffering from self-perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Dahmen N1, Ghezel-Ahmadi D, Engel A.
Other scientists found that simultaneous recordings of heart rate variability, microcirculation and electric skin potentials are used for classification of EHS, and that therefore it could be possible to distinguish "genuine" electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals from those who suffer from other conditions.Ref: Electromagn Biol Med. 2013 Sep;32(3):281-90. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2012.712586. Epub 2013 Jan 9. Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Tuengler A1, von Klitzing L.
Another group found that: "Altogether, results on MCS and EHS strengthen our proposal to adopt this blood metabolic/genetic biomarkers’ panel as suitable diagnostic tool for SRI". Ref: Metabolic and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention, Mediators of Inflammation Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 924184, 14 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/924184 Chiara De Luca, Jeffrey Chung Sheun Thai, Desanka Raskovic, Eleonora Cesareo, Daniela Caccamo, Arseny Trukhanov, and Liudmila Korkina1,
Are these acceptable? Some further guidance on what is acceptable would be welcomed!
I have a question: is a secondary source an article reviewing a certain study or studies? Do they need to be used as well as, or instead of primary sources?
ISB22 (
talk)
18:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
----
to get this:===Demo subheading===
to give this:I notice that Belpomme's abstract states that; "Since 2009, we have prospectively investigated, clinically and biologically, 1216 consecutive EHS and/or MCS self-reporting cases." There is a problem here in that these cases are all self-reported and there is no clinical assessment of the likelihood that the diagnosis might prove mistaken, with some other more conventional disorder underlying the sufferer's symptoms. Belpomme assumes later in the abstract that these are genuine cases of EHS/MCS, but a fellow Wikipedian who has read the paper through says that this is not supported by the methodology. All it really tells us is that sufferers exhibiting certain symptoms are likely to also exhibit certain physiological abnormalities. The fact that they self-diagnose as one disorder or another is unrelated to the clinical findings. Sorry to disappoint, but this does illustrate why sources which review many such papers are so essential in establishing verifiable facts. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just a few tips to help with your editing:
There is no need to sign content edits with four tildes, only use them when you are discussing something, typically on a talk page such as this one.
One reason edits can disappear is if you have not entered an edit summary in the field below the main editing panel. Wikipedia flashes up a second chance to do so and it can be easy to mistake this for a successful edit. Edit summaries are useful as they help people to track the change history of the page. If you click the View history tab at the top of this page you will see listed all the edits together with their summaries.
When you write something like, "These studies point to the likelihood of ...", you will need to cite a source which says that they do. To make such a deduction yourself counts as "original research" and is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is because it is an encyclopedia of the world's current knowledge, not a place to post new findings. See WP:OR for more.
There is a Welcome post at the top of this page, with links to more such explanations as to how things work and where to find stuff. It was posted there for your benefit and I can recommend that you spend a little time looking through it all.
As a matter of detail, one can argue that the studies suggest rather that people suffering from conditions like hypoglycaemia sometimes mistakenly self-diagnose their condition as EHS, and indeed this is how mainstream medical opinion would view these results. This again highlights the need to support such remarks by citing reliable sources which endorse the inference claimed.
Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Jbhunley}}
) from any talk page. Cheers.
Jbh
Talk
19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)"These studies point to the likelihood of diagnosis of EHS is similar to that of a condition such as hypoglycemia, where symptoms can only be verified through blood testing." Diagnosis is the key, who is diagnosing people with ESD? From what I see these are mostly people that have self diagnosed as having the condition. To verify the diagnosis is fairly simple, just subject them to the supposed trigger (say a cellphone or Wi-Fi router) that the subject can't tell if it is on or off. Then you can see if the symptoms occur concurrently with the device being on, or if they just occur randomly. These studies have been done and have shown no correlation be tween symptoms and device activation. Unconventional2 ( talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/public-health-alert/wifi-dangers/wifi-emfs-electrosensitivity-es-ehs-physiologically-explained-at-last/</ref>Comments? ISB22 ( talk) 18:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I question whether a secondary source (review or paper) is more objective or independent than a primary resource such as original research. Either is open to interpretation one way or the other. However the person most able to give an accurate picture of the science is the (independent) scientist himself. Thus the current medical view that EHS is psychosomatic is a default position. There is no evidence that EHS is a psychosomatic illness, but there is plenty of evidence that exposure can cause it. I have consulted with several scientists about this as a standard practice, and it is not. If such a resource means the World Health Organisation, please note that the Director General - Emilie van Deventer - is an ex-industry employee who also has NO MEDICAL CREDENTIALS. I don't accept that a secondary source is needed for EHS - indeed many other wiki pages I have looked at are totally deficient in references of any sort, having "citation needed' in []. It is censorship by people with no medical credentials. ISB22 ( talk) 19:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
<ref> ... </ref>
tags around each inline citation (note the forwards slash in the closing tag). Then, at the end of the article, add a section containing the reflist template, something like this:==Citations== {{reflist}}
The standard of the current EHS is very low indeed. There is very little truth in it, which is disgraceful and shameful. ISB22 ( talk) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You STILL have not explained why you cite CBT as a way of dealing with EHS, suggesting EHS is psychosomatic, when there is no evidence of any sort suggesting that this is true. I have supplied ample scientific evidence to the contrary - which has been accepted in other countries on Wiki - and still you say you don't want it. For some reason, you want to stick with what has been written regardless of the objective truth. Not acceptable, in my book. It does not fit with my aspirations of a moral, sane and healthy world. This week's Guardian Weekly has an article by George Monbiot that cites Wikipedia as being an example of the new 'Commons', ie owned and used by everybody. Well, in this case I will assume that I also am part of this 'Commons'. Thanks. ISB22 ( talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This has clearly become a W.O.M.B.A.T. (Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time), so I am unwatching this page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
|
Hello. your recent changes made to
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, have conflicted with our
neutral point of view and
verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide
reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek
consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you.
Unconventional2 (
talk)
21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Natureium. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the
referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Natureium (
talk)
18:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted your latest edits on the same page: once again the edits had problems with undue weight and unreliable sources. If you have been reverted on the same page several times, you really need to engage in a discussion on the corresponding talk page before making any further changes. Kolbasz ( talk) 22:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear ISB22
Doc James and other people claim that the article on Electrohypersensitivity ( /info/en/?search=Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity) is neutral. It's not at all - rather scientifically flawed, as such informations as the EUROPAEM EU doctors guidelines and facts about disability recognisition in several countries and existing diagnoses on EHS keeps being deleted by certain users. That's clear vandalism. You can see my sandbox here where I have made my edit on Electrohypersensitivity that is a handicap and a diagnosis in certain countries because EMFs are of course dangerous according to up to 25,000 studies according to the Swedish Professor Olle Johansson from Karolinska. They clearly write outdated content that relates to Electrophobia and not EHS, which is why the article needs a thorough edit, please look here:
Here is the correct and UPDATED article on EHS/Electrohypersensitivity /info/en/?search=User:Leksijensen/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leksijensen ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! ISB22,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Bradv
19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop one of us a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
—
ISB22 (
talk •
contribs) you have made
few or no other edits outside this topic. Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Unconventional2 (
talk)
20:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Unconventional2 (
talk)
17:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
ISB22. Thank you. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I guess a lot of us owe you an apology for assuming you were one of the pseudoscience brigade. The EHS article has been under determined attack from them recently and you got caught in the crossfire. I have chipped in to your conversation with with Bradv and suggested a safer home for your draft while it is worked on. Let me know if I can help in any other way, Wikipedia can be a noisy and daunting place for the newcomer. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
That's very gracious of you, thanks! Yes, I do feel rather daunted. I think my original draft has been rejected..... Is this correct? Or should I keep going with it? Am now trying to get some edits into what is there currently. ISB22 ( talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, that would be helpful. I have written edits to the current page, below, but I am assuming that the original entry I wrote has been revived? If so, all of what I have just written could be moved there as well? Thank you! ISB22 ( talk) 18:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
You can then tidy up this page if you like. I'll keep an eye out and try to help with any fiddly stuff, please don't be afraid to drop me a line, but sometimes I may be asleep and will take time to respond. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks heaps. Done...I have placed the text under the list of references, below a line of stars. Getting there! ISB22 ( talk) 16:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that until you've got the hang of this Wikipedia business, you're safer sticking to the Talk page. If you discuss any proposed edits and let someone else put them in the article should they achieve consensus, you're much less likely to end up tagged as a pseudoscience pusher and given the bum's rush. You seem like a nice person so this is friendly advice for you from an old hand. Guy ( Help!) 12:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I really appreciate this message, and your advice. I was wondering whether this would be a safer and more sensible way to continue. It sure does take some getting the hang of! But I did realise last night that you probably have a lot of different sorts logging in.....so am ready for a slower pace, under guidance17:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC) ISB22 ( talk)!
I think this needs to be moved to the
ISB22 (
talk)
18:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Sandbox. Is this something I do, or you?
ISB22 ( talk) 18:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)I will add some material from other non-provocation studies.
ISB22 ( talk) 18:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Professor Belpomme published research on blood samples that found both heat shock proteins (HSPs) and histamine levels were markedly altered in a highly significant proportion of those tested, in comparison to the control group. Heat shock proteins are large molecules containing amino acids that react adversely to heat, light and radiation.
Professor Belpomme and his team used a new diagnostic technique for testing that combines the Pulsed Eco-Doppler – a specialized ultrasound machine - with a computer to reveal brain perfusion (blood circulation) levels.
The results show that people with EHS/EFI have a reduced perfusion in the brain, mostly in the limbic area, compared to the control group. He points out that sufficient circulation to the limbic area is important as it controls the main body functions. However it is also likely that these effects would produce changes in the endocrine and hormonal systems, thus influencing mood and behavior. Professor Belpomme’s team also showed that dosage of histamine, of proteins S100B and of heat shock proteins HSP70- and HSP27 in the blood were significantly altered in sufferers from EHS. Changes rose and fell according to exposure.
They were able to conclude that these symptoms amount to “a real physical illness, like cancer or heart disease”. As a result of these findings, Professor Belpomme prefers to use the term: “Electromagnetic Field Intolerance Syndrome – EFI Syndrome”.
Ref: Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0027. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray P.
Another study found that "Our results identified laboratory signs of thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction and chronic inflammatory processes in small but remarkable fractions of EHS sufferers as potential sources of symptoms that merit further investigation in future studies".Ref: Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 May;30(4):299-306. doi: 10.1002/bem.20486. Blood laboratory findings in patients suffering from self-perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Dahmen N1, Ghezel-Ahmadi D, Engel A.
Other scientists found that simultaneous recordings of heart rate variability, microcirculation and electric skin potentials are used for classification of EHS, and that therefore it could be possible to distinguish "genuine" electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals from those who suffer from other conditions.Ref: Electromagn Biol Med. 2013 Sep;32(3):281-90. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2012.712586. Epub 2013 Jan 9. Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Tuengler A1, von Klitzing L.
Another group found that: "Altogether, results on MCS and EHS strengthen our proposal to adopt this blood metabolic/genetic biomarkers’ panel as suitable diagnostic tool for SRI". Ref: Metabolic and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention, Mediators of Inflammation Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 924184, 14 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/924184 Chiara De Luca, Jeffrey Chung Sheun Thai, Desanka Raskovic, Eleonora Cesareo, Daniela Caccamo, Arseny Trukhanov, and Liudmila Korkina1,
Are these acceptable? Some further guidance on what is acceptable would be welcomed!
I have a question: is a secondary source an article reviewing a certain study or studies? Do they need to be used as well as, or instead of primary sources?
ISB22 (
talk)
18:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
----
to get this:===Demo subheading===
to give this:I notice that Belpomme's abstract states that; "Since 2009, we have prospectively investigated, clinically and biologically, 1216 consecutive EHS and/or MCS self-reporting cases." There is a problem here in that these cases are all self-reported and there is no clinical assessment of the likelihood that the diagnosis might prove mistaken, with some other more conventional disorder underlying the sufferer's symptoms. Belpomme assumes later in the abstract that these are genuine cases of EHS/MCS, but a fellow Wikipedian who has read the paper through says that this is not supported by the methodology. All it really tells us is that sufferers exhibiting certain symptoms are likely to also exhibit certain physiological abnormalities. The fact that they self-diagnose as one disorder or another is unrelated to the clinical findings. Sorry to disappoint, but this does illustrate why sources which review many such papers are so essential in establishing verifiable facts. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just a few tips to help with your editing:
There is no need to sign content edits with four tildes, only use them when you are discussing something, typically on a talk page such as this one.
One reason edits can disappear is if you have not entered an edit summary in the field below the main editing panel. Wikipedia flashes up a second chance to do so and it can be easy to mistake this for a successful edit. Edit summaries are useful as they help people to track the change history of the page. If you click the View history tab at the top of this page you will see listed all the edits together with their summaries.
When you write something like, "These studies point to the likelihood of ...", you will need to cite a source which says that they do. To make such a deduction yourself counts as "original research" and is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is because it is an encyclopedia of the world's current knowledge, not a place to post new findings. See WP:OR for more.
There is a Welcome post at the top of this page, with links to more such explanations as to how things work and where to find stuff. It was posted there for your benefit and I can recommend that you spend a little time looking through it all.
As a matter of detail, one can argue that the studies suggest rather that people suffering from conditions like hypoglycaemia sometimes mistakenly self-diagnose their condition as EHS, and indeed this is how mainstream medical opinion would view these results. This again highlights the need to support such remarks by citing reliable sources which endorse the inference claimed.
Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Jbhunley}}
) from any talk page. Cheers.
Jbh
Talk
19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)"These studies point to the likelihood of diagnosis of EHS is similar to that of a condition such as hypoglycemia, where symptoms can only be verified through blood testing." Diagnosis is the key, who is diagnosing people with ESD? From what I see these are mostly people that have self diagnosed as having the condition. To verify the diagnosis is fairly simple, just subject them to the supposed trigger (say a cellphone or Wi-Fi router) that the subject can't tell if it is on or off. Then you can see if the symptoms occur concurrently with the device being on, or if they just occur randomly. These studies have been done and have shown no correlation be tween symptoms and device activation. Unconventional2 ( talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/public-health-alert/wifi-dangers/wifi-emfs-electrosensitivity-es-ehs-physiologically-explained-at-last/</ref>Comments? ISB22 ( talk) 18:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I question whether a secondary source (review or paper) is more objective or independent than a primary resource such as original research. Either is open to interpretation one way or the other. However the person most able to give an accurate picture of the science is the (independent) scientist himself. Thus the current medical view that EHS is psychosomatic is a default position. There is no evidence that EHS is a psychosomatic illness, but there is plenty of evidence that exposure can cause it. I have consulted with several scientists about this as a standard practice, and it is not. If such a resource means the World Health Organisation, please note that the Director General - Emilie van Deventer - is an ex-industry employee who also has NO MEDICAL CREDENTIALS. I don't accept that a secondary source is needed for EHS - indeed many other wiki pages I have looked at are totally deficient in references of any sort, having "citation needed' in []. It is censorship by people with no medical credentials. ISB22 ( talk) 19:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
<ref> ... </ref>
tags around each inline citation (note the forwards slash in the closing tag). Then, at the end of the article, add a section containing the reflist template, something like this:==Citations== {{reflist}}
The standard of the current EHS is very low indeed. There is very little truth in it, which is disgraceful and shameful. ISB22 ( talk) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You STILL have not explained why you cite CBT as a way of dealing with EHS, suggesting EHS is psychosomatic, when there is no evidence of any sort suggesting that this is true. I have supplied ample scientific evidence to the contrary - which has been accepted in other countries on Wiki - and still you say you don't want it. For some reason, you want to stick with what has been written regardless of the objective truth. Not acceptable, in my book. It does not fit with my aspirations of a moral, sane and healthy world. This week's Guardian Weekly has an article by George Monbiot that cites Wikipedia as being an example of the new 'Commons', ie owned and used by everybody. Well, in this case I will assume that I also am part of this 'Commons'. Thanks. ISB22 ( talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This has clearly become a W.O.M.B.A.T. (Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time), so I am unwatching this page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.