Talk:Wiley protocol/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial comments

This description of the Wiley Protocol is completely wrong on almost every point, describes nothing and serves only as a lead in to another of Debv's "Controvery" sections. Wouldn't it make sense to actually provide some information about it? I'm deleting errors, and I'll replace with corrections shortly. Neil Raden 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed and modified the section on the T.S. Wiley page about the 2004 Menopuae Society review of BHRT and dropped references to Wiley since they didn't study Wiley, but Debv has put it right back on this page without the changes. It's hard enough to keep this straight, let's not double the work. Neil Raden 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Please explore the history and contribs function. And you've been asked repeatedly to read and abide by Talk page guidelines. Please do so. Debv 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference to ACAM is very misleading. It seems to imply that ACAM as an organization had these concerns about the Wiley Protocol when in fact it was one person, Lynn from RhythmicLiving, who attended and heckled and interrupted Wiley's presentations. ACAM, in fact, invited Wiley to Keynote and has invited back two more years in a row. So once again, just like the T.S. Wiley article, the source of all this "controversy" is one website who's owner has publicly stated that she "will destroy Wiley."Neil Raden 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you consider it misleading is not a justification for removing sourced content. Debv 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's misleading, then it should be rewritten so that it is no longer misleading.QuizzicalBee 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that it's almost a direct quote from the report, there's nothing misleading about the wording. Nraden seems to be disputing the report itself. But the fact remains that these concerns were raised at the conference, the authors considered them worthy of inclusion, and the report was published in the referenced journal. Debv 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I DON'T HAVE TIME TO KEEP FIXING WHAT DEBV KEEPS DOING HERE. CAN I GET SOME HELP? THIS IS NOT AN IMPARTIAL CONTRIBUTOR. HER WEBSITE IS DEDICATED TO DESTROYING THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE. I HAVE A DAY JOB, I DON'T HAVE TIME TO MONITOR EVERYTHING SHE DOES. I WANT TO ELEVATE THIS IN WIKIPEDIA AND HAVE IT STOPPED. THIS IS NOT AN OPINION SITE, IT IS NOT A PLACE FOR SLANTED AND MISLEADING COMMENTS. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR REMOVING THE CLARIFICATION I PUT IN. TESTIMONY TO THE US SENATE IS A SOURCE, QUOTES FROM WILEYWATCH.COM AND RHYTHMICLIVING.COM ARE NOT. WHY AM I FIGHTING THIS BATTLE ALONE?????? iS WIKIPEDIA BROKEN?

YES I'M SHOUTING, I'M SICK OF THIS

I DON'T CARE IF DEBORAH VANDERSTADT SPILLS HER VENOMN ALL OVER THE INTERNET, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT ON WIKIPEDIA. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO READ THIS DISCUSSION AND THE ONE ON T. S. WILEY AND STEP IN.

150 Doctors

I don't understand the need fopr a citation in this passage. The website clearly lists these doctors.

I'M AM ROLLING BACK ALL OF HER RECENT CHANGES. Neil Raden 18:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some facts. I was at the ACAM meeting in 2005, debv was not. There were a few hundred doctors there and Wiley recevied a warm reception to her keynote. They were grateful for her efforts to promote the use of bioidentical hormones. There was no concern expressed by ACAM as a whole. During the Q&A, two or three doctors challenged Wiley on her protocol, but this is to be expected. The questionning was professional, not belligerent. Even Dr. Eugene Shippen, who rhythmicliving.com contends said, "You don't know what you're talking about." I don't recall that. He has denied ever saying such a thing, to me personally. The most pointed, insistent and accusatory questions came from a "Lynn" from RhythmicLiving.com, a site dedicated to the professional destruction and personal humiliation of T.S. Wiley. She was sent to heckle. She is mneither a doctor nor a scientist. In fact, when Wiley caught her in the hallway, she sat down with her and said she she would be happy to answer any of her questions, in detail, right there. "Lynn" refused to participate. Getting information was not her agenda, and distributing impartial information is not Debv's.

These are not honest brokers of information. My objection to the sentence in the article about ACAM's concerns is that it is deliberately placed there by debv to lead the reader to believe that ACAM as whole shares this concern. They do not. Most of the 150 doctors on thewileyprotocol.com site are ACAM members. The president of ACAM at the time and the current president are Wiley Protocol prescribers. Wiley is invited back to the conferecne every year and is going again in 2007.

This is all part of smear campaign by debv that she wraps in a thin veil of resonableness, but is exposed for what it is by the lack of any balance to what she says. Neil Raden 19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations of clinical results

Wiley's testimony submitted to the Senate Special Committee on Aging is not a reliable source. Contrary to claims that have been made, this testimony was not submitted under oath. This has been confirmed by Brandi Kupchella, legal counsel at the committee. Even if it had been, this would not serve to verify the claims that are made in the article about the safety and efficacy of the protocol. Senate committees operate in the legal sphere and are not qualified to and do not themselves make judgments of medical science. Reliable sources are needed. Debv 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why published testimony of a Senate committee is not as reliable a source as the "trip report" of ACAM 2005, which debv promotes. Neil Raden 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol Patent Application

Can be found at http://www.freshpatents.com/Hormone-replacement-composition-and-method-dt20070301ptan20070049567.php?type=description Neil Raden 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

150 Doctors

I don't understand the need fopr a citation in this passage. The website clearly lists these doctors. If you mean, that it needs a reference to www.thewileyprotocol.com, then go ahead and add it. Otherwise, please explain. Neil Raden 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

that's exactly it. It is inappropriate to link to a page that somewhere has the information and people must track it down. The reference link must go directly to the page with the relevant information. Provide the specific subpage on the WP external page, and I'll put it up and remove the citation tag. WLU 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here you go - http://www.thewileyprotocol.com/list-doctors.htm Neil Raden 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the link itself, I'm not comfortable with putting it up. If it were a statement saying 'I/We, the undersigned find the Wiley Protocol to be worth supporting' or something similar, then I'd put it up. This is Wiley saying 'I've found doctors willing to prescribe my medication' and saying they support the protocol is original research in my mind. The doctors are not endorsing the Wiley protocol, Wiley is endorsing the doctors. Bring it up with another contributor perhaps, like User:Coelacan or User:Jehochman (who are familiar with the pages and your relationship to them), as I'm not 100% sure I'm justified in saying no. But as is, I am not willing to put it on the page myself. I am willing to see what other contributors say though, and I think they'll back me up. WLU 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Controvery and COI

I think it's time to remove the templates from the article as they no longer apply. There is nothing controversial in it anymore and both Deb and I agreed not to edit the article directly.Neil Raden 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that - the creator of the page still does have a COI, and I'm personally uncertain about the protocol for removing a COI template. WLU 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I may have a COI, but I have agreed to only edit the discussion page. Neil Raden 22:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Debv is also in COI. If you're arguing, argue from policy. WLU 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that she agreed to this tooNeil Raden 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Though this article is no longer being modified by conflicted editors, it and T. S. Wiley still bear the POV taint. E.g.: "Unlike conventional BHRT, the Wiley Protocol promotes itself as a means of restoring or preserving health, rather than just relieving the symptoms of menopause." In fact many proponents and forms of BHRT claim health benefits. (I asked one prominent BHRT advocate what she thought of this statement and she replied that it's a "ridiculous" claim.) The statement was added by a pro-Wiley partisan.

The "Doctor Support" section reads like a sales brochure, particularly the Dr. Renna quote. This quote appears frequently in Wiley marketing materials and has essentially no informational value -- no reference, context, or explanation, just one practitioner's gushing opinion.

The so-called "clinical trial" is not a clinical trial at all -- it is only an observational study. No mention is made of the fact that the study's co-principal investigator, Julie Taguchi, is a long-time supporter of Wiley and her protocol, has an "@thewileyprotocol.com" e-mail address, and was co-author of Sex, Lies and Menopause. This section was added by a pro-Wiley conflicted editor. (EDIT: I don't mean to suggest that all of this is relevant for the article, only that the study is described inaccurately and, it seems to me, with bias. Debv 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Until these articles get a good working-over by a neutral editor, like that of Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy recently, my view is that these templates should remain. Debv 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Promotes Itself

I don't like the way this reads. How can a protocol promote itself? And the use of "promotes" is clearly prejorative: "the Wiley Protocol promotes itself as a means of restoring or preserving health, rather than just relieving the symptoms of menopause." A more accurate statement would be, "The premise behind the Wiley Protocol is to not merely relieve symptoms of menopause, but to restore a normal pre-menopausal balance and rhythm to the sex hormones, estrogen (estradiol) and progesterone. This is the attribute of the therapy that distinguishes it from the Standard of Care for BHRT. The theory is that the lack of these normal levels and rhythms lead to the diseases of aging, but it remains to be seen if that is the case." Notice the careful use of the words "premise" and "theory" as well as disclaimer at the end. Neil Raden 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm re-writing. WLU 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an exact weblink for the 150 doctors reference? I can't find it on my casual check through the website. OOps, it's above. Unless there's a better citation, I'm leaving it with a fact tag, and may remove it in the near future. WLU 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Page has been moved to Wiley Protocol, and all relevant redirects corrected. WLU 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Taguchi

There are factual errors in the recent changes. Taguchi is not a part of the "Wiley team." First of all, there is no Wiley team. Second, Taguchi was a contributing author to the book "Sex, Lies and Menopause," which was not about the Wiley Protocol, it was about hormones and disease and laid out the premise for something like the Wiley Protocol. Taguchi is a practicing clinical oncologist in a large practice. She is supportive of the Wikey Protocol, but is not engaged with Wiley in any way except as a colleague. Secondly, she did not, to my knowledge, report remission of cancer, only a lower than expected recurrence and much improved quality of life. Taguchi is also a co-PI of the U of Texas study that is looking at the Wiley Protocol as well as other bioidentical HRT.

Now, the 150 doctors (I think there are actually closer to 200 now) - their names are on the website because they've requested them to be there. I don't know what other evidence there could be. What would be considered authoritative? And, in the absence of that, the fact that a large number of doctors do support the protocol is absent from this article, an error of omission I think. If you are going to point out the controversy raised by a handful of doctors with a financial stake in their own competing HRT (Schwartz et al), where is the balance?

Neil Raden 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the anon signature, it's not needed if you're the one who added the above (as your later signature implies).

Quoting the wiley protocol website about Taguchi, "She joined the team for the Wiley Protocol to clinically test their progesterone theories at Cottage Hospital in 1999." That comment is attributable to the WP website, and Taguchi herself. I'm taking that source over your word.

I've re-worded the cancer statement to report what I read in the senate testimony.

The 200 doctors thing, I've addressed above. Has the wording on the website changed? If not, I see no reason to change the main page. To reiterate, all it says is that there are doctors willing to prescribe the Wiley Protocol, not that they agree with it. Further, the wording on the Wiley Protocol webpage is gushy and POV. Not really a neutral or reliable source in my mind. I'm removing the information from the 'support' section as there's no real statement of support there, just a list of people who are willing to prescribe the medication. There's no real place to put it back, so I'm just leaving it out. It's too close to advertising for my tastes. WLU 20:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Taint?

Debv wrote, "Though this article is no longer being modified by conflicted editors, it and T. S. Wiley still bear the POV taint. " If anything, it still bears the Debv taint. There are twice as many words devoted to the controversy as there are to the description. When Wiley teaches her seminar to the doctors, it takes two full days to go through it, but here there are a scant three lines. I think this article is devoid of value and should either be rewritten, by someone who understands it, or deleted. Neil Raden 17:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are free to nominate it for deletion, though I suspect it'll be rejected - the protocol is noteworthy. The page reads OK to me, the reason why the criticism section is longer, in my mind, is because it has reliable sources discussing the controversy, which require more words to describe the contents of said sources. Since the Wiley Protocol is not backed up by any real research that I've been able to find, there's less on the main parts of the protocol. You want a longer description, provide citations that talk about the details you feel are missing. WLU 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See, this displays your extreme prejudice, and since you're the only editor interested in this article, I think it should be deleted. The book, "Sex, Lies and Menopause" has over 100 pages of endnotes. The whole concept of the protocol is derived from years of peer reviewed research, including Wiley's own published research. To say that there is no clinical trial data is accurate. Why don't you cite the book as a reliable source? I believe the reason is your bias toward BHRT. You allow material from the Rhythmic Living hate site, and some half-assed doctor who got her nose out of joint when Somers cut her out of the book. There is nothing balanced here. You use Wikipedia rules selectively to slant this article your way. Neil Raden 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the deletion policy - you do not determine if articles are deleted, the community does. I've implemented suggestions as you have made them, if I found them to be appropriate. I am not the sole editor on wikipedia, you can solicit others. When I make a change, I state why I am making the change. I'm not going to read an entire book I'm not particularly interested in just to add some footnotes to the page, nor will I take your word for it. If there are scientific journals that support your statements, put them up on the talk page and what you think they represent. You are free to bring your concerns up at WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:MED, all of which are venues which may be useful for making changes you feel are appropriate. Just because I don't want to doesn't mean it's not going to happen. If you have problems with my use of policy, read the policy and make your own arguments based on them. From what I have seen, the Wiley Protocol itself doesn't have many reliable sources that discuss it, that's not my problem. Wileyprotocol.com is not a reliable source. Unless it is - read the policy and state how you believe it fulfils the criteria of a reliable source. WLU 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You just exposed your bias again. You refuse to use material from the Wiley Protocol website because you don't accept it as reliable, yet you use it to refute my statement that Dr. Taguchi isn't on the "team." You can't have it both ways. Neil Raden 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, by my reading of the policy, I can. I see it as being able to use it as a source to say a minor thing like her belonging to the team, but not use it as a source for how great the protocol is or widespread support. Or I could be wrong. Try reading the policy and arguing from there - it's a common newbie mistake to think that you can argue logically rather than via policy. Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. You might get a better understanding of things if you edited more pages, rather than treading the path of a single purpose account. Or I could be wrong. Check out the links in the above section. Or edit more pages. Or read some policy. But above all, realize that you are not a reliable source. But the wileyprotocol.com site is. Or am I wrong? WLU 21:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to Taguchi. You wrote she has been part of the team since 1999. How do you know? The line you cite from thewileyprotocol.com simply says she joined a team to test something. That could have taken twpo days. That doesn't make her part of the WIley team, you've extrapolated that, and it certainly doesn't say that she is still part of this putative "team." I can only assume that you drew this incorrect conclusion to diminish her stature as an MD with positive experience with the WP. You've taken a page from debv's playbook. Neil Raden 22:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the phrase that Taguchi is a member of the Wiley team. She is not and never was, if by team, the writer meant those actively promoting the Wiley Protocol. She is a clinical oncologist in a very large (100+ doctor) practice who has never received a dime in compensation from Wiley or Wiley-related activities, with the exception of book royalties. She is the co-Principal Investigator on a study of the Wiley Protocol as well as a number of other BHRT regimens. Why are editors here so reluctant to remove something that is so clearly incorrect?

I agreed to not edit these pages, but I will remove this statement in a few days if someone else doesn't do it firs. Neil Raden 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not edit the pages, you are in COI. The standard for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. What you say does not matter, but what is verifiable does. The Wiley protocol website says that Taguchi is part of the team ("Julie Taguchi, M.D., an oncologist, is a staff physician at Sansum Medical Clinic in Santa Barbara. She joined the team for the Wiley Protocol to clinically test their progesterone theories at Cottage Hospital in 1999.") If you remove the change, I will revert and if you continue to do so, I will report you for vandalism. You are not a reliable source, what you say does not matter. What does matter is a reference from the page saying that she is a member of the team. Read and work from policies. WLU 11:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to accept the Wiley Protocol site as reliable for things like the doctor support issue, but accept it for this one mention of "team?" Wouldn't the same criteria apply? I lived in London in 1999, that doesn't mean I do now. That certainly doesn't mean I'm British. Even the the use of the word "team" is tortured here - there is no formal team. Taguchi was part of a group that looked at the Wiley Protocol. That doesn't make her part of the team and all that it implies. I want another editor to look at this, you are too biased to be useful. Neil Raden 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)

Your comment about using an unreliable site for something "minor" is bizarre. By insinuating that Taguchi is part of a Wiley "team," you dimish her role as an independent clinician and researcher who has reported (preliminary) favorable results of the Wiley Protocol for patients with cancer. That isn't minor. I suggest you reexamine your reasoning. I believe your inclusion of this "minor" fact is to discredit her position because of your previously admitted bias about this subject. Neil Raden 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing. You said previously, "Since the Wiley Protocol is not backed up by any real research that I've been able to find," as a reason to limit the description of it to a few lines (while filling the page with back stories), and since you do not accept the book and hundreds of references as verifiable source, what about Suzanne Somers' book? As you said, it doesn't have to be the truth, just verifiable. There it is. The Wiley Protocol is described in great detail in Ageless. Shall I give a three-paragraph description from Ageless that you can review and post? Neil Raden 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)

And here are some external links that actually have information about the Wiley Protocol. Please include them. http://www.thespiritedwoman.com/newsletter/2005/10/august_2004.html

http://www.personallifemedia.com/podcasts/beauty-now/episode002-ts-wiley.html

Neil Raden 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WLU, I am accusing you of being in COI. Please refrain from any other changes to this or the T.S. Wiley article. If you continue to make changes to this article, I will report you for vandalism. Your comments on other pages clearly reveal your bias on this issue and your arguments defy logic, to wit dubbing Taguchi a member of the "team" because of an entry on the Wiley Protocol website, but refusing to allow even a cursory definition of the Wiley Protocol from the same website or even the book by Wiley that lays out the foundation of the theory. I have given you ample counterarguments to which you have not replied.

If another editor does not appear I will request that these pages be dropped. Neil Raden 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the policies: WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:AFD, WP:V, WP:DR, WP:RFC. Read the policies, to date you have not demonstrated you've really read any of them. Engage with the community rather than uttering dubious threats. Were you to read AFD, you'd probably agree that TWP is in little danger of being deleted. I think you'd also find I do not meet the COI guidelines. but I am following WP:RS.

Incidentally, by dropped I assume you mean deleted. See WP:AFD for the process to nominate pages for deletion. You can try speedy and prodding, but since I'll contest both, you might as well move right to AFD. It'll save you time. Be sure to read the policy. WLU 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Description of the Wiley Protocol

WLU, you have it completely backwards. The WP is NOT compounded to the doses for each patient, that is one of its most distinctive characteristics. It's standardized. Everyone gets the same thing. There are a few different strtengths, but everyone gets one of them, not something "customized." Customizing doses for each patient is a myth, perpetuated by PCCA, to avoid FDA oversight of BHRT compounding. Wiley wants standardization so her protocol can be studied, and she's achieved it. Of course, none of this will appear in this article until I can find an editor who has smidgen of evenness. Really, if you took the time to read the materials, which you've already said you have no intention of doing, you would know this. Neil Raden 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a stupid way of dosing, as if all women would have exactly the same biochemical needs. Allow me to point out that insulting basically the only editor active on the page is not exactly the best way to put your changes forward. Also note that if you took the time to read the policies I've repeatedly pointed out, you might realize why you aren't getting much response from other editors. Please read the policies. WLU 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid? Now who is being insulting? Who cares if you think it's stupid? That's the description and you've made a mistake, so please fix it. I don't have time to explain to you how it works, any more than you do to read the material apparently, or how the doasages get altered, but you have it wrong. Something you obviously don't understand is that the myth of customizing BHRT for every patient is just that, a myth. Compounders stick to that story so they don't get regulated by the FDA. But in practice, everyone gets pretty much the same thing, plus a lot of expensive supplements of dubious value (and, T.S. Wiley says, most of which have estrogenic effects, messing everything up). The WP changes with results and symptoms, but the basic shape of the curves stay constant. All of this information is available in the public domain.

I respect the policies here, but frankly, if they aloow your misinformation to endure, there is something wrong with them. I'm a consumer of Wikipedia, not an editor. I just have an interest in seeing certain topics reported fairly.

Look, why don't we stopping arguing about this? I will give you a working description of the WP and we can talk about it from there. It is what it is, there is nothing to argue about. Arguing about how or if to include sections on controversy, etc. I can see contention there, but the WP is clearly described in a number of sources and I shouldn't have to twist your arm to post it properly. Neil Raden 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like much ado over nothing to me. Nraden is correct that the compounding is not individualized. However the dosing is, which I suspect was the intended meaning of the (now removed) phrase. Debv 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"More Controversy"

I object to the insertion of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. There is a whole section entitled controversy, but almost nothing descriptive about the protocol itself. Besides, all forms of BHRT are controversial. In fact, all forms of HRT are controversial. This article is almost devoid of content. For starters, it simply fails to inform the reader about the subject, who would likely come away with the impression that it is some sort of BHRT and some people don't like it. It says nothing of the unique assumptions underlying the protocol and consequences of those assumptions. The Wiley Protocol (WP) has managed to standardize the product across compounding pharmacies, something unique in BHRT. The style in which the dosages are altered across a 28-day cycle, the fact that women begin to menstruate again, regardless of their age provided they have a uterus, the use of a lunar calendar for women who cannot menstruate - none of this is explained. The WP comes in packaging that is designed to enhance compliance and ease of use and minimize error, there is a packet insert, also unique in compounded products. We could include photos of some of these items as they are exhibits in the patent application. I've suggested that I write these edits, with annotations, and have another editor review them and make the changes. WLU has not invested any time in understanding this, as he stated above, and he has also stated that he finds the whole subject of BHRT to be nonsense, but his inactivity is equivalent to censorship since he is the only editor. Now another editor has come in to further muddy the picture. Neil Raden 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write a description of the protocol, with citations, and upload images to both wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons so the images can be used across wikis in all languages. Anyone with an account can upload images, as long as they are compatible with the image policy - best is to take some pictures yourself and upload them with 100% release. You are correct, I have invested little time into understanding the article, and don't feel like reading popular books on a scientifically untested form of hormone therapy. That makes me lazy at worst, not a censor. I am not here to write articles for you, I volunteer my time on wikipedia to undertake tasks I enjoy doing. Let me say it again - I AM NOT HERE TO WRITE ARTICLES FOR YOU. This does not make me a censor. Stop pretending this whole thing is somehow my fault. Set up a sub page and draft your improvements to the article for comments from others, and quit trying to make me do it. I'm not going to. Finally, nonsense or not, I can still edit a page to be NPOV and in compliance with policy; if you've a problem with my edits, there have been many avenues pointed out to you that could be used to address them. And don't forget to assume good faith on the part of new editors. WLU 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is something like this acceptable? http://intlhormonesociety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=56 Neil Raden 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will. I left a comment on the most recent editor's talk page Invertzoo I think, and asked why "controversial" needed to be there. My comment was promptly deleted from the page. That doesn't seem like the spirit of cooperation to me. What is your suggestion for citation, though? The WP is what it is and the description will be found in Wiley materials. What about a patent application? What about Somers' book? It's not exactly scientific, but it is not an original source. All I want is something on the page that actually describes what it is. Neil Raden 22:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I want someone to remove the word "controversial" from the first sentence. It's subjective. The article on Newt Gingrich does not use the word controversial. The article on the film "the Passion of the Christ," one of the most controversial films of all times, does not either. There is a bold section on controversy, why is it in the first sentence? Why did the editor who inserted it refuse to engage in discussion? Neil Raden 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've read through all the reliable sources, there is no doubt the word "controversial" belongs in the article. Being the source of criticism in New York Times and several other articles certainly justifies that word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman is here

Here is a solution to the disputes occurring here. While Mr. Raden is not allowed to edit this page personally (I'm assuming) due to conflicts of interest, I can edit the page. Let's just wipe the entire slate clean and forget anything that has been said on this talk page. Here is how this will work. Debv and Neil Raden will explain what problem they see with the article and give suggestions on how to improve it. I will add my input and then WLU can also add his input. From there we can work together to improve the article. So right here below this comment I want Debv and Neil Raden to explain what they think is wrong with this article (in detail) and explain what can be done to correct it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, let's do that. I'll write a condensed description of the Wiley Protocol, its origin and where it stands today, that is neutral with respect to its benefits or the claims of its detractors. That should be a good place to start. My biggest gripe about this article as it stands is that it doesn't provide any information about the protocol, just personalities. Neil Raden 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an entire article or description of it. Just tell me what problems you see with THIS article so we can start working on them. You say this article provides no information about the Protocol itself? Give me a Reliable resource explaining what the Protocol is( don't explain it yourself) and I will add the info to the article explaining it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Wolf uses the Wiley Protocol in his practice. Here is how he explains it. http://www.centertm.com/default.asp?contentID=103

Neil Raden 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll read that fully when I have time, Please post more sources describing what the Wiley Prtocol is so that I can get as much info as possible. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My objections to that particular source are registered here. A better source might be the Senate testimony by Wiley herself, it's on the main page but here is a quick link to the 48 pages of testimony. WLU 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this source is considerably more authoritative, The other one did tend to gush a bit, I'd be more comfortable if you could find a specific objection to this one. Wolf is an MD with a considerable number of patients on the protocol, I'd consider his published statements very authoritative according to Wikipedia standards. Neil Raden 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was Wiley testifying before the Senate? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] I think it was a general hearing on BHRT, of which the WP was one type. Given the title (Bioidentical Hormones: Sound Science or Bad Medicine?) my guess is it's a debate on whether bioidentical hormones should be regulated or deregulated. WLU 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WLU, why do you guess? The answer is right there in the testimony. It was a hearing that resulted from draft legislation (The Safe drug Compounding Act of 2007; Kennedy, Burr) to regulate compounding pharmacy . BHRT is a major element of compounding today, and Wiley was asked to come and testify because her program acknowledged the problems with compounding and she had devised something to deal with it. In other words, they were more interested in understanding how she had been able to "standardize" the compounding than about the Wiley Protocol per se. Neil Raden 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I really don't have time to read all of that. Could you write up a paragraph with 6-8 good sentences explaining exactly what Wiley says the protocol is and how she says it works? We can then add that to the article as an explanation of what the protocol actually as. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what specific sorts of things does Nraden consider missing from the description. It seems to me the essential points of what the protocol is are all there -- namely, a form of BHRT that uses transdermally-administered, plant-derived hormones dosed cyclically and with the objective of reproducing the levels and cycles of a woman's youth. ("Pre-menopausal" is inaccurate. The target is those of a twenty-year-old woman.)

There is no coverage of the rationale behind the protocol, and perhaps that is an element of Nraden's objection. I certainly wouldn't object to its inclusion as long as the language is neutral etc. Debv 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks deb, that was reasonable. I'm for neutral here, also. Neil Raden 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I might have a look through Wiley's testimony along with the other senate stuff - from the bits that I've read it's a nice quasi-layperson summary of BHRT and some of the FDA's problems with it. A 20-year-old woman is 'technically' pre-menopausal, though the wording can be tweaked. The problem with the rational behind the protocol is that there's no real scholarly discussion that I know of, just popular books. From what I know, the Wiley Protocol has never been investigated and reported in a peer-reviewed journal. Were it so, it would immensely help the page. WLU 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-menopausal is accurate. For someome (Debv) who seems to have limitless time trying to undermine Wiley (like your hate site and the way you contacted a radio station last week and asked them to pull a Wiley interview about sleep, her first book, because she "has no credentials"), I would think you would have a better understanding of the protocol, but apparently you don't. The "20-year-old woman" referred to the reference serum levels of a 20-year-old as contrast, but no one attains those levels and no attempt is made to. In clinical practice it's been found that optimal levels vary by the person. The physician's clinical guide does not recommend targeting these levels. I'm afraid that, because you and your colleagues have made yourselves such bitter enemies of the Wiley Protcol, your information is dated and inaccurate. In short, YOU have no credentials. Anyway, I took your comment to be reasonable, but I guess I read into it. I'm expecting another ugly battle with the revisions to come. Neil Raden 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been asked repeatedly to respect WP:NPA and yet you continue to refuse. You could at least get your facts straight. I am aware of two recent radio interviews with your wife and in neither case did I make any contact with the radio stations or with anyone involved, nor am I aware of anyone who did. If someone did contact the radio station, it was not me and they didn't tell me about it. You are very much mistaken.

Now, T.S. Wiley has frequently stated that the Wiley Protocol aims to restore hormone levels to those of a twenty-year-old woman, for instance in the first of those radio interviews (at about the 19:47 mark): "I devised a rhythmic dosing regimen called 'The Wiley Protocol', and we use estradiol and progesterone cream, and we recreate a normal rhythm of hormones over a 28-day cycle, for a woman, and we put her back to twenty-year-old levels internally." My information is neither dated nor inaccurate, and is certainly not going to be conditioned on your say-so. Debv 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And for further reference:

Google: "wiley protocol" "twenty year old" | "20 year old"

Debv 02:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct about the 20-year-old business, my mistake. The protocol aims for estradiol levels on day 12 of 350-550 picograms/deciliter and progesterone levels of 12-21 nanograms/deciliter. I will follow up to see if I am also mistaken about the radio show, though your intimate knowledge of her appearances is pretty incriminating. I have not made personal attacks on you. I have only stated what is true. You don't understand the protocol and you steadfastly refuse to avail yourself of any facts. You cite the negative experience of a handful of anonymous women, who were not even on the protocol, but make no attempt to balance it by investigating any of the thousdands of women and hundreds of doctors that are having a very different experience. You contact every blog, media outlet or doctor you know of and try to undermine Wiley. It takes some real chutzpah to come on here and pose as a neutral voice. Neil Raden 03:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Running a website "scrutinizing the Wiley Protocol and its stakeholders", I'm not sure why anyone would be unprepared for the fact that I am typically aware of your wife's every press release and public notice. Debv 03:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I dispute the entirety of your (further) personal attacks here, but I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you in this forum. It would be entirely inappropriate.

And by my understanding of WP:NPA, it seems you've either not read it or failed to understand the statement, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Debv 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, From what I can understand Nraden thinks that this article should contain more information detailing exactly what the Wiley protocol is and how it supposedly works. I agree, apparently everyone else also agrees. The real question here is how to add that information and what sort of information should be added as well as what a reliable source for the info is. I believe that the best source to use would be this senate hearing. There are far too many pages for me to read through however here's what we can do. Nraden can go through the testimony and then type up some basic information on what the Wiley protocol is and how it supposedly works. Debv can do the same. Once the two of you are done then we can compare the versions and pick the best parts from both versions to add to the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't gotten to this yet, I just haven't had time. I will submit something shortly. Neil Raden 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Invertzoo

Here is what I wrote on Invertzoo's talk page. It was deleted without comment.

• • • • • Please see my comment on the discussion page for the Wiley Protocol. I wonder why you find it necessary to point out that the protocol is "controversial" but fail to demonstrate that you understand it. Hopefully you're not yet another "scientist" pulling the Velikovsky card and dismissing something, not on its merits, with which you are not acquainted, but because of your position. Forgive me if this does not describe you. I can't revert your edit because I'm COI, but I would if I could. Can someone please engage this person and find why he/she did this? Neil Raden 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read my above post and let's see if we can solve this dispute. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Press Release

The Hormone Wars: Small Business and Patients Duke it Out Against Big Pharma and Win

Possibly relevant. Debv 05:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, not usable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

New Content: description of the WP

Let's start with this. I tried to be as neutral as possible and present a clear description of what the Wiley Protocol is. I have another section on the theory behind it, but I'll hold off as it's too much at once. I didn't include links, etc. as I'm sure there will be some editing.

What Is It

---

The Wiley Protocol is a form of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) that was conceived by T.S. Wiley and first described in the book Sex, Lies and Menopause . It employs a number of aspects that are not uncommon in BHRT, such the use of plant-derived hormones and the application of hormone creams to the skin that are compounded by pharmacies. The Wiley Protocol differs significantly from most other BHRT in the following ways:

- The creams are applied to vary over a 28-day cycle in a pattern that is meant to mimic the cyclic rhythms of hormones in a healthy, pre-menopausal woman.

- It uses only one type of Estrogen, Estradiol, but not its metabolites, Estriol or Estrace, which are often included in other protocols.

- The actual dosage levels are higher than is typical because the goal is to approach targeted serum (blood) concentrations.

- Unlike most other BHRT, the Wiley Protocol was conceived to restore the body to normal, pre-menopause levels, not to merely alleviate external symptoms of menopause. .

- Women on the protocol who have not had a hysterectomy resume or continue menstruating. Those who have had a hysterectomy follow a lunar calendar.

The Wiley Protocol is prescribed by doctors and other qualified medical practitioners, who are trained in the management of the protocol, and the compounds are dispensed by compounding pharmacies who have contracted with Wiley Systems to adhere to strict conformance with the ingredients, methods and materials specified by Wiley. In this way, the protocol can be studied across individual pharmacies and time and the patients can have their prescription filled by any of the pharmacies without altering their program. The U.S. Senate Committee on Aging invited T.S. Wiley to testify about her program and its results at a hearing concerning the regulation of compounding pharmacy.

How Does It Work[]

The basic protocol starts with a base level of Estradiol for the first few days, climbing to a peak at day 12, then falling rapidly and continuing at a low level for the rest of the cycle. Progesterone begins at day 13 and climbs to a peak on day 21 and then falls rapidly. In the first three months, everyone receives the same program. After three months, modifications may be made to the protocol by the medical practitioners, who are aided by a clinical manual produced by Wiley that describes symptoms and recommends solutions based on observations from past experience. Modifications do not include cutting the doses by half or more across the board or modifying the shape of the curves in any way. Practitioners are free to do so, but must discontinue referring to the program as the “Wiley Protocol” and pharmacies may not fill these prescriptions with Wiley-marked materials.

A fundamental concept behind the protocol is receptor anticipation. Dr. Greg Wolf [] explains receptor anticipation] as, "Receptor anticipation stipulates that one hormone will signal the cells to begin to prepare to receive a second hormone. Receptor anticipation is seen in the relationship between estradiol and progesterone. When estradiol surges at day 12 of a typical 28 day cycle it signals cells throughout the body to begin to produce progesterone receptors so that the cells can recognize and properly respond to the impending progesterone surge, which reaches a maximum at day 21. This process requires peaking levels of estradiol to work properly. Peaking surges of estradiol naturally occur in a menstrual cycle and is mirrored as well in the Wiley Protocol."

References

---

That's a start. I'm not trying to write a commercial, I just want to see this article contain some facts. I have not included the word "controversial," because, in fact, it is no longer any more controversial than other BHRT, except to a few vocal people. Neil Raden (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That needs reliable sources before it can be included. WLU (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already given the Patent url above, which you chose to ignore last time and/or claimed not to have time to read, just like the book. Where is Wikidudeman? I thought we were going to be constructive here for a change. Neil Raden (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Add links as in-line citations, using WP:FOOT and WP:CIT. And neither Wikidudeman, nor I, are your wiki-bitches or servants. You want it on the page, add citations. If you want, add them as url links and I'll convert them to references. WLU (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

the links are alrerady in the article. Everything here can be found in the Senate testimony, the patent filing and the book. I didn't add them yet becuae I assumed that this material would go through some editing, as I said in the first sentence. And if I wanted a Wiki=bitch, I certainly wouldn't rely on you. 72.205.193.253 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, you'd be sorely disappointed. Add the links as in-line citations, or even embed them in the above text - if it's changed, it should be changed based on, and reflect the evidence. If I want to change the text, I want to be sure my change is justified by the citation. You're making it easier for people to work with, and more useful to readers. WLU (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted some links and sources, but I haven't quite got the hang of it yet. Only two of the four insertions showed up as footnotes. Neil Raden 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Look up WP:FOOT - footnotes only show up if you use the <ref></ref> tags. You can simplify the <ref name> template by not using quotations - they aren't necessary and I don't know why they always seem to show up. It may be an artifact of the citation generators. If you can't figure it out, leave a question or just point it out, fixing it is much quicker than research and I can do it between other tasks. WLU 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For an article that's about biochemistry and medicine, the level of evidence required to say that the WP is effective at what it claims to do (i.e. saying 'it does x' rather than saying 'according to Wiley, the protocol is designed to do x') may be higher and require peer-reviewed medical sources rather than the wiley website and a book by Suzanne Somers. User:SandyGeorgia is a phenomenal resource in regard to medical articles, in addition to being (in my expeirence) incredibly nice, knowledgeable, patient, and very willing to negotiate an acceptable consensus. I'm going to bring this page up with them and see what they say. WLU 02:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit late here, so I've not *even* glanced at the article yet, but from skimming the talk page, I'm worried about the sourcing. Unless I find something in the article that I'm not seeing on the talk page, I'm wondering: Why are you all sourcing an article about the Wiley Protocol to Wiley herself, even if testimony? Reliable sources need to be independent published by third-parties (and Suzanne Somers isn't likely to meet the high standards required for medical articles). Are there any independent and/or peer-reviewed published sources in use here? We need reliable third-party publications, peer-reviewed, subject to fact-checking and editorial oversight. Is there anything in PubMed and has anyone done a PubMed search? A solid readthrough of WP:RS and WP:V will help, and then we can dig in. Is there any peer-reviewed literature being used? Please have a glance at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. I'll catch up with you all tomorrow. (By the way, I don't see a single reliable source mentioned on this talk page, and I see several biased and commercial sources, so we'll need much better source material to work with.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• • http://www.centertm.com/default.asp?contentID=103 Not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm having such a hard time getting this point across - I'm not making any claims. I'm just describing it. If you feel I've made a claim, please point it out and we'll discuss it. Neil Raden 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

This entire section is based on self-publications, so will need to go unless there are independent sources (I shorted the section title to conform with WP:MSH, but I'm not happy with Support because there's no "support" there):

• Dr. Julie Taguchi, a member of the Wiley Protocol team since 1999 has reported anecdotal evidence of lower cancer recurrence rates for patients on the Wiley protocol for more than 2.5 years, as well as an attenuation of symptoms associated with menopause.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the WP:PEACOCKery and self-publication there. Basically, all that paragraph says is that Wiley's staff makes certain claims, and there is no medical literature I could find that backs it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There are some circumstances under which reliability can be established for a professional blog, but they are rare. Please explain, per WP:V and WP:RS, what makes Dr. Erika's blog a reliable source. (I was relieved to find one reliable source in the article, the journal-published source.

Strike that; found New York Times article which established Dr Erika's credentials. The New York Times article needs to be fully reflected into the article and to T. S. Wiley. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• T. S. Wiley and Suzanne Somers have been criticized by some physicians for their advocacy of the Wiley Protocol. A group of seven doctors issued a public letter to Somers and her publisher, Crown, in which they state that the protocol is "scientifically unproven and dangerous" and cite Wiley's lack of medical and clinical qualifications. Somers is acting as a spokesperson for the protocol and was not involved in the development of the Wiley Protocol or its ongoing development.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found a notable mention of this: [2]. Apparently it was in the New York Times, so this criticism needs to be given due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See also: http://www.newsweek.com/id/44568

And: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2874767

The former references the Schwartz et al. letter, noting that "Wiley's only academic credential is a degree in anthropology". The latter uncovers the nonexistence of this degree. Debv 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see all that now; so why are we having this discussion? The article needs to be rewritten to reflect WP:UNDUE. All of the reliably sourced information is serious criticism; there is *no* independent, third-party reliable support, no medical indications in support of this protocol that I could find, and the self-published claims need to be presented as that. Ya'll have plenty of material to work with here; you don't need me. When all of the sources criticize a topic, our article does not need to steer away from the criticism and controversy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we strike anything, I was merely trying to insert a desription of the Wiley Protocol, since the current article lacks one. Now I'm going to ask you to use some logic. If you can allow criticism, then you have to have SOMETHING to criticize. Here is another question. What makes Erika Schwartz an authority and a credible source for criticsm, just because she got some publicity? On the contrary, this criticism is not "independent third-party reliable support," Schwartz is a competitor with a serious COI. Wiley is a credidle source because she was invited and vetted by the US Senate. Frankly, I would put more credibility in that than a newspaper article. Incidentally, if you go to PubMed you will find Wiley's peer-reviewed research. I don't believe ANY of the sources for criticism can make that claim. By the way, why is Dr. Greg Wolf not a reliable source? I don't see the balance here with accepting Schwartz and rejecting him. Isn't he exactly the kind of 3rd party source you're looking for? Or Fred Bloem M.D.( http://www.drbloem.com/fmdhormones.htm). Now Debv and her group are tireless critics of Wiley and we know that, but all of their stuff is self-reported too. The RhythmicLiving site with its women who have been "harmed" by the Wiley Protocol can't be corroborated. Neil Raden 05:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I would encourage you all to continue working to incorporate a self-published (that is, to Wiley) description, making attribution clear (that is, the description is according to her), but it must be balanced by the other descriptions given in reliable sources, of which I now see there are plenty. The entire Senate testimony has barely been touched here, the entire area is controversial, and there are plenty of independent descriptions of this hormone therapy. Wiki is not an advertorial; we can't just put up Wiley's version. Wiley's words are her own words, even if to the Senate; Schwartz is vetted through an independent, reliable source (the New York Times). Wiley's "peer-reviewed research" is a primary source. Where is Dr. Bloem mentioned by an independent reliable source equivalent to the New York Times? Anyone can put up a blog or website; that's the kind of sourcing we don't use on Wiki. Focus on content, not editors; your comments about Debv won't get the article written. If you work within the kinds of sourcing Wiki uses, you'll get there quicker. I understand the need to include a description of the Protocol; it needs to be written according to due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just came over to see how this page was going. There are all kinds of policy violations in this discussion, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BLP. Even if it's only a talk page, you all can't come here and attack others or each other or make statements about living persons that aren't based on reliable sources. Stop now. Deal with content not editors. If it's not in a reliable source, we really don't need to know here. I am probably going to have to ask someone familiar with WP:BLP to clean this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I can't find an elegant way to exercise the WP:BLP violations from the text above, I've deleted it all. Please stop the personal attacks and failure to assume good faith now, and please read and understand WP:BLP as it applies to all living persons, including posts to talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm going to ask one more time. There aren't enough reliable sources to make an article for either T.S. Wiley or the Wiley Protocol. It's impossible. I added two innocent paragraphs to describe the protocol and it starts a war again. I don't have the energy for this. Wikipedia is doing a disservice to Wiley by continuing this at this time. A year from now there will be ample material, but for now, it's all negative and can all be attributed to one source, who happens to be an editor here. Neil Raden 06:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If I can make a personal statement, first, I agree with your decision to excise the thread at issue. And frankly, it's what I wanted. I've voiced my concerns about the personal attacks in these talk pages and I was simply fed up with the tolerance that has been demonstrated. So today,I thought the best way to bring the issue to a head was to take the approach that "if it doesn't apply to them then it doesn't apply to me", and "turnabout is fair play". Today, for the first time, I deliberately flaunted my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I've read the policies and guidelines you mention over again. And honestly, I now regret my judgment. I may have gotten what I wanted, but what I'm realizing is that I disrespected this medium and this community in the course of it.

On my word, it will not happen again. I sincerely apologize. Debv 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Starting again; thanks for that, Debv. Nraden, both articles clearly meet notability, having been mentioned in numerous reliable sources. One thing you all might discuss is whether there is enough to say about the Protocol, or whether the content here should all be merged to T. S. Wiley and this article redirected to there. That is done by following the procedures described at WP:MERGE (putting up a merge to and merge from tag), and starting a talk page discussion to see if there is consensus for a merge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely. You may have deleted the thread, but you can't paper over the facts. When someone is a pioneer and takes risks and puts their own name on it, and despite what debv's organization claims, takes no compensation, they get kicked in the teeth, and they generally don't have the resources to fight back. The WP threatens a lot of people, its existence and growth are a thumb in the eye to the status quo. But that's OK, because the strength of Wiley's convictions carry her through. But in what I originally thought was the hope for real discourse, Wikipedia turns out to be slovenly captive to big media. Debv makes a lot of gratuitous statements above because Wikipedia currently serves her purposes - to discredit Wiley. You are playing right into her hands. In short, you can take a neutral role and satisfy yourself that you are only applying Wikipedia's guidelines, but I'm warning you that those guidelines are flawed in the case of biographical articles where the preponderance of "reliable sources" are negative and PERSONAL because of the undue efforts/influence of a vocal detractor. Debv said above she got what she wanted. You might want to think about what that was. I also disagree about making personal comments. Debv is not a person, she is an alias that is a front for a very public site. It should not be beyond reproach. And personal statements? Have you read what Formby says about Wiley and debv publishes? Are those scandalous statements a reliable source because he has a PhD? If you want reliable sources to counter Formby, just ask, but be careful, they're wicked. Neil Raden (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Now that I've been through everything I can find (which is basically nothing reliable), I'm not sure why we have this article; how does it meet WP:NN? I suggest it needs to be redirected to T. S. Wiley. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Strike that; I'm finding the notable criticism now. See above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding New Content

If there are no further objections, I am going to add the paragraphs under "New Content: description of the WP" to the article. Every day that this article remains in its current state damages Wiley and deprives readers of factual information. These paragraphs are purely descriptive and make no claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly object. You, like I, have agreed to limit your contributions to the talk pages. Debv (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner. If you want a source for the WP, read the patent: http://www.freshpatents.com/Hormone-replacement-composition-and-method-dt20070301ptan20070049567.php?type=claims Neil Raden (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not a patent. It is a patent application. Debv (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a published patent application. That means it wasn't rejected by the examiner and is in the final phase of approval. And I wasn't asking for your objection to publishing the content above, I was asking if there were any objections to it per se so that it could be published. If not, I'll ask one of the editors to insert it. Neil Raden (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add content, either of you, let various other users review the information first. COI still applies, and it can get you blocked. I'll try to get to it next week, please remind me if I haven't commented by Friday. Given my ongoing objections on the various talk pages, I feel an obligation to review it, but I may forget. WLU (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with WLU, and by the way, a patent app is a primary source, not an independent reliable secondary source. There seems to a solid misunderstanding here about the importance of published secondary independent reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time, because you Wikipedia editors seem to be so wrapped up in your procedure you've lost your judgment. If the only reliable secondary sources you can find are critical, and you accept no other source to even DESCRIBE accurately what is being criticized, how will your readers be able to understand what they're reading? In medical terms, an alternative treatment arises and before there is time for it to be studied and published, the medical establishment, in their own publications and in media, condemns it, usually without even understanding it. How will Wikipedia readers ever be able to inform themselves? I think it's absurd. If it's notable enough to publish, it's notsable enough to describe and this secondary source is irrelevant, because there may not be any. Now there is a patent application, a hardcover book, a website, Senate testimony and descriptions on at least three MD's sites I found, but NONE of that is OK for as much as simple desription of how the damned thing works??

Incidentally, if you were writing an article about the Six Minute Manager or Chicken Soup for the Soul, how would you be able to describe it without the primary source? I guess you could say the same about the Bible. Or Jesus. Where is the reliable secondary source for that? Neil Raden (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No one has said you can't describe what the protocol is according to self-published sources; we agreed above that you can do that as long as its correctly attributed. WLU asked simply that you let him do it, to avoid COI, and I reminded you that a patent app is a primary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)