Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 121

Archive 115

←

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

→

Archive 125

Antisperm antibodies, template of neutrality and weight

I propose to remove the template of neutrality and weight. The prevalence in populations is proved by sources, and additional data:

1. "Immunological infertility is assumed to be the cause of infertility in 9-36% of the concerned couples. ASA were present in sera of 30% women with unexplained infertility. In this study ASA have been identified in 10-15% of men experiencing infertility and 15-20% of women with unexplained infertility. The frequency of ASA in fertile population of women and men is <2%. In infertile men and women ASA are present in 5-25% of individuals." [1]
2. Data on the frequency of ASA in infertile men have shown high variability (from 7% to 44%), depending on the method applied [2]
3. "The incidence of ASA in infertile couples is 9–55%, depending on the reporting center. Antisperm antibodies have been described in 8–21% of the infertile men (autoantibodies) and in 6–43% of infertile women (isoantibodies). [3]

The source used in the article (2017) has more weighted and relevant information. 10–30% of infertile couples, and in males, about 12–13% (20,4% in meta-analysis[5]) --Путеец (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:POV templates can be removed whenever the dispute has stopped (e.g., no discussion about it on the talk page for a couple of months). You just re-started the talk-page discussions, so now you either have to figure out if people agree with you now, or wait until everyone gets bored and stops talking about it for a month or two again and boldly remove them without re-igniting the dispute first. (Of course, in the second case, there's a chance that someone will revert you, and then you're back to the 'find consensus' part.)

On the subject matter, I glanced at the article, and I wonder whether there might not be an important gap between "our test found some antibodies" and "these antibodies produce a clinically meaningful effect for this couple". Antibody detection tests are not always as specific as one might hope, and developing immunological tolerance to a long-term partner's sperm is a known thing (check the literature on Japan, where the local choice of condoms as the primary form of birth control interferes with this process). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

1)WP: POV templates have already been deleted. The script canceled the edit. Active editor who put the templates for a long time does not work. Is it possible to repeat the deletion? 2) We discuss only the statistical results described in the sources. A source has been suggested that refers to very old data. I proposed several new ones that confirm the article’s content. --Путеец (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That reversion was by @CASSIOPEIA:, whom I'm sure would be happy to explain how removing a year-old pair of maintenance templates got categorized as "unexplained content removal". ("Misclick" is my first guess, since maintenance templates aren't content by any stretch of the imagination.)

The rules for removing those templates are pretty clear (although Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Hi, at WP:Huggle there is no "removing of maintenance templates" but "AFD/deleted whole page/CSD/removing content", for such I chose removing of content as sub for the edit. (the summary edit and warning template on editor page are automated text from Hunggle once the edit is perfromed). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Why did you revert it at all? Those templates are supposed to be present only while a dispute is being actively discussed by editors. They're not supposed to linger merely because someone disagreed with the article at some point in the past. Did you check to see whether there was such a dispute going on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The revert as no reason (edit summary) was given for the removal - see [4]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: I don't think you understood my question. Okay, you reverted it because he removed it. Why did you think that anyone needed to restore stale tags about an already-solved dispute? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, I restored because it did not state why the info was deleted.I am not an involved editor of the page. We at Hunggle (vandalism/ disruptive/deletions/etc) fighters, do not usually look in dept of (to investigate and read all the talk page messages) in details of such edit as editor should indicate the nature of the edits they performed in edit summary as there are thousands of such edits daily in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no rule that actually requires editors to use an edit summary; this is a perennially rejected proposal. There is especially no rule that requires an editor use an edit summary that will make sense to someone who would rather quickly revert edits than take the time to figure out whether the edit was appropriate.

Huggle's rules say that you will take responsibility for the edits you make with it. That means that when you screw up – say, by reverting a valid edit on the flimsy grounds that it was too hard for you to figure out whether it was appropriate, so you decided to assume that it was vandalism – then you don't claim that it's the other guy's fault for not pre-explaining, for your convenience, in your preferred location, that this was actually a good edit.

I'm also concerned to see that you are claiming that your use of a misleading edit summary isn't your fault. I'm sure that it's true that Huggle doesn't provide you with a single-click alternative that matched the actual situation, but under Huggle's rules, that means that you have to stop using Huggle for that edit and use a regular editing system. Note, too, that you're making this argument in favor of your poor edit summary in the context of you deciding to revert an edit because you disapproved of it not having a useful edit summary attached to it. You can't seriously expect us to believe that your factually inaccurate edit summary is supposed to be okay, but his missing one is grounds for reversion. Should someone with Huggle now go revert yours, on the grounds that the canned edit summary is wrong?

Usually, "taking responsibility" is enacted quickly, by saying something like "Oops, sorry" and self-reverting. I wonder whether it would ultimately be more useful to have you write a section at WP:CVUA on the importance of never using a misleading edit summary just because some scripts make clicking on a half-wrong canned edit summary easier than providing an accurate one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Wikipedia dont really operate under rules but guidelines. The revert is not based on vandalism but deletion without explanation/reason. An automatic message has been sent to the editor on info editor to provide edit info or if I have make any mistake, the editor would info/discuss with me. - see here [5]. If you think the tag should be removed, then do it and place a edit summary on the edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please show me the guideline that says "deletion without explanation" (you mean blanking, not deletion, and remember that we're talking about maintenance tags, not article content) is grounds for reversion. I think that after editing for more than a dozen years and all the work I've done on policies and guidelines (including writing a large portion of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines itself), I'm tolerably familiar with our ruleset, and I do not remember any rule in any page that says to revert the removal of maintenance tags unless there is an edit summary. I do, however, know that there is a rule on all of the POV-related maintenance tags that says you shouldn't restore them unless there is an active dispute underway (yet another part of our extended ruleset that I helped write years ago, by the way). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I revert on the ground as no edit summary stated (as a way to communicate with other editors so such like now the issues of so many message here would be avoided) as I did not know if the maintenance tags issues has yet to resolve. A message had sent to the editor and if the editor disagree, they would always restore the tag and stage the reason - that is all. My intention had no ill reason. Apologizes if I cause any inconvenience instead of helping Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

When you ("we", really, because this is true for all of us) are uncertain whether an edit is good, then you should not revert it. Leaving a message is really irrelevant.

If Huggle doesn't have a clear method for skipping edits that you're uncertain about, then let's request one. It turns out that I know one of the devs, and perhaps it's a design question that would interest User:TutterMouse, so we'd have a reasonable chance of getting that on their list for future improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Hunggle does have the option to skip edits.cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm mystified by your response again. You've said here that you reverted because you "did not know" whether it was a good edit. You also indicate that you understand that editors can't just go around reverting possibly appropriate edits on the chance that something that looks possible might happen to be a bad edit. So:

...if it's easy for Huggle users to skip edits that they're uncertain about, and

...if you know that Huggle users are only supposed to revert edits that they're reasonably certain are actually bad (not merely unexplained or an edit that the Huggle user doesn't understand),

...then why did it seem easier or better to revert that edit, instead of just skipping it?

I am worrying about how much good content will we lose, if even a few RecentChanges patrollers think that they're supposed to take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to edits. Some systems really reward people for exercising veto power: the one who dies with the most reverts wins, and who cares whether those reverts were appropriate. Reversions don't build the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the edit as there were no indication why it was removed. if the issues of the still remain and then removing the it might cause the issue remain and lack of editors to action in helping to improve the issue and if I have done a mistake (which a message had sent to the editor, they could always restore their edit and or send me a message on it). I did it in good well, yet cause so much unpleasantness of my mistake of my quick action of my service. Sadly. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Top Medical Editors of 2018

Stats are out. And a BIG congrats to User:Ozzie10aaaa for being the most prolific contributor of the year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

actually if I or anyone else contributes its because your the inspiration thank you Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Editors may be interested in a proposal that has been made to rename the article: Talk:Ketogenic diet#Requested move 22 January 2019. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a proposal involves a naming conflict between the traditional "ketogenic diet" (a treatment for refractory pediatric epilepsy) and the current "keto" fad diet, with the thought that renaming one or more articles might help readers find the page that they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

unfortunately all the votes are oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we need some ideas about how to improve things, not just people voting to oppose the first suggestion. Please consider this RM to be a request for advice based upon your best editorial judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

seems like sound advice, thank you(BTW its now half a dozen oppose) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I notice we have Cyclic ketogenic diet which seems a bit iffy - it appears the term is not used in the PUBMED-indexed corpus. Alexbrn (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Plan S open-access initiative requesting feedback

The Plan S initiative aims to make academic articles open access as a condition of funding. It is requesting feedback about itself on these questions:

1. Is there anything unclear or are there any issues that have not been addressed by the [Plan S] guidance document?
2. Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs?

It seems to me as though people here may have useful answers. Feedback is open until the 8th of February.

The plan launched in September and has a large proportion of European research funders and a couple of US ones onside; if you are affiliated with a research funder, they might want to look into it. The best comment on Plan S I've heard so far comes from Elsevier (which doesn't really like the financial transparency provisions, for starters). An Elsevier spokesman said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia" ("Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia"). I'm not sure if he knew about the journals published here.

There is an attempt to develop a consensus statement, please contribute any thoughts of yours. HLHJ (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Aluminium poisoning

The redirect Aluminium poisoning, currently a redirect to Aluminium#Health concerns, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 29#Aluminium poisoning. Input there from editors with relevant subject knowledge would be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

CBDMEDIC

Is the content of this article sufficiently supported by medical sources? Some of the claims and the references used to support them seem dubious to me. Also, is the company even notable? The page seems to have been speedy deleted for lack of notability in the recent past. And finally, is the article creator a paid editor? That question has been posed on their talk page without response. Peacock (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:PCock thanks. Moved to Draft:CBDMEDIC. Article needs to go through AfC as so promotional, sources are poor and appears created has a COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Another list of links to DAB pages

I have collected yet more medicine-related links to DAB pages which need expert attention. As always, search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Cardiac plexus
• Encephalomyelitis (Two links to DAB pages, both through (disambiguation) qualifiers. That is perfectly acceptable, provided that every entry on the DAB page is intended; but it's best to mark such links as <!--intentional link to DAB page--> or the like. I've seen too many links like that which were blatant cop-outs by editors too lazy to find the useful link. Indeed, I only noticed one of those two links while preparing this post - they're almost impossible to spot.)
• Yi Zhang (biochemist) (Two links.) Done Done
• Mosquito bite allergy Done
• Insulin Done
• Acute lymphoblastic leukemia Done
• Veto cells Done
• Metabolic Score for Insulin Resistance Done
• Vasoconstriction Done

I had 30-odd pages bookmarked when I started to prepare this post; but only these remain. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Did some of these, but for others I think that we need new articles; TET is a family of DNA demethylases, for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed one that was done, and regarding TET there is at least Tet methylcytosine dioxygenase 1 which is one of the enzymes in the TET family. --Treetear (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Cardiac branches of the vagus nerve (linked in article Cardiac plexus) should be a set index article? No point in having such articles as disambiguation pages imo. --Treetear (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Factor I deficiency

I'm requesting a bit of help with Factor I Deficiency. Is this the best title for the article? Could the article be better integrated with (or at least linked from) the section Fibrinogen#Fibrinogen disorders? – Uanfala (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Doc James took care of articlke--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, Doc James fixed the capitalisation of the title in the linked diff (Factor I Deficiency -> Factor I deficiency) but there still hasn't been any further discussion on the above comment by Uanfala anywhere from what I can see (e.g. title -> Fibrinogen deficiency, or merge content to Fibrinogen article). --Treetear (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

probably best as is...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Request comments on MEDRS

See Talk:Electric smoking system#Comments on MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Morgan (cricketer, born 1932)

Hi. Just over from the cricket project. This chap played a few matches at first-class level for Cambridge Uni and MCC. It seems he was a renal surgeon, though I'm not sure how significant he was in his field. He died in 2017. Just leaving him here to see if anyone here might be able to find out more about his medical career. Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

haven't found much on a Google search...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals

There is a discussion concerning container categories for predatory journals. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Surgical cable ties

Can we have some more eyes on the cable tie article please? I know that it is not nominally a medical article, but someone with a COI is trying to insert medical information. Discussion at Talk:Cable tie#Surgery and User talk:Odd Höglund (SLU)#Citing yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Basic situation: A company is making a version of cable ties out of the same materials as resorbable surgical sutures, so surgeons can ligate stuff more easily. An employee has proposed that this information be mentioned in the article as a use (no company name or anything like that), plus a sentence explaining why you can't use normal cable ties instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: SLU is the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, not a company. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, here is my take on this: The popular use (in some countries) of cable ties within veterinary surgery is indeed a problem; the formation of chronic granulomas is sadly well described. This is important to inform others about; at the end of the day, it is an animal welfare issue. The suggested text is information about research and development carried out at the university where I work. I believe providing information about this is important to the readers seeking information. In my opinion this is relevant to any reader with an interest in surgery (the subject that I teach), the use of cable ties in surgery and readers with an interest in development of medical devices. Odd Höglund (SLU) (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Huntington disease and Saint Vitus illness

See Talk:Huntington's disease#Saint Vitus round 2. --MaoGo (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure created a disambig Saint Vitus disease Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nasal septum deviation

Deviated nasal septum

 Note: Nasal_septum_deviation#Diagnosis.--Hildeoc (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

may help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Health claims in a fashion article

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

[6] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The result was to merge this article to Underwear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRAPWATCH expansion.

I'm currently expanding the CrapWatch list to include sources other than Beall's list. I've added (see WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP) a section on WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP#Unreliable fields, as well as journals lying about being in the DOAJ and some based on Quackwatch's list of non-recommended periodicals. I've stuck to the 'fundamentally flawed' magazines and journals, but it could be expanded to cover more. I'm thinking Printed Newsletters, Electronic Newsletters, Newspapers, and Online Publications (minus HuffPo). I could include Journals/Magazines/Newsletters 'That Are Excellent Except for Too Many Poorly Reasoned Articles on "Complementary" and/or "Alternative" Medicine' (plus HuffPo), but I feel this would not be very useful.

Comments? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(Note that this is still being developped and isn't near final. See this discussion for more.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Quackwatch's "Journals, Excellent Except for Too Many Poorly Reasoned Articles on "Complementary" and/or "Alternative" Medicine" only names three journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, and one called Patient Care that may have stopped publishing, since the most recent article I can find at PubMed is from 1991. I would not recommend putting AIM and BMJ on your list of journals.

I'm honestly not even sure that all of the "fundamentally flawed" magazines would actually be appropriate. Muscle & Fitness isn't my idea of an ideal source for biomedical information, but that doesn't mean that it can't ever be cited appropriately in a Wikipedia article. (I did a quick check; Muscle & Fitness is mostly cited in BLPs, and it's likely appropriate for that purpose.) I'm concerned that in trying to cast a wide net, we might end up with so many false positives that we lose the main value of this project, which is quickly finding real problems. Alternatively, since there's been demand for a list of banned sources for years now, we may have editors misuse the list and try to enforce non-existent rules ("It's on the list, so it's banned"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Right now, I'm casting wide and I'm putting a lot of disclaimers on the list. In particular This list may therefore feature publications and publishers which... "... are problematic in some areas (e.g. promotes junk science), but reliable in others (e.g. biographies, general news)" and "... reflect Jeffrey Beall's or Quackwatch's good but imperfect judgment of what crap is (miscategorized as crap) would apply.

However, the end-point is indeed to have a list that is useful. So if say Muscle & Fitness is cited appropriately 95% of the time, there's probably a good case to remove it from the list. It's mostly why I stuck to the 'fundamentally flawed' publications for now, because I don't really know where the threshold should be, and like you, putting Annals of Internal Medicine/British Medical Journal (and possibly Patient Care, but I don't know that journal) on a crap list seems... odd at best. The newsletters seem complete crap though, but again, I'm not very up-to-date on medical crappery. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, Patient Care [7] merged with Geriatrics [8] in 2007 (not to be confused with the MDPI journal of the same name [9]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Some questions. Is the Bob Livingston Newsletter [10] affiliated with Bob Livingston the politician. Or some other Bob Livingston? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Some other Bob. For one thing, if a relatively junior member of Congress had four heart attacks in two years, his constituents probably wouldn't have kept re-electing him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This is American politics we're talking about. They could spin having four heart attacks as stemming from a proper American diet, not those goddamn hippy gluten-free nonsense, and get elected that way :p. Anyway, I've updated the list accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition nominated for merging.

The above template has been nominated for deletion merging into {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}. Discussion is over at TfD (link also on the template's page). Little pob (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This looks more like a merge proposal for Template:Infobox medical condition and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) than a nomination for deletion. It is based on User:DePiep's change to the /doc page to declare the first as deprecated (in favor of the second). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox medical condition}} is tagged with the deletion banner; but yes, it's more accurately a merger proposal. Apologies for any confusion (amended above). Little pob (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The original proposal was to split Template:Infobox medical condition into Template:Infobox medical condition (new) and Template:Medical resources. We have done so with many thousands of articles. And are getting their. Merging is not the way we should go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

TfD is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_7#Template:Infobox_medical_condition. Discussion is there. -DePiep (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine eyes again

Electronic cigarette

May I request some eyes on Talk:Electric smoking device (and suggestions for what on earth we should call the things)? There are currently four RfCs and 1.5 move requests there. Perhaps more importantly, I'd welcome views on Talk:Nicotine#Lede edits, where the inclusion of lede information on the health effects of nicotine on users is being discussed. HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• relatedWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Proposed merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There're a lot of issues with the current nicotine article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. I excised almost all of the problematic content. Now the only remaining problem is that it’s missing information on side effects and OD symptoms. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine could use your help!

Or rather, I could use it. After deleting a ton of content from Nicotine#Adverse effects and Nicotine#Overdose, I now need to add a lot of content from the sources listed in the maintenance templates in those sections and the drug monographs listed in this talk page section. If you feel comfortable with editing/writing about these topics in drug articles, I would really appreciate some assistance, because this is going to require a lot of work.

The current revision contains no coverage of acute adverse effects and overdose symptoms. I don't really care where or how any new content on these topics is covered at the moment; I really could just use some help generating the content. I can fix any issues with formatting, wording, and text placement later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm almost done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Seppi333, I just saw this. I've got some sources for expanding the expansion-tagged sections already collected, but have been busy. I will try to add them soon. HLHJ (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• related issue continued below Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Need third party input on whether WP:MEDRS applies to certain statements--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Need third party input on whether WP:MEDRS applies to certain statements

Nicotine

Please see this thread. Thanks. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Omniscan

Is omniscan a drug ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayank batra stud (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, see Gadodiamide. Ruslik_Zero 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Gadodiamide#Adverse effects looks like it needs some attention from a disinterested editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated stats for WPMED

Avaliable here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

great info and numbers for Wikiproject Medicine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. JenOttawa (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Medical research literature in Internet-in-a-box

A large number of medical articles are published under open licenses, and should soon be published in machine-readable formats. If we upload them to a Wikisource category, they could trivially go into Internet-in-a-box. This seems potentially useful (e.g., for offline medical center intranets).

The WikiJournals are developing formats for academic articles, but there is no such data structure on Wikisource. We're talking about a template or two. The WikiJournals will need automated PMC upload (eventually); automated PMC download would be a first step.

Does this sound worth doing? Have I missed anything? HLHJ (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

People at the point of care are often looking for a summary of the literature. Primary sources are more for researchers than clinicians.

Not sure how much usage this would garner in comparison to Wikipedia. We have talk about adding the open access sources that are used as references by Wikipedia... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Health Survival paradox article

Some editors here might want to have a look at Health Survival paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was recently created. It uses primary sources. Also, per WP:Article titles, I'm thinking that the "survival" part of the title should be in lowercase. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

agree should use MEDRS were appropriate--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this page has been moved to Health survival paradox. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Massive collection of primary sources

Was here. I have rewritten much of the article.

Discussion on these primary sources are here Talk:Tonsillectomy#Primary_sources

Further opinions appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Request category creation

For these two. -Category:Electronic cigarette aerosol carcinogens -Category:Tobacco smoke carcinogens QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_category_pages--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ketogenic Diet for successfull management of Obesity

Ketonuria

At present , one of successful treatment for obesity is ketogenic diet .

What is principle ? Low carbohydrate diet , formation of ketene bodies , but not up to dangerous levels .

Mechanism ? At low carbohydrate diet , body depends on storage fats in our body.

Dangers in diabetes ? Ketogenic diet helpful fro diabetic patients by reduce hyperglycemia . Ketoacidosis will not formed due to normal levels of glucose in blood

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/ (Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

it is a review[11], however...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

MDPI!? Crap journal - ignore. We have a some really good sources on this topic (see recent discussion at Talk:Ketogenic diet). Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

yes that's what I thought--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup no "predatory" journals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Which version to go with at the Empathy article?

We need some opinions about which version of the Empathy article we should go with -- the current version or the version seen at User:Benteziegen/sandbox. Of course, we don't have to go with either version and could develop the article in another way. But the current one is the current one. Discussion is at Talk:Empathy/Archive 2#Theory and empirical section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note, in case it isn't clear to anyone who takes a glance at the article. The Empathy article deals with a number of medical/health topics, ranging from autism, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and so on. I pointed this out on the talk page after Benteziegen questioned the topic being a medical topic. I'll go ahead and contact WP:Neuroscience about weighing in as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright / Reliable sourcing issue

The website Drugbank https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB09141 includes text copied and pasted from Wikipedia. They do it somewhat correct in that they attribute us but they do not do the "share alike" part appropriately.[12] I have followed up with them on that part.

The problem is that we are using this ref 4,000 times.[13] And we are thus like just referencing Wikipedia with Wikipedia :-( Citogenesis has become a reality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears they use Wikipedia a fair bit but often reference it a little worse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay Drugbank has agreed that they have copied and pasted from us. The difficulty is that they do so across many articles.

They have stated that they are unable to move to an actually open license (currently they use CC BY SA NC). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider adding it to WP:FORK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

New template: {{Erratum}}

It's designed to be used in a very similar way to {{Retracted}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

good info, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Leptospirosis as MEDRS microcosm

There is an issue with leptospirosis#Treatment and at first sight it could be dealt with simply by deletion of unsupported content. On reflection, and in my role as Wikimedian in Residence looking at MEDRS, it looks more like a case study.

The issue is antimicrobial treatment for leptospirosis, a bacterial infection that includes Weil’s disease, which is probably better known as a term. It is on the WHO radar as having the potential to become one of its recognised “neglected zoonotic diseases”, by the accumulation of evidence.[14] A 2012 Cochrane review (details below) found no clear benefit to patients from treatment with a selection of prominent antibacterials. On the other hand the article here states: "Effective antibiotics include penicillin G, ampicillin, amoxicillin and doxycycline. In more severe cases cefotaxime or ceftriaxone should be preferred." Hence the problems.

(1) One problem, certainly, is with WP:MEDDATE and a 2012 review. It can't be ruled in as a source, by the letter of the guideline, but it can hardly be ruled out either. There may be later clarifications in the review literature. But this MEDLINE query for leptospirosis+doxycycline (reviews from the last five years) apparently produces nothing very definite. The wording in the abstracts about prophylaxis isn't really convincing.

(2) Another issue is that Wikidata holds no information on drugs used to treat leptospirosis. So, if there is a MEDRS-compliant source about doxycycline or other treatment, Wikidata can be improved.

Under (2), such information could be used in infoboxes. Leptospirosis has Wikipedia articles in 65 languages, and many of those already have infoboxes. The English Wikipedia infobox, not drawing from Wikidata, cites antibiotic treatment to PMID 20628664, a review article published in 2010, before the Cochrane systematic review of 2012 which is PMID 22336839. There was also a 2011 comment on the paper PMID 21391357.

So, I'm interested here in the expert verdict via on the referencing in the existing article of the treatment information, via MEDASSESS and MEDDATE. I also have some detailed comments on the drug-disease information that does exist on Wikidata, but perhaps they are matters better raised on d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine. Lastly, it would not be surprising if people here were wondering how ScienceSource is getting on with a MEDRS algorithm. Well, there is a version zero that takes into account publisher, publication type and date information, with allowance for a MEDDATE (or other good cause) whitelist; and version 1 will filter to take out retracted papers. Whitelisting and more case analysis, for neglected diseases (how to define?) and rare diseases (more easily defined) are ways forward to better versions.

Charles Matthews (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a MEDRS problem here. The "5 year" rule-of-thumb is only for areas of research which are active, and Cochrane reviews are regarded more leniently in any case as they are assumed (perhaps optimistically) to be updated if there's a significant shift in the evidence. As to Wikidata - it has zero policy bearing on what we write in our articles here. Personally, I ignore it completely as a waste of time. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Added the Cochrane review about the lack of strong evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Charles, is your "publisher" field generally going to contain the organization that sponsors the publication (an "Academic Society of Researchers"), or the publishing house (e.g., Elsevier)?

As for the MEDDATE question, Alex is correct about what the guideline says, but in practice, some editors revert anyone who dares to use their best judgement to determine that a six-and-a-half-year-old source in an under-researched area is acceptable for a specific statement.  :-/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The "publisher" is determined by going paper -> journal -> publisher defined by "organization or person responsible for publishing" e.g. Elsevier. What we are actually doing, for open access papers which are the focus, is relying on the Directory of Open Access Journals to filter out the predatory publishers. On your "best judgement" point, yes indeed, something could be done here, if "under-researched" had a more tangible definition.

Effectively, operating by blacklists (e.g. predatory publishers) and whitelists (cases for lenient application of MEDDATE) is all about lists and how they are compiled. For actual Wikipedia lists, there is what is said at WP:LSC, i.e. clearcut criteria. The incidence of uncompromising reverts, as you describe them, could be reduced by being more explicit, in other words. For example, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases gives a definite list on this page, that includes leptospirosis, where the WHO list has a narrower focus. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is quite right, but User:DGG is far more informed on this subject than I am. Consider a case such as Journal of the European Economic Association, which was created after a dispute between the European Economic Association and Elsevier: Wiley-Blackwell is certainly the publishing house. Would you also call Wiley-Blackwell the publisher, or would you call the EEA the publisher?

The problem with making a list of journals for MEDDATE leniency is that the journal is irrelevant. A paper in Journal X that is 5 years old can be out of date. A paper in that same Journal X, but twice as old, can be the not merely up to date, but also the best possible source for a given claim. In practice, a reasonable starting point is to go to PubMed and search for the material in question. If the currently cited article is in the five most recent review articles (or primary sources, if it's a subject that can be acceptably supported by a primary source), and you didn't see anything in the list that appeared to contradict the content, then it's probably fine, even if it's more than ten years old. In short, you can't evaluate MEDDATE unless you consider both the availability of newer sources and WP:RSCONTEXT. It is not really something that can be easily automated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Journals change publisher. We include the information on the article for the journal. For the purposes of a single term in a citation, the publisher is the publisher at the time the article was published. As for what sources to use , and how far back to include references, I agree wholeheartedly with WhatamIdoing that it needs judgement, not fixed rules or automation. We list the date and the journal and the authors, and the readers are given the information to judge. Just like everywhere in WP , we do not judge for them. There are very few parts of human knowledge where there are simple answers that cannot be expected to change with time. The general concept is known asprogress. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: @DGG: That was actually not what I meant, so I'll expand. For the purposes of MEDDATE, and MEDREV, one can compile a list of exceptions to be treated differently, calling it a whitelist if the treatment is lenient, a blacklist to exclude. Instead of a case-by-case whitelist of papers, one can use the "main subject" property on Wikidata, and create a list of subjects, in relation to which one will show leniency. So that addresses the "neglected disease" concept, which is an example of what we are used to calling systematic bias, within the biomedical literature. The main point is that it is possible to correct for that bias in applying MEDRS, and this is common ground. So the next point is exactly how to do that.

Putting it another way, the phrase used above "only for areas of research which are active" can be turned around to ask "what medical areas are there (with a serious global burden of disease) where research is (undeservedly) relatively inactive?", and use that as a working definition of "neglected disease". Operationally, one then needs a reasonable consensus definition in terms of a list. Leptospirosis is an example for which the WHO is still making up its mind. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for something that works to a first approximation, then you could probably use rare disease status in the U.S. as the dividing line. There are cases where this isn't true (e.g., back labor probably affects a million American women each year, but almost nobody has ever done any serious research into it; cystic fibrosis is rare but actively researched), but as a starting point, you can assume that the five-year advice doesn't apply to most rare diseases, and that it does apply to most non-rare diseases.

But I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. Research into heart attacks is common, but a source that talks about a specific subpopulation might be quite rare. For example, PMID 28238152 is the only review article I could find at PubMed during the last five years that was obviously about myocardial infarction in babies. "Neonates" and "Myocardial infarction" are both common keywords, but when you put them together, we wouldn't necessarily want to apply the five-year standard to the resulting subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks, I am actually considering factoring in rare disease status, in terms of the GARD ID (Genetic and Rare Disease database of the NIH). But "neglected" and "rare" are certainly different, with "neglected" seeming to be a harder issue to handle all round. What is practical is to replace five years by another number, say eight, and see what people think of the results. I have read quite widely in the debates around MEDRS, by now, and there do seem to be various schools of thought. What is not so clear is that there is much disagreement on the acceptable sources. This, I believe, is a known phenomenon. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why I specified rare in the U.S. Many neglected diseases are rare within the US, despite being common worldwide. That list won't cover everything, but it will cover a lot of ground (including dengue, myiasis, leptospirosis, balantidiasis, maybe Chagas, lymphatic filariasis, and more). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just as long as we avoid the homeopaths' attempts to steal leptospirosis as a claimed validation of magic water (kleptospirosis?). Guy (Help!) 14:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought that kleptospirosis was when something takes your breath away.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the most reliable sources will change with the subject, not just from field to field, but within the many special areas making up the broad field of medicine. The general rule has always been that we use the best we can find, as long as it meets the basic criteria of being a publisher with editorial control. I understand the reasons why this project has very reasonably thought it necessary to limit itself to a subset of possible sources, but unless this is interpreted very flexibly it can be in some degree of conflict to the basic principles of WP. I appreciate the recognition that there are fields whee the medical orthodoxy is still uncertain The problem JzG mentions is not that uncommon here or elsewhere-:it's the general problem where the majority of the available sources in a subject represents an unusual or nonscientific prospective. Within our policies, there is sometimes no easy solution, except making sure our articles on the questionable sources indicate their nature. Overall,I don't think we're in basic disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Health benefits" of candy

Resolved

Despite the well-known health risks of sugar consumption, Wikipedia has an article that describes some purported "health benefits" of candy. Is this section inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS issues. Needs updating. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition (new) vs. alternative names in the lead

Doc has been updating medical articles with Template:Infobox medical condition (new). While doing that, he has also moved a number of alternative names out of the lead and into the synonyms field of the new infobox, such as here and here. But considering that our medical articles often go by the scientific/medical name, the scientific/medical name isn't always the common name. For example, in the case of myocardial infarction, "heart attack" is the common name and the article currently states "commonly known as a heart attack." I think that "heart attack" should continue to be mentioned and bolded in the lead of that article. In cases like that one, where the topic is dealing with a very common name, or an otherwise significant alternative name, I think that the alternative name should remain in the lead. I'm not stating that three or more names need to be in the lead, though. I understand how that can make the lead cluttered. WP:Alternative name states, "If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended."

Anyway, while updating these articles with the new infobox, Doc has also left the alternative name in the lead in some cases. For example, here, here and here.

Thoughts? And, Doc, are you weighing the benefits of keeping the alternative name in the lead in some cases? Is that why you have left the alternative name in the lead in some cases but not in others? The old infobox has a synonyms field as well, but we still kept the alternative name in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn if the alternative name is simple a minor spelling difference IMO that does not need to be in the first sentence. If the alternate name is the more common one it should remain in the first sentence. So I agree heart attack should remain in the first sentence of MI.

"dorsopathy" is a term that no one really uses so should go in the infobox IMO. If people feel strongly that certain ones should be in both places as commonly used feel free to add it as such. I am going through a lot of articles doing this update and of course would love help :-) About 1500 left to go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Doc, yeah, I agree. Thank you for updating so many articles; I know the work that you've put into it. If I had the time, I would help as well. I mainly only have enough time to catch up on my watchlist, tweak a few things, and address some matters on talk pages when catching up on what I've missed while away from Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we have finished. Have redirected the old template to the new one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Gliflozins/SGLT2 inhibitors

Mechanism of action

Hey all, is there a reason we have the page on SGLT2 inhibitors named gliflozin as opposed to the more commonly used SGLT2 inhibitors? Keilana (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SGLT2 inhibitors: Revision history--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yah not sure which we should use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I found many more results on Google and PubMed for SGLT2 inhibitors and it is the MESH term for the drugs. I've moved the article accordingly and left a redirect. Keilana (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Brugada syndrome versus Sudden unexpected nocturnal death syndrome versus Sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome versus Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome

Hi, so there appears to be separate bodies of research on SUNDS and Brugada, although I believe the Brugadas themselves are actively doing research that Brugada syndrome is SUNDS. @Doc James: I think prefers to use NIH sources that makes this assertion. However, I believe we should also address that physicians in East Asia had known SUNDS for 60 years before Brugada, the indigenous peoples possibly centuries before that, and while very important work was done in the 1980s, it would be UNDUE to only focus on research by Western physicians and to exclude the history of SUNDS (pre 1980) from discussion at Brugada syndrome. I am not sure exactly why Doc James wants to remove this discussion from Brugada syndrome, and certainly I believe Sudden unexplained nocturnal death syndrome should redirect to Sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. I_Na is not SCN5A, so neither is SUNDS the same as Brugada. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The requests were:

(1) use sources that fulfill WP:MEDRS and lots are avaliable as we have discussed on the talk page

(2) the exact same term can be used for a number of medical conditions, so yes SUNDS can be used by various people to refer to BOTH Brugada syndrome and to the wider category of sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. As such a disambig is perfectly fine.

(3) the final request was to write in easier to understand language and to put most of the discussion of mechanism in the mechanism section. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nearly all my sources except one (which was from an established investigative news journal) are peer-reviewed, and the secondary source (review article) tying in the contextual history is from JAHA in 2018. I don't get why Doc James wants to remove the contextual history tying together SUNDS and Brugada, and I was planning to add sourced material that further clarified what is linked and what is not. AFAIK, BrS is primarily diagnosed by ECG (e.g. to investigate unexplained vasovagal syncope) whereas SUNDS is diagnosed by manner of death or history of sudden unexplained ventricular arrhythmia / aborted sudden cardiac death. This second diathesis was known to the indigenous peoples of Asia hundreds of years before the Brugadas arrived with their ECG analysis. Naturally, this leads to some divergence. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I respect the NIH as an authoritative and trusted source as much as anyone, and some of my past income was funded by NIH grants, but the NIH is a human institution and I don't think it's fair to think of any authoritative institution as completely immune from systemic bias, e.g. the type that might lead to ignoring or glossing over the work of non-Western researchers and cultures. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We are looking for "review articles" not just "peer reviewed". How does "SUNDS is also used to mean Brugada" have anything to do with "ignoring or glossing over the work of non-Western researchers and cultures"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't. But deciding to make the NIH – an institution that has such a strong history of downplaying others' contributions that even its supporters say that its initials might as well stand for Not Invented Here – the arbiter of whether Asian indigenous cultures were aware of this before the NIH was founded could do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The NIH source is, however, not being used for that at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Brugada syndrome was discovered in Southeast Asian patients first, and the Brugadas have spent considerable effort to try to establish that the Asian diathesis of SUNDS is very much interlinked to (if not outright) Brugada syndrome. Even if we accept the NIH's nail in the coffin that SUNDS = BrS we should at least note the background history and not erase the Asian cultural context. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The NIH does not say "SUNDS = BrS" and neither do we. What they say is the term "SUNDS" is sometimes used to mean "BrS". Those are very two different statements. Just like we say "heart attack" sometimes means "myocardial infarction". But it also sometimes means "cardiac arrest". Does this mean "cardiac arrest" and "myocardial infarction" are the same thing, of course not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for Justin Yerbury

Hello, I significantly updated the page for Just Yerbury in March last year but all the Project banners on the Talk page still have stub status. I would be grateful if one of your editors has time to review the page and perhaps update all the banners? with thanks JulieMay54 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You can do that yourself, for any class up to "B" (that is, including B-class, but not including A-class, WP:GA, or WP:FA). There are some instructions at WP:MEDA, or see Wikipedia:Content assessment for more general information.

BTW, I recommend not changing the "priority" or "importance" settings until you're more familiar with the system, as that can sometimes be surprisingly controversial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Baby colic

One WP Med articles unintentionally cites a retracted article. If someone could check if that's OK, or if the article needs to be update, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Was retracted due to copyright issues rather than that it was wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay replaced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback. Qzekrom (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have accepted this offer to tag the stubs in Category:Unassessed medicine articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential merge

The article Jobe's Test was recently accepted at Articles for Creation. An attempt to move it to the proper titlecase Jobe's test failed, as the latter wikilink had previously been redirected to Empty can/Full can tests. The two articles may need to be merged. I'm not sure what to do with Murphy's Sign and Murphy's sign. Vycl1994 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the capitalization of Jobe's test. Murphy's sign should be moved to something like Murphy's sign (orthopedics), but someone who knows more about that might have a better idea. Legacypac, can you explain why you are moving AfC accepts to titles with improper capitalization? Natureium (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I followed the capitalization on the draft which I presume is a proper name for the test. Wikipedia is sometimes too aggressive with decapitalizing titles. It is possible these tests are known by something else too. Subject matter experts should address any merger and redirect. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The WP:AFCH script probably doesn't let AFC editors change the title. (I do wish that it would stop using the "publishes" language in the edit summary. The AFC editors aren't the ones who actually made any of that information available to the public, and any editor who's ever put the words "sued the publisher" into a search engine should understand why I think it's a bad idea for them to be systematically claiming to do so.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The script allows changing the title, actually. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Have change the page to a disambig which was what it was. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Retraction in [15]

Identified by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), and currently marked as an unintentional citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have read the retraction and our article. The paper was retracted because of "irregularities in the randomization procedures". Participants were included who had not been randomized.

As well as the retraction, the paper barely mentions alcohol. It notes that the traditional Mediterranean diet typically includes "wine in moderation". However the authors do not say that they encouraged daily wine consumption in habitual drinkers.

On the basis of the retraction, the focus on Mediterranean diet, and only an incidental mention of alcohol, it is unreasonable to conclude that this study indicates a beneficial effect from alcohol. I am deleting the statement and reference from our article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an updated version of the paper btw, but it likely isn't any more relevant than the original. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Tobacco industry terminology

Electronic cigarette mouthpiece

I've started an RfC on the terminology used for some heavily-marketed tobacco products, Talk:Electric smoking system#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. I'd welcome your comments.

I'd also welcome any help or opinions on the article, which is one of our most heavily-viewed, and its draft. And if anyone is willing to take some photographs, that would be wonderful, as we are currently mainly relying on promotional photos provided by Phillip Morris, which avoid smoke, packs of cigarettes, charred tobacco, etc.. HLHJ (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick comment. I've replied, and added sourced background info on terms used by the tobacco industry vs. those used by medical researchers. HLHJ (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

About the illustration, I'm afraid this actually isn't about electronic cigarettes, Ozzie10aaaa. It's about a solid tobacco "modified-risk" product, a sort of modern "light" cigarette. HLHJ (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

its from Talk:Electric smoking system#Harm reduction quantification(section just above the current discussion on EC /talk page) and is meant as a general illustration of the article on Electric smoking system(however should you dislike/or believe improper please feel free to remove, thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine "controversies"

Three vaccine"controversy" articles have now been renamed to remove the word "controversy", which gave undue weight to fringe ideas.

• In line with the renaming of MMR vaccine controversy to MMR vaccine and autism, I have proposed renaming category:MMR vaccine controversy to category:MMR vaccine and autism to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:MMR vaccine controversy.
• In line with the renaming of vaccine controversies to vaccine hesitancy, I have proposed renaming category:Vaccine controversies to Category:Vaccine hesitancy, to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4 § Category:Vaccine controversies.
• In line with the renaming of Thiomersal controversy to Thiomersal and vaccines, I have proposed renaming category:Thiomersal controversy to category:Thiomersal and vaccines , to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:Thiomersal controversy,

I put this through CFD rather than simply move them so that the bot will do the spadework. Please give your opinion on this category change. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. I was surprised how much our content was presenting vaccine safety an active scientific "debate" (now getting fixed by these and other changes). Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I noted that I don't see "controversy" as endorsing the validity of the fringe claims. "Controversy" is not meant to imply that what the overwhelming majority of scientists state about the matter is controversial. It's meant to get across the point that Wakefield caused controversy. His paper is controversial. But, anyway, whatever Wikipedia decides on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019‎ (UTC)

I agree with the moves, and would note that the word "controversy" is very broad, and can encompass controversial matters that have nothing to do with hesitancy. The testing of vaccines in third-world countries is controversial without implicating the propriety of vaccination. The concentration of vaccine manufacturing in private for-profit entities can be controversial precisely because this can lead to production shortages or predatory pricing, which impact people who want to receive vaccinations. bd2412 T 17:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

AgreedPetersmillard (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Type 1 diabetes

Efforts to add this claim "Researcher Dr. Denise Faustman of Harvard and MGH has successfully reversed type 1 diabetes in humans."

Has been added three times now. Source is poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

will keep eye on[16]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Front hole article

Just letting editors here know that Front hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Discussion about the article has taken place on its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual function article

The psychology Wikiproject seems dormant, so this seems the best place to take it - if there's another active project that would be better, please let me know. Here's the text of the article:

Intellectual function is an accepted way of saying mental function and broader than cognitive function in that it includes psychomotor components. This fundamental distinction is not made clear anywhere else in Wikipedia.

That's it. User:Imersion, who created the article, removed the PROD with a note on the talk page saying "Before you try to delete this please show where the distinction between cognitive, mental, intellectual, and motor functions is made clear." Doug Weller talk 16:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well... I think the first problem to be addressed is getting some sources into that. I'm a little surprised to read that anything named after "intelligence" includes things like how fast you can run ("psychomotor components"). It seems to me that it ought to be the other way around. User:Imersion, do you have any sources for that?

As for a merge target, it's possible that it could be on the mental function page (which is currently a redirect to cognition). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather vague, poorly defined concept judging by the results of my WP:BEFORE search. I've sent it to AfD; perhaps somebody else will have more luck. --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Rhinacanthus nasutus

There's lots of WP:MEDRS concerns at that article. Mostly CAM claims. Please take a look. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no decent sources on the topic. Trimmed it back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Should anatomical organs have article hatnotes that redirect to medications?

I invite comment here: Talk:Thyroid#Hatnote. [17]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

BGR-34

The BGR-34 article is currently a Biology and Medicine Good Article Nominee. It concerns an Ayurvedic drug which appears to have received quite a bit attention in the lay press (largely in India) but very little in peer-reviewed medical journals. Accordingly, the long list of references is largely to articles in the lay press. I'm just wondering what the stance is on WP:MEDRS for this sort of article. I haven't been much involved in pharma articles so far, and even less so in articles on alternative therapies and wondered if this still applied. These kinds of sources seem to be very thin on the ground for this drug based on a quick PubMed search despite the drug appearing to be a notable subject and well worth including in the encyclopaedia. Secondly, what do others think of the neutrality? The article is quite critical of the drug which is probably justified, but I wondered if others felt that it was too slanted in this direction.

I was tempted to have a go at doing a Good Article review for this one, but wanted some opinions on sourcing and neutrality beforehand.

Also notifying the main contributor to the article. @Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to do the GAR.

IMHO, MEDRS is applicable only if I wish to make a claim that the drug works or cures some disease or the like. That there is no MEDRS related to the drug is one of the core locus of criticism (and the article).

As to the negative slant, anything otherwise falls in FALSE BALANCE territory, IMO. Every report on the drug, that came out after the initial buzz, has been uniformly critical of it and the process invested in it. I also have two more sources (atleast one of which is more scathing than any I have read) but are sitting behind lofty paywalls:(∯WBG^converse 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

PeaBrainC, I have raised the same queries (about MEDRS) over FTN days back but got no response.

If there is no response in the next 72 hrs over either thread; I think we ought to proceed to the GAR. ∯WBG^converse 07:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you didn't get much response. I hope to get round to the review in time but it won't be for a couple of weeks at least due to real life commitments. There's time to wait for an opinion from editors with more experience than me. Here's hoping someone responds on this board! PeaBrainC (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A significant part of this article isn't Wikipedia:Biomedical information, but some of it is. If "ideal" sources aren't available, then you will have to use the best sources that you can find.

Also, the sentence with 13 refs at the end, in addition to 10 more refs in the middle, probably needs a little more thought. Pick the best sources, and skip the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input WhatamIdoing and Ozzie10aaaa. @Winged Blades of Godric: - things have got busy in the real world so I'm not going to be able to do the review any time soon. I will copy this discussion to the article's talkpage to inform anyone who gets round to doing the review any sooner. PeaBrainC (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Video workshop

I do not know how to create the videos at Video Wiki. Will there be a place on Wikipedia for editors like me to request a creation of a new video from the editors at Video Wiki? For photos there is Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop. For videos there is no workshop. A place such as Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Video workshop on Wikipedia ‎would be needed for editors like me. I propose the creation of Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Video workshop on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

• Step 1 go here https://videowiki.wmflabs.org/en
• Step 2 put the wikipedia article name (or location of the script) you want to turn into a video in the search bar at the top
• Step 3 click the button called "convert this article to VideoWiki"
• Step 4 add image.

We are wanting to improve the work flow such that one can stipulate both the text and the images to make up a video within a single Wikipedia page. That may take a few months to build. We are a little early in the process for a video workshop but yes one day that may be needed :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way just build this [18]

Added one image. You can add more with the "pencil" icon in the right upper hand corner. If the text on the ecig page changes and you hit "update" at videowiki the changes to audio from the Wikipedia article will appear with in video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I want a short doodle video with specific content I request. After a page such a Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop is created then it will be useful for me. I have specific content I want doodled. I would like a specific place to make such a request. I understand I will have to wait at least 3 months or longer for a Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Video workshop to be created to make such a request on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru I just took my first shot at creating a video in the videowiki labs. It's more for creating video with narration (kind of like making a powerpoint presentation with audio files for each slide). I think the tool you're looking for is "Whiteboard Animation Software" (take a look at Animaker).Ian Furst (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to make a request and someone else create a short doodle video. It would only be about 2 minutes long. I would only request one video. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely something we can look at if we can get this project off the ground. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Treatments for PTSD

Could use a critical eye, contains lots of alternative quackery stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I wonder why group therapy was placed under the ==Alternative and non-traditional treatment== section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps because it doesn't entail such trusted treatments as acupuncture and herbal remedies? :-)) --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

We have good reviews on the topic such as this one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525132/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK525132.pdf

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Effects of light on health

This FTN thread may be of interest to some readers of this page. Many thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine[19])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Heart pain

As for this issue, can anybody provide a remedy? That redirect seems to be a really tough nut (@Steel1943: for your information).--Hildeoc (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that the heart itself is innervated by visceral afferents rather than somatic afferents, pain from a cardiac etiology can present as so many things, not just chest pain. An article titled heart pain could so easily turn into a how-to/medical advice of the differential diagnosis of chest pain (and to add to the problem, cardialgia generally refers to pain that originates from the cardia of the stomach, i.e. heartburn.) In my (not quite yet professional) opinion, when people talk about "heart pain" they usually mean angina, since they see it as "chest pain that comes from my heart", but given the conflicting arguments it is probably best redirected to chest pain. Keilana (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Heart pain" means "angina" not sure the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Please note Thryduulf's final comment in the RfD thread.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on my findings, "heart pain" can mean angina, but it's not the only thing it can mean. It might be different when speaking to a physician who can observe and ask about other symptoms, but there is no primary topic when people search for this phrase on the internet. Sometimes they mean angina, sometimes chest pain, sometimes heartburn, sometimes emotional pain. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I recommend turning it into a WP:DISAMBIG page for the different articles. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that people typically mean "angina" or concerns of "angina". Of course there is a differential diagnosis that would include other stuff like heartburn and heartache. But those are a differential of what a person is referring to just like all conditions have a differential. Pts also say "doc I got pneumonia" when in fact they have "heart failure".

The main redirect should still go to angina. We could have a disambig for less common uses I guess. Or put them under a differential diagnosis section in the diagnosis section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I just realized no pages link to it. Did someone fix the links or no article ever linked to the redirect? I don't know. This redirect is not being used in any article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a doctor. This University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill source explicitly synonymises heart pain and angina.[20] Yet the indexes for ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM[21] both direct coders to precordial pain, and ICD-11 retains this.[22] Most results on Google talk around chest pain, even when quoting "heart pain". PubMed only has 8 review articles for the term.[23] Agree on disambiguating rather than redirect. Little pob (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I started the DISAMBIG page and requested a page move. Soon after another editor created a WP:DISAMBIG page for heart pain. I redirected the current page to the WP:DISAMBIG page. I think we are done here. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Main redirect

It was redirected back to the Angina instead of the Heart pain (disambiguation). Should the main redirect still go to angina? Angina is probably the primary target. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Heart pain typically means angina not heart burn. The others are less common uses IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Talk:Heart_pain_(disambiguation)#Requested move 5 March 2019.--Hildeoc (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ants and derangements

Wikipedia's article titled List of ICD-9 codes 710–739: diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue contains this line:

• Derangement, ant, med meniscus, knee

The link to ant is to an article about certain insects of the family Formicidae, and the article titled Derangement is about a topic in mathematics. A derangement is a certain kind of permutation of a finite set, namely a permutation with no fixed points.

The link to ant especially makes me thing whoever wrote this was not thinking. And there are no fewer than four links to Derangement on that page.

Clearly if these links are to be kept, they need better targets. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Delusional parasitosis is a mental disorder any entomologist becomes familiar with if you work at a public university and are near the front desk or involved in insect ID for the public. I wonder if that's the association the person was thinking of when it came to ants. That's the only way I can see derangement and ants as terms fitting together at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd guess that someone added wikilinks to this abbreviation in the hope that the linked page would be helpful. Unfortunately, as the spelled-out name is "Derangement of anterior horn of medial meniscus", the needed link is anterior. I'll go fix this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a classification, rather than a nomenclature, how ICD uses derangement will depend on the joint and context; but in this specific instance derangement = tear of meniscus. (Have wikilinked.) Little pob (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hormone replacement therapy

Hello friends, I have spent the last few weeks updating the Hormone replacement therapy removing a lot of the non-medrs refs and reflecting more recent opinion. It has been difficult because of the Women's Health Initiative controversy. Probably one of the most difficult articles I've ever worked on. I would appreciate feedback from the gallery. Also, if anyone has subspecialty expertise that would be great. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Did I make this request in the wrong area, is this just not something that's normally done? Or folks just busy? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Busy is a reasonable guess, plus there are just too few women (or anyone else interested in women's health) editing. Most of our articles on women's health are under-developed, especially if the subject isn't political. So Thank you, and please keep up the good work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Anal cancer article

Some here might want to look at Anal cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Recent edit warring going on there by a new account. I saw it yesterday, but I was too busy to weigh in and was about to log off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I refactored, hoping that helps find middle ground; the prior wording was a bit ponderous. — soupvector (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV

HIV is the most serious pandemic in modern history. Male circumcision in high HIV prevalence countries (ie. where most of the cases are), is a proven preventive intervention and is impacting the epidemic. The article is listed as "low importance". How does that figure? thanks! Petersmillard (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Help identifying medical source at CBD - reliable or junk?

Hi all, could you help determine whether this is a reliable source, or junk science? Two editors at CBD are not seeing eye to eye on this.

• Frontiers in Neurology Potential Clinical Benefits of CBD-Rich Cannabis Extracts Over Purified CBD in Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy: Observational Data Meta-analysis

Removed by @Alexbrn: for being "junk"

It is my understanding that meta-analyses are the preferred source for medical claims. Is the journal iteself in question, or what am I missing? petrarchan47คุก 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers Media publications are best avoided. See also WP:CRAPWATCH. Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a great paper. The stats used to combine the pooled data have been executed poorly. The primary outcome was not specified in the methods but the outcome that the authors felt was more robust (50% decrease on seizures) was similar between groups. Despite this, the more wishy-washy outcome of 'improvement' was stated first in the abstract as there was apparently a difference when assessed using what are arguably inappropriate statistical techniques.

I wouldn't write off a paper just because it's in a Frontiers journal (Frontiers in physiology has had some reasonable papers in it) but these papers should be read carefully and critically to see why they haven't been accepted somewhere better.PeaBrainC (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers has been labelled predatory in the past. Would prefer to see other sources used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback. Other sources might be preferable, but published research, particularly meta-analyses, on CBD are in very short supply since the field is so new. The Wikipedia page for Frontiers_Media has: "The publisher has "a history of badly handled and controversial retractions and publishing decisions". Nevertheless, both COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as members after concerns were raised."

It seems we should follow the lead of COPE and OASPA with regard to reliability rather than opinions of WP editors (no offense of course). petrarchan47คุก 19:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If such papers "are in very short supply" that compounds the problem. We are meant to be reflecting "accepted knowledge". If some therapeutic claim only exists in a dodgy journal and is not published respectably that is a huge WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The idea of a meta-analysis is "accepted knowledge". The journal is not "dodgy", as I mentioned in my previous comment. You would need to find that most of the studies included in the analysis are of little value in order to make such a sweeping statement. Have you looked at the individual studies? Are none of them "published respectably"? And what is considered respectable (for instance PUBMED, etc)? I ask because literature suggests we have a serious problem. And here's another one. petrarchan47คุก 21:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Petra that we should follow the lead of COPE and OASPA and not write off papers just because they've been published in Frontiers. Equally, we should not blindly accept a study just because it is a "meta-analysis". Even if the individual studies that a meta-analysis combines the results of are of good quality, if the synthesis is performed badly then the results of the meta-analysis are open to criticism.

This is not a well-performed meta-analysis. To state For epileptics, CBD-rich extracts were found to have a "better therapeutic potential" misrepresents the findings of this paper. The robust outcome measure of efficacy (>50% seizure reduction) was similar between groups. The weak outcome measure (improvement in frequency of seizures) attained statistical significance through the inappropriate use of statistical tests. Without meaning to get technical, if you are doing a meta-analysis you cannot just add all the numerators together and all the denominators together and compare that to another group of summed numerators and denominators with a simple test like a Fishers (as they have done here). If you have such heterogeneity between studies, as is seen in this case (e.g. sample size <10 to >100, large differences in dosing), you need to do a proper random-effects pooled estimate. This makes it much harder to achieve statistical significance.

If you really wanted to include this paper then my feeling is that the only accurate description of the findings would be to say that "Observational studies suggest that CBD may improve the symptoms of epilepsy, but strong evidence that purified CBD is more effective than whole-plant extracts is lacking". PeaBrainC (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

On the one hand, I am absolutely thrilled that you have outed yourself as being competent in statistics. Expect to get pinged for help, and I hope to see many, many more comments from you.  ;-)

On the other hand, we have had such a long and ugly history of editors who "interpret" the study's methodology according to whether its conclusions match their pre-existing opinions, and then come up with plausible-sounding objections to justify their bias, that we've basically had to ban that. It really hurts when we get an editor like you, but it's just been such a problem that we can't do it.

Please note that no editor is ever (absolutely, zero exceptions, not ever) required to cite a source that the editor personally thinks is weak (even if everyone else says that the editor is indisputably wrong). You are never required to write something that you personally believe is not justified by a reliable source. We are determined to protect your right to refuse to do something that you believe harms the project. You can even explain (as you did here) your concerns about it. Where the "ban" comes in to play is that an editor can't actually force other editors to reject a source based upon an editor's own analysis of its flaws.

I grant that this rule has downsides. I grant that it leads to some disingenuous objections. Many times, "I think this source sucks because it says _____" gets presented as "The Wikipedia:Impact factors are too low for this journal". But the rule stops a whole lot of other arguments, and on balance, I think it's the right decision.

And, if you know anyone who wants a few article credits, then please feel free to ask them to publish a critique. While we can't accept the word of an editor, because editors are not reliable sources, a properly published source that says a statistical analysis was incorrect is a very good reason to drop or downplay a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, was unaware of the history of these types of arguments. PeaBrainC (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi WAID, can you point out which rule or ban you're referring to? As editors we judge all the time whether an RS is appropriate to support any given point, and of course we look at the quality and accuracy. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I think the clearest exposition is at WP:MEDASSESS: "Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of source and quality of the publication. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. WAID may have had other examples in mind. We have had so many problems over the years in medical topics with editors wanting to reject sources because the conclusions of a review differed from their own analysis, that we've had to reluctantly accept that it is not safe to allow editors' analyses to overrule the analyses of published authors in reputable journals. HTH --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the part of MEDRS that I had primarily in mind. Looking at the quality of a source is necessary, but we should not be picking apart details like whether the researchers included the "correct" patients in their clinical trial or whether the funding source compromised the study. That's a job for reliable sources, not for Wikipedia editors.

The standard we're aiming for is pretty close to NOR's views on primary sources: we want editors to evaluate potential sources in ways "that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". If the reason for rejecting a source effectively begins with "First, take statistics classes for the next several years" (or become a medical specialist in the specific disease area, or get a PhD in biochemistry, or whatever), then that's well beyond a reasonable level of analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of pubmed indexed review articles on the topic of CBD and epilepsy. We do not need to use a Frontier journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've never seen this hatred for Frontiers anywhere else, and I've read lots of good papers from those journals. They're often exploratory, which makes their findings a little less useful, but I've never heard anyone express scepticism that it was a decent enough journal. Of course, other papers may be better, but I don't see what specifically is wrong here. I mean, we could always use a replacement WP:BETTERSOURCE, but that's a different issue than whether we should blanket ban Frontiers? Are they on any predatory list now? Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of "hatred" but simply that we don't want to use disreputable sources for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. There's plenty to give cause for concern at the Frontiers Media article, even recently. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Is that really an exceptional claim? Or, "those", since there were three claims made:
      1. People taking purified CBD used higher doses than people using non-purified whole-plant extracts.
      2. People taking whole-plant extracts reported fewer side effects than people taking purified CBD (hardly surprising, since they're taking less of it).
      3. The authors hold the opinion that whole-plant extracts have a "better therapeutic potential" (which is almost redundant with "had fewer side effects").
    • What exactly is "exceptional" here? It's not really surprising, it's not contradicted by the prevailing view, and it doesn't significantly alter mainstream assumptions (because AFAICT there weren't any mainstream assumptions about whether taking a lot of purified CBD would be better, worse, or the same as than a little whole-plant extract). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Any claims around therapeutic worth are exceptional, because the mainstream assumption must always be "no effect". The other aspects of the claim are unexceptional, but not due since not covered by a reputable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
        • It's not technically a claim of therapeutic worth (i.e., no editor claimed that either of them actually works for anyone). Also, we require "reliable" (not "reputable") sources. It is unlikely that this source is unreliable for a claim that its authors' opinion that one formulation is more promising than the other. (Whether their opinion is WP:DUE, of course, is a separate question. I'd have to figure out who the authors are before I could begin to answer that question.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Reputation is part of it since RS are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Frontiers journals are not that. Occasionally poorer sources are necessary to flesh out an article. Not here, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I generally replace Frontier journals with something else when I come across them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Alex, if actual fact-checking were actually required, rather than one among the multiple signals of reliability, then we couldn't cite peer-reviewed journal articles at all. Fact-checking is a process used by journalists, not academics, and it is widely acknowledged in the industry to reach its highest form in exactly the kind of glossy women's magazine articles about sexual health that you would never accept in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
              • Obviously there's a difference. I was merely countering your suggestion that source reputation doesn't matter. It does. Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
                • WaID — I don't think I could disagree more, your interpretation of fact-checking is totally wrong. Nevertheless, I posit that there is nothing wrong with citing Frontiers in lieu of a better source, rather the problem is that it is WP:UNDUE to cite Frontiers instead of a better source. So, let's simply replace it with something better. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps if we both contribute more to fact-checking, then we'll more quickly arrive at a shared understanding of what that term means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing question here

• Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

User wants to use this reference "Wise, Anderson. A Headache in the Pelvis. Harmony."

The decline to provide either a year of publication or a page number. Harmany is a popular press publisher. Others thoughts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have been traced back to a proper review article in an decent journal. In other words, it seems to be verifiable in the scientific literature, even if the newbie started with a lay press book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes discussion is now about how we should summarize the review article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Federal Assault Weapons Ban, How to summarize the literature?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban#How to summarize the literature?. Seeking collaboration in integrating three recent peer-reviewed studies, including those from The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery and the Journal of Urban Health, on the effects on morbidity of the federal assault weapons ban. 2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:C5 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ophthalmology

Do you folks include ocular topics, or are you more internal-medicine only? I'm looking for resources on a topic related to ocular anatomy, but I don't want to spend your time on it if you don't pay attention to that area. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We cover all kinds of medicine (and even fake medicine). Natureium (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! So now that it's been several years since it was in the popular news, I thought I'd look into Dua's layer by running searches for <dua and layer>. Our med school doesn't have an optics track, so I was restricted to nursing and general medical resources, out of which I checked three:

• JAMA — two false positives, nothing real
• Medline — lots of results written by Dua, so I excluded anything with his name in the author field and ended up with sixteen references. Some are significant, e.g. DOI 10.1111/aos.12823.
• Ovid from Wolters Kluwer: thirty uses, including some written by Dua. Some items unrelated to him are significant, e.g. DOI 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000413.

By "significant" I mean an actual article that (aside from its publication date) looks useful in my non-medical opinion — it's published in a refereed journal, it's a research article (as opposed to things like book reviews), and it has non-trivial references to Dua's layer. But since I know that medicine has different standards from those in my academic background (history), I didn't want to assume that these were useful. Could someone, therefore, examine these articles and check databases to look for coverage in others, in order to see whether this concept really has been accepted by scholars in this field? And does anyone have access to textbooks with detailed coverage of ocular anatomy? Dua claimed that textbooks would need to be rewritten; it would be good if someone could look at recent textbooks to see whether they have accepted or rejected the concept. Our article doesn't address anything on the subject, aside from noting that no textbooks were scheduled for rewriting within a couple of months of the publication of Dua's article: no surprise, since they need to be cautious on this kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Germanwings Flight 9525 / deliberation despite psychotic disorder?

Hi! I still doubt, that a severe psychotic disorder allows deliberation. Can somebody here describe the state of the art opinion on this question? I mean: Would a MD say, that a rabies patient deliberately refuses to drink water? And: Why does it feel different, when a cancer patient would choose morphine instead of a gamma knife? In that article i even found some OR: It says it was "suicide by pilot" (i. e. _intentional_ self harm), but the report does not. Previous attempts: Psychiatry task force, science reference desk (that talks about cats and dogs...), talk page Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The text reports the position of "French and German prosecutors". It is attributed so do not see the concern. The question is is this "deliberate"? If they had had a seizure than no intent would be presumed. When someone with a mental health issue dies by suicide we still call it suicide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

1. since when cant jurists ask a psychiatric expert (e. g. when they want to lock someone down for no reason, they ask a psychiatrist who tells them, what could happen (e. g. a young, thin female could assault 2 police men simultaneously, because martial artists dont dare to punch a little gurl, because she looks like their mother, b4 she imprisioned them for 9*4 weeks...), if they dont do it...)? 2. doesnt the definition of "psychotic disorder" say that "deliberation" is impossible? 3. what do u try to accomplish by saying that the pat. intented that outcome (dead for no reason)? do u want to say, that he/she should have prayed more often and/or more properly and/or earlier? i mean: do u believe, that the outcome is the result of previous deliberation, when deliberation was still possible? but why should one choose deliberately that path? isnt that choice already prove for a severe psychotic disorder? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Whilst you must be commended for seeking the opinion of uninvolved editors, this is the fourth time you've done so. To address your points all the same:

1. This isn't a trial; there are no jurists. However, if we must use that analogy, Wikipedia would be more akin to a court journalist – an uninvolved observer to the proceedings that reports the facts as stated. (Even if that fact is that an opinion was stated, e.g. "X claimed that Y caused Z".)
2. Although it's accepted that Lubitz was depressed at the time, we can't make the assumption that he had a psychotic break in the cockpit. There needs to be reliable and WP:verifiable sources that state this. And those sources would have to also say that the psychosis was the presumed cause of the crash. It is important to tick both these boxes, to prevent (unintentionally) violating WP:SYNTH.

Even if you think the opinions of the prosecutors were ill-informed or biased; suicide was the finding of the official investigation into the crash. Wikipedia must reflect that. If there are unaddressed "significant minority views", and you have multiple reliable sources for them, it is acceptable to mention these in a WP:balanced way. Little pob (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

0. it is not just about the article. it is more a generic medical/philosophical question: «what is considered to be “intent”?» 1. i agree, that i dont make much progress with my questions since years... mostly because they r not answered... or answered in a very weird way... it is a long difficult process... and when i feel like it is close to a resolution, nothing happens... 2. some say, that everything is intentional, which seems to be bluntly wrong to me... 3. now u say, that there might have been a pychotic break (which excludes intent? right?), but nobody was there to see any findings, so that we cant write it... but how can the government write the opposite? i mean: they have no findings, too... 4. why cant we make that clear in the article? i mean: that it is merely a wild guess, what the investigators wrote... at least some quotes («» or “”) would be nice... 5. i mean: WP even publishes IR-camera recordings, that the USA (unsuccessfully) tried to keep secret... which is quite resistive, 2... they clearly dont like it... :) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The question is a philosophical one, do humans have "free will". And if they do have "free will" is that "free will" not present some of the time such as when intoxicated or in the presence of a mental illness. And what degree of intoxication or mental illness results in the loss of free will if we believe it was present at some time. There are no black and white answers to these question so we just report the opinions of sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

thx... i think we came close enough to a resolution... now i still wonder why we dont mention the preliminary diagnosis “psychotic disorder” or “schizophrenia” as early as possible... but i dont really care... i was just starting to think, that something is wrong with me and my definition of “psychotic”... bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Revising MASA syndrome page and creating L1 syndrome page

Currently, the MASA syndrome page incorrectly lists MASA syndrome, a rare neurological disorder with XLR inheritance, as being synonymous with L1 syndrome (for which a wiki page does not currently exist). Multiple sources including Genetics Home Reference and Orphanet state that MASA syndrome is currently considered to be a disorder on the L1 clinical spectrum (which also includes disorders other than MASA syndrome, namely HSAS syndrome, spastic paraplegia 1, and X-linked complicated agenesis of the corpus callosum). It was once thought that the disorders that make up L1 syndrome were distinct and genetically heterogeneous, however they are now understood to be subtypes of L1 syndrome (sharing a common genetic aetiology of variants in L1CAM). With this in mind, it seems timely to modify the MASA syndrome page to reflect the most recent classification of MASA syndrome being under the umbrella of L1 syndrome (rather than MASA syndrome being synonymous with it), and to create a new wiki page for L1 syndrome. Fellow editors Mahomeboy15 and Habibm10 are in agreement with this and would like to collaborate on the MASA syndrome page changes and the creation of an L1 syndrome page. We would look to the WikiProject Medicine community for any guidance or comments on this topic.--Shaquille Oatmeal (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a group of three Bachelor of Health Sciences students at McMaster University who are doing an in-depth search for reviews of evidence and background information about MASA syndrome. They are new editors and would very much appreciate your guidance and support. Thanks! Mcbrarian (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Right now a search for L1 Syndrome redirects to MASA syndrome. These two syndromes are no longer considered to be synonymous.Mcbrarian (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Awesome. Mahomeboy15, Habibm10, and Shaquille Oatmeal (I like your username!), please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1_syndrome&redirect=no and Wikipedia:Boldly replace the redirect code with something about L1 syndrome. For right now, it's enough to just type what you've written here (something like "L1 syndrome is a clinical spectrum that includes a, b, c, d,"). You'll want to add a source (so that editors unfamiliar with rare diseases – which is most of them – will know that you're not just making something up), and that Orphanet URL will do for the first ref. It's also a good idea to add a category. This is very easy, as you can probably use the same categories that are listed in the MASA article. If you're editing in the visual editor, then the category tool is in the ☰ menu (near "Publish changes") and will let you search for category names. In the source editor, open the MASA article, scroll to the end, and just copy and paste the ones you want to the bottom of the new page.

Getting that redirect turned into an article is the hardest part (technically), and from there it's normal editing on the two articles. Use the best medical textbooks and review articles you can find to add content, and come back here whenever you have a question or problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a copyright vio, and should the entry remain?

This diff was made by Nancyambrose which appears to be lifted wholesale from rarediseases.info.nih.gov. Because that is a .gov domain, I do not know if it is in the public domain or not. Regardless, the entry is not cited and could probably stand to be rewritten at the very least, so it needs a reverting. Could someone else look into this ,please? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I spent a while looking, but I found no evidence that it's copyrighted. It appears to be the work of US federal employees in the normal course of business, i.e., public domain. Unless someone else finds a different result, we do not need to delete that as a copyvio. The NIH page itself should be cited as a source per Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

(The correct approach to things that need to be re-written is to re-write them [or at least to tag them for re-writing]. Reverting does not contribute anything to the process of copyediting.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I added the ref and the PD tag.[24] That is all that is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Management of hypertension, Health effects of pesticides, Rheumatology, and docwirenews.com

• Health effects of pesticides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Management of hypertension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rheumatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I ran across these while looking into some spamming of https://www.docwirenews.com . Could someone take a look at the articles for MEDRS issues? What do others think of docwirenews.com? --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think, without looking at the website at all, that for these common/large subjects, it is unlikely that anything on any website (rather than a book or review article) is going to be "ideal". Treating high blood pressure is exactly the kind of thing that MEDRS's "ideal" was written for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Into the breach; an opinion on Wikivideo

Hey everyone. I'd previously been an active editor at WP:MED, heard about Wikivideo, and thought I'd do some work with it only to discover the discussions going on here. It seems that there is general consensus that more than text is desired by users, and Wikipedia's pillars have to be held sacrosanct. Not an easy balance. I haven't heard many people talking about the impact Wikipedia is having on global health. If you look at Dengue Fever page stats and compare it to the outbreak season for Dengue it's pretty clear that people in need turn to Wikipedia (300k hits during outbreaks). I suspect it's even more profound in emerging countries where medical systems are fragmented, and I have to wonder how many lives are saved by the information the community provides, how many women turn to Wikipedia during childbirth? I'd add that there is 30-50% illiteracy in many of these regions with a clear correlation between illiteracy and higher mortality/infant mortality. Putting medical information into the hands of those in need has profound implications for their lives. Imo, having a means to deliver that information beyond text alone is important, and building consensus to find a solution is well worth the discussions here. I'm always proud to see the deep efforts at WP:MED, it's far-reaching and meaningful work. Ian Furst (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ian Furst. There is still a lot of work needed for this software. We of course as mentioned need improvements around "user-interaction, history, attribution, diff, bot-edit" etc but not insurmountable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

For perspective, I emailed a friend that does work with the WHO on maternal newborn child health at a high level about the project. She was at a conference last week where they spoke of the problem of illiteracy. This graph sums it up, >50% infant mortality at low levels of female literacy, and ~10% at high levels (graph is from India). She said one project is to create storyboards to convince women to have a friend present during birth. Simple information can have a profound impact. Ian Furst (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that's 5% and 1% (50 out of 1000 live births, not 50%). The infant mortality rates in India overall are probably around 4%, and in developed countries, they're probably under 1%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

yep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Ian Furst (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

My 5¢ worth about WikiVideo - approx 3 years ago, I suggested adding video to our articles, and in that suggestion included this link to a Biography presentation about Albert Einstein which includes a full video presentation along with the text. I have also uploaded several video clips from PBS nature programming I produced in the 1990s, and included them in a few articles I've co-authored/collaborated on (COI declared and there were other editors involved) including American paddlefish, Sturgeon and Bowfin. I fully support further advancement into this form of dissemination, video and/or audio, and will be more than happy to participate in any project to help us get there. Doc James, just let me know if there's anything I can do to help. ^Atsme 📣 📧 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS for neuroscience content

There is this RfC going on whether a section on neuroscience results complies with WP:MEDRS. Lucleon (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Rehab patients

I'll make this brief. Should Cliffside Malibu contain a list of notable patients? Is this within both BLP and MEDRS policy? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Should it? That depends upon what else can be said about the organization, and whether reliable sources mention their famous customers consistently. (Without looking, but having read a lot of news articles, it's likely that they do.)

Is it within BLP? Yes, if there are proper sources for each person's name.

Is it within MEDRS? MEDRS says "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." Famous patients can fall into any of those categories.

You might find the general concepts in WP:MEDCASE useful, even though it does not address the question of famous customers directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fasting and cancer

Thoughts/edits on the cancer section of the Fasting article and this review as support for the clinical use of fasting to "prevent" cancer or at least minimize chemotherapy side-effects. --Zefr (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warriors gonna edit-war. The "review" does not say fasting can prevent cancer. Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this a dispute about whether "CR [calorie restriction] is an established tumor preventative regimen", in an article that mentions the word fasting fifty-five times, should be interpreted as including calorie restriction through the method of fasting, or is there some dispute over whether fasting actually restricts calories? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS is best avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is little doubt that fasting restricts calories, but fasting restricts other foodstuffs as well, and calorie restriction may introduce substitute foods. In addition the timescales involved will be very different. Because we do not know what sort of mechanisms are at play, nor what the potential effects of other restrictions/other substitutes may be, it is not sensible to equate calorie restriction with fasting. --RexxS (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought fasting was generally believed to restrict all foodstuffs (temporarily).  ;-)

The OP wrote this: However, it has been shown that fasting can help prevent cancer.

Would you continue to object that it's not verifiable if the term calorie restriction was used instead of fasting in that sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it'll work eventually as the fastee wont have cancer at the end of the process. Or a heartbeat. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. Yes, you think exactly as I do that fasting was generally believed to restrict all foodstuffs (temporarily). But that's not the point. Let me try to be clearer:

1. If an unexplained effect is observed following fasting (i.e. restriction of all foodstuffs), we don't yet know whether the effect was a result of restricting calories or of restricting one of the other foodstuffs.
2. if an unexplained effect is observed following calorie restriction (which often involves additional non-calorific supplements), we don't yet know whether the effect was a result of the decrease in calories or a result of the increase in a supplement (which would not be present when fasting).

As a result, it is potentially erroneous to conclude that an unexplained effect observed following calorie restriction will be observed following fasting, and vice-versa. Please let me know if you still don't follow the line of argument. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Your line of argument sounds like a very nice piece of peer review, and might have been useful to the authors before publication. But what we're working with here on Wikipedia is a source that clearly treats fasting as merely a sub-type of a broad class of behaviors called "calorie restriction", and that directly says that calorie restriction prevents cancer. It does not seem plausible that "any educated person...without further, specialized knowledge" (to quote NOR) would honestly read that whole article and conclude that the authors didn't mean for that statement to encompass fasting.

Note that I'm not saying that the authors are correct; I'm only saying that it seems implausible that the authors didn't intend for readers to understand that the authors believe that calorie-reduction-through-fasting prevents cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)