Brianboone

Welcome!

Hello, Brianboone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hemopurifier

Hi there, I can find one published trial on hepatitis C in PubMed (PMID 19169020), but none on influenza. Has this data been published elsewhere? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the press release, I don't think it can be classed as a reliable source for this question. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. The latest press release is from PR Newswire. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H1N1#2009__A.28H1N1.29_pandemic

Sorry, wrong link. Here it is.... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aethlon-medical-releases-medical-device-data-against-the-h1n1-swine-flu-virus-64958827.html

I know, but until this treatment is actually assessed by independent scientists or doctors and their results published in the peer-reviewed literature, we can't add it to an Wikipedia article. I'm not implying that your company is in any way dubious, but I'm sure you can see that we have no way of verifying that what a press release states is actually true (after all anybody can put out a press release). The guideline on reliable sources in medical articles should help explain this in more detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How much more independent can one be when it clearly states "The studies were performed by third party researchers approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to house and conduct research on the current pandemic strains of H1N1 virus." I would think it would be fairly easy to identify whom those researchers are if someone wanted to. This WAS NOT research completed or funded by the company itself. This was an independent study conducted by HHS-approved researchers and I truly believe reporting it in this section is warranted.

Once these scientists publish their work in the literature, then there is no problem. Until then we have no way of checking if these scientists actually exist, if they did the work, or if their results were what the press release claims. Press releases can claim anything (and frequently do). I'm personally pretty sure your company is reputable, but these rules are to protect our readers against those companies that are a lot less scrupulous than you are and put out press release about their "miracle cures" with zero supporting evidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not my company. I'm an private investor just disseminating the info that is available from the marketplace for people to make their own opinions and conduct their own due diligence.

OK. However, as I said, we have a policy that specifically notes that press releases are not reliable sources for medical articles {link). Unless something has been published in the scientific or medical literature on the use of this device for influenza treatment, I'm afraid this press release can't stay in the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you adding the "verification needed" note. That is appropriate rather than deleting it. I also referenced the following from Wikipedia: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States and The Times in Great Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press."

Please continue the discussion here Talk:2009_flu_pandemic#Hemopurifier_press_release. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tim - please tell me what your role is at Wikipedia. I really don't understand your policing of newsworthy items. Let people make their own decisions. Wikipedia is NOT meant to be a medical journal or textbook.

I'm a scientist with a PhD in molecular microbiology and a contributor to many of the influenza articles. I'd strongly encourage you to read the guideline I linked carefully and think about how it applies in this case. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I understand your concern for more accurate, verifiable information. However, this is Wikipedia and most people do realize that it cannot be relied upon for absolute fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Biranboone (talk • contribs)

Sources used on Wikipedia should be third party. Press releases do not qualify. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: Reliable Sources, large reputable news organizations are considered third party reliable.

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)