Talk:Young blood transfusion

New research needs adding

It has just been found that it is not the young-blood that is beneficial, but rather, it is the dilution of the bad stuff in the old blood that reduces effects of ageing: https://newatlas.com/medical/diluted-blood-plasma-reverse-aging-in-mice/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.72.26 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"The evidence about human "young blood" was surprising"

What does this mean? Did they do any research with human young blood? I can't access the article right now. Natureium (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on the mouse research people thought that the human trials would show a benefit for young blood. The human trials did not. The source says:

Recent studies shed light on an unexpected issue in transfusion medicine and blood collection: not all donors may be equal relative to the quality of their blood and the transfusion outcome in patients. Young and female donors’ blood may be poorer than male and older donors’ [1]. This was indeed unexpected as experimental work—though unrelated to the transfusion field—suggested rejuvenation factors in young individuals’ plasma, at least in mice and as applied to neuronal plasticity [2,3]. </ref>

Thanks again for digging up those refs. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop trying to archive this entry. it is important to the subject matter. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, this is an old, inactive, completed discussion. This talk page is filled with old and finished discussions. I would like to archive them to clean up the talk page. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Leave this one alone. You have been undone several times. It's seems germane to the current discussion. Meters (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please let experienced editors deal with archiving. Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, that is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. I would like to archive these old, finished discussions. I have reviewed wikipedia's policy on archiving. Meters has threatened to block me for archiving these discussions. Respond, so that we can have a discussion, otherwise you are acting in an authoritarian manner, which is not consistent with wikipedia's policies. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Meters has warned you about your behaviour on this page. Not a threat. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It was a threat to say he would block me. I have reviewed the policies, I would like to archive the old, finished discussions. So far it appears I think these discussions from 2018 should be archived, and Roxy the dog and Meters disagree. So I am not currently archiving them. This page is long. There are old, finished discussions on it from 2018 and 2019. I would like to archive those discussions. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It was normal process warning given to troublesome editors such as yourself when they behave in a manner the community considers unnacceptable, as you have. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a personal attack, which is against wikipedia policy. You are acting in an illogical, authoritarian manner. My edits are in compliance with wikipedia policy and you have presented no evidence to the contrary.210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything has been done "by the book" according to policy and guideline. Continue, and you will probably get sanctioned in some way, ie blocked from editing, as the warnings you have received actually say. It is up to you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You are incorrect. You have presented no evidence for your arguments. You are threatening me with banning.210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You can have no excuses now. You have been informed. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in compliance with wikipedia policy. I would like to archive the old, finished discussions on this talk page. I am not currently archiving them because you and Meter oppose it. To reiterate my point, this page is long and there are old, finished discussions on them. What the fuck are you talking about when you say "suicide pact"?210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF is policy here. You made a statement on this page. AGF requires us to accept such statements at face value, along with any other evidence, such as the list of your contributions to this project. The suicide pact statement is wikipedia code for "I dont fucking believe you" -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you not believe? I would be happy to address your doubts specifically and I ask that we provide evidence.210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I've said all I need to. What happens next is up to you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping editors would review the 16 requested edits and correct the article. I would also like to archive the old, finished discussions. This page is long. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The current size of the page is 122,900 bytes, and wikipedia suggests archiving "when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page. I would like to archive the old, finished discussions. If I do not receive a response, in a reasonable amount of time I will begin archiving again until the talk page size is below 75 KB. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Gossip

In my view the following should not be included in the article, per WP:NOTGOSSIP. What do others think. We can have an RfC if there is no clear consensus here.

Jeff Bercovici wrote in Inc. that "life-extension science is a popular obsession" in Silicon Valley and that regenerative medicine was a fad which started in the 2000s. Bercovici states that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood". Technology entrepreneur Peter Thiel has an interest in Ambrosia. News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.

References

Most of it is "reporting" recentist gossip, and the only putatively substantial part, about Thiel's "interest" is also gossip, per this piece in Tech Crunch

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind that passage (the last 2 sentences). I haven't read all of the 4 sources, but it emphasizes that this is pretty much woo. Natureium (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

These sources fail MEDRS. Blood transfusions to create eternal youth are health related so our MEDRS should come into play. I'd add I did remove alternative medicine since I considered there is zero sense from any quarter that this procedure works. I have no attachment one way or the other on the alternative aspect but think MEDRS must be adhered to here. Not sure why it wouldn't. And as a note; I don't think its our place to show woo, and I hate that word, but to be scrupulous about the sources and NPOV. These sources fail MEDRS so our decision is pretty simple seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

These aren't medical claims being made, they are saying "this person thinks this is cool", so MEDRS doesn't apply. Whether it's appropriate for an article is another matter. I'm leaning toward not relevant. Natureium (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I skimmed this; you're right.

I don't think this is gossip which is basically rumour. If something is sourced in a reliable source then it becomes journalism :O). Because this is not just about some obscure research but has been reported in the popular press, we should note that, so this is fine. "News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life"(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

Medium source

Does anybody think that the Medium source even meets WP:RS? I can bring this to RSN if there is no clear consensus here.

The source is "Young Blood Transfusions - The Elixir Of Youth?". Medium. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 6 May 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

The citation omits the author, which btw, is "Immortal Coin". Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Medium is self-published, right? Natureium (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is a blogging platform as described in our article about it: Medium (website). Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You expect me to read articles that aren't about medicine? Natureium (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:) And so...? Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO, articles published on a blogging site would not qualify as a reliable source. I can't find any information about who Immortal Coin is, so I don't imagine they would qualify as an exception. Natureium (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So that is two of us. It was in the piece as created and nominated for DYK in this version. I removed it here, citing RS, and it was restored here. I should not remove it as I have been too reverty already today.Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to being unreliable, none of the references cited even supported the material it was citing (that the media were using "hyperbole"), so I've removed that piece entirely. If someone wants to say media coverage is "hyperbolic", the specific claim of hyperbole will need to be backed by references saying so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Typos, FRINGE-pushing

These diffs are not an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog:, Could you be more specific? I explained that Alkahest and Grifols were companies, added some wiki links, and made a single typo. Just expesssing your displeasure helps no one Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Murchison-Eye: I think some of it's alright, and I think we probably should cover the commercial aspect, but your edit looks to have added stuff like "Although the scientific community has rolled their eyes at the startup...". We don't throw jabs like that, nor use an informal tone like "rolled their eyes". We just state facts. If the fact is that the scientific community has not found good reason to believe that this is effective, we state that, in that way, not in a dismissive fashion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those fixes User:Seraphimblade. I also don't understand why people need to add sections. This is fine without them. If there is going to be a "commercialization" section (not "commercially") then it should be placed above the paragraph about Akerhast, which is also commercializing this (albeit appropriately). That doesn't really work, of course, since the beginning of that paragraph speaks directly to the one above it. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case that was just a quote, but I agree. The intention was to note that despite the scientific consensus, the business has been quite successful commercially. I have re-worded that intention in my recent edit. Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why in the world would you say that company is successful, based on its self-reported number of "clients"? Why do you even think 600 "clients" is a "success"? The Guardian doesn't describe it that way. That is all you, and all FRINGE/quackery flogging. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be self reported. If you offer a service, and people buy it, that is a success. But you should also note I did not mention sucess in the article, so I don't know why you are upset about that. Murchison-Eye (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That means you're convincing random people. Not that the procedure is a success. Natureium (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I didnt say that either. Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in lede is not indicative of source

• To be honest I find this whole area pretty disgusting.... However, I feel we have to be neutral. This sentence in the lead does not summarize the source. The source is also a blog which is problematic. This is our lead," The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil.[1]"

This is some of the content which indicates there may be more than just a claim of snake oil:

What is the current state of the science in terms of parabiosis and anti-aging effects? Any specific health claims for humans is definitely unproven at this time, but the research is intriguing (i.e., perfect for snake oil).

We are in the preliminary research stage. In order to truly answer these questions we need to do carefully-controlled clinical research in humans. As of right now, young blood transfusions as the next elixir of youth is enjoying its 15 minutes of fame. The science is genuinely interesting, and seems deserving of further research. What is clearly needed is high quality clinical research, before any clinical claims are made.

Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product.

• Add: In no place does this source say, "the scientific community...." the comments in this source are the opinions of a single person; therein lies one problem with a blog-like source. So we have to rewrite that lede sentence if we are going to use the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

• • By the way I think the source is fine given the credentials of the writer and the oversight of the source in general. We just have to make a more accurate summary of what the writer says.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

As I believe you well know, the community considers SBM fine for FRINGE stuff like this; this has been discussed to death. If what you are recommending is that the content say something like "more research is needed", we don't ever say that per WP:MEDMOS (control-f for "more research is needed"). Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I just suggested the source was fine I'm not sure what your point is. And no I don't remember discussion on this source specifically but I did look at it myself and thought it would do. I didn't suggest a change; I do think we have to summarize the source accurately and truthfully. What we have now doesn't do that. Since you mention it what about this,"There are no proven health or clinical claims and it is probable that young blood transfusion will become the newest snake oil. The science on young blood transfusion itself is interesting, intriguing and deserving of further research." Just a suggested direction to summarize the source. I am not attached to any of this and given my distaste of the subject I'll probably move on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

I don't particularly like this, "The science on young blood transfusion itself is interesting, intriguing and deserving of further research." since it seems to weight this aspect more than the present state of the research, but I do think we have to note that the author clearly indicates there are possibilities and that they are intriguing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

By the way I believe that the position against the "more research is needed" phrase is a response to how research itself is cited, (although I don't see what you are talking about in the control f point). In the past, in my experience, this phrase has been used to counter a skeptical position. In this case we are attempting to summarize the respected author's view on the research. Since the source is a skeptical source to begin with I think we can assume the author is not trying to neutralize a skeptical position. The issue is not whether we use what the author said but how to weight it so the lede does not seem to support "young blood transfusion".(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

We just don't say "more research is needed", generally. It is almost always true, and is trivia. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We have to summarize the source; WP 101. I'll leave this for now and see how this develops.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

The title of the article in question is "Parabiosis – The Next Snakeoil"

Right now promoting it is like promoting "snakeoil". There is no evidence applicable to human.

That their are claims of benefit in mice are neither hear nor their to an overview. Putting that in the lead is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the lede as written now. However, I have a few thoughts. Summarizing a source accurately can't be a promotional action. While I agree we don't want to give the sense that there is support for this procedure we also have a commitment to note what is in the sources. If we accept that an author is reliable for pejorative content per our standards, he logically must also reliable for the other stuff too. We can't cherry pick just the parts of the article that support the view that we are writing about something that is fringe. The author says specifically the research to date has been intriguing and is worth looking at further. I have no desire to get into a discussion about whether this content should be included but I do want to make a clear point here and for later, that summarizing a source in its entirety is what we do. If there is something positive in the article and its is clearly an aspect of the article we are bound to report it like it or not. This topic gives me the shivers and makes me think of some of the post apocalyptical movies I've seen. I hate the idea whether it works or not so I sure don't want to promote it, but as a Wikipedia editor I am bound to deal with all of the source faithfully. What we have to do is make sure it is weighted properly per other content. I'm not sure how to do that in this case as I said above but its what we're supposed to do.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC))

Add: This (below) would be good. Remove the mouse content and leave the rest. Per MOS the lede doesn't need sources since lede content is summarizing content sourced in the rest of the article.

• • Could we discuss this, collaborate, and not edit war? Just a wild and crazy thought!

There are no human trials on the technique and the lack of evidence and rigorous test environments means that the scientific community remains highly skeptical and considers the practice as little more than snake oil. Furthermore, contradictory evidence suggests that young blood may have a reduced impact compared to other sources.

Thiel redux

So

• Inc says

So Karmazin was somewhat surprised to get a message from Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing."

That sounds like Karmazin told the reporter that Camm actually reached out to him.

• Tech Crunch says

The story reported that Thiel Capital medical director Jason Camm (who is also an angel investor) had even contacted a startup called Ambrosia that was harvesting the blood of teens.

In short order, Vanity Fair, Gawker and numerous other media sites repeated the story. Ambrosia received so much press attention that founder Jesse Karmazin was even invited to talk about his work at Recode’s recent Code Conference. Meanwhile, an episode of HBO’s “Silicon Valley” poked fun at the unsettling idea.

But the story that took shape, that Thiel was looking to harvest the blood of the young, simply isn’t true according to Karmazin, who told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”

here, Karmazin is cited as saying the opposite.

So why does the article act as thought the 2nd ref doesn't exist?

Again this is pure gossip and should not be in the article. It is not as though Thiel actually invested (which is what this page actually said when it was nominated for DYK - namely Billionaire Peter Thiel is a prominent investor in Ambrosia.)

This chunk of content is all about whether X talked to Y which is not even certain.

This passage is not "accepted knowledge" and has nothing to do with our mission. Again, WP:NOTGOSSIP.

If we need to go to an RfC I will do that, but i cannot imagine that community would find the current content even close to OK. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions, RfCs... threats are not productive. I'll look into this situation later when I get the chance. violet/riga _^[talk] 07:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog. I'm not sure what you're asking for here, but I'll take a stab at it. This has nothing to do with gossip seems to me. Gossip is rumour. What we have here as the Tech Crunch source implies is a probable cover up. The final paragraph in the Tech Crunch article alludes to this in," I am happy to let readers draw their own conclusions about why Karmazin brought up Camm’s name to me in July 2016, acknowledged bringing it up afterward and complimented the story I wrote based on our conversation, denied having mentioned Camm 10 months later, and now has no comment whatsoever about the matter." The question is whether this content has any place in this article. One of the things we have to do as editors is make editorial decisions. So I guess that's where we are. I agree that if we do include this information it has to be complete using both sources and noting the implied cover up - this is possibility number one - or in the second possibility we leave out this content altogether. The question is whether we want to extend this article to include this story necessarily in its entirety in which case the content we have now would have to be rewritten. This content comes a bit close to coatrack content so that may be a consideration. Whether it is coatrack content is, I admit, a debatable point. I could go either way either using the content or removing it all. I don't see blame in an editor having missed this source; this happens all the time. As a new source is found we simply revise(Littleolive oil (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC))

It is recentist gossip. I didn't say anything about coatrack. I haven't brought this up before stating these rumors about Thiel is probably a BLP issue. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it for now and posted at BLPN, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Thiel_and_"young_blood". Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, I support removal of this WP:TABLOID nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thiel is not mentioned and has not been for a while. Nor is he mentioned in my preferred version of this article. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

So the lead has been reverted. Now it has the same citation three times in a row despite leads not needing citations. The lead I wrote summarised the article without, I think, promoting any viewpoint. It was reverted with the comment "we do not hype rodent studies. Ever." Well to me that's a blatant example of systemic bias. This article isn't supposed to be all about the effect in humans - current research has been focused on rodents. It's mentioned significantly in the article and should be in the lead too. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In my mind the rodent content was too heavily weighted per the rest of the content in the lede. The animal studies should perhaps be moved into a section on their own. The lede should then systematically summarize the sections in the article and the rodent content could go back in.I think right now because content was moved, removed, edited and generally jumbled around the article may not have a lot of coherence and then its hard to set up a lede that is weighted properly per sources. Edit warring doesn't help. I'm trying to include everyone's versions but that isn't working very well, apparently.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

...and by the way there is no hype of rodent studies....we have to summarize what's in the sources per WEIGHT and without POV. Editor cannot confuse content that is either positive or not pejorative and call it either promotional or hype. We have to summarize sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

Emphasizing the promising rodent students is not something we do. Humanity has cured cancer a zillion times -- in mice. This is exactly what snake oil-flogging shills do, every day on the internet. We do not do it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no emphasizing rodent studies. This is part of the history of this procedure and its in the source; there is no sense in the source that the rodent studies are promising. We are not citing sources to underpin content that suggests that because this works in mice in some ways that it works in human beings. I don't see anyone suggesting that and the source doesn't say that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

There was. both Doc James and I have removed it. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This,"While some studies declare that benefits have been observed in mice the lack of evidence and truly rigorous test environments means that the scientific community remains highly skeptical." describes benefits in mice. There is nothing that says the mouse benefits were also applied as a benefit to human beings. I think there's a misunderstanding. As a matter of fact the text said, "the lack of evidence". As I said, no one added content to make a connection between the history of the procedure or procedures in animals and anything in human beings. In fact its important to show that although there were preliminary studies in rodents there was never evidence that the same benefits were possible in human beings which is what the source implies.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

There are many many things that have been tested in vitro or in mouse and appear to work. We don't emphasize mouse studies. I only agreed to mention it in the body because this was Extremely Important to another editor. Now it is being pushed into lead. Give em an inch... Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog. If there is content in the article on mouse studies then the lede which summarizes the body of the article can also mention in a summarized form the mouse studies. You keep citing the mouse studies as if they were added to show that what happens in mice could also happen in human beings.I keep telling you, that isn't what's being added and I don't see that in the source. You seem fixated on this point. Of course there are studies which create health benefits in animals which do not effect human beings in the same way. I repeat no one is trying to say that the mouse studies showed usefulness in human beings.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

Would you please indent properly. I am just working to make this page like any other article about a proposed treatment, which is why both Doc James and I have removed it. You can bang your head against the wall all you like. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Besides the fact that your rudeness is spectacular, that you decide to remove content does in no way makes your move correct. I am challenging your reasoning and your rudeness as an answer is a red herring. This isn't a proposed treatment; it's a long way, according to sources, from any kind of treatment at all; no one is suggesting it is a treatment but you. This is fringe content. We do the reader a disservice if we don't explain clearly per the sources how this went from sewing a couple of (unfortunate) mice together to a fountain of youth elixir. And if we are including the history in the article body a summary belongs in the lead. You certainly haven't told anyone why we can ignore that Wikipedia guide to writing ledes. I'm busy today so won't be back but for heaven's sake tone down the rudeness. Everyone I've seen here is trying to work through this and for that they should be respected and not treated like trash.(Littleolive oil (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

• Jytdog it is really concerning that you are acting and reacting as if there are editors here who are trying to slant this article. That isn't the case.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC))
• Herein lies the problem. You are saying that this is a "proposed treatment" but it is not. It is something that is being investigated at the moment with rodents. You are the one trying to slant this article to be about humans! violet/riga _^[talk] 07:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the lead having citations. If we disagree on the wording we can come up with some proposals for wording and than have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is something wrong if one reference is used in three consecutive sentences. There is something wrong if the lead needs referencing to back up statements that are cited in the main body of the article. There is something wrong if you needing a straw man. violet/riga _^[talk] 07:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those are a problem! How were you ever an admin? Natureium (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would every sentence need the same reference and only that reference when standard practice is to have it at the end of the paragraph? And I’ll ignore the attempted provocation. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What happens when someone inserts material between multiple sentences that are from the same source? If you only add a source at the end of the paragraph, it's very unlikely that they are going to add a source to the first sentence, and then you have material that isn't referenced. This happens all the time when expanding articles. One scenario is that the material says "A causes B. A also causes C." In this case, it's easily assumed that they are from the same source. But when the text say "A causes B. B and C are common in area D. C has been proposed to do E." how is someone to know that they need to duplicate the reference? Natureium (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need this discussion here? There is no ideal situation when referencing a collaborative endeavour like this. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sections

Littleolive oil makes the point above that the article could be written in sections to highlight the difference between testing in rodents and testing in humans. This is indeed something that needs to be made clear in the article. In fact, that's exactly what there was before Jytdog came and messed around with everything. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I made this its own section.

The page is very short, due a lack of high quality sources about this medical procedure.

I do not see the value in any sections, on a page so short, nor do I see any way to add them, that doesn't break something or create an artificial distinction. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be too short. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Lots of unacceptable sourcing about health in that page. That would never survive in mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because you'd butcher it again, yeah. You clearly have no intention of trying to work at a solution so perhaps you should stop editwarring and wasting everyone's time. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You have still not made clear your reasoning for why that version of the article is so abhorrent. It doesn't violate BLP and is fully sourced from reputable secondary sources. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue here with respect to collaboration, is that we don't share assumptions (in other words, an understanding of the policies and guidelines and how to apply them) nor a goal (the mission of WP which is defined in WP:NOT). So yes everything is clashing. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Your addition of a section titled "Availability" makes this article seem more commercially focused. I think if we divide out a section on commercial availability, we need to create sections for the other information. Anyone disagree? Natureium (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What would you call the other section? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparing blood from mice of different ages

When comparing blood from mice of different ages it has been observed that the amount of some proteins in the young mouse blood exceed that in older mice. This is taken from a source that Jytdog favours yet he refuses to have it mentioned in the article. This is the exact meaning of this article!! Stop being so human-centric! You claim that there aren't any human trials so you want to remove the only studies that have been concluded?! violet/riga _^[talk] 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As has been discussed many times, we do not emphasize mouse studies this way. Nobody cares about improving the health of lab mice. The existence of the lab-mice in labs, is humancentric. The reporting of the work is humanentric. The studies are done on lab mice as proof of concept for human studies.Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

e/c : ... and yet the first line of the article defines the issue here ... specifically from a young person into an older person ... Are we having a Laurel/Yonni Mouse/Person problem here. -Roxy, the attack dog. barcus 23:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I agree that it should not be like that and my original wording was from a young source into an older animal". violet/riga _^[talk] 00:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We do not emphasize mouse studies when there are human studies to which we can refer. You're keen on saying that no such tests exist so should be happy to include this. There is no evidence of human studies for many things, let's say Dirofilaria immitis. That doesn't mean that we can't have such content. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jyt. We should not be emphasizing the mice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

this was a bad edit. There is evidence of this being done in lab mice, which is done only to see if it will work in people. No one does this in mice with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit to the mouse. If this were a veterninary treatment used in pets or race horses or something I could see the "animal". Lab mice are often killed at the end of the experiment to look more closely at what the experiment did. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is where the problem lies! This article is about animals because it’s not really a thing in humans! You’re treating it as if this is a typical medical procedure, but this is an article about the research that is ongoing! violet/riga _^[talk] 01:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares about curing mice. We don't hype research. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This doesn’t hype anything; it reports a widely-covered topic which is currently centred on mice. Your insistence that we must only write about human treatments is puzzling. violet/riga _^[talk] 01:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to emphasize the mice evidence is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The studies have been all about mice. This article is about the studies, ergo a significant part of this article will be about mice. If the efficacy of the procedure is promoted as being in humans then that would be wrong. violet/riga _^[talk] 08:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Snake oil

Stop adding the reference to snake oil. The source does not call young blood transfusion that - the mention in the source relates to parabiosis which is different! violet/riga _^[talk] 01:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay I will begin a RfC. It does say "Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product."

The source also says "Until then the treatment will likely have a second life on the fringe as snake oil. Given that this is likely to be a very expensive treatment, it will probably be elite snake oil for the wealthy."

Thus it does state that it is "snake oil"

The bigger question is what is the mainstream scientific position on "young blood transfusion"?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How to summarize the mainstream scientific position on "young blood transfusion"

The first sentence of the article define what it is. The second sentence should explain the mainstream scientific opinion on this practice. IMO the following sentence sums it up well.

Option 1: The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil.

The source in question says:

"Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product."

"Until then the treatment will likely have a second life on the fringe as snake oil. Given that this is likely to be a very expensive treatment, it will probably be elite snake oil for the wealthy."

This ref says it

"“It just reeks of snake oil,” said Michael Conboy, a cell and molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who’s collaborated on studies sewing old and young mice together and transfusing blood between them. “There’s no evidence in my mind that it’s going to work.”"

IMO this supports the text in question. Please feel free to add you suggestion below. Once we have collected the suggestion we can start the RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying “The scientific community” is too strong given that it is partially called that in one source. I don’t want an RfC on this tiny part - my argument is that we should be able to include references to trials in rodents, as per my suggested version of this article (which incidentally does have mention of snake oil. violet/riga _^[talk] 01:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

At your last edit[1] there was not "snake oil" in the text.

This section is about how we should summarize the mainstream scientific position.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I refer to the previously-mentioned User:Violetriga/ongoing/Young blood transfusion. violet/riga _^[talk] 02:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay so you have no proposal for summarizing the mainstream scientific position on young blood transfusions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The version in my area has mention of strong skepticism in the opening and then a qualified mention of snake oil later in the article. That’s my preference but if there are other sources which represent the ‘community ‘ then it would be fine in the lead. violet/riga _^[talk] 02:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific position should be the second sentence in this article after the definition IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputed content

Despite Jytdog's attempts to silence the 'opposition' there actually remains very little content that is disputed. I am going to assume that the article as it stands now is accepted by Jytdog given how quickly opposed content has been removed. I will try to summarise the differences between the article now and the version I have worked on in user space. Hopefully these can be looked at separately rather than a bulk dismissal. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Researcher naming

The inclusion of Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers. I think that naming one of the lead researchers in the field is beneficial. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this would be WP:UNDUE -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Name-checking researchers is not beneficial to the article. We name a source when we are attributing opinion, but the research, not the personalities are attributed. Even then "Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray" is a typical PR formulation attempting to spin a weak position. All of the relevant researchers' names are discoverable by following the links in the references. The name of a researcher does not improve any reader's understanding of the topic one jot. That's the definition of UNDUE. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mice

It has been said that we should not have too much content about mice. I maintain that this topic is almost entirely focussed on lab tests in mice and that it is not a problem to refer to them when no human tests are available as long as it is not presented in a way which implies that the same results are expected in humans. Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system. The study concluded that the blood from the younger mouse contributed to improved synaptic plasticity in the older mouse and this consequently led to a perceived improvement in learning and memory. They also demonstrated that a transferral of a young mouse's blood plasma into an older mouse allowed the latter to significantly improve in certain tasks related to learning and memory I believe that this comes from a decent source (Scientific American) and it links to the 2014 study as published in Nature. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is about mice, not humans, and is not suitable for this article. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this is where the main problem lies. I do not agree that such research, which is widely published, does not merit mention in an article to which it directly relates. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How does it relate? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The research into young blood is almost exclusively on mice. Why would mice not be mentioned? It's a significant portion of the parabiosis article which does not appear to be consumed by opposing viewpoints. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets see if we can insert a crowbar of understanding. I understand why the mice get mentioned in the parabiosis article. Have we got any sources relating parabiosis in mice to "young blood transfusions" in humans? No we do not. At least not yet. You need to wait until science gives us something to substantiate your speculations. Wikipedia doesn't do that. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What have I speculated about? I'm specifically saying that it does not relate to humans! violet/riga _^[talk] 11:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There we go. Well done. Lets have no more of this nonsense then. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So the fact that there is research about mice relating to young blood transfusions is not worthy of inclusion in an article about young blood transfusions? How does that make any sense? violet/riga _^[talk] 11:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to suggest that "research about mice relating to young blood transfusions" is relevant to an article about supposed medicinal benefits of young blood transfusions to humans. By conflating the two, you create a false impression of effectiveness that is not warranted. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a more reasoned response, thank you. I do disagree though because it fits in with the section about mice. I in no way want to imply that this is anything anywhere close to something useful in humans, and I think that something published in Nature is worthy of inclusion in a topic tightly related to it. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Cord

In 2017 a further study by Wyss-Coray and his team was published in Nature. This showed that older mice could benefit from blood transfused from human umbilical cords. They claim that this appears to "rejuvenate an old brain and make it work more like a younger one". Again from Scientific American. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As immediately above. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A single study shows nothing of the kind. Not relevant to humans anyway. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Spectacular mice

In a 2017 article published in The Economist the effects in mice were labelled "spectacular" but the author made the point that the reason why this happened was not clear. This again clearly refers to mice and does not suggest that such things are likely in human trials. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

These mice are getting annoying, disruptive even. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. And it is clear that there is not support for emphasizing the mice so unclear why this keeps getting raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Villeda

In 2018 a study by Dr. Saul Villeda, an assistant professor at the University of California, published new findings in journal Cell Reports. Villeda suggests that old brains may have "dormant plasticity" which can be utilised. "Young blood" has the ability to stimulate significant changes in DNA as regulated by the TET2 enzyme. Older brains have lower levels of TET2 with the hippocampus, the area of the brain associated with memory and learning, being particularly deficient. Villeda believes that DNA manipulation might in the future allow scientists to "make an organism younger again". This gives info about a potential reason why mouse studies have shown positive results. I am not particularly in favour of this section as it does sound like it is suggesting potential success in humans despite referring to "organism[s]". violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not human related. I bet you never saw that coming. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Dangers

The current version uses an MIT Technology Review reference three times. I believe that this could also be included: Amy Maxmen writing for the MIT Technology Review warned of the dangers of such trials, noting that transfusions are generally considered safe but can have side effects including deadly infections. This explicitly warns of (one of) the dangers of this treatment so I'm unsure why this is not acceptable. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I havn't read this ref, so I need to ask if it is Murine related? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is directly related to Ambrosia, so human. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a reasonable question, given that all the above is Murine related.-Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the lack of opposition I plan to include this sentence to highlight that transfusions are generally dangerous. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That would need a MEDRS ref. btw there is a brand new review - PMID 29722305 - and it is open source. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So you don't accept such a basic and obvious statement without a MEDRS reference despite it warning of dangers. I want to blood transfusion to get one but my god you'd have a fit at the lack of referencing there. I'm sure that you'll go and attack that article now to prove this isn't a personal vendetta you have... violet/riga _^[talk] 11:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If the content is about health it needs to be supported by MEDRS. There is as much nutjob (or just wrong) content about toxicity in popular media as there is about health benefits of things. We apply MEDRS consistently, where it is relevant. Raising source quality is what we want. Have you read the new review yet? Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Silicon Valley trend

It is widely accepted (New York Times NewYorker Wired Smithsonian Financial Times) that Silicon Valley has some fascination with life extension. Young blood transfusions have been called a "current trend" in regenerative medicine, with significant Silicon Valley investment in "life extension". Jeff Bercovici wrote for Inc. that it is "a popular obsession" and that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood". I think that this is vital in reporting that some people are obsessed with it when such reports are commonplace. I don't believe that this is a BLP issue as claimed because nobody is identified by the general statement. It does not imply that the 'treatment' works, merely that some people are spending stupid amounts of money on this very thing. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind us noting that some nutters in Silicon Valley are spending stupid amounts of money on a ridiculously unproven anti-aging "therapy." -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely a trend for regenerative medicine in silicon valley. The claim that "there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood" is badly written gossip about actual people who are un-named. This is just gossip and no, we don't amplify gossip. The phrase, "wealthy technology bosses", is ... just weird and not encyclopedic. Even the Daily Fail has a more professionally written headline Silicon Valley executives are getting $8,000 BLOOD transfusions from the young in an effort to turn the clock back on ageing. And the fact that this is a Daily Fail headline is, I think, all that needs saying about how inappropriate this is for Wikipedia.Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As I have shown there are many reputable sources that note a link between Silicon Valley and life extension and this procedure specifically. I'm happy with a redrafted version of the wording and think that this is integral to the article, showing that it is being abused in this way. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker source is measured and careful. I could see using it to have content in a "Society and culture" section that said something like:

Longevity and life extension research has always interested the public and the scientific community. In Silicon Valley interest in life extension was crystallized in 2013 by the founding of Calico by Bill Maris, who ran Google Ventures. This interest included the results of parabiosis research. Tom Rando, from whose lab at Stanford Alkahest was founded, told a reporter from the New Yorker: “I’ve had a lot of meetings with young billionaires in Silicon Valley, and they all, to varying degrees, want to know when the secrets are coming out, both so they can get in on the next big thing and so they can personally take advantage of them. I say, ‘This is not an app. If you come at biology from a tech point of view, you’re going to be disappointed, because the pace is much slower.’”.

something like that. Not sure what others will think of this. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a possibility - thank you for taking the time to research and write that. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

so instead you restored the old shit. Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For me your paragraph is not sufficiently linked to young blood for inclusion in this article. Perhaps it would work better in life extension. violet/riga _^[talk] 11:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine I am not enthusiastic about this anyway. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Silicon Valley parody

Nothing is real until it has been parodied. The practice was referenced in a 2017 episode of comedy series Silicon Valley in which the boss of a technology company uses transfusions from a "blood boy" in an attempt to stay young and live longer. This lends weight to the fact that it is a widely-reported trend in Silicon Valley. It could be rewritten to make it clear that it's satirical. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Unmitigated trivia. I will not take part in the consensus forming for this... -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Trivia. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

News media

News media have widely reported such practices using far-fetched analogies, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires. To paraphrase a source, the vampire analogies write themselves. Because this rumoured practice is so prevalent I think it is fine to say that it is being reported in an overly-hyped way. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

... this isn't encyclopaedic. Also, I didn't think we covered rumours? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC) -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

To me this finishes off nicely any thought that it is even remotely close to human use and warns that the media over-hype things. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this as unencyclopdic, recentist gossip. This was already removed by an admin. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation - it was removed because of the use of the word 'hyperbole'. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The content was absolutely removed by an admin. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Because of the word 'hyperbole', yes. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The diff is here; the edit note is Editorial/argumentative. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They explained it here. yes, Seraphimblade said that the word "hyperbole" was unsupported, editorializing/OR. You have replaced "hyperbole" with "far-fetched analogies". it is the same problem. It is not the word, it is your analysis. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write the headlines used by all those reputable sources. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

the content is your characterization of those headlines. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So you'd prefer me to present them unqualified? Surely explaining that they are "far-fetched" makes it clear that they are in no way claiming them to be true. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the characterization. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As I say, this could be reworded to remove the analysis but it is surely better to point out the obvious: that these are far-fetched analogies. We have not found a panacea. We have not literally found the Fountain of Youth, but news media repeatedly use these phrases. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

My redrafting of the sentence is:

While media reports liken the potential to the fountain of youth and the elixir of life no evidence of success has been found in any human trial.

This then brings the lack of evidence into the body and not just the lead. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What source are you summarizing there? Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibilities include:

• Scientific American, used in the headline only though.
• Business Insider
• PBS
• Gothamist
• FT

violet/riga _^[talk] 21:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I take it that you don’t object to this then? violet/riga _^[talk] 12:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

None of those sources are discussing media coverage. They are primary sources and you are still gathering them up and creating UNDUE content based on your analysis. Again what secondary sourcesdiscuss media coverage per se, that you want to summarize here? Something like HealthNewsReview.org might have something - they often cover hyping of health reporting in the popular media. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

They do not need to - there is no summary presented in this version. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

First off, Jytdog, it doesn't matter that I'm an admin, so I don't know why you bring that up. In a content discussion, I'm one more editor. That aside, I still would disagree with the new wording, for the same reason. We do not have a reference saying that the coverage is "overly hyped" or "far-fetched", so classifying it as such is editorializing. If actual references say that the coverage by the media was hyperbolic, overhyped, inaccurate, whatever else have you, then we can note that criticism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok fine you are another editor here; my apologies. We agree that secondary sources are needed here. The OR characterization is no longer there, but we need a secondary source showing that this is DUE. Lots of research gets hyped in the media; especially longevity research. The more tabloid of the sources above (inc, gothamist, business insider) do the most hyping; SciAm does it in the click-bait headline but is much better in the body; the PBS ref is the least hypeish but is still in the land of gushing over a primary source.

but we generally don't use these kind of sources at all per WP:MEDREV which specifically talks about avoiding the use of popular media sources reacting to newly published research papers. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I do understand the point that you are making but my argument is that these are not medical claims and thus don't need sourcing in the same way. IPSCELL states hype is at risk of taking over an area of translational research and does talk of the fountain of youth. ScienceAlert says Despite the hype, giving dementia patients the blood of young donors hasn't turned out to be the silver bullet in the heart of Alzheimer's - not yet, at any rate but I don't really like the false hope of "not yet". Economist says anti-ageing research is dogged by cycles of hype and … but now it's locked behind the paywall. It's going to be difficult to have a decent source that specifically says that these terms are used. Incidentally, the reason I want to include them is to decry them. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

violetriga, I'm subscribed to The Economist, so if you'd like me to take a look at a particular story of theirs please let me know. But we really should have referencing for criticism of the media coverage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that Seraphimblade - I believe it's here but sadly I don't hold much hope. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The only thing in there that references anything like that is a throwaway line that "The vampire jokes write themselves." But nothing really about the quality of the reporting that's been done, it's just a discussion of the mouse trial results and touches on the attempts at commercialization. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

Options for wording of the first sentence:

1) "from a young person into an older person"

2) "from a young animal into an older recipient"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Support 1 This topic is notable as people are proposing its use in humans not that it was studied in mice. Therefore IMO the first is better than the second. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 or version of 1 The topic is notable because of its application to human beings. The mouse studies were not notable so I would agree that the first line should read from a younger person to an older person... or younger subject to older subject. I'm not attached to the specific wording. The mouse studies were a significant aspect of the history of this notable topic so I do think the article could collect information into a section about the mouse studies and other pertinent, historical-type information that led to the point where human studies were begun.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC))
• 1 obviously. There is no source describing doing this in a non-human animal for medicinal benefit. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1, notability in humans is the reasoning I've been waiting for. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Just noticed this straw poll. I've already changed:

• Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young animal into an older recipient with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit. to:
• Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young person into an older one with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit.

because there is nothing in the sources suggesting that blood transfusions in mice are done for the "medicinal benefit" of the mice. I'm sorry, James but I don't see that there is any option here. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So sorry I was writing as you were and just saw your post on Mice. I reverted my edit as repetitive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC))

No problem, Olive. That section follows the one on mice, so the context for the content you added should be clear to any reader. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good RexxS. The controversy appears to have been resolved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sentence about trials in China and Korea

Human trials are reported to be underway in China and Korea but with very little detail about what is actually involved.

References

So what Inc says, exactly is:

That practice is known as parabiosis, and, according to Thiel, it's a potential biological Fountain of Youth--the closest thing science has discovered to an anti-aging panacea. Research into parabiosis began in the 1950s with crude experiments that involved cutting rats open and stitching their circulatory systems together. After decades languishing on the fringes, it's recently started getting attention from mainstream researchers, with multiple clinical trials underway in humans in the U.S. and even more advanced studies in China and Korea.

So a few things.

1. This is popular media and we should not be using this to discuss biomedical research.
2. The paragraph quoted above, is not part of the discussion of Alkahest in the Inc article, but the placement of this sentence in our article, was in the paragraph about Alkahest, and made it appear that Alkahest was doing the clinical trials (see this version).
3. If you click on the three relevant links in the Inc article, the first one is relevant to this topic (and to Alkahest), while the second two are not about what Alkahest is doing, nor even relevant to "young blood transfusion":

   the first one is clinicaltrials.gov to an open label study being done at Stanford sponsored by Alkahest.

   the china one is a link to a published primary source about laboratory (not clinical) research done in China in which the authors said they identified "non-platelet RNA-containing particles" in human umbilical cord blood. I have no idea why the Inc author linked to this.

   the Korea link is to a clinicaltrials.gov entry about a study at a hospital in Korea that has four arms; frozen cord blood, unfrozen cord blood, frozen plasma, and a control. There is no discussion in that entry about the relative age of the plasma donor and the subjects in the trial.

So - the source is not OK, and unsurprisingly it gets the science wrong. The content also misled the reader. This sentence and source should not be in the article. I will see what I can find from MEDRS sources about ongoing research. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to reasoned discussion. I accept your review of that source and agree that we should not include it in the article. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Physician David Wright

The mention of David Wright does not say why any of it relates to young blood transfusion rather than simply being an IV treatment. Physician David Wright is involved with doing intravenous treatments of vitamins and antibiotics for "non traditional" purposes. This should be clarified or removed. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

clarified here. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Safe and feasible

PMID 29722305, found by Jytdog, states: "One pilot human study found that young donor plasma infusion protocols for adults with Alzheimer's disease were safe and feasible; however, no statistically significant improvements in cognition were detected. There is a need to conduct additional placebo-controlled human studies in larger samples. Future studies should focus on identifying an "optimal age" at which an intervention in humans may yield significant cognitive enhancement, as well as determining the types of transfusions with the best efficacy and tolerability profiles."

This could be added in the following way to the final paragraph after the mention of Alkahest: The use of young donor plasma is noted as a "safe and feasible" potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease but there remains no discernible cognitive improvements from the single published study in humans. A review of the study recommends that future research should focus on discovering the "optimal age" at which a person receives the treatment in order to measure any enhancement of cognitive function.

Suggestions welcome. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the abstract, but please see WP:NOABSTRACT. We can summarize this much better and we don't need to quote it. There is good stuff here about risks to pull out as well; will suggest something tonight or tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It may be worth taking a step back and considering the sort of sources that we should be using for discussing what fundamentally boils down to a suggested treatment for ageing. This is real WP:REDFLAG territory, IMHO, because a claim of a technique that would slow down or reverse the effects of ageing would indeed be an extraordinary claim, and so would require extraordinarily strong sourcing. Pilot studies don't make that grade, as far as I'm concerned, whether in mice or humans. It's one thing for a primary source to conclude that the technique is safe and feasible; it's another thing altogether to accept that without an independent secondary review. It's the same story for the mice studies. I have objected to those on the grounds that results in mice don't translate into results in humans, but actually most of those studies are too weak in themselves to support the claims of effectiveness even in mice, because most of the time we've been looking at primary studies in mice.

Now I understand some of the frustration: here are a bunch of studies that are interesting – and if they ever were to lead anywhere, they would be fantastically significant. But we're saying we can't include content about biomedical claims that isn't supported by strong secondary sources. The frustration can be summed up as "we have all these interesting sources, but you're stopping us from including any content from them". Honestly, I understand, and I'm sure Jytdog, Olive, James, et al all understand as well. But lowering the bar for inclusion of medical content isn't an option. The moment that we start saying it's ok to report all of the primary research by hedging it around by attributing it, etc., we allow the reader to draw conclusions that simply aren't warranted from the sources we have. In a large article where there's a lot to say about the topic based on secondary sources, we might well have a section called something like "Trends in future research", where we can mention what may be in the pipeline. But where that research would turn out to be effectively the whole article, we would be doing a disservice to our readers because they have no context to place that research in. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Trial found no benefit. A pilot study does not show safety.

The impact factor of the journal is fairly low.

Extra ordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that transfusions are "safe" is definitely an extraordinary claim as we have lots of evidence of potential harms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking something like..

In 2017 Alkahest completed a small Phase I trial using plasma from people younger than 30, in people with mild cognitive impairment. No safety issues were identified. The mechanisms by which young blood or plasma transfusion might improve human health were not understood as of 2018. The longterm risks of young blood or plasma transfusion include allergic reactions including anaphylaxis, infections, hemolysis, volume overload, and acute lung injury, and to the extent that the treatment may spur the activity of stem cells, there is a risk of cancer.

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m happy with that as an addition. violet/riga _^[talk] 12:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Alkahest: own study suggests no improvement

I think it's somewhat significant that Alkahest itself says that there's no significant effect in its early results. I'm not sure how to phrase it so as not to give the impression that it is MEDRS. Kavigupta (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No sane company would claim efficacy after a Phase 1 and nobody sane would expect a company to do that. Alkahest seems to be a mainstream biotech company, so of course they don't. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

OK sure that makes sense. Kavigupta (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ambrosia making broad claims in absence of clinical evidence

Jytdog, I can see why you reverted this edit (reading it over it does look promotional, though this was not my intent) but I do think that the fact that Ambriosa is making fairly extreme claims is significant in understanding why people might want to give them lots of money. It also is significant that they are making such extreme claims in the absence of evidence, which suggests a less-than-scientific approach.

Do you have a better phrasing? Perhaps describing their claims in more clinical language that suggests less endorsement? Kavigupta (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. I understand what you were doing but we should not broadcast their marketing unless we have clear sourcing saying it is unsupported. Please see WP:PSCI. 05:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Would this work from the SBM article? "Hopefully I will be able to tell you in 10-20 years if transfusions of plasma from young donors is of any clinical benefit. Until then the treatment will likely have a second life on the fringe as snake oil. Given that this is likely to be a very expensive treatment, it will probably be elite snake oil for the wealthy." (this is in specific reference to Ambriosa) Kavigupta (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Its not specific for any specific company's claims.Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I guess I'll keep an eye out to see if anyone says anything more specific and then add it then. Kavigupta (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting edit

As of 2018 another organization, the Young Blood Institute, run by Mark Urdahl, Founder & CEO, was promoting young blood transfusion. The Young Blood Institute's trial has been promoted by Bill Faloon, who founded the Life Extension Foundation, which was raided by the FDA In 1987 for illegally importing medicine in a later-dropped case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehogsrock (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC (UTC)

References

Reply 04-DEC-2018

  Edit request declined  

1. The claim as it exists in the article is referenced. Pointedly, the claim does not state that the individual named Dipnarine Maharaj works for the company (as claimed here in the edit request proposal). The claim in the article states, as does its reference, that the individual named Dipnarine Maharaj is running a trial involving these products.
2. There is no provided source under the ref tag named "sciam" which is used in the proposed edit request to make a claim that the individual named Mark Urdahl is CEO of the Young Blood company.
3. The two other provided sources in the edit proposal are inaccessible by this reviewer. In any event, these claims are already implemented in the article and are not disputed here in the COI editor's proposal.

Therefore, the proposed claims cannot be verified and no changes are necessary with the standing version of the article's claims.
Regards,  Spintendo  22:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

The claim is that Dipnarine Maharaj was running the Young Blood Institute trial, which is untrue. (As of 2018 another organization, the Young Blood Institute, promotes young blood transfusion. Like Ambrosia's, its trial had no control and charged the participants for entry, in this case $285,000 per person.[2]

Dipnarine Maharaj was running the trial;) It doesn't say running a trial --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Initial researcher

You should mention Alex Bogdanov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4150:880:AA00:F877:2881:17E5:8EDE (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock / COI

Extended content

Requested Edits 1. "The scientific community currently views the practice as essentially pseudoscientific, with comparisons to snake oil." This needs to change. It is not the entire scientific community, rather a small number of people with business conflicts of interest. There are multiple companies working in this space and not all of them have been called snake oil. If someone has called one of the company's products snake oil, these criticisms should be moved to the appropriate subheading. There is real science behind Ambrosia's treatments, for instance, as they conducted a registered, approved clinical trial. 2. "There are also concerns of harm. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in 2019, cautioned "consumers against receiving young donor plasma infusions" stating that they are an "unproven treatment"." Ambrosia has reported that the FDA did not research their announcement, which is an important fact which should be added to the article if the FDA announcement is going to be kept. If there are concerns of harm, what concerns and who expressed them should be included. 3. "Parabiosis experiments are difficult to generalize, as the circulatory systems of the mice are fully joined and it is unclear whether the benefits come from the sharing of blood or the older mouse's access to the younger mouse's organs." That is not correct. There have been numerous mouse studies showing it is the young blood itself, and molecules in the young blood, which are responsible for the effect. This needs to be updated. 4. "A study conducted at UC Berkeley found that blood from older mice hurt younger mice, while older mice were not benefited by the blood of younger mice." This is misleading. Every other parabiosis author has concluded that parabiosis produces improvements, and there are many such publications. Even Conboy's previous publications say improvements were found. This evidence needs to be included so that readers can understand the full picture. 5. "In experiments like this, researchers found that some of these mice died quickly (11 out of 69 in one experiment) for reasons the scientists could not explain, but described as possibly some form of rejection." This information is from the same biased article. Also, it is not relevant. In parabiosis, two animals are surgically connected via their flanks. Transfusions are an IV infusion. What the reporter is describing is parabiotic disease which is due to the direct connection of the animals. There is a pattern of bias in this article. 6. "Amy Wagers, a researcher who coauthored several mouse studies on young blood transfusion, has said that her papers do not provide a scientific basis for some of the existing human trials." Amy Wagers has a business conflict of interest, in the company Elevian. Readers need this information if this criticism is going to be included at all. 7. "Evidence from two large studies in 2017 showed that the transfusion of blood from younger donors to older people led to outcomes that were either no different from, or led to worse outcomes than, blood from older donors." These are not prospective trials. Ambrosia conducted a prospective trial and that is considered a higher standard of scientific results. The results posted on Ambrosia's website should be included. 8. "Research on blood transfusion outcomes has been complicated by the lack of careful characterization of the transfusion products that have been used in clinical trials; studies had focused on how storage methods and duration might affect blood, but not on the differences among lots of blood themselves." This is not relevant. The cited study is examining blood storage duration, while young blood transfusions refers to the age of the donor. It should be removed. To be continued in a second post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Going to need reliable references for these proposed changes. Greyjoy talk 06:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 1. The "snake oil" term appears to come from Michael Conboy's quote about the Young Blood Institute. https://www.statnews.com/2018/03/02/young-blood-anti-aging-study/ Is there a reference for the claim of being pseudoscience? 2. https://www.longevity.technology/young-blood-back-on-the-menu/ https://liveforever.club/blog/ambrosia-plasma-relaunches-announces-improvement-in-key-ageing-biomarkers 3. In this research article, young mouse plasma is injected and improvements are seen, contradicting the hypothesis from the article that direct surgical connection is required https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3569 4. Here are 6, and there are even more. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v20/n6/full/nm.3569.html https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8131 http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/62/8/2843.long http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(11)00580-7 http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(13)00456-X http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7027/abs/nature03260.html 5. Here is the wikipedia articles on parabiosis and transfusions, and an abstract which hypothesizes on the cause of parabiotic disease. Modern blood transfusions do not have any white blood cells in the blood products. https://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/abstract/1966/01000/cytological_analysis_of_parabiotic_disease_in_mice.4.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabiosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_transfusion 6. https://www.elevian.com/amy-wagers 7. www.ambrosiaplasma.com 8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28988603 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Do you also want citations/references for the requested edits 9-16 in the following section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC) And the article is currently protected because of this SPA IP's edits... Meters (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC) What does SPA IP mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC) SPA = single purpose account. See WP:SPA. IP = Internet protocol See WP:IP Meters (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I have responded to your question under the section Requested Edits 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Regarding the actual content of this request, I suspect that none of us volunteers has the time to write an overarching reply to all the points, but let me address the first one. The term "snake oil" is used in multiple places by multiple people. It is not exactly a scientific term but it clearly reflects the scientific consensus, and I think it works well. The only people who have a business interest here are the representatives of the companies peddling these treatments. --bonadea contributions talk 09:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Regarding requested edit #1. The term snake oil originated from a quote Michael Conboy used to describe the Young Blood Institute. I have already provided a reference for this. I request you move the term snake oil to the section on Young Blood Institute. I have also explained that the Young Blood Institute does not provide young blood transfusions. They provide plasma exchange. If you have evidence to the contrary, post your references. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Bonadea, the sentence we are discussing is, "The scientific community currently views the practice as essentially pseudoscientific, with comparisons to snake oil." There are 3 references: an article from sciencebasedmedicine.org, an article from Scientific American, and the FDA's announcement. The Scientific American article includes the term "snake oil" once, when Michael Conboy is describing Maharaj's clinical trial. The FDA's announcement includes neither the terms pseudoscience nor "snake oil". The sciencebasedmedicine.org article is written by a single person and does not reflect the scientific consensus. You are defining consensus of "snake oil" on exactly two people's words. And the consensus of pseudoscience on exactly one person's words.210.6.209.89 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Requested Edits 2 9. The first section under Commercial development describes the FDA's unresearched announcement. If this is going to be included at all, perhaps it should be moved to another section, and this section would focus on the commercial development, not the regulator's response. 10. "A startup company, Ambrosia, has been selling "young blood transfusions" for $8,000 since 2016 under the guise of running a clinical trial, to see if such transfusions lead to changes in the blood of recipients." There is no reason to put quotes around "young blood transfusion", the article title is already young blood transfusion. The word guise is biased and is not a neutral point of view. 11. "The clinical trial has no control arm and so is neither randomized nor blind." This is incorrect. The clinical trial included a control group, but it did not include a placebo. This is not written from a neutral point of view. Many clinical studies are non-randomized and open label. 12. "The company was started by Jesse Karmazin, a medical school graduate without a license to practice medicine." This is misleading. All of the doctors who have provided Ambrosia's treatments have been fully licensed. Healthcare CEOs do not typically have licensed to practice medicine. 13. "David Wright is the licensed doctor overseeing the clinical trial; in his practice he administers intravenous treatments of vitamins and antibiotics for nontraditional purposes and was disciplined by the California Medical Board for the latter in 2015." This should be removed. Dr. Wright no longer works with Ambrosia and most of Ambrosia's treatments have been delivered by other physicians at this point. He was removed before the end of the clinical trial, which successfully concluded in 2018. 14. "Jonathan Kimmelman, a bioethicist from McGill University, suggests that Ambrosia is running this as a trial as they would be unable to get FDA approval to sell this treatment otherwise." This is incorrect. Blood products are approved drugs in the United States. Once the FDA approves a drug, doctors are free to prescribe it according to their judgment. 15. "On February 19, 2019, Ambrosia announced it stopped testing the treatment, responding to concerns from the FDA." Ambrosia has stated it paused treatments, and has since restarted treating patients in the same year, 2019. The word "testing" makes no sense since their clinical trial ended successfully in 2018. This needs to be updated as it misleads readers; Ambrosia is currently open for business and treating patients. 16. Young Blood Institute This entire section should be removed. Despite their name, the Young Blood Institute does not offer young blood transfusions. They offer plasma exchange. Perhaps this section should be moved to an article on plasma exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) We're still waiting for you to respond to the conflict of interest notice on your talk page. Do you have a conflict of interest in any way with respect to any of the companies or people you are attempting to write about?Meters (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I am in full compliance with Wikipedia's policies and there are no issues. Is there anything else I need to do? I am asking you to make these changes. They are factual. Has your question been fully addressed? 210.6.209.89 (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Could you learn to sign your posts please with four Tildes like this ~~~~. Thank you so much. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Also, that is not a 'no.' Do you have a conflict of interest? Yes or no. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Mr. Vernon, I have reviewed Wikipedia's policy and I am telling you I am in full compliance with all aspects of it. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Reminder: you need to address this issue. Please do it before making any other edits to articles or talk pages. It is mandatory, which means that you are in fact not in compliance with policy when you discuss matters unrelated to your COI. --bonadea contributions talk 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Bonadea, I have already addressed this. I am in full compliance with wikipedia policies. You have not responded to my remarks on the requested edit #1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Roxy the dog, I have tried to change the autosigned signatures to ~~~~ but Meters is threatening to block me for doing so. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Stop making stuff up. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I am not making stuff up. What are you talking about? The evidence is recorded on this website. You are arguing when you should be examining the evidence. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Do not change any existing signatures because adding four tildes would give a false timestamp. We are asking you to observe WP:SIG and WP:INDENT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Is that official wikipedia policy? 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I have reviewed the policies, and my edits are consistent with wikipedia policies. You threatened to ban me for making edits which are consistent with wikipedia policy. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Bonadea has also threatened to ban me for making edits which are consistent with wikipedia policy, and I cannot message him since his page is protected. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Just stop changing time stamps. If there is a time stamp on the talk page (even when it has been added by Sinebot or another editor using the {{unsigned}} template, you absolutely must not edit that post to replace the time stamp by four tildes. If you add a signature at any point after the actual time when the post was first placed on the talk page, four tildes cannot be used. Is that explanation clear enough, or are you still uncertain of how to approach this? --bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Bonadea, I have reviewed wikipedia's policies. Nowhere in the policies is that stated. Your explanation is incorrect.210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC) It is troubling that you refuse to accept that your edits are disruptive, when multiple experienced editors take the trouble of informing you about it. Did you have the time to actually read the message I posted to your user talk page before you removed it? In any case, it doesn't much matter as long as you stop faffing about with other editors' posts, and stop changing time stamps. If the disruptive edits continue, some administrator will probably block you – it is your own choice, if you want to edit in a collaborative manner or not. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Bonadea, it is not my problem if you are feeling troubled. I am not being disruptive. Be specific and we can address each concern individually. You have presented no evidence. My edits are in compliance with wikipedia policy. I read your messages and responded here, since your page is protected. I am not "faffing about", I have posted a list of proposed edits, and I was archiving old, finished discussions. I am not being disruptive, you are harassing me, threatening me with being banned, and you are not in compliance with wikipedia policy.210.6.209.89 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I am not being disruptive. Please see multiple posts above and on your talk page explaining to you why and how the edits you made were disruptive. (What I cannot find is a single instance where anyone other than you has talked about banning – it is not the same thing as blocking, as I'm sure you are aware, since you say you have been reading up on Wikipedia's policies.) Again, it is up to you whether you want to edit in a collaborative manner or not, and this is my final comment in this discussion, as it does not belong on an article talk page (it is unfortunate that you remove all user talk page messages instead of letting the behavioural discussion happen there, but that is also your choice). --bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I am not being disruptive and you are edit warring, which is against wikipedia policy. Again, I want to archive old, finished discussions and I have posted 16 proposed edits. I remove edits from my talk page once they are addressed because this IP is shared. Blocking and banning have the same outcome. I would also prefer it if you address the 16 proposed edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Requested edits: continued discussion from User talk:YorkshireLad Moving discussion here from User talk:YorkshireLad (see archive), as requested by User:210.6.209.89. @210.6.209.89: I do understand the difference between a control, a control arm and a placebo, though thank you for offering to explain. I believe, however, that I have provided sufficient sources to support the claim that there was no control group (synonymous with "control arm") in the study, as listed earlier in the discussion on my talk page. I can add one of these to the article, but more than that would be overkill. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see the sources on your talk page. Could you post them here? There was a control group in the study. Here is an example: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/young-blood-antiaging-trial-raises-questions. "Each person will serve as their own control". Ambrosia's clinical trial was prospective, multi-center, open label, with a control. There are clinical trials without control groups, for example environmental or longitudinal studies.210.6.209.89 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Sure: Quartz: "The results are extremely preliminary; they not published in a peer-reviewed, and there was no control study." [2] The Guardian: "The scientific community has rolled its eyes at the “trial” element of Ambrosia. There is no control group" [3] In fact, I also linked to that Science article. Other people on this page can disagree with me if they wish, but I believe most people will understand "control group" to mean a distinct control group. Nevertheless, I have further clarified the sentence I edited. I don't intend to get involved with edits to other sections of the page, as I have nothing more to add that hasn't already been said. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) It is still not correct and the article says "control arm" not "control group". Here is the sentence we are discussing: "The clinical trial has no control arm and so is neither randomized nor blind." First, the trial ended successfully in 2018 so it should be in past tense. I am requesting that it be edited to have a neutral point of view. Perhaps, "the clinical trial was multicenter, nonrandomized, open label, single arm, and assessed biomarkers before and 1 month after treatment in each patient". The article, as it stands, is clearly biased and written from a non-neutral point of view.210.6.209.89 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC) "Control group" and "control arm" are synonyms: see, for instance [4], where they're given the exact same definition by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. But anyway, that isn't the sentence I was discussing, so I apologise for the confusion: the only sentence in this article I have ever edited is the one in the "Young Blood Institute" section that reads "Like Ambrosia, the trial had no distinct control group from the treatment group". I'm keen to make sure my contributions are as accurate as possible, but I have never edited the rest of the article and I'm afraid I don't intend to start. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Let's simply be focused on the part that you are interested in editing. The sentence is: "Like Ambrosia, the trial had no distinct control group from the treatment group; it also charged the participants for entry, in this case $285,000 per person." There are three references listed: the Scientific American article, the Daily Beast Article, and clinicaltrials.gov listing for Ambrosia's clinical trial. Would you be open to removing the comparison with Ambrosia and then focus on describing the clinical trial, assuming that is your goal for the purpose of the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't really have a goal other than making sure the sentence was accurate. To be more specific, I didn't write the original sentence myself; I added it back at one point (several days ago now!) when you removed it. Since you raised concerns that the sentence was ambiguous, and I had (technically) added it to Wikipedia, I have now edited it twice to reduce any possible ambiguity. Since I believe the sentence is now fully sourced, and since this isn't the sort of article I enjoy editing (I tend to edit pages about shopping centres…) I don't intend to edit this page further, though of course that edit request is here on the talk page for other people to action should they wish. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC) That's not correct. The Scientific American article does not mention the Young Blood Institute.210.6.209.89 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure if you're intending to continue working on this, but Maharaj's clinical trial listing on clinicaltrials.gov says it is currently enrolling, so the tense of the sentence is incorrect. I think it would be best to remove the comparison with Ambrosia completely.210.6.209.89 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Apologies, I was concentrating on the part about Ambrosia in that sentence; I didn't know you had concerns about the mention of the Young Blood Institute. You are right that that section relies heavily on the SciAm source that doesn't mention the Young Blood Institute at all; I am not sure what's happened there. I'm inclined to remove the entire section, but since you already have and it's been reverted, that would be contributing to an edit war. Bonadea, Roxy the dog, since you contributed to the discussion above I hope it's alright to ping you: what do you think? It seems lots of things claimed about the YBI are cited to that SciAm source that doesn't mention them, and it rather undermines the section. YorkshireLad (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Edited commented above to correct typo in username. YorkshireLad (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I will await their responses.210.6.209.89 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I don't mind being pinged by GF editors – it looks like there are two different institutes involved here, and a paragraph mentioning each of them might work. I am inclined towards removing the sub-headings for different companies altogether and simply have a brief para about the various commercial actors. I have no time to work on that right now, but there is no hurry and Roxy and others might have different opinions and input. --bonadea contributions talk 15:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC) I would be glad to help if you all would allow it. I could draft sentences or sections. As I've mentioned, the Young Blood Institute does not offer young blood transfusions, they offer plasma exchange. Perhaps their section could be moved to a wikipedia page on plasma exchange. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC) @210.6.209.89: You have still not answered whether you have a conflict of interest. It's a simple question, yes or no, don't wait for the translation. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) User has been blocked from editing for a week, I guess we will just have to hold our breath and wait for his inevitable evasive answer. Greyjoy talk 16:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC) For the record, I would not be in favor of anything this user suggests - their evasion and requested edits make me think they have an agenda, it is not worthwhile listening to them trying to steer the article from factual to sympathetic for the quackery of young blood transfusion. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC) ... and that is the second block they have received, this week. That's a poorer record than my own !! (I too welcome good faith pings. The one for me however didn't work, because a ping has to have an associated fresh sig to work.) worth knowing. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC) @Roxy the dog: The first was for edit warring. Three guesses as to which page they were edit warring on. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC) @Roxy the dog: Ooh, thank you, I did not know that!  :-) @Mr. Vernon: The editor definitely seems to have an agenda; however, I have to (somewhat reluctantly) admit that they're right that the section on the YBI mostly isn't on the YBI at all. If nobody has any objection, I might fix that (though it is not really my priority either—as I said to the IP editor, this isn't really a topic I enjoy editing, and I only got involved by being on WP:RCP). YorkshireLad (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Young Blood Institute section

As I suggested above, I've tried to fix the YBI section. It seems that what's happened is that the author Daily Beast source [5] got confused, describing the YBI while linking to (and attributing a claim to) the SciAm source [6]—which, if you actually read it, doesn't mention the YBI or the people involved with it at all. All the other sources in that section are then daisy-chained along from the people mentioned in SciAm, so that actually none of that section related to the YBI.

I've split the section in two: one describing the trial referenced in SciAm, and the other a (very short) section on the YBI. I'm not convinced the new "Maharaj/Faloon trial" section is particularly NPOV (I didn't change the wording, other than to remove references to the YBI); as far as I can tell, the facts check out, but it reads as if someone's trying too hard to connect the people involved to shady goings-on unrelated to blood transfusion. Anyway, I'll leave that for someone else to fix, should they wish. YorkshireLad (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

New User

Hello, I would like to assist with editing this page. How do I do so? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

AE3yia1AJeQ, the page is no longer protected (which it was until two days ago), so you can just be bold and edit it. However, you should be aware that content on Wikipedia needs to be written from a neutral point of view and be backed up by reliable sources. YorkshireLad (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What if I make an edit and then someone reverts it? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to make an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AE3yia1AJeQ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I made the edit. Looking forward to helping improve this article. AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit was reverted and the explanation on my talk page says it was because of a blank edit summary. What should I do now? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The explanation on your talk page does not say that, it mentions the usefulness of edit summaries, but of course no edit would be reverted for that reason, it would be absurd to do that. The edit you made removed sourced content, added incorrect claims, and changed the article to become less neutral, with no valid reason given (not surprisingly, as there could not be any valid reason to do that). The reason the article had to be protected was the way that people representing Ambrosia kept trying to remove content and twist the text to become a promotion piece for Ambrosia. Don't do that, please. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea, I cannot message you because your talk page is protected. Should I reply to you here? I would like to improve this article. As it is currently written, it contains errors and is not written from a neutral point of view. AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea, your message said: "I noticed that you recently removed content from Young blood transfusion without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored." I did not solely remove content, I also edited and added content. Is that copy/pasted? It is not correct in this situation. AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the article, not my user talk page. As your changes added errors and changed neutral text into non-neutral text, it might be better if you focused your editing efforts elsewhere. Thank you.

I am interested in correcting and improving this article. You reverted my edit. What do we do now? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I will probably see any messages you write here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Your message suggested messaging you on your talk page. I am open to discussing here. We disagree. What do we do now? AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note AE3yia1AJeQ, please stop sidestepping the conversation by pointing to Bonadea's protected talk page — it is of no relevance to anything here (I am the protecting admin, as it happens). Conducting the discussion here more than suffices. That is what you do. El_C 15:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C I mentioned it only because Bonadea asked me to message him on his talk page. Am I allowed to post here? I would like to understand how to correct and improve wikipedia. Bonadea and ThatMontrealIP have reverted my edits and ThatMontrealIP has warned that he may block me for disruptive editing. I'm not being disruptive. AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That's just how the {{uw-delete1}} template is automatically written out as. You may safely ignore that part of it at this point. Stick to article talk pages only, for now, as you are very close to being blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising purposes. El_C 15:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic - AE made a bold edit. It was reverted. A discussion ensued here. A consensus should be attempted here before any more edits are made to the article. Personally, I STRONGLY (yes capitalized) disagree with the edit by AE as an attempt to remove valid criticism of the "Young Blood"'s utter lack of scientific evidence. Strong medical claims require strong evidence. Instead, there is no valid evidence whatsoever. WP:MEDRS applies. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't block me. I am editing only the talk pages to engage in discussion. As I have said, there is one peer-reviewed article by Alkahest, so you are wrong about that. AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the Alkahest article up to the standards of WP:MEDRS? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Here it is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30383097 AE3yia1AJeQ (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

18 patients? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you have read WP:MEDRS or have not understood it. Please look again and then answer my question honestly. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, AE3yia1AJeQ has been banned, so don't wait up for a response. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thx Mr. V. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

For that one publication, not only was it an uncontrolled clinical trial (not WP:MEDRS), but it reported no measures of mental function, only extent of adverse events. David notMD (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I like to imagine we would have got there, eventually !! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The subtitle's use of "Pseudoscientific" seems non-NPOV

I'm not a frequent editor so I wanted to start a discussion rather than just making a potentially contentious change myself: From the body of the article it seems like there's not sufficient consensus in the cited sources to claim either that this is pseudoscience or that it's a useful treatment in humans.

Maybe a more neutral term would be something like "proposed", "unvalidated", "unproven", "experimental", "conjectured", or "theoretical"?

Also: sorry if "subtitle" is the wrong term here; I'm not actually sure what to call that piece of the article structure! If there's somewhere obvious I should have looked for "what are the parts of a Wikipedia article called", I would welcome corrections. Matthewavant (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with your statement. I have changed the "Pseudoscientific therapy" subheading to "Experimental therapy". You're correct that it would be more precise to say that young blood transfusion for anti-aging effects has not been proven effective in humans, rather than labeling it outright as pseudoscience. This more accurately reflects the current state of scientific knowledge on the topic.

The term "pseudoscience" implies a fundamental lack of scientific methodology or plausibility, which may be too strong a characterization in this case. There is some legitimate scientific interest in the potential effects of blood-borne factors on aging, stemming from animal studies. However, the effectiveness and safety of young blood transfusions for anti-aging in humans remain unproven because the appropriate clinical trials have not been done. Azim58 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)