User talk:Doc James/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Regarding reverted edits on Chikungunya and Dengue fever

Since you reverted my changes saying trusted sources(Government of India) as untrusted, i have raised the issue to Administrators' noticeboard. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Sathishmls (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks will reply there. As per the note on your talk page the sources were not sufficient. This is what the report says regarding treatment "There is no specific management for Chikungunya. Vaccine is under investigation and not available. Symptomatic treatment is recommended. The line of management usually the rest, Intravenous fluids, anti pyretic, anti inflammatory, analgesic agents" This is what you added "chikungunya is effectively controlled by Siddha medicine‎ which is advised strongly by CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDA AND SIDDHA" [1] Also there are better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that fine to add "In India, chikungunya is effectively managed by Siddha medicine" by referring the pdf [2] link ? Sathishmls (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No because there is no evidence that it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Then what is that pdf is about ? Sathishmls (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I have added exactly what it is given in the pdf. If you find any issue with the wordings like mis-match with the pdf, please replace with the correct wordings to match with the pdf. Thanks.Sathishmls (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear this is not a reliable source. They are trying to make conclusions you cannot based on the data. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As i already said, the [3] CCRAS PDF document is prepared by Dr.M.M.Padhi, Dr.M.M.Rao, Dr.Ganapathiraman and it is reviewed by Dr.Lalitkanth, Scientist-G & Head ECD, Indain Council of Medical Research, Dr.S.K.Mishra, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Dr.A.C.Mishra, Director, National Institute of Virology. It perfectly fits in to Medical and scientific organizations source as per WP:MEDRS. Then why do you say its not a reliable source ? Sathishmls (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact you accepted this as a reliable source at the Administrator's Notice board and then proceeded to check the contents of the pages. But now, you are saying its not a reliable source. You are contradicting yourself ??? Sathishmls (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability is not a black and white issue. There are better sources and I have used them. Consensus is against how you used this source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I will continue on talk. Sathishmls (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sofosbuvir

Can you take a look in on the Sofosbuvir medical uses section when you have a moment? I'm a little concerned I've gotten into too much detail here and would appreciate your thoughts. I've also gotten sucked into a little "Some people thing X, and others have argued Y" back and forth on the cost of the drug (which is clearly too high, but the comparison that was set out was a little unfair in my opinion) and it would be good to get some advice on how to clean that up.

Of course the entire Medical uses section will have to be re-written in a few months when the improved interferon-free combos become available, so maybe this was not an efficient use of time! : > )

My goal is to flesh this out. Its a nice advance in my opinion.

many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The first thing would be to use all secondary sources as references of the medical content. Will look further in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll swap those out when I get down to the UCSD library next week. Right now I'm working with the limitation that this whole area is very new and there are limited secondary sources, all of which are behind paywalls. I have a NEJM subscription and so have access to the data from there. I suppose another possibility would be to reference the FDA approval summary?

What I've been mainly concerned about is whether I"m getting too technical. I spent 2 years as a financial analyst dedicated almost exclusively to covering HCV, so its hard for me to tell if I'm being too granular. Thanks again! Formerly 98 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Chikungunya". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Page number 60 of [4] clearly says the benefit of the traditional medicines used. I have listed certain lines from the page 60.

"Results showed that Nilavembu Kudineer and Bramanada Bairavam in pyrexia state and in post pyrexia state Amukkara chooranam, Linga chenduram and Gowri chinthamani chenduram have shown better therapeutic effect. The fever comes to normal within three days and in the case of post pyrexia states the symptoms like pain and swelling in joints, abdominal disturbances responded quickly within one week in majority of the cases. Within a few weeks these drugs have shown better effect in controlling the pain and swelling of the large joints. As a preventive measure, use of Nilavembu kudineer daily has prevented the incidence of Chikungunya and effective in all age groups, which was observed by the physicians at Primary health centre, Trichencode." "Nilavembu kudineer though it has been indicated in the treatment of fever, on pharmacological screening, which showed better anti inflammatory and analgesic effect than anti pyrexia effect"

But user Jmh649 is saying "The source does not support any benefit from said traditional medicine" at the Chikungunya page. This is obviously not acceptable. Sathishmls (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the source is no good and therefore does not support any benefit from traditional medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

• News and notes: German chapter asks for "reworking" of Funds Dissemination Committee; should MP4 be allowed on Wikimedia sites?

• Technology report: Architecture Summit schedule published

• Op-ed: Licensed for reuse? Citing open-access sources in Wikipedia articles

• In the media: Is Google hurting Wikipedia traffic?; "Wikipedia-Mania" in the New York Times

• Traffic report: The Hours are Ours

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Sociology

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Chikungunya_2". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sathishmls (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I have added an infobox to Post-exposure prophylaxis but the eMedicine link does not show. Can you please fix it? Diptanshu^Talk 15:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

DOne Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Atheroma

In the treatment section of Atheroma the following appears:

“Many approaches have been promoted as methods to reduce atheroma progression:

•reducing or eliminating consumption of foods that contain saturated fat and LDL cholesterol found in animal products”

I am thinking that maybe it should be “reducing or eliminating consumption of foods containing saturated fat and cholesterol” Please give me your thoughts. Hill's Angel (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Red meat appears to be the greater concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your answer triggers four responses:

1) I understand that some foods contain cholesterol, but until reading the Atheroma entry today, I've never seen food-based cholesterol characterized as "LDL cholesterol" I thought that LDL cholesterol was formed in our bodies, not something we ingest. Am I wrong?

You are correct. Feel free to change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

2) There are 10 treatment approaches in the entry as it now stands. There is no attempt to differentiate greater and lesser concerns. So it doesn't seen relevant to me in this part of the entry. Do you disagree?

3) By red meat do you mean beef, beef and pork, or perhaps something else? The flesh of a bluefin tuna is certainly red. Are you including that as red meat? Are meat from grain and grass fed cattle equal concerns? Is red meat from a buffalo as much a concern as that from a cow?

4) Are you saying that the color of the meat is what is associated with atheroma, as opposed to the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in it? Hill's Angel (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No I do not think it is the color. Not 100% sure the exact definition of the term. Check out this 2012 review. Pan, A (2012 Apr 9). "Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2 prospective cohort studies". Archives of internal medicine. 172 (7): 555–63. PMID 22412075. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Justification for reversions

Hi, I see you reverted my edits and restored "High IQ children" as a section title (I had replaced it with something like, "Children with high IQ scores"). I wanted to hear your reasoning. I revised it because, in cognitive psych, this is an inappropriate (& politically incorrect) way of categorizing people. It's actually a common annoyance psych people have with the pop psychology. Labeling someone a "high IQ [person]" reflects a misunderstanding of the meaning and scope/limitations of IQ testing. The medical equivalent would be like calling someone a "high LDL person". A person may have a high IQ score, but there's no such thing as a "high IQ person". It's inappropriate/incorrect.

As for removing the whole section on popular fears about drug addition following stimulant use, I don't understand the issue. I added it because it's a major barrier to compliance, so it's a significant issue in ADHD & belongs in the article. All the data refuting this misconception came from a meta-analysis published in Pediatrics. It's neither biased nor controversial. Do you just feel it would work better in another section? Because I'm all for including this information and also for adding more sub-sections like it addressing other significant barriers to compliance with treatment, as identified in research & surveys. Please discuss before making such major changes. Nimptsch3 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The content regarding addition was already a couple of sentences high in the article and supported by a more recent reference. What you added was duplication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A more recent source would be nice. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that journal article without a subscription, so I can't comment on what's on it. Still, what's already in the article is one sentence about a big issue. That's inadequate; I don't see how adding more detailed information would be a bad idea. The one sentence is also phrased in such a way as to put an emphasis on substance abuse risk & ADHD, and not on the protective effect of stimulants: "Stimulant medications have the potential for abuse and dependence and while people with ADHD have an increased risk of substance abuse, the use of stimulants generally appears to either reduce this risk or have no effect on it." There are several ideas crammed into this one sentence (incidentally, nothing I read indicated that stimulant use has "no effect" on substance abuse rates). I want to expand it into two sections, then: one about the issue of stimulant abuse among patients with ADHD, and another about drug abuse in patients with ADHD who have been treated with stimulants (the part you deleted). I don't really want to go back and forth with reversions/un-reversions, though.

Also, I'm restoring my IQ title, then.Nimptsch3 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The main article is an overview. Try the subpage if you wish to add greater details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Internal medicine textbook

Do you know where I could get access to e-book (other than amazon) for internal medicine. The hardcopy's I've got are all >10yrs old and I wanted to rework angina pectoris. If not, no worries. thx. Ian Furst (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

cold-fx webpage

No offense Doc, it's really rude to delete people's writings and rewrite the whole thing with your own opinions on there. It's more courteous to write your own sections and leave what others have written. There's definitely a "criticism" section where you can voice your opinion without changing the content.

Just to let you know, the reference you've sited are well known and you should really check what the author's conclusions are. Plus if you read carefully, even the meta-analysis (Seida) says the trials shouldn't be combined since each trial are very different on its own. That's the problem with meta-analyses, you can't make general conclusions by combining raw data together and expect things are the same. If Cold-FX doesn't work, it wouldn't get a Health canada approval nor will there be advocates for it.

Just because you think it doesn't work (or it doesn't work for you or the others you've met), it doesn't invalid its use.

anyways, i'm going to undo all your deletions and I'll do my best to leave your opinion sections the way it is. IF you keep deleting my stuff, I will report and escalate this to wiki admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:MEDRS. Feel free to report me to an admin. Wikipedia is not here to advertise peoples products. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

how is it unreliable medical papers when primary results are quoted with all the end points, p values and more? Even if the results were negative, they are still reported in the content. All I'm asking you to do is not to delete the content and just add on sections since clearly you have an opinion on what the product is all about. Please respect what others have written and do not REPLACE EVERYTHING with your own writing. I have valid credentials as a PhD and I have reviewed all the materials in detail. Please take the time to read everything that was cited (including primary sources; as there are more than 20 papers) instead of relying on the TWO sources you keep on quoting; an opinion letter and a meta-analysis as the basis of your conclusions. I'll give you some time to undo your contributions or modify them appropriately. I hope this will end any hostility and leave each with the proper respect each deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not use primary sources to refute or contradict secondary sources here at Wikipedia. Some academics have difficulty getting their head around this. However it is consensus here. I have no opinion on this product. We just summarize the conclusions of secondary sources which are not positive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Then please place the summary of the secondary sources on its own section instead of totally removing the primary source. If all primary source data is unreliable, then why do research to begin with? But I do believe you have an opinion, that is for you, secondary sources cannot be refuted (even if it is bad quality secondary source). Like I have said before, you should really evaluate what the secondary source is actually saying. The secondary sources itself even says these trials shouldn't be combined as a meta-analysis based on trial design, that's why the negative conclusions cautions on looking at all the criteria. There's a reason why I put all the primary source data and results out there so people can make their own conclusions. Secondary results are also welcomed, just not as a replacement. Anyways, I'm merely asking you to put your contributions separately, please do so.

You could try to change consensus but I think that is unlikely. Also please read WP:MEDMOS regarding section headings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

please include a medical science community section to state the consensus, quoting Nahas et al 2011, and Seida et al 2011. And just a fyi, research done by McElhaney et al 2011 and High et al. 2012 clinical trials are not included in those secondary reviews. Anyways, please add on your own separate sections without removing the previous content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When newer research is added into secondary sources we will include it. Not until than.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

please confirm whether or not you will revert/undo primary content deletions, and provide separate sections for secondary reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I will not as it is against policy and does not make sense. You are welcome to ask for another opinion here WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles that full under the scope of WP:MED do not use primary sources without, at minimum, a corroborating secondary source.

That said, I'll confirm that I (along with any other WP:MED editors aware of such sources) will remove them in the event Doc James is busy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If wikipedia editors will not entertain primary data results, I will re-edit the page using purely secondary sources using actual quotations. Such quotes were used in the previous edit which Doc James have removed and written lines in his own conclusions (as in, no quotations). I will also include the limitations from the secondary review articles where the author's own conclusions are stated. In reality, I'm not trying to fight editors here, but the heavy reliance on secondary sources is purely disappointing, especially when the secondary source can be "just as bad" as the primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We summarize rather than quote directly as a rule. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Then a summary of a secondary review is an opinion of an opinion... or am i wrong here? And yes, wikipedia has many rules which will not follow for convenience sake. ie., editors are not responsible for content accuracy, so it's okay to just quote reference sources to justify what was written, and it is up to readers to verify that content. If that's the case, why change anything anyone has written? I invite other editors to check how the previous content was written to see if it is truly biased. And I like to point out Doc James admitted that he summarized something he read, and formed his own conclusion since no quotation was used. Yes, it's easy to rely on a policy where the policy itself makes no sense either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate how poorly written Doc James edits are, i'll illustrate his contradiction points:

"There is little evidence to support that Cold-fX is effective in the common cold.[2][3]" Then later on "There is no evidence that Cold-fX is effective in those infected with the common cold.[2]" So you jumped from little evidence to support, then used the same reference to say show there is no evidence. Care to explain the contradictions?

When used preventatively it makes no difference on the rate of infections.[3] It also appears to have no effect on how bad the infections are.[3] -(no such statements in the Seida paper) There is tentative evidence that it may lesson the length of sickness when used preventatively.[3] -so it's working???

This is the conclusion from the Seida review: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of North American ginseng extracts in the prevention of common colds. While there was a trend toward a lower risk of developing at least one common cold in the ginseng group compared to the placebo group across the five trials, this result must be interpreted with caution due to inconsistency in the size of the effect and precision, as well as the varying quality of the included studies. There is some evidence consistent across two trials that the duration of colds and other ARIs is decreased by an average of 6 days for individuals taking the ginseng extract COLD-fX.

what does this mean, insufficient evidence? That means more research is needed to draw a final conclusion...

"trend toward lower risk of developing at least one common cold in the ginseng group...." "evidence consistent across two trials that the duration of colds and other AIRs is decreased by an average of 6 days for individuals taking the ginseng extract cold-fx"

both are deleted and replaced by "There is tentative evidence that it may lesson the length of sickness when used preventatively.[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have removed all the secondary sources [5]. The first statement "There is little evidence to support that Cold-fX is effective in the common cold." is addressing treatment and prevention. The second statement is dealing with treatment of those infected."There is no evidence that Cold-fX is effective in those infected with the common cold." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

why don't you give me a chance to finish my edits before you redo them? and if my explanation is not good enough you readily redo them because you're an editor? I can see that there is only one of me and many of you editor friends. I'm not going to waste my time and entertain unreasonable people who will only do what they want without listening. I'm sure many others who you have edited the pages have said the same thing. I'm not going to win against your buddies and this very wrong system on wiki. Wiki was suppose to be unbiased and fact based, but those in control like to abuse their powers. Just a FYI, you didn't win, I just chose to be wise about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.42.106 (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Might be useful to spend some time to learn about how Wikipedia works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Onychomycosis article

Can you improve the Onychomicosis article with this new information from "volume 13 - number 7 - July 2013" Nature Medicine ?

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nm0713-794

I mean the pharmacological part.

38% cure rate found with a 12-week course of the oral medication terbinafine.

New drug Efinaconazole in two phase 3 trials, published in the April issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (68, 600–608, 2013), the drug yielded complete cure rates of 17.8% and 15.2%

etc... I don't know how to do it

[email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.120.66 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We should be using secondary sources rather than this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622%2812%2901140-1/abstract And what about this extract? What do you mean about not using a primary source ? It's because Nature magazine is not free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.166.126 (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reading list

I've started reading, it will take me a long time. Today I used the UK NHS which is reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not a very good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

since i'm new

what's the etiquette for dispute resolution? Should I be continuing the discussion, as the original poster brings up points, or just let it die and allow the moderator to decide? I'm happy to continue the debate, over there, but not sure if it's making the moderators life hell. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The moderator does not decide anything. They just facilitate the discussion. Feel free to continue :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

thx.Ian Furst (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

• Book review: Missing Links and Secret Histories: A Selection of Wikipedia Entries from Across the Known Multiverse

• News and notes: Modification of WMF protection brought to Arbcom

• Featured content: Dr. Watson, I presume

• Special report: The few who write Wikipedia

• Technology report: Architecting the future of MediaWiki

• In the media: Wikipedia for robots; Wikipedia—a temperamental teenager

• Traffic report: No show for the Globes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply

...at User talk:Amatulic#3RR. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully we can go forwards from here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request for Active Hexose Correlated Compound

A request to move Active Hexose Correlated Compound to Active hexose correlated compound. Reason: Improper capitalisation. Diptanshu^Talk 19:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You can do the move too :-) Give it a try Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

When I tried moving the page it gave me the following message:

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:

Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself.

Please check that you didn't enter the destination title into the "reason" field instead of the "new title" field.

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

Diptanshu^Talk 14:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism

Thanks for reviewing, I'm working on incorporating your suggestions today. Already did most of them, but still need to look up the data about the medications. Not sure about the other points since I'm not the one who added that information. I think Axl or Jfd did, so I'll have to speak with them and see what was intended. Feel free to take a look at the article again when you have a chance and see if it's better, worse, or the same and tweak here or there as needed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Will let Jfd take a look. Almost there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Epilepsy

The article Epilepsy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Epilepsy for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jfdwolff -- Jfdwolff (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Hey James, just wanted to say thank you for reviewing hypothyroidism and for all of your help in general. You're appreciated buddy! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Saturated fats vs "natural" foods

Hi Doc James

Apologies for asking a completely un-Wikipedia-related question on your talk page, and feel free to ignore if you're too busy! I was looking at this article: Butter is bad – a myth we've been fed by the 'healthy eating' industry wondering what scientific and medical experts really think on this issue. Are there are any secondary review articles etc. (satisfying WP:MEDRS) that would support or debunk the theory mentioned in the article that butter is actually better for you than margarine? Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Saturated fats are better than transfats. An overview is here Cardiovascular_disease#Diet Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Hi, I'm writing on your talk page to request you for your input on how you think I should edit the tyrosine kinase inhibitor page. See I've been editing it in my sandbox and at the moment I'm working on a new table comparing the different tyrosine kinase inhibitors and I'd appreciate your input. Particularly on the point of referencing. See I use various drug databases as my references and to write a reference for every drug, individually, would take forever (I use five different databases [Medscape Reference, the TGA eBusiness Services, the EMA website, drugs.com and dailymed] for each drug), so in order to circumvent this dilemma I've attempted writing a very general reference format for each database and I'd like your input on how to write it properly. Fuse809 (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what would be best. The table is to big to fit on my screen. I would not put this info in a table but discuss each agent in prose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of related Wikipedia article

Hello, you reverted my recent addition to Lyme disease and explained your action with "Removed link to student essay.". What you call a study essay is in fact another wikipedia article. I could understand if the particular content were implemented in the original article, but the original is already substantial long and doesn't contain the topic mentioned. If you have any "doubt" about the validity or the link to weather, open a talk page discussion and elaborate there. Thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ondansetron

Hello again! About your deletion of the section on dosing in the ondansetron article--thanks for drawing my attention to the existence of the WP MED MOS. Good; that section should be gone. The "Overdose" subsection, though, is recommended according to the MOS. Still, if I undo your reversion to put that back, it'll undo your entire reversion. Could you just restore the subsection on overdosage? Thanks! Nimptsch3 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

yes my error. Thanks and restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

MED1500 to follow through Recent Edits

About {{WPMED recent changes}}. I saw your edits. Given that the WP:MED1500 list is stable & useful, shouldn't we add that one permanently to the box (not by parameter)? The other edit, about the image showing, I do not understand. Could you tell (here) what the intention is? -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

All I tried to do was remove the color red [6]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope my current solution serves the purposes. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Thank you for your clarification. But I think that for some paragraphs, like those enumerating symptoms, lists can be more clear than prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi Albert Maria (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes if the lists are very long we often break them out. This list was not that long. Will allow others to comment aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping you'll look at

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules which is just intended to come up with a series of relevant questions. Feel free to add a question or comment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Secondary sources

Unfortunately not, it appears the trials are relatively recent. I was under the impression that other primary sources were available to confirm, but upon looking it seems they are extracted from the cited paper rather than in addition to it. Probably best to remove it for now, sorry.

And yes, TRIP is outstanding. Only just discovered it, though it has occasionally gone a bit AWOL for me. --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Molecular Diagnostics and See Also

Hi,

Thanks for leaving feedback in the GA review of Medical diagnostics. You said that a good article shouldn't have a "see also" section. I had a look at the style guide, and I can't see where it says that.

My personal opinion is that Molecular Diagnostics is one of those bioscience topics that overlaps a lot with other topics: so naming the overlapping topics in "See Also" was a useful contribution. But I'm happy to give way to WP style.

Thanks,

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 13:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

At WP:MEDMOS it state "Avoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Hadn't checked WP:MEDMOSIan McDonald (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Your edit summary on reverting my improvements said "try talk". But the discussion there has proceeded already to the point where it was clear that such an update was needed. So can you say more specifically (at that discussion) what you would do differently? Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Have replied on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)