Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 5 January 2008

Archives

/Rules archives 1 /Amusing Vandalism /Medical 1 /Miscellaneous 1 /Miscellaneous 2 /Miscellaneous 3 /Religion 1 /Religion 2 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 1 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 2 /Archives 1 /Archives 2 /Archives 3 /Archives 4 /Archives 5 /Test page

Scary articles

Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.

• List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; . Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

tools for checking refs?

Hi, I think i saw some back 'n forth between you 'n Sandy 'n Colin about tools for checking references... I would be very interested in learning anything you've learned (both now & in the future). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here. There are two great tools for checking references. The first, older one, is user:Gimmetrow's Reference Fixer, located here. The talk page has instructions on how to install and use it. It is a wonderful tool for fixing the punctuation so that it precedes the footnote. It also moves citation needed and other such tags to the end of a sentence, all automated. The second, brand-new tool is Dispenser's Linkchecker, which is causing quite a stir on FAC. It uses spider software to search for dead links and references in FACs. It can also be used manually to check individual articles. The link to the spider version for FAC is here. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Those both look like very good tools. Will check them out... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We didn't know you had a sense of humor?????  :) OrangeMarlin 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hey Orange - random question. As a medical doctor, what's your opinion of chiropractic? I mean the least pseudoscientific sort - you know, Mixer or Reform. (Misplaced Pages seems to be rather positive toward the concept overall. Just wondered what you thought. standonbible 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't believe that ANY medical procedure should receive a "positive." It should be balanced as to its success or failure rate, side-effects, etc. (No that doesn't mean I think that Alternative medicine is medicine.) However, with respect to chiropractic--undecided. From what I know, Chiropractors receive significant education and training. They can read an x-ray of the spine much better than I can. They understand skeletal-muscular relationships fairly well. I consider them a higher level of masseuse, one that understands kinesiology and other physiological relationships. They can't prescribe drugs (at least here in California), so they aren't quite physicians, but they provide a service. A lot of physicians dislike them. A lot of physicians use their services. I think a neutrally positive article makes a lot of sense. OrangeMarlin 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some peer-reviewed studies have suggested that for some forms of back pain, they are competitive with or superior to surgery or other treatments. However, they do not always work with back pain only, and in those other areas I would be very cautious.--Filll (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask a question?

I see you are a Dr. in CA. So here's my question which I have been unable to find the right search words for to Google. I have had three surgeries since '01. The surgery in "01 never asked me about any alternates or OTC's I was taking, just wanted a lst of RX's. The next two surgeries required me to inform the hospital of all alternates and OTC's tried in the past 6 months. Do you know if this is the norm now everywhere or is it by hospital or state (I'm in FL)? Thanks for any input you may be able to give. --CrohnieGal 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They should always ask. It's usually the anesthesiologist who needs to know if there are going to be any medications, OTC or Rx, that may affect blood pressure or the efficacy of the anesthetic. However, there are drugs like aspirin which, of course, thin the blood, and could cause certain bleeding issues. So, yes, it is an absolute necessity, though I have no clue if it is a legally required. Any hospital or surgery center would need to know what you have flowing through your blood, so they don't accidentally injure you. It's interesting that there are some herbs that people take that, in sufficient quantity, can have a negative effect during anesthesia. It's important information. OrangeMarlin 16:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh just to clarify, I'm not asking for medical advice for me. What I was asking is do you know of a link or at least how I could find whether there are laws (rules) in place for pre-surgery questions like this for articles? I have a complete list on me at all time of everything I take whether it's via RX or OTC. But I sometimes have trouble using the right search words to locate things like this. I totally understand the reasons why everything should be disclosed but amazingly a lot of people are not aware that OTC's of any kind should be disclosed. My mother didn't think it was important because as she put it "OTC's are safe" so she and my aunt felt it wasn't necessary to tell them at the hospital prior to surgery. I think this information can be useful in many articles, don't you? Thanks for your response, it's much appreciated. --CrohnieGal 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Medication reconciliation is a step required by policy in many medical institutions, and is just good medicine in general, but I don't believe it is legally required. Some hospitals may implement it based on recommendations from the Joint Commission or other accreditation bodies, you might search through documentation about the accreditation requirements to find what you are looking for. 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am not sure there is a "law" or regulation to cover what is supposed to be done prior to surgery. There'd be dozens of exceptions making it useless. For example, a trauma patient may not be able to communicate or even remember anything. I think hospitals would have guidelines, surgeons and anesthesiologists would be trained to ask these questions, but frankly, I'd laugh hysterically if I saw one of them consulting a set of rules before starting surgery on me. Then I'd ask for a more experienced surgeon.  :) OrangeMarlin 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I will check out the Joint Commission but I think you are both correct. Thanks for the the laugh Orangemarlin, I needed it! :) --CrohnieGal 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence

FYI, the Foundation's lawyer is Mike Godwin who wrote the response not Mike Chad. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was drinking heavily and plotting the overthrow of Iceland. It was difficult to remember a name. OrangeMarlin 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

An arbitrator has added you as a party to the above arbitration case, in which you have already participated. You are invited to add any additional statements or evidence to the relevant pages. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 21:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you include the UCMJ articles and relevant air force regulations either in a statement or evidence in the ArbCom case. Additionally some of the more temperate (later) comments on your talk page on this issue would be appropriate. 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I will not participate. If you choose to sanction me in any way that is opposed to the laws of the United States, I will leave here because I cannot be a party to a request to disobey a law. Only I (or my attorneys) get to interpret the laws of the United States, not a bunch of anonymous individuals on a computer screen--what makes you or anyone here so special that they make that interpretation. Misplaced Pages does not sit above the law. OrangeMarlin 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree with you - and I think that is the attitude that is prevalent in Misplaced Pages. There are folks who want to see Misplaced Pages as a nation unto itself, but it is simply not reality. I hope you aren't offended by my motin to add you as a party - you should know, if you don't already, that it doesn't affect the likelihood of sanction either way but merely serves (in my experience) to broaden the scope of the ultimate decision - which can only be good for Misplaced Pages. However, it will be difficult for them to address the broader issue of the impact of real-world legal obligations if you don't make a statement or contribute any evidence. 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I plan to make a statement in defense of not only Jim but OM.--Filll (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is so silly as to make me want to cry. First of all, as long as VO kept his identity secret (which, honestly, he did everything but post his last name and SSN on the user page), I'd not be able to do anything. Second, no one here gets to make an interpretation of what is or is not applicable to me. I agree with everyone that if VO were working for say Apple Computer, and he was editing the Microsoft article, I'd not call up Steve and say, "hey dude, VO is ruining the Microsoft article on your internet access." OK, I actually might do that, because Steve would send me a new iPhone.  :) OrangeMarlin 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I feel the need. I think what Avruch says is excellent advice. I have two veteran's in my life and they would react the same way you are. You need to tell it like it is. Don't just let this slide, being a soldier and representative of the United States is an extremely important position and not appreciated by a lot unfortunately. You need to speak up for yourself and the loyalties to our country that you swore to protect. Just my opinion but I support you. --CrohnieGal 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)