Sorry if this is a stupid question, but should a reader typing in "
Nicotine addiction" be redirected to
Nicotine#Reinforcement_disorders(now
Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders and cognitive effects), or
Nicotine dependence? I realize that there exist differing definitions of
substance dependence and
addiction, but a reader may not (and perhaps the adverse consequences of smoking, and the fact that most smokers want to quit,
[1]
[2] make it a bit moot). Is content quality in
Nicotine dependence a factor?
HLHJ (
talk) 06:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I’ll restore the constructive edits by tomorrow evening. I’m very busy off-wiki. The real issue with the edits is that the nicotine article is about pure nicotine and most of the sources you cited made statements about tobacco and smoking. The only form of pure nicotine commercially available is NRT, so reviews of clinical studies involving that are appropriate for the article. Drug monographs could also be used.
The statement requires SCIRS because it’s not clinical. I would, however, remove “positive” - that part is nonsensical.
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where in this source -
[3] - it says that nicotine causes either brain damage or cognitive deficits. The only thing I found in this source that refers to cognitive deficits pertains to smoking: Smoking during adolescence has been associated with lasting cognitive and behavioral impairments, including effects on working memory and attention, although causal relationships are difficult to establish in the presence of potential confounding factors (Goriunova and Mansvelder 2012).
That's not sufficient to claim that nicotine causes cognitive deficits or even might cause cognitive deficits, because tobacco contains a very large number of bioactive compounds. If I missed something, please quote the statement from the source so that I know what you're referring to.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 08:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
During pregnancy and breastfeeding, mothers are advised not to use any products containing nicotine, [6] as nicotine harms the fetus. [7] One 2010 review concluded "Overall, the evidence provided in this review overwhelmingly indicates that nicotine should no longer be considered the ‘‘safe’’ component of cigarette smoke. In fact, many of the adverse postnatal health outcomes associated with maternal smoking during pregnancy may be attributable, at least in part, to nicotine alone". [6]
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)During pregnancy and breastfeeding, mothers are advised not to use any products containing nicotine since nicotine could harm the fetus. [6] [8]
People don't use a drug that's addictive (i.e., rewarding and reinforcing) merely because it's addictive unless they're addicted to it. I can't imagine most people would casually use nicotine due to its rewarding effects because it's not a particularly euphorogenic substance (i.e., nicotine consumption doesn't induce a pleasurable affective state like certain other psychostimulants do). Case in point: I use nicotine lozenges periodically solely to improve my focus at times when I find it difficult to concentrate; nicotine has a very well-established attentional performance-enhancing effect in humans based upon meta-analyses of clinical trials. I don't take it merely because it's reinforcing and I certainly don't use it for modifying my affect (NB: I've never noticed it having any effect on my affect), which is what I assume you mean by "people take it because it's addictive" (to be clear, many addictive drugs induce a positively-valenced or "pleasurable" affective state when consumed, but this is not typical for nicotine). In any event, I doubt we have a source which asserts that people use nicotine recreationally simply because it's "addictive". Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It is widely used because it is highly addictive. [11] People addicted to nicotine suffer depressed mood, and commonly take nicotine for its mood-normalizing effects. [4] [9]
I still think this Nicotine#Enhancing performance section should go; we have no independent source that this use is significant, and the only sourced sentence with the context to make it comprehensible is isolated from important context found in the Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders section (that the effects are acute and counterbalanced by negative effects of dependence, such that dependent nicotine users are not cognitively better off on average). I have tagged the section accordingly. HLHJ ( talk) 06:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Nicotine-containing products are sometimes used for the performance-enhancing effects of nicotine on cognition. citation needed A meta-analysis of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies concluded that nicotine or smoking had significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory. [12] A 2015 review noted that stimulation of the α4β2 nicotinic receptor is responsible for certain improvements in attentional performance; [13] among the nicotinic receptor subtypes, nicotine has the highest binding affinity at the α4β2 receptor (ki=1 nM) which is also the biological target that mediates nicotine's addictive properties. [14] Nicotine has potential beneficial effects, but it also has paradoxical effects, which may be due to the inverted U-shape of the dose-response curve or pharmacokinetic features. [15]
But regardless of dependency, you are motivated to believe that the way you use nicotine is harmless.I never stated this and I don't think this; I'd suggest not making unfounded assumptions about my beliefs and/or knowledge about drugs in general and nicotine in particular. For me, nicotine lozenges have an unpleasant taste, can cause nausea, and promote stress ulcers when used in combination with amphetamine, among other things. I'm also cognizant of the fact that nicotine has been shown to promote cognitive deficits in the offspring of laboratory animals that consume it via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of methylated histone amino acid residues (i.e., epigenetic marks), which is something that occurs when nicotine is used at sufficiently high doses over a period of time. The possibility that this phenomenon could occur in humans and knowing that sufficiently high doses and/or frequent use of nicotine induces epigenetic changes in the human brain and sperm cells is just one of three reasons why I only take low doses and avoid using it with any regularity.
|
The point (that high doses of nicotine can have negative effects on cognition, I think) is also made in the first source,[1] in equally obscure language. Anyone else want to weigh in on what this means?That inverted U-shape on a dose-response (i.e., task performance) curve for complex/difficult tasks is applicable to all psychostimulants (e.g., caffeine, amphetamine, methylphenidate, etc.). That's also why that whole clause contains a piped wikilink to the Yerkes-Dodson law. More generally, most psychostimulants improve some aspect of cognitive control (i.e., one or more of the cognitive processes which compose it) in low doses and impair cognitive control at high doses. These phenomena are certainly not unique to nicotine.
for instance, that the benefits in the review are short-term; that a nicotine habit does not give you improved cognitive abilities, and does give you cognitive fluctuations which can cause distress and deeper dependence, and the negative cognitive effects of the maladaptive neuroplasticity described above, which are long-term, with evidence of them in old age. Read Amphetamine#Enhancing performance and keep in mind that every one of those effects is "short-term" in the sense that they persist for a period which is less than or equal to amphetamine's duration of action. I also want to draw attention to the fact that an amphetamine addiction entails cognitive deficits. Again, nicotine isn't special; virtually all psychostimulants act as cognition-enhancing drugs with respect to cognitive arousal (i.e., they increase "wakefulness") over their duration of action (NB: the Yerkes–Dodson law article covers the empirical relationship between cognitive arousal and task performance). All addictive psychostimulants necessarily induce cognitive deficits when an individual becomes addicted to one of them. Addiction involves impairments in inhibitory control; that specific cognitive impairment is one of two changes to a cognitive processes that results in compulsive drug use (the other one being the sensitization of incentive salience). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 03:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |first1=
missing |last1=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Overall, the evidence provided in this review overwhelmingly indicates that nicotine should no longer be considered the safe component of cigarette smoke. In fact, many of the adverse postnatal health outcomes associated with maternal smoking during pregnancy may be attributable, at least in part, to nicotine alone.
The use of any products containing nicotine likely will have adverse effects of fetal neurological development.
The use of any products containing nicotine likely will have adverse effects of fetal neurological development.
Stimulant drugs such as nicotine and Ecstasy/3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) are taken for positive reasons, yet their regular use leads to deficits rather than gains... The most widely used CNS stimulant drug is nicotine, because it is the only legal substance in this broad class... However, it is often believed that their novice or light social usage is comparatively safe. Hence, another aim is to explain how and why psycho-biological problems can occur with all types of user — because they are a direct psychobiological consequence of drug-induced changes to the CNS (Table 1)... Acute mood gains, followed by mood decrements on drug withdrawal. The periodicity of these mood fluctuations is most frequent in drugs with a rapid onset and rapid withdrawal (nicotine and crack cocaine)... Regular use of all CNS stimulants can lead to chronic mood deficits. Mood states typically improve following drug cessation... Neuroimaging and neurocognitive studies reveal a range of deficits. They may reflect neurotoxicity or neuroadaptive processes. Some recovery may occur on drug cession, while some problems may endure — an important question for future research. [also see section on "Chronic mood effects of stimulant drugs"]Cite error: The named reference "Parrott2015" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
The highly addictive nature of nicotine is responsible for its widespread use and difficulty with quitting.
Kis as follows; α2β4=9900nM [5], α3β2=14nM [1], α3β4=187nM [1], α4β2=1nM [4,6]. Due to the heterogeneity of nACh channels we have not tagged a primary drug target for nicotine, although the α4β2 is reported to be the predominant high affinity subtype in the brain which mediates nicotine addiction
I'm canvassing here for more input on this issue that no one has any proposed solutions for at ANI. Someone has been using a variety of IP addresses (12 that I found) to insert his own primary research papers as references in many biomedical articles. He's done this in batches since 2012. He has been blocked twice but doesn't care. Does anyone have any ideas of how to stop this? Natureium ( talk) 21:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I just stumbled on the article TAR syndrome and it looks terrible: lots of unsourced content, an entire empty section, etc. Definitely could use some eyes. IntoThinAir ( talk) 04:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Can I get some opinions at Talk:Child abuse#MEDRS and a PubMed Review? A permalink for it is here. As seen with this revert, Chris Howard wants to add the following to the article: "Study results indicate that childhood abuse is associated with DNA methylation in human sperm." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 01:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
United States National Library of Medicine is hosting a talk on meta:WikiCite and d:Wikidata:Scholia. This is more of a Wikidata thing but it is medicine. I think that more organizations without a history of regular engagement with Wikimedia projects in medicine are starting to take interest in Wikidata.
Wikidata = 60 million items, 25 million are citations (this slice is mostly WikiCite), 15 million are citations to PubMed.
Dec 7, 2018, 2:00PM - 3:00PM ET
Here is something from this presenter -
Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, could a knowledgeable editor double-check my reverts of the edits from User:117.17.155.57 please? First of all, they are blatant cite spam to popularize the research of 1 author (or a small group of authors). Secondly, most if not all of them add little of direct relevance to their respective topics (limited clinical trials, secondary research for tangential aspects, passing mentions, redundant sources, etc.). However, it's entirely possible that 1-2 of these edits may be of some limited value from an uninvolved point of view - please feel free to revert any such removals. Thank you for any help with assessing these edits. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Opinions needed here, thanks in advance. Brandmeister talk 14:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_appeal_by_Sbelknap. Jytdog ( talk) 18:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit nongovernmental organization receiving some government funding, is seeking to hire a full-time Wikipedian in Residence for a one year term, perhaps beginning in February 2019. In this role the Wikimedian in Residence will seek to integrate health information from PCORI into Wikipedia.
See the description on the PCORI website. I understand that applications are open. I am passing this message along to WikiProject Medicine. Currently I am Wikimedian in Residence at the Data Science Institute at the University of Virginia, which is not far from DC, and I am keen on collaborating with the person at PCORI by visiting them there and inviting them to my university. Of course I also want someone who engages with WikiProject Medicine and the broader Wikimedia community.
In these roles every organization wants someone who is an expert Wikimedian and an expert in their field. If this is not possible, the next consideration is whether to hire a Wiki-expert with less medical experience, or someone who is proficient with medical information but inexperienced with wiki. Depending on the goals I think either of these could work. If socializing with peers is essential, then I recommend subject-matter experience over wiki experience, and if wiki community outreach is essential, then I recommend wiki experience or at least online community management experience.
Please refer the job posting to anyone whom you think might be interested. Thanks to physician zidovetz of Wiki Project Med Foundation for his visit to this organization in September 2018.
I do not speak for PCORI or have a particular relationship with this organization, but if anyone has questions about Wikimedian in Residence roles in medicine, then I can speak to that as I have been doing this since 2012. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
It's still very new but this paper in Nature (with a MedNews quicky) looks to be a major clarification of some mysteries of sporadic Alzheimer's pathology. It isn't exactly an independent review, but no doubt there will be true secondary mention soon. As this area of our article has long reflected the confusing state of research, some revisitation will be due. Anyone itching to tackle the cleanup of the Genetics section? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have information about this, if it exists? May be useful over at French Wikipedia as well. Thanks! JenOttawa ( talk) 19:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Medicine,
I am new to editing Wikipedia and interested in writing an article on orbital compartment syndrome. Looking through Wikipedia, it seems that there isn't an article for this topic specifically but references to orbital compartment syndrome in several other pages without much in the way of specific information. Also, the compartment syndrome page does not mention orbital compartment syndrome. With this in mind, is it appropriate (and would it be helpful) to draft an article on this subject.
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks,
Poseysfriend ( talk) 21:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea, I suggest taking a look at what adequate sources are at WP:MEDRS (brief summary: review articles or higher-level textbooks). For writing style WP:MEDMOS is a good guide. And don't be afraid to write a shorter summary that you can add in the Compartment syndrome article with the {{ main}} link to your article. Or, if you only think you will be writing a few sentences, try and incorporate it into a subsection of compartment syndrome, maybe under a ===Location=== header under the ==Pathophysiology== header. Carl Fredrik talk 03:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
____
References
Dear colleagues, I am having problems with Draft:Comprehensive_Geriatric_Assessment.
The article has been declined on the grounds that it: 'reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia entry', and '...should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.'
I have quoted no materials which I have produced myself, and among several other references (including a Cochrane review of the topic), the four most authoritative multi-authored textbooks of geriatric medicine, of which 'comprehensive geriatric assessment' [CGA] is a (or possibly the) key element. Indeed, CGA (or 'multidimensional geriatric assessment') has at least one chapter devoted to it in three of them. [1] [2] [3]
References
I also need guidance as to why my draft '...reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article' and how I should change it to be '...from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.' Since there is no disagreement about how effective CGA is, and it is used pretty much universally in clinical practice, I cannot see how to make it 'more neutral'. I have read the style guides, but cannot work out from there where I am going wrong.
Questions:
1) Could someone show me an example of what would be accepted as an '...independent, reliable published source.' that would be preferable to, or necessary in addition to, these?
2) Could someone give me some guidance as to how this might be made more neutral, please?
3) Could someone show how to make it more encyclopaedic, rather than 'like an essay', please?
Many thanks, Kitb ( talk) 09:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The article has been accepted, so I guess these questions are now redundant (although any helpful advice re style would still be appreciated)!! Kitb ( talk) 10:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Overall, this was a huge and useful learning exercise for me - thanks to all for your patience & support! Kitb ( talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this edit. Rather than assume it is vandalism, I figured I would ask here first to see if anyone can check the source for the real name. Infectious Mononucleosis edit JenOttawa ( talk) 01:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
interesting-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Used it very recently to welcome an editor, and a section involving Doc James was included. I removed the section from the editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this tool still accurate? JenOttawa ( talk) 15:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Military sexual trauma#Merger proposal. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ GeorgiaPhysiology}} links to http://humanphysiology.tuars.com. This domain is dead, it does seem to be archived at archive.org if the template can be recoded to point there instead. Nthep ( talk) 12:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Looking for help with the following orphans:
As always, I'm happy to do any legwork, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way what was merged into Fat removal procedures included Cryolipolysis and Hydrolipoclasy among a few other minor procedures. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
in Jyt's absence we need more editors to help fill the void(I for one will try) thank you... Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Article is full of discredited information, but I have a conflict of interest , which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of medicine-related articles which contain links to DAB pages. As always, search for 'disam' in main text and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you manage to solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
This may be the shortest list I have ever posted: I'm now cycling through the backlog in 4 or 5 weeks. Thanks in advance for your help. Narky Blert ( talk) 07:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)¨
The article Pseudoscience mentions harm from anti vaxxers in lede but there is not a substantial, referenced discussion of this in the content. This seems important. MrBill3 ( talk) 13:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
On December 8, 2016, Michael V. LeVine, writing in Business Insider, pointed out the dangers posed by the Natural News website: "Snake-oil salesmen have pushed false cures since the dawn of medicine, and now websites like Natural News flood social media with dangerous anti-pharmaceutical, anti-vaccination and anti-GMO pseudoscience that puts millions at risk of contracting preventable illnesses." [1]
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I'd really appreciate it if everyone would stop posting about this person on wiki. It's not seemly to talk about an individual editor in a highly public forum, when that editor can't join the discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
those who wish to leave a message User talk:Jytdog#That's all folks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ScapegoatingOnce again I find an odd disconnect between WP:MED and the wider WP community. The latter having a huge WTF and the former coalescing round one-of-their-own, protecting and praising them, trying their hardest to overlook the problems others see, viewing those that disagree as "opponents". You are kidding yourselves if you think Jtdog is gone just because he chose to. Taking an on-wiki dispute into "I know who you are, where you live/work" phone-call-out-of-the-blue territory, while retaining anonymity oneself, is a horrific power dynamic. But the issues with Jtdog's editing were not unique to him, and don't scapegoat him in order to avoid some WP:MED self reflection. One example at the Arb discussion stood out: this statement by User:Julia W. (I'm pinging Julia out of courtesy, but don't really want to drag her into anything she doesn't want to). I know Julia from featured pictures, and she's a very friendly sensible editor, and great photographer too. My guess is the dispute she refers to is at Osimertinib in January and later Rociletinib in March. On Osimertinib, Jytdog removed some text added by Julia about resistance developing, citing MEDRS. Jytdog then has an edit war over this text with another editor who is now blocked. Julia then restored the text citing a review article. This demonstrates that the information was never actually in dispute, and if Jytdog had either expert knowledge or bothered to do a search himself, he could have replaced the source. Further Jytdog didn't ask Julia to provide a better source, in a courteous and professional manner, but simply removed it all. I just googled "Osimertinib resistance" and my thoughts are that any editor modestly familiar with the article subject should know that resistance is an essential issue to note. Instead of regarding Julia as a valued editor who clearly has an interest in the topic and understands oncology research, he created conflict and vandalised her contributions. In March, Julia added some good extra information to Rociletinib. The issue Jytdog seemed to have with that, is that a section was titled "Medical uses" when the drug was never licenced. The conflict here is how to refer to experimental medicines? According to the linked papers, this drug was used by 456 patients who had specific mutations in their cancer that meant existing drugs were ineffective. These patients were given this drug by doctors in the hope it would treat their cancer. That's a medical use: the drug isn't cosmetic or a food supplement. It didn't reach routine clinical practice, though. Anyone with a rare or terminal disease will know that there are a number of treatment options only available as part of a clinical trial. These treatments are given by doctors to patients to make them better. Even approved, licenced drugs are often given to patients out of hope rather than confidence. Julia made several improvements to the short article over a few days. Jtdog's response was to remove the entire "Medical uses" section and another sentence, with the comment "there was never a clinical use - it was only in clinical research". This is a nuance that could have been dealt with with a small change to the section title, while retaining all that Julia had added. There followed an edit war where both parties reverted equally, though Jytdog got in first with the user page template to warn Julia for edit warring. He twice referred to Julia's additions as "spam". He even dumped a patronising "Welcome" section on her page -- an editor who has been here for 10 years. On the article talk page, he accused Julia of editing like a newbie, so deserving of the patronising response. Jytdog admitted following her from the other article, though doesn't seem to have noticed that the text he edit warred over there, and boasts about fighting a crazy banned user, was actually already restored by Julia with an acceptable ref. Julia writes "Rather than completely reverting me, pasting welcome templates, and calling me a "newbie", I would appreciate specific, helpful feedback in the future". I hope we can all see that is a complaint, and "in the future" is not a request for immediate paragraphs of mansplaining, but that's what she got. My point of adding this is example is that this style of battleground editing is typical of WP.MED. You all praise Jytdog for being thoroughly and dependably hostile to your "opponents". But not only is this editing disrespectful bullying, it also drives away experts and good faith knowledgable editors like Julia. My guess is Julia knows more about third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors than most folk here. Perhaps anyone here. Wikipedia's loss. I think WP:MED editors should be careful editing subjects where they are not experts (and having MD or Dr in your name, doesn't make you an expert in all the medical sphere). They should take more care to collaborate than to fight. Accept and retain imperfect work knowing that WP is a work-in-progress and try to collaborate to polish rather than bin it. Reverting text with weak MEDRS sources should be a last resort, when you know the text is wrong or likely to be wrong. Don't go calling 10-year-WP editors "newbies". Recognise that if you revert work someone has spent several days on in good faith, then you are the vandal. And if you revert more than once without genuinely seeking and working towards consensus with a good-faith-editor, then you are an edit warrior. -- Colin° Talk 19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
|
doi:10.1002/9781118663721 may be a source to keep an eye on: https://twitter.com/SmutClyde/status/1072564116550754305 Looks like it's been removed before from some articles like Immunologic adjuvant, judging from spam reports. Nemo 14:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Neuroscience of sex differences ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
On a side note: This is another article that Jytdog was concerned about. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The article is currently undergoing WP:Student editing. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
We sometimes have medical articles at AfC which languish for lack of expert reviewers. I see that you already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts linked at the bottom of the project page. The "Newly Created Article" service run by InceptionBot creates User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult, which lists two weeks worth of new articles that meet the criteria, including drafts. Please link to this on the main project page and consider encouraging editors to take a look at medical drafts. Thankyou. StarryGrandma ( talk) 00:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
A trio of new accounts making FRINGEy changes to Multiple chemical sensitivity. Please send reinforcements. Natureium ( talk) 02:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
So far there is not much participation in the discussion whether or not to move Health care to Healthcare. Feel free to join if you wish. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 60#Heads-up: problematic survey research ongoing on English Wikipedia if you get an invitation to participate in a research study. Most are great, and apparently one of the recent ones isn't so great. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
need eyes on this article editors such as Special:Contributions/CRISPR_Editor and others are having 'field day' (Jyt use to edit this article and it is in the scope of Wikiproject Medicine)thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Your comments on
Draft:Neuropelveology are welcomed. Please use either
Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling
Preferences →
Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{
afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}}
directly in the draft. Thank you.
Sam
Sailor 11:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm having some disagreement with an editor at the Cannabidiol article. From my understanding of WP:MEDRS and WP:RS, we can't extrapolate beyond what the source tells us.
The first paragraph of the article is a section about Sativex (half THC) and its use for MS pain. It makes no mention of CBD other than the fact that it's included. We are giving the reader no information about the effect CBD has on MS pain. My removal of the (erroneous?) material was reverted. I'm hoping to get feedback from others here. The talk page section is here. I'm sure someone here can help. Thanks in advance, petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:Dracunculus_medinensis#Requested_move_15_December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog ( Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 08:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick has prompted an influx of medical SPAs, apparently; see for example Talk:George_D._Lundberg#Edits_by_Amandazz100. Eyes may be needed, for example, on Diabetes_mellitus and History of diabetes. I lack the background to help effectively. E Eng 19:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
;-)
Articles related to their New Year's resolutions seem to be a common thing for these enthusiastic newbies to edit. For example, we'll see newbies trying their best in diet and exercise articles, and an uptick in self-promotion by small business owners. But they go away again; it's just a matter of patiently explaining the concept of neutrality – that Wikipedia is neither "for" nor "against" low-carb diets (whatever that term means this week) – for a few weeks, until they either adapt or go away. Then things get back to normal until the September wave of students arrives. It's manageable, if you stick to basic principles. You'll just drive yourself crazy if you worry about trying to win a
WP:BATTLE about which diet is The One True™ Scientific Diet For Everyone.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 20:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
redirect/merge above to Positron emission tomography#Oncology(or other)...opinions-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Can anyone advise on pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, (PTE) pumonary endarterectomy (PEA), Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, Pulmonary hypertension, Balloon pulmonary angioplasty. PTE and PEA are used interchangeably...Should it be consistent or mentioned that both are the same? There are probably other articles with PTE and PEA, or does it not matter. [17]. Thanks Whispyhistory ( talk) 08:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, is "selfie wrist" considered as a disease name! or type of Carpal tunnel syndrome? or only popular name?
Wikipedia doesn't have an article (or redirect) for Adult-onset vitelliform macular dystrophy ( NIH link), but it does have one for Vitelliform macular dystrophy. Are these the same diseases, or separate diseases?
Also, the article Peripherin 2 links to Vitelliform macular dystrophy, but not vice-versa, nor does that first article belong to WikiProject Medicine. Should those two things be changed? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
[If the section immediately above seems a little odd, that's because I didn't ask the right question. This is try number two.]
Wikipedia doesn't have an article or redirect for Adult-onset foveomacular vitelliform dystrophy (AOFVD) ( link)
On a NIH.gov webpage ( link), this is said to be an alternative name for Adult-onset vitelliform macular dystrophy (AOVMD or AVMD), but I'd like other opinions on that.
Also, the list of alternative names on the NIH.gov page includes Foveomacular dystrophy, adult-onset, with choroidal neovascularization, which is a red link at List of OMIM disorder codes; is this in fact considered to be another name for the same thing? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: The Inversion therapy article says that it is a type of spinal decompression, but the Spinal decompression article says that it is a surgical procedure. It seems to me that there are other kinds of spinal decompression besides surgery, and that the second article needs adjustment to the lead section, but perhaps I am wrong and it's the first article that needs changing. In any case, I'm pretty sure that inversion therapy just means hanging upside down, not having surgery, so something needs to give.— Anne Delong ( talk) 22:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: While reading this article I came across a reference to "our study" which makes it seem as though Wikipedia has carried out a study (unlikely). Could someone who understands the subject please modify the text to indicate whose study it was, or remove the paragraph if the information is not well supported? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 22:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but should a reader typing in "
Nicotine addiction" be redirected to
Nicotine#Reinforcement_disorders(now
Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders and cognitive effects), or
Nicotine dependence? I realize that there exist differing definitions of
substance dependence and
addiction, but a reader may not (and perhaps the adverse consequences of smoking, and the fact that most smokers want to quit,
[1]
[2] make it a bit moot). Is content quality in
Nicotine dependence a factor?
HLHJ (
talk) 06:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I’ll restore the constructive edits by tomorrow evening. I’m very busy off-wiki. The real issue with the edits is that the nicotine article is about pure nicotine and most of the sources you cited made statements about tobacco and smoking. The only form of pure nicotine commercially available is NRT, so reviews of clinical studies involving that are appropriate for the article. Drug monographs could also be used.
The statement requires SCIRS because it’s not clinical. I would, however, remove “positive” - that part is nonsensical.
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where in this source -
[3] - it says that nicotine causes either brain damage or cognitive deficits. The only thing I found in this source that refers to cognitive deficits pertains to smoking: Smoking during adolescence has been associated with lasting cognitive and behavioral impairments, including effects on working memory and attention, although causal relationships are difficult to establish in the presence of potential confounding factors (Goriunova and Mansvelder 2012).
That's not sufficient to claim that nicotine causes cognitive deficits or even might cause cognitive deficits, because tobacco contains a very large number of bioactive compounds. If I missed something, please quote the statement from the source so that I know what you're referring to.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 08:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
During pregnancy and breastfeeding, mothers are advised not to use any products containing nicotine, [6] as nicotine harms the fetus. [7] One 2010 review concluded "Overall, the evidence provided in this review overwhelmingly indicates that nicotine should no longer be considered the ‘‘safe’’ component of cigarette smoke. In fact, many of the adverse postnatal health outcomes associated with maternal smoking during pregnancy may be attributable, at least in part, to nicotine alone". [6]
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)During pregnancy and breastfeeding, mothers are advised not to use any products containing nicotine since nicotine could harm the fetus. [6] [8]
People don't use a drug that's addictive (i.e., rewarding and reinforcing) merely because it's addictive unless they're addicted to it. I can't imagine most people would casually use nicotine due to its rewarding effects because it's not a particularly euphorogenic substance (i.e., nicotine consumption doesn't induce a pleasurable affective state like certain other psychostimulants do). Case in point: I use nicotine lozenges periodically solely to improve my focus at times when I find it difficult to concentrate; nicotine has a very well-established attentional performance-enhancing effect in humans based upon meta-analyses of clinical trials. I don't take it merely because it's reinforcing and I certainly don't use it for modifying my affect (NB: I've never noticed it having any effect on my affect), which is what I assume you mean by "people take it because it's addictive" (to be clear, many addictive drugs induce a positively-valenced or "pleasurable" affective state when consumed, but this is not typical for nicotine). In any event, I doubt we have a source which asserts that people use nicotine recreationally simply because it's "addictive". Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It is widely used because it is highly addictive. [11] People addicted to nicotine suffer depressed mood, and commonly take nicotine for its mood-normalizing effects. [4] [9]
I still think this Nicotine#Enhancing performance section should go; we have no independent source that this use is significant, and the only sourced sentence with the context to make it comprehensible is isolated from important context found in the Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders section (that the effects are acute and counterbalanced by negative effects of dependence, such that dependent nicotine users are not cognitively better off on average). I have tagged the section accordingly. HLHJ ( talk) 06:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Nicotine-containing products are sometimes used for the performance-enhancing effects of nicotine on cognition. citation needed A meta-analysis of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies concluded that nicotine or smoking had significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory. [12] A 2015 review noted that stimulation of the α4β2 nicotinic receptor is responsible for certain improvements in attentional performance; [13] among the nicotinic receptor subtypes, nicotine has the highest binding affinity at the α4β2 receptor (ki=1 nM) which is also the biological target that mediates nicotine's addictive properties. [14] Nicotine has potential beneficial effects, but it also has paradoxical effects, which may be due to the inverted U-shape of the dose-response curve or pharmacokinetic features. [15]
But regardless of dependency, you are motivated to believe that the way you use nicotine is harmless.I never stated this and I don't think this; I'd suggest not making unfounded assumptions about my beliefs and/or knowledge about drugs in general and nicotine in particular. For me, nicotine lozenges have an unpleasant taste, can cause nausea, and promote stress ulcers when used in combination with amphetamine, among other things. I'm also cognizant of the fact that nicotine has been shown to promote cognitive deficits in the offspring of laboratory animals that consume it via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of methylated histone amino acid residues (i.e., epigenetic marks), which is something that occurs when nicotine is used at sufficiently high doses over a period of time. The possibility that this phenomenon could occur in humans and knowing that sufficiently high doses and/or frequent use of nicotine induces epigenetic changes in the human brain and sperm cells is just one of three reasons why I only take low doses and avoid using it with any regularity.
|
The point (that high doses of nicotine can have negative effects on cognition, I think) is also made in the first source,[1] in equally obscure language. Anyone else want to weigh in on what this means?That inverted U-shape on a dose-response (i.e., task performance) curve for complex/difficult tasks is applicable to all psychostimulants (e.g., caffeine, amphetamine, methylphenidate, etc.). That's also why that whole clause contains a piped wikilink to the Yerkes-Dodson law. More generally, most psychostimulants improve some aspect of cognitive control (i.e., one or more of the cognitive processes which compose it) in low doses and impair cognitive control at high doses. These phenomena are certainly not unique to nicotine.
for instance, that the benefits in the review are short-term; that a nicotine habit does not give you improved cognitive abilities, and does give you cognitive fluctuations which can cause distress and deeper dependence, and the negative cognitive effects of the maladaptive neuroplasticity described above, which are long-term, with evidence of them in old age. Read Amphetamine#Enhancing performance and keep in mind that every one of those effects is "short-term" in the sense that they persist for a period which is less than or equal to amphetamine's duration of action. I also want to draw attention to the fact that an amphetamine addiction entails cognitive deficits. Again, nicotine isn't special; virtually all psychostimulants act as cognition-enhancing drugs with respect to cognitive arousal (i.e., they increase "wakefulness") over their duration of action (NB: the Yerkes–Dodson law article covers the empirical relationship between cognitive arousal and task performance). All addictive psychostimulants necessarily induce cognitive deficits when an individual becomes addicted to one of them. Addiction involves impairments in inhibitory control; that specific cognitive impairment is one of two changes to a cognitive processes that results in compulsive drug use (the other one being the sensitization of incentive salience). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 03:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |first1=
missing |last1=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Overall, the evidence provided in this review overwhelmingly indicates that nicotine should no longer be considered the safe component of cigarette smoke. In fact, many of the adverse postnatal health outcomes associated with maternal smoking during pregnancy may be attributable, at least in part, to nicotine alone.
The use of any products containing nicotine likely will have adverse effects of fetal neurological development.
The use of any products containing nicotine likely will have adverse effects of fetal neurological development.
Stimulant drugs such as nicotine and Ecstasy/3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) are taken for positive reasons, yet their regular use leads to deficits rather than gains... The most widely used CNS stimulant drug is nicotine, because it is the only legal substance in this broad class... However, it is often believed that their novice or light social usage is comparatively safe. Hence, another aim is to explain how and why psycho-biological problems can occur with all types of user — because they are a direct psychobiological consequence of drug-induced changes to the CNS (Table 1)... Acute mood gains, followed by mood decrements on drug withdrawal. The periodicity of these mood fluctuations is most frequent in drugs with a rapid onset and rapid withdrawal (nicotine and crack cocaine)... Regular use of all CNS stimulants can lead to chronic mood deficits. Mood states typically improve following drug cessation... Neuroimaging and neurocognitive studies reveal a range of deficits. They may reflect neurotoxicity or neuroadaptive processes. Some recovery may occur on drug cession, while some problems may endure — an important question for future research. [also see section on "Chronic mood effects of stimulant drugs"]Cite error: The named reference "Parrott2015" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
The highly addictive nature of nicotine is responsible for its widespread use and difficulty with quitting.
Kis as follows; α2β4=9900nM [5], α3β2=14nM [1], α3β4=187nM [1], α4β2=1nM [4,6]. Due to the heterogeneity of nACh channels we have not tagged a primary drug target for nicotine, although the α4β2 is reported to be the predominant high affinity subtype in the brain which mediates nicotine addiction
I'm canvassing here for more input on this issue that no one has any proposed solutions for at ANI. Someone has been using a variety of IP addresses (12 that I found) to insert his own primary research papers as references in many biomedical articles. He's done this in batches since 2012. He has been blocked twice but doesn't care. Does anyone have any ideas of how to stop this? Natureium ( talk) 21:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I just stumbled on the article TAR syndrome and it looks terrible: lots of unsourced content, an entire empty section, etc. Definitely could use some eyes. IntoThinAir ( talk) 04:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Can I get some opinions at Talk:Child abuse#MEDRS and a PubMed Review? A permalink for it is here. As seen with this revert, Chris Howard wants to add the following to the article: "Study results indicate that childhood abuse is associated with DNA methylation in human sperm." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 01:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
United States National Library of Medicine is hosting a talk on meta:WikiCite and d:Wikidata:Scholia. This is more of a Wikidata thing but it is medicine. I think that more organizations without a history of regular engagement with Wikimedia projects in medicine are starting to take interest in Wikidata.
Wikidata = 60 million items, 25 million are citations (this slice is mostly WikiCite), 15 million are citations to PubMed.
Dec 7, 2018, 2:00PM - 3:00PM ET
Here is something from this presenter -
Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, could a knowledgeable editor double-check my reverts of the edits from User:117.17.155.57 please? First of all, they are blatant cite spam to popularize the research of 1 author (or a small group of authors). Secondly, most if not all of them add little of direct relevance to their respective topics (limited clinical trials, secondary research for tangential aspects, passing mentions, redundant sources, etc.). However, it's entirely possible that 1-2 of these edits may be of some limited value from an uninvolved point of view - please feel free to revert any such removals. Thank you for any help with assessing these edits. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Opinions needed here, thanks in advance. Brandmeister talk 14:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_appeal_by_Sbelknap. Jytdog ( talk) 18:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit nongovernmental organization receiving some government funding, is seeking to hire a full-time Wikipedian in Residence for a one year term, perhaps beginning in February 2019. In this role the Wikimedian in Residence will seek to integrate health information from PCORI into Wikipedia.
See the description on the PCORI website. I understand that applications are open. I am passing this message along to WikiProject Medicine. Currently I am Wikimedian in Residence at the Data Science Institute at the University of Virginia, which is not far from DC, and I am keen on collaborating with the person at PCORI by visiting them there and inviting them to my university. Of course I also want someone who engages with WikiProject Medicine and the broader Wikimedia community.
In these roles every organization wants someone who is an expert Wikimedian and an expert in their field. If this is not possible, the next consideration is whether to hire a Wiki-expert with less medical experience, or someone who is proficient with medical information but inexperienced with wiki. Depending on the goals I think either of these could work. If socializing with peers is essential, then I recommend subject-matter experience over wiki experience, and if wiki community outreach is essential, then I recommend wiki experience or at least online community management experience.
Please refer the job posting to anyone whom you think might be interested. Thanks to physician zidovetz of Wiki Project Med Foundation for his visit to this organization in September 2018.
I do not speak for PCORI or have a particular relationship with this organization, but if anyone has questions about Wikimedian in Residence roles in medicine, then I can speak to that as I have been doing this since 2012. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
It's still very new but this paper in Nature (with a MedNews quicky) looks to be a major clarification of some mysteries of sporadic Alzheimer's pathology. It isn't exactly an independent review, but no doubt there will be true secondary mention soon. As this area of our article has long reflected the confusing state of research, some revisitation will be due. Anyone itching to tackle the cleanup of the Genetics section? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have information about this, if it exists? May be useful over at French Wikipedia as well. Thanks! JenOttawa ( talk) 19:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Medicine,
I am new to editing Wikipedia and interested in writing an article on orbital compartment syndrome. Looking through Wikipedia, it seems that there isn't an article for this topic specifically but references to orbital compartment syndrome in several other pages without much in the way of specific information. Also, the compartment syndrome page does not mention orbital compartment syndrome. With this in mind, is it appropriate (and would it be helpful) to draft an article on this subject.
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks,
Poseysfriend ( talk) 21:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea, I suggest taking a look at what adequate sources are at WP:MEDRS (brief summary: review articles or higher-level textbooks). For writing style WP:MEDMOS is a good guide. And don't be afraid to write a shorter summary that you can add in the Compartment syndrome article with the {{ main}} link to your article. Or, if you only think you will be writing a few sentences, try and incorporate it into a subsection of compartment syndrome, maybe under a ===Location=== header under the ==Pathophysiology== header. Carl Fredrik talk 03:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
____
References
Dear colleagues, I am having problems with Draft:Comprehensive_Geriatric_Assessment.
The article has been declined on the grounds that it: 'reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia entry', and '...should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.'
I have quoted no materials which I have produced myself, and among several other references (including a Cochrane review of the topic), the four most authoritative multi-authored textbooks of geriatric medicine, of which 'comprehensive geriatric assessment' [CGA] is a (or possibly the) key element. Indeed, CGA (or 'multidimensional geriatric assessment') has at least one chapter devoted to it in three of them. [1] [2] [3]
References
I also need guidance as to why my draft '...reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article' and how I should change it to be '...from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.' Since there is no disagreement about how effective CGA is, and it is used pretty much universally in clinical practice, I cannot see how to make it 'more neutral'. I have read the style guides, but cannot work out from there where I am going wrong.
Questions:
1) Could someone show me an example of what would be accepted as an '...independent, reliable published source.' that would be preferable to, or necessary in addition to, these?
2) Could someone give me some guidance as to how this might be made more neutral, please?
3) Could someone show how to make it more encyclopaedic, rather than 'like an essay', please?
Many thanks, Kitb ( talk) 09:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The article has been accepted, so I guess these questions are now redundant (although any helpful advice re style would still be appreciated)!! Kitb ( talk) 10:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Overall, this was a huge and useful learning exercise for me - thanks to all for your patience & support! Kitb ( talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this edit. Rather than assume it is vandalism, I figured I would ask here first to see if anyone can check the source for the real name. Infectious Mononucleosis edit JenOttawa ( talk) 01:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
interesting-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Used it very recently to welcome an editor, and a section involving Doc James was included. I removed the section from the editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this tool still accurate? JenOttawa ( talk) 15:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Military sexual trauma#Merger proposal. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ GeorgiaPhysiology}} links to http://humanphysiology.tuars.com. This domain is dead, it does seem to be archived at archive.org if the template can be recoded to point there instead. Nthep ( talk) 12:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Looking for help with the following orphans:
As always, I'm happy to do any legwork, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way what was merged into Fat removal procedures included Cryolipolysis and Hydrolipoclasy among a few other minor procedures. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
in Jyt's absence we need more editors to help fill the void(I for one will try) thank you... Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Article is full of discredited information, but I have a conflict of interest , which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of medicine-related articles which contain links to DAB pages. As always, search for 'disam' in main text and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you manage to solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
This may be the shortest list I have ever posted: I'm now cycling through the backlog in 4 or 5 weeks. Thanks in advance for your help. Narky Blert ( talk) 07:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)¨
The article Pseudoscience mentions harm from anti vaxxers in lede but there is not a substantial, referenced discussion of this in the content. This seems important. MrBill3 ( talk) 13:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
On December 8, 2016, Michael V. LeVine, writing in Business Insider, pointed out the dangers posed by the Natural News website: "Snake-oil salesmen have pushed false cures since the dawn of medicine, and now websites like Natural News flood social media with dangerous anti-pharmaceutical, anti-vaccination and anti-GMO pseudoscience that puts millions at risk of contracting preventable illnesses." [1]
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I'd really appreciate it if everyone would stop posting about this person on wiki. It's not seemly to talk about an individual editor in a highly public forum, when that editor can't join the discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
those who wish to leave a message User talk:Jytdog#That's all folks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ScapegoatingOnce again I find an odd disconnect between WP:MED and the wider WP community. The latter having a huge WTF and the former coalescing round one-of-their-own, protecting and praising them, trying their hardest to overlook the problems others see, viewing those that disagree as "opponents". You are kidding yourselves if you think Jtdog is gone just because he chose to. Taking an on-wiki dispute into "I know who you are, where you live/work" phone-call-out-of-the-blue territory, while retaining anonymity oneself, is a horrific power dynamic. But the issues with Jtdog's editing were not unique to him, and don't scapegoat him in order to avoid some WP:MED self reflection. One example at the Arb discussion stood out: this statement by User:Julia W. (I'm pinging Julia out of courtesy, but don't really want to drag her into anything she doesn't want to). I know Julia from featured pictures, and she's a very friendly sensible editor, and great photographer too. My guess is the dispute she refers to is at Osimertinib in January and later Rociletinib in March. On Osimertinib, Jytdog removed some text added by Julia about resistance developing, citing MEDRS. Jytdog then has an edit war over this text with another editor who is now blocked. Julia then restored the text citing a review article. This demonstrates that the information was never actually in dispute, and if Jytdog had either expert knowledge or bothered to do a search himself, he could have replaced the source. Further Jytdog didn't ask Julia to provide a better source, in a courteous and professional manner, but simply removed it all. I just googled "Osimertinib resistance" and my thoughts are that any editor modestly familiar with the article subject should know that resistance is an essential issue to note. Instead of regarding Julia as a valued editor who clearly has an interest in the topic and understands oncology research, he created conflict and vandalised her contributions. In March, Julia added some good extra information to Rociletinib. The issue Jytdog seemed to have with that, is that a section was titled "Medical uses" when the drug was never licenced. The conflict here is how to refer to experimental medicines? According to the linked papers, this drug was used by 456 patients who had specific mutations in their cancer that meant existing drugs were ineffective. These patients were given this drug by doctors in the hope it would treat their cancer. That's a medical use: the drug isn't cosmetic or a food supplement. It didn't reach routine clinical practice, though. Anyone with a rare or terminal disease will know that there are a number of treatment options only available as part of a clinical trial. These treatments are given by doctors to patients to make them better. Even approved, licenced drugs are often given to patients out of hope rather than confidence. Julia made several improvements to the short article over a few days. Jtdog's response was to remove the entire "Medical uses" section and another sentence, with the comment "there was never a clinical use - it was only in clinical research". This is a nuance that could have been dealt with with a small change to the section title, while retaining all that Julia had added. There followed an edit war where both parties reverted equally, though Jytdog got in first with the user page template to warn Julia for edit warring. He twice referred to Julia's additions as "spam". He even dumped a patronising "Welcome" section on her page -- an editor who has been here for 10 years. On the article talk page, he accused Julia of editing like a newbie, so deserving of the patronising response. Jytdog admitted following her from the other article, though doesn't seem to have noticed that the text he edit warred over there, and boasts about fighting a crazy banned user, was actually already restored by Julia with an acceptable ref. Julia writes "Rather than completely reverting me, pasting welcome templates, and calling me a "newbie", I would appreciate specific, helpful feedback in the future". I hope we can all see that is a complaint, and "in the future" is not a request for immediate paragraphs of mansplaining, but that's what she got. My point of adding this is example is that this style of battleground editing is typical of WP.MED. You all praise Jytdog for being thoroughly and dependably hostile to your "opponents". But not only is this editing disrespectful bullying, it also drives away experts and good faith knowledgable editors like Julia. My guess is Julia knows more about third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors than most folk here. Perhaps anyone here. Wikipedia's loss. I think WP:MED editors should be careful editing subjects where they are not experts (and having MD or Dr in your name, doesn't make you an expert in all the medical sphere). They should take more care to collaborate than to fight. Accept and retain imperfect work knowing that WP is a work-in-progress and try to collaborate to polish rather than bin it. Reverting text with weak MEDRS sources should be a last resort, when you know the text is wrong or likely to be wrong. Don't go calling 10-year-WP editors "newbies". Recognise that if you revert work someone has spent several days on in good faith, then you are the vandal. And if you revert more than once without genuinely seeking and working towards consensus with a good-faith-editor, then you are an edit warrior. -- Colin° Talk 19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
|
doi:10.1002/9781118663721 may be a source to keep an eye on: https://twitter.com/SmutClyde/status/1072564116550754305 Looks like it's been removed before from some articles like Immunologic adjuvant, judging from spam reports. Nemo 14:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Neuroscience of sex differences ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
On a side note: This is another article that Jytdog was concerned about. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The article is currently undergoing WP:Student editing. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
We sometimes have medical articles at AfC which languish for lack of expert reviewers. I see that you already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts linked at the bottom of the project page. The "Newly Created Article" service run by InceptionBot creates User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult, which lists two weeks worth of new articles that meet the criteria, including drafts. Please link to this on the main project page and consider encouraging editors to take a look at medical drafts. Thankyou. StarryGrandma ( talk) 00:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
A trio of new accounts making FRINGEy changes to Multiple chemical sensitivity. Please send reinforcements. Natureium ( talk) 02:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
So far there is not much participation in the discussion whether or not to move Health care to Healthcare. Feel free to join if you wish. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 60#Heads-up: problematic survey research ongoing on English Wikipedia if you get an invitation to participate in a research study. Most are great, and apparently one of the recent ones isn't so great. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
need eyes on this article editors such as Special:Contributions/CRISPR_Editor and others are having 'field day' (Jyt use to edit this article and it is in the scope of Wikiproject Medicine)thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Your comments on
Draft:Neuropelveology are welcomed. Please use either
Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling
Preferences →
Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{
afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}}
directly in the draft. Thank you.
Sam
Sailor 11:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm having some disagreement with an editor at the Cannabidiol article. From my understanding of WP:MEDRS and WP:RS, we can't extrapolate beyond what the source tells us.
The first paragraph of the article is a section about Sativex (half THC) and its use for MS pain. It makes no mention of CBD other than the fact that it's included. We are giving the reader no information about the effect CBD has on MS pain. My removal of the (erroneous?) material was reverted. I'm hoping to get feedback from others here. The talk page section is here. I'm sure someone here can help. Thanks in advance, petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:Dracunculus_medinensis#Requested_move_15_December_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog ( Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 08:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick has prompted an influx of medical SPAs, apparently; see for example Talk:George_D._Lundberg#Edits_by_Amandazz100. Eyes may be needed, for example, on Diabetes_mellitus and History of diabetes. I lack the background to help effectively. E Eng 19:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
;-)
Articles related to their New Year's resolutions seem to be a common thing for these enthusiastic newbies to edit. For example, we'll see newbies trying their best in diet and exercise articles, and an uptick in self-promotion by small business owners. But they go away again; it's just a matter of patiently explaining the concept of neutrality – that Wikipedia is neither "for" nor "against" low-carb diets (whatever that term means this week) – for a few weeks, until they either adapt or go away. Then things get back to normal until the September wave of students arrives. It's manageable, if you stick to basic principles. You'll just drive yourself crazy if you worry about trying to win a
WP:BATTLE about which diet is The One True™ Scientific Diet For Everyone.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 20:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
redirect/merge above to Positron emission tomography#Oncology(or other)...opinions-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Can anyone advise on pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, (PTE) pumonary endarterectomy (PEA), Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, Pulmonary hypertension, Balloon pulmonary angioplasty. PTE and PEA are used interchangeably...Should it be consistent or mentioned that both are the same? There are probably other articles with PTE and PEA, or does it not matter. [17]. Thanks Whispyhistory ( talk) 08:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, is "selfie wrist" considered as a disease name! or type of Carpal tunnel syndrome? or only popular name?
Wikipedia doesn't have an article (or redirect) for Adult-onset vitelliform macular dystrophy ( NIH link), but it does have one for Vitelliform macular dystrophy. Are these the same diseases, or separate diseases?
Also, the article Peripherin 2 links to Vitelliform macular dystrophy, but not vice-versa, nor does that first article belong to WikiProject Medicine. Should those two things be changed? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
[If the section immediately above seems a little odd, that's because I didn't ask the right question. This is try number two.]
Wikipedia doesn't have an article or redirect for Adult-onset foveomacular vitelliform dystrophy (AOFVD) ( link)
On a NIH.gov webpage ( link), this is said to be an alternative name for Adult-onset vitelliform macular dystrophy (AOVMD or AVMD), but I'd like other opinions on that.
Also, the list of alternative names on the NIH.gov page includes Foveomacular dystrophy, adult-onset, with choroidal neovascularization, which is a red link at List of OMIM disorder codes; is this in fact considered to be another name for the same thing? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: The Inversion therapy article says that it is a type of spinal decompression, but the Spinal decompression article says that it is a surgical procedure. It seems to me that there are other kinds of spinal decompression besides surgery, and that the second article needs adjustment to the lead section, but perhaps I am wrong and it's the first article that needs changing. In any case, I'm pretty sure that inversion therapy just means hanging upside down, not having surgery, so something needs to give.— Anne Delong ( talk) 22:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: While reading this article I came across a reference to "our study" which makes it seem as though Wikipedia has carried out a study (unlikely). Could someone who understands the subject please modify the text to indicate whose study it was, or remove the paragraph if the information is not well supported? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 22:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)