Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 13 April 2015

• WT:MED

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 7 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Draft:Biofrequency Chip

Cutting edge medical research or undiluted snake oil? I am not sufficiently familiar with the field to tell, except that I know enough physics to see that the "definition" of "frequency" given in the draft is utter nonsense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

reference 2,3,6,8,9,11,12,13,14 are all primary sources therefore not MEDRS compliant....4 is a dead link....5 is a good review (1 and 14 may not be subject to MEDRS)...now then references #7 and #10 are the same furthermore it comes from a retraction...

DNA Cell Biol. 2013 Mar;32(3):138. doi: 10.1089/dna.2011.1415.retract.

Retraction of: "DNA and cell resonance: magnetic waves enable cell communication," by Konstantin Meyl, DNA Cell Biology (2012;31:422-426).

Retraction of

DNA and cell resonance: magnetic waves enable cell communication.

PMID: 23461727 ....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

See http://www.retractionwatch.com/2013/02/22/way-out-there-paper-claiming-to-merge-physics-and-biology-retracted and http://retractionwatch.com/2013/08/20/author-of-way-out-there-paper-merging-physics-and-biology-has-second-paper-retracted. Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 thank you for the links, very interesting,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, one of my links was to the wrong post, now fixed. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, good info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have copied this conversation to the draft's talk page and declined the submission as a hoax as it is based on junk/pseudo-science. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pubmed comes up with zero sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear reviewers, thank you for your feedback on the drat biofrequency chip. The science surrounding this technology is decades old, but it is now in a novel formulation. Drug companies are beginning to use this technology for patients who are not able to metabolize certain nutrients/drugs or have adverse events from an oral formulation. I did not include the products that are commercialized to avoid the perception that it is promotional, however it is a real technology. People are wanting more information on biofrequenccy chips and it would be nice to find some information on Misplaced Pages. I have removed the reference that was a problem and corrected the links with others. If there is anything specifically that can be done further to the draft to improve on it's value I would appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenfinger (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

right..so you might want to take a look at ] as it will clarify references (also you might want to take a look at Google books )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt, but it is just not believable. If pharmaceutical companies are really using this, it is critical that there be articles in medical journals addressing the issue. Otherwise, it will never get acceptance from us, much less from doctors or regulatory agencies. We cannot publish medical information without citing reliable sources like medical journals, as explained in the link above. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite the draft submission being declined, a Biofrequency Chip article has now been created - with none of the issues addressed above apparently being resolved. I suspect an AfD may be the next step. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I will immediately review the references, this is unusual--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

1, 4, 13,18 are review articles...2,3,6,7,10,11, 15, 16,19,21,22,23,24,25,26 are non MEDRS compliant...(8 , 12, 17 are summaries/abstract) and 9 dead link...this is very unusual to have an article "pop up" without being review? (I have since tagged the article for med reference)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Put up for deletion here Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Biofrequency_Chip Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you Doc James for the link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrecognized diseases have a rash of poor sources

It seems that Joni Mitchell believes she has a disease which doesn't really exist, Morgellons. The article is chock full of primary and lay sources and very repetitive. Similarly, another unrecognized disease, Orthorexia nervosa also has a lot of sources which seem to violate WP:MEDRS. Could use trimming. Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Morgellons article-references 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11.12,13-24,26,27,29,30-33,35-41,45-61 are non MEDRS compliant (due to both source and how old the source in question is) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Orthorexia nervosa - references 1-9, 12,14-17,19,20,22,23,24,29 are non-MEDRS compliant (#25 seems to have a cite error)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked every reference listed above, so am just noting that one should be careful not to misapply MEDRS. Only very specific types of content are covered by MEDRS. News reports, opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

you are correct ,(however it is always good to see it Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) )...A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations...in regards to the press....The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results... this is what we all follow, and therefore makes the articles reliable...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

News reports, opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC) That statement makes no sense whatsoever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Good catch. You're right. Just strike that first word. Here's the meaning:

• Sources for opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules.

We are allowed to use non-MEDRS sources (IOW not peer reviewed reviews and metaanalyses) for such content. When dealing with actual statements of medical and scientific fact, then we use MEDRS quality sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That is still an oversimplification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. It was just a cautionary note, because there is a tendency to apply MEDRS to subject matter where it does not apply. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So, since every study shows this Morgellons phenomenon to be, in fact, Delusional parasitosis, why is Morgellons not a redirect to Delusional parasitosis? (And why doesn't the lead of Morgellons say what the cited source says-- it is not a condition at all). The two articles say the same thing. BullRangifer's statements above notwithstanding, why do we have an article on an imaginary condition when there is a real condition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is that it is a notable condition. It's a specific form of delusional parasitosis which has gained notoriety and is well-known, especially in alternative medicine circles. Besides the "notability" justification, the article serves the useful purpose of providing seekers with accurate information which exposes the dubious nature of this condition. This is a very important reason for not burying fringe subjects in larger articles. If they are notable in their own right, policy dictates that they get their own article. There it's possible to even more clearly document the fringe nature of the nonsense.

It's also rather interesting that we regularly have other visitors (sufferers from the condition) to the talk page who clearly demonstrate the psychological nature of the condition. Their behavior and arguments make it even more clear that this is a mental illness. Their thoughts are scattered and illogical, and they can barely spell their own name. It's really tragic. Morgellons is a very real mental condition, just as belief in UFOs carrying little green aliens, and chemtrails killing us, are very real delusions. Misinformation harms people, and we can counteract it by documenting the sources which do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer... I understand your opinion, however I concur with SandyGeorgia it is not a condition at all... The two articles say the same thing it might be best to leave the article with the real condition Delusional parasitosis, and perhaps redirect the other one Morgellons ( and mention in a subsection?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled at the line of thought that this "is not a condition at all" or that it is not a "real condition". Surely it's a psychiatric condition, isn't it? Are there MEDRS sources saying that nobody believes they are suffering from Morgellons? Whatever should be done about all this, I hope Morgellons does not end up merely as a mention in a subsection. Thincat (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place for a deletion, move, or redirect discussion. Let's just keep that in mind.

Policy: It's notable in its own right, therefore it deserves its own article. It is already mentioned in a single paragraph in the delusional parasitosis article, as it should be. (The only thing missing is a "main" link, which I'll add right now.) The content in the two articles is definitely not the same, even though there is some overlap. One cannot merge the Morgellons' content into the main article without losing lots of information, sources, and content. We would do our readers a great disservice, as well as violate policy, if we didn't keep the article. To include all the content would create a weight violation, since delusional parasitosis has other forms. Besides that, Morgellons is more about fibers than about parasites.

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a medical textbook. That's one reason why our inclusion criteria are very different. We have lots of articles about things that are "not a condition", "not a real treatment", "a lie", "a deception", "a myth", etc.. Chiropractic subluxations aren't "real". There is no objective method for proving their existence, but its a notable subject. Homeopathy isn't "real", yet we have an article. I could go on.

Even though our inclusion criteria for medical and alternative medicine subjects does not require official recognition, Morgellons does have its own MeSH number. It is officially recognized as a subset of delusional parasitosis. If it were a very small subject, with very little coverage, we might be able to cover it in a few paragraphs, but it's a large subject in the alternative medicine world and it has thus gained enough notoriety for mainstream coverage and CDC investigation. It's definitely fringe and we cover fringe subjects here. We don't hide them.

We don't have a policy which says that we get to hide or minimize articles which document nonsense, conspiracy theories, or delusions. We don't get to minimize or hide things because we don't like them or don't believe in them. That type of thinking is editorial censorship. We don't allow that. I'm a healthcare professional and scientific skeptic who definitely opposes this type of crap in real life. My activism has resulted in death threats to me and my children. It's no fun. Misplaced Pages is a very valuable source of information, and it serves as a wonderful place to document what is true or not true about these issues. That happens to be a main purpose of the encyclopedia, and we should not undermine that function. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer your dedication was never in any doubt with me...on a final note...Many dermatologists treat Morgellons as delusional parasitosis. After a thorough medical examination to rule out known organic causes for the symptoms, delusional parasitosis patients are typically prescribed one of several typical antipsychotic drugs. In the past, pimozide was the drug of choice; in addition to antipsychotic activity, it also has antipruritic activity, meaning it inhibits the sensation of itching. However, pimozide requires frequent electrocardiographic monitoring. Currently, atypical antipsychotics such as olanzapine or risperidone are used as first line treatment. Antipsychotics are effective at treating delusional parasitosis at doses as low as one-fifth to one-tenth the dose typically prescribed for schizophrenia. It is common for patients who believe they have Morgellons to reject a physician's diagnosis of delusional parasitosis. It has been suggested that the term Morgellons should be adopted by dermatologists to enhance their rapport with their patients, allowing them to overcome this resistance....therefore in a practical type of way doctors find this term useful in overcoming...resistance from patients, therefore after further consideration, I find myself agreeing with you BullRangifer.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not yet entirely convinced this is policy-based, but I can go along with this line of thinking for practicality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence Aid

Info Box. I have built a Page for Evidence Aid in my sandbox and would like to provide and info box, Are there any tutorials for this? AmyEBHC (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

this one Help:Infobox or perhaps this one ...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! Could I ask for help to make sure this is ready to submit? It is my first page:-) I tried to follow the guidelines and apply feedback. It is in my sandbox AmyEBHC (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd move it to articlespace now. It does need some work, but is more likely to get help once it goes live. Personally I'd skip the AFC process. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks, AmyEBHC (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am having problems with someone called Huddsblue who slapped a no neutrality dispute on this page staing he has reasons to believe I have close ties with this company. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Evidence_Aid&action=history No evidence just accusations. What do I do? There is no COI, I admire their work, think they make a difference and feel the information they share could make a difference for people in LMIC countries facing a disaster.AmyEBHC (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

AmyEBHC, I have defended you on the article talk page and your talk page. Let's see what happens. It's a serious personal attack. Since you have already gone public with the article, the sandbox should probably be emptied (don't formally delete the page). We don't want confusion created by editing at both places. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, how do I empty the sandbox? AmyEBHC (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Just delete the content (not the whole page) and save it. You can always recover or restore the content using the history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Huddsblue sent a nice email to my talk page and another editor offered to help him with future COI. I think it would be frustrating for WP to deal with COI when good articles are needed and COI hurts everyone...it was quite an entry for my first page:-) Really appreciate the help and encouragement.AmyEBHC (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Acute lung injury

recently , (Visual editor/whatamidoing section above) I came across this article I did some cleanup, added a reference or two, if anyone can help, what it needs most are references (reviews or Google books). thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be merged with ARDS. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

it could be merged, if that's the consensus --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a merge would be appropriate. Term no longer used, now called mild ARDS, seems to belong in ARDS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad science methods

This new article contains some useful material, I think, but it lacks balance. I brought it up at WT:SCIENCE, but as far as I can tell nobody participates there. Any thoughts on the appropriate way to deal with this? Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

right,from a reference standpoint,2,5-10,12,13,14,18,20,25,26,27,33,41,42,44,48,52,54,55,60,63,68,70,74,75,79,86,87,88,90,92 are non-MEDRS compliant (though this does not mean there may not be more, I was short on time)... in regards to the books cited #1, #3, #4, one wonders since they are not academic textbooks, that they might have a non-analytical (subjective) approach in regards to the subject matter?...IMO. Furthermore, Bad science is a term for methods using in scientific publication system for intentional or unintentional fraud and misconduct.Some scientists and other people use those methods in order to maintain their position in science society or to obtain grants for their research, what leads to contradictions and in some cases, for example in medicine, could be a reason for introduction dangerous drugs or harmful therapies. Also journalists and popular media canals, such science blogs and webpages often misinterpreting results of studies or exaggerate them, what makes them more attractive for publicity. Peer review system does not prevent of misleading publications. Publication bias is one of the most common and most important factor, distorting the research outcome. reads in a non-objective POV, even further the references supporting these statements (as I noted above) are both non-MEDRS and non-textbook, one must keep in mind Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is about science in general, not medicine specifically, so tabulating MEDRS compliance isn't directly relevant here. I don't think "bad science methods" is a meaningful article topic, but the references and cleaned-up text could be parceled out to the relevant articles on reproducibility, replication crisis, publication bias, and so forth. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

yet, out of 92 references, in the article, a high percentage are medically related (journals)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think a better article along these lines would be very useful, and I expect we already have one (or more) in the forest of mostly very specialized articles in Category:Design of experiments and similar categories. The sort of broader topical subject is exactly the sort of thing WP is weakest at (because they are very difficult to do well), but a title like Problems in scientific research methodologies or something would be better. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the current ongoing discussion about reproducibility is happening among biologists, psychologists, and clinical researchers, broadly construed. That doesn't mean the article is making health-related claims, which are the core of the MEDRS scope. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

yet Publication bias which you mentioned above is under MEDRS, invariably I do agree with you Bad science methods is not a meaningful article topic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There's some WP:BEANS in collecting all of these errors in one place :) We do have pathological science, but that's a collection of specific incidents, not the same as the publication-bias type of criticism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I see that we have a lengthy, and much higher quality, article on scientific misconduct, which contains pointers to other relevant articles such as fabrication (science). My inclination is to redirect this new article to the existing one. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That covers deliberate fraud, which is different from the more interesting bits of this one, though there's some overlap. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have proposed at Talk:Bad science methods to replace the article with a redirect to Bad science. I consider it important to actually do something here rather than just talk, as the article in its current state is bound to give a bad opinion about Misplaced Pages to any scientist who comes across it. Looie496 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have tagged Bad science as WP:DABCONCEPT. It is primarily collecting related terms, not articles that are ambiguous because they coincidentally share a title (such Battery (electricity) and Battery (crime)). bd2412 T 15:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree....If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Given the absence of any identifiable consensus on how to deal with the article, I have nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bad science methods. Looie496 (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Autoimmune ganglionic neuropathy

Dear medical experts: Here's a small draft article that will soon be deleted unless someone cares to improve it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

the second reference is actually a good review, however there's little else...information-wise...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa , is there another more general article to which this could be added, with the reference? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Autoimmune_autonomic_ganglionopathy ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for Peripheral artery disease

Thought about requesting a formal peer review for Peripheral artery disease, but thought I'd ask here first. From people not too involved, what needs work? I think this might be a B-class article. Would like to bring it to GA, as is High importance. BakerStMD 03:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

in terms of references, 12,21,22,23,25-29,30,32,34,35,37-40,42,43,47,48 are non-MEDRS compliant (they are well beyond five years for a review), you might want to look for newer reviews for those...references #20, #33, are both primary sources and should be replaced with reviews. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of healthcare in the developing world

I know we are short of basic healthcare images. There are 1175 released by the UK overseas aid ministry at Commons:Category:Images_from_Department_for_International_Development. Lots about health, as well as disasters, politicians, Bill Gates & Angelina Jolie. No doubt not very fully categorized. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

these images can only enhance wikiproject med--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Open access surgery textbook

This open access surgery textbook was just published by the world bank.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21568/9781464803468.pdf?sequence=5

It is under a CC BY license

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

very useful (downloaded pdf, very informative for appropriate articles)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Silver Nanoparticles are breakthrough cancer-fighting agent! ...?

Just noticed the creation of Silver Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). Reading through it, I'm not sure it's centered on mainstream views or avoids "see what great things are coming" language. Would appreciate more eyes on it. Zad68 12:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

will read through and see references--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

the article in question has segments like...This translates into new treatments and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, which remains one of the world's most devastating diseases. Current cancer treatments include surgical intervention, radiation and chemotherapeutic drugs, which often cause toxicity to the patient, and death of healthy cells. The use of nanoparticles is at the forefront of projects in current research with the emerging trend of the NP acting as an anti-cancer agent itself in addition to being a drug carrier.....without a single reference?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It also appears to have WP:POVFORK problems. There ARE some parts of it that are sourced, and might possibly be salvaged but would have to be merged into existing articles. Zad68 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WARNING - Don't read that article ... you'll turn blue if you do! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Argyria? Don't worry, it's nothing that colloidal silver can't fix...

Now, this article isn't that but does have issues.... Zad68 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read this board, but don't contribute to this project much, if at all. I couldn't resist. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet another contribution from this class, it looks like. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Kickstarter Misplaced Pages health book!

I am a fan of Misplaced Pages:Crowdfunding projects and for the first time I am seeing one related to health.

• Unbiased: The Truth about the Healing Arts on Misplaced Pages

I am continually encouraged by the enthusiasm that comes to Misplaced Pages from the alternative medicine community. Let's all hope for good attention and a good outcome from this project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

for lack of a better word they use curious language....We’re long-time publishers of both print and digital media, so we are familiar with the challenges that accompany good publishing projects. Endless edits, coordinating fulfillment and distribution, digital formatting, organizing a research team, and so on.

With this project, the biggest challenge is scope creep. Misplaced Pages has been a thorn in the side of so many in the alternative health and healing communities. Everyone will want to be represented in this book. We’ll do our best to represent the fields that we can, and will need to monitor the project so that it doesn’t become too large to deliver well and on time.It will also be important to write this book with the highest level of maturity. The task is to tell the hard truth and do it without ranting. We’ll right the wrongs with integrity.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP has been a "thorn in the side" of the alternative health community for a very good reason -- much of what they publish lacks the support of reproducible scientific evidence, which WP is annoyingly persistent about requiring. The movement is also, unfortunately, plagued by a disturbing number of unscrupulous people who ignore facts entirely and simply write what people want to hear -- a good way to sell books, but also a good way to perpetuate mythology. I, for one, would love to see more alternative treatments pan out; it's one of the reasons that I became a doctor in the first place. So far, though, legitimate alternatives have been discouragingly few and far between. If this group can make a convincing case for some of their theories, backed with real data, more power to them; but I've been disappointed too many times by similar efforts in the past, and I'm not holding my breath. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 15:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this at the hub of nonsense - NaturalNews, tells us what we need to know about the aims of this project. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to be, at best, a book full of "Here's a bunch of cherry-picked primary studies that Misplaced Pages is hiding from you!" Ho hum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

More coverage here. Apparently neurolinguistic programming is a big thorn in Bundrant's side. Everymorning talk 19:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Orac has hacked my watchlist and reproduced it on his blog. Who should I report it to? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

? Roxy the dog What is the nature of the problem, and what would you like done in response? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is caused by "Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans" (1 year old this week I believe), but if you look at Orac's blog post linked above, you will see a list of Quack therapies, and it looks just like my watchlist. Ozziesomethingsomething already asked me on my Talk page. I'm sorry to have been the cause of such disruption when trying to inject a little humour. ADDENDUM : You asked what response I want, could we send Orac some flowers? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog No one should have access to your watchlist per Help:Watching_pages#Privacy. Orac got that list from the Kickstarter page, I think, and I expect that it is copied from the watchlist of many people here because alternative medicine might be the single most popular discipline of medicine on Misplaced Pages and beyond. If you think your account has been breached then check Misplaced Pages:User account security. I am not sure about flowers, but what about coffee or a kitten from Misplaced Pages:WikiLove#Templates_to_share? Cheers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The kickstarter says "What this book will NOT do: Attempt to defame or slander anyone associated with Misplaced Pages.", but a chapter in the book is: The Misplaced Pages Editing “System” - Good Ole Boys Club? • Paid editors • Corporate shills • Defamation • Hackers. ---> to me, it sounds like you are going to slander the community! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This book sounds like moon-landing conspiracy and space alien books ---> "they won't tell you the truth, so here is the truth, just GIVE me MONEY to learn the truth" ---> yeah right, LOL LOL LOL. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully enough people will see through the nonsense, and even if this is funded it won't amount to anything. It would still be considered self-published so if that is the point of writing it, it still can't be referenced. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fragile X

Dear medical experts: I was considering merging this draft: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Fragile X-associated Primary Ovarian Insufficiency (FXPOI) with Fragile X syndrome, but some of the information appears to be contradictory. Is there anything useful in this draft, or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

since the FMR1 gene is present in both articles, merging would not be out of the question, however, the reference given is not a review article.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree better ref and than merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong a new reference was added then merged into the Fragile X article. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's great. I fixed the attribution to match, so that should finish it.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

perfect...in regards to the Draft:Autoimmune ganglionic neuropathy (above) it has been answered, your feedback would be appreciated (I provided a link to the other article), again. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sterility

What happens during Inguinal hernia surgery to cause sterility? 173.224.6.9 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Ed M

what article are you editing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like misinformation, is this in any of our articles?-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Inguinal_hernia Inguinal_hernia_surgery these articles turn up...Patients are encouraged to walk as soon as possible postoperatively, and they can usually resume most normal activities within a week or two of the operation. Complications include chronic pain (varying from 10-50% depending on source), foreign-body sensation, stiffness, ischemic orchitis, testicular atrophy, dysejaculation, anejaculation or painful ejaculation in around 12%. They are often under-reported. Recurrence rate is low, <2%. ...( this review speaks to the issue of infertility, though not the same as sterility or impotent)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

List of diseases causing sudden death

New article by new editor needs attention. Is this a notable topic for a list article? Everymorning talk 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

to begin with there are no references, all it has are external links?...further I fail to see how in its current condition it would be of any use to any reader (having said that, if it were referenced appropriately and expanded into a full article then perhaps an article which details those conditions that could lead to sudden fatality "might" be useful reading, but not like the article is now ( I have gone ahead and tagged it for references and stub content)...BTW 2 of the 4 external links don't seem adequate...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean {{nofootnotes}}, not no references. The original editor was using WP:General references. (The "External links" label was added by someone else in the course of cleaning up a formatting mess.)

The "worst" website (a self-published website by some physician) looks like it will be a great cheatsheet for figuring out what conditions should be considered for inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(added) for myocardial infarction this could be ref, for bronchial asthma perhaps this , brain stroke , epilepsy and acute renal failure--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's super easy to find sources for this subject, isn't it? I'm thinking that we ought to reclaim Sudden death and make it a proper article instead of a disambiguation page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you ( however , their argument is curious, all ailments (disease).. cause death,yet immediate/sudden death...is a much smaller circle...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

GMO Inquiry 2015

Information about GMO Inquiry 2015 is available at GMO Bites—Common Ground (February 2015) and GMO Bites: April 2015—Common Ground (April 2015). See also http://gmoinquiry.ca.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

according to this Canada does regulate GMO, (in contrast to what the above sources indicate)... The development and planting of PNTs for research purposes is overseen by the CFIA’s Plant Biosafety Office (PBO). The PBO evaluates applications for confined research field trials and sets out the rules and conditions for how they are to be conducted. These confined research field trials of PNTs are assessed by government scientists to ensure that the trials do not endanger the environment. Stringent conditions are placed prior to conducting a confined research trial and developers are required to provide the government evaluators with “information about the plants (such as where they are being grown and the procedures being used) and must also work with the CFIA both during the field trial and after harvest.”Before a GMO can be released into the environment more generally or sold for human consumption it must go through an authorization process as outlined below. The CFIA is mandated to assess GM plants and authorize their release into the environment. Health Canada, on the other hand, authorizes the sale of GM foods for human consumption. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Try adding any of that into the articles and watch how much opposition you get. From the lead of Genetically modified food controversies, you'd think regulation everywhere is equally rigorous. From reading the articles, it's quite difficult to figure out that the U.S. nearly zero GMO regulation compared to Canada and E.U. David Tornheim (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disclose COI at account creation?

just floated a balloon at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Disclosure_of_COI_at_account_creation.3F ... interested in thoughts on it. it may be a dumb idea. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

important topic, give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Anorexia nervosa article

SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy!Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

looks great (though everyone should pitch in)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After working all morning, I have not made even a tiny dent in all the work that is needed there. There are still tons of primary sources, and worse-- based on the reviews that I've read and added to the "Further reading" section, the article is still woefully inaccurate and outdated, and days, weeks, months of work will be needed to render anything useful. There are many good, full-text reviews available, but it will take a sustained effort to incorporate them and get all the crap replaced by good text. Ugh, what a dreadful, dreadful article. If anyone is interested, pick one of the recent reviews and have at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Unarchiving to request help ... I have worked on this hunk of junk for countless hours, but the article is a wreck ... affected by years of poor student editing, pushing apparently prof textbooks, usually with no page nos, and now apparently three different courses at work on it as well (typically adding primary sources when scores of free full-text reviews are available). If anyone is able to pick a section, any section, and do minimal improvements, help is appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies (apparently the article has some issues )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's the widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field that gets "stretched" ... with student editing, often to include "my prof's latest book". In any case, we should always evaluate sources, and use the best available when we are able ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather have "my prof's latest book" than a pile of sources from the 1980s and 1990s. I've pulled a few for you, but there's more to go. It's an easy task if someone wants to jump in: look at the date, and if the year starts with "19", it's almost certainly bad and can be easily replaced with a quick trip to PubMed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen sources referred to as "elderly sources" before, LOL. "Old sources," yes. I might give "elderly sources" a try; I like it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NORN discussion regarding Scrambler therapy

Relevant discussion at

→ Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_this_summary_OR.3F

This is a note that there's a discussion open here regarding whether or not some proposed content has WP:OR issues. Zad68 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

important topic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

vitamin D actions ---> CD4(+) T Cells/ recent review_CD4(+)_T_Cells/_recent_review-2015-04-10T19:19:00.000Z">

I believe this to be a good read. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)_CD4(+)_T_Cells/_recent_review"> _CD4(+)_T_Cells/_recent_review">

Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine

• Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I make it a point to stay away from anything related to MEDRS, but you guys might want to take a look at this article. Apparently developed by an account called "Mesports" which has a matching website that seems to sell or otherwise market this stuff. It looks like there's some refspam promotion and/or use of non-reliable sources also (also posted to the Pharmacology project talk page). §FreeRangeFrog 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks! oz pointed it out on my talk page too. some? oy. just oy. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I went into the edit history to see what the article looked like before Jytdog's edits to it. Otherwise, looking at how it currently is, I wouldn't have seen a problem. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a pretty crappy article about a company now that probably would not survive AfD. see Talk:Signum Biosciences for what i did. But i couldn't figure out what else to do with it. very open to hearing other ideas. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that if you hadn't edited the article, I would have seen a WP:MEDRS problem. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I gotcha. what i meant is that even now it is pretty bad... :) i really didn't know what to do with it. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, very good editing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm officially old

If the mark of being old is that your friends all seem to be sick, then I'm officially old. In the last few weeks, I've heard of four new cases of cancer and learned that three people are in the hospital (two for potentially fatal conditions). This situation has reminded me of the comments we consistently received when WP:AFT5 was active: When your friends are sick, people want to know the prognosis. I know I've said before that I can't really "read" articles any longer. I almost always end up hitting the edit button and changing something. But in the last few weeks, I've actually been reading enough to find out what the prognosis is—if that information is present in the article. Unfortunately, our articles are mostly weak on this point.

Here's my request: If you've got a set of disease or treatment articles that you watch over, please have a look and see whether you have provided this information. This is important to readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Many of our cancer articles has prognosis in the leads. Any specific conditions you looking for? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Professional writers of patient information mostly think we give too specific and alarming info on prognosis and survival. Knowing just that there is a diagnosis of "Foo bodypart cancer" isn't really enough to get useful info on prognosis. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Foo bodypart cancer" is enough to get basic information like "Lung cancer: Bad. Pancreatic cancer: Very Bad. Endometrial cancer: Could be worse".

Also, family members and close friends often learn the stage, and a simple explanation of the difficulty of applying general statistics to any single patient would be helpful. For example, cancer is generally a condition found in older adults, so a statement like "Overall survival depends on how old the person is and whether they have any other serious health conditions" would be true and helpful to people who don't know much about the subject. Most prostate cancers might be no big deal, but if you're 90 years old and also have congestive heart failure, then the five-year survival stats for prostate cancer don't apply to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

that would be a way of looking at it,yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good idea - when I was diagnosed, median survival was 12 years (Is that good? it doesn't feel that way, and it was ten years ago !!) but the facts and figures have changed since then, and progress by researchers and specialists and drug companies has been, shall we say, interesting. How about average age at diagnosis as something that ought to be included? (75 for me; I'll be 59 this year). Both a prognosis figure, and an ave age at diagnosis need constant monitoring for accuracy though, but that's what happens here anyway. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cancer is primarily a disease of older people, with mortality rates increasing with age for most cancers (Figure 3.1).1-3 More than three-quarters (78% in the UK in 2010-2012) of cancer deaths occur in people aged 65 years and over, and more than half (52%) occur in those aged 75 years and over....this is for the UK--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox questions

I am working with {{Drugbox}}. I met these questions:

• Saying "Template:Rx (Prescription only)" as a worldwide legal status? Talk is here
• PLLR starts next June 30. Little information.

-DePiep (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

give your opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

All talk at the links. This is just a note. -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Scrotal inflation

The scrotal inflation article has become the target of an editor who appears to be (a) providing "how-to" advice for this dangerous procedure, including a "how to" picture, and (b) apparently using the article as a gallery for showcasing what I presume to be his own efforts. I've backed off both. I've backed off the edits, and chosen a relatively boring image at random from the Commons image category to replace the image to frustrate his efforts to use the article as a showcase. Can more editors here please add this article to their watchlists, to help stop this recurring in future? -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've placed it under full protection for three months and added it to my watchlist. I can see that this will need long-term attention as there have already been two advocates contributing to it. I see it as essential that the health effects are drawn attention to, and indeed Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual. Samsara 10:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also added an edit notice to the article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What about similar articles such as cock and ball torture and those in its "see also" section? Are there any others among them that need more watchful eyes? Samsara 10:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The cock and ball torture article has medical content (mostly nearer the end of the article), so I think it needs more eyes on it. This is definitely a gray area: the BDSM term "cock and ball torture", in spite of its name, actually covers a wide range of activities, from relatively mild manipulation of the genitals that is unlikely to cause harm, to highly risky activities with high risk of harm that most definitely will have medical consequences; and unfortunately the boundaries between the two are sometimes not easily recognized. -- The Anome (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I just made a small edit to avoid this being hidden away at the end of the article; if anyone feels the need to differentiate this more specifically, they can do so. Overall, the situation is not all that different from, let's say, car crash. You can have a fender bender or wrap your vehicle around some unyielding solid object, no pun intended. I'm not sure that practitioners always get exactly what they asked for. Samsara 11:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

though admittedly, not your typical med article...references 1,2,3,4 are all beyond the 5 years or so/review range (per MEDRS)... further for references this is what pubmed.org has and in regards to books ...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Cite journal filler not working

For me, at least, when I click on the "cite" button at the top of the edit window, then the templates button, then "cite journal", and enter a pmid or doi, it doesn't automatically fill in the template anymore. Is anyone else having this problem? Everymorning talk 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi

http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py

Try these two. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

or use Visual editor...VisualEditor is a new, "visual" way of editing Misplaced Pages that allows people to contribute without having to learn wikimarkup. It was made available as an opt-in release on the English-language Misplaced Pages back in December 2012, in 14 other languages in April 2013, and in most other languages at the beginning of June 2013. Deployments began in July 2013. The Wikimedia Foundation developers expect to make it available to almost all Wikimedia Foundation projects by the end of 2014. As of May 2014, it is available by default to users of about 60% of the language editions of Wikipedias and as an opt-in beta feature to the rest, along with a handful of non-Misplaced Pages projects.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I use this when all the Misplaced Pages based on break http://librepathology.org/cite-gen/ Unfortunately this happens on a fairly regular basis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It varies by browser, in complicated ways I don't understand. The different wiki tools give slightly different results, also in complicated ways I don't understand. All a big puzzle. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

New essay

See Misplaced Pages:Advocacy quacks‎. I request input. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

oh quack you are POINTYest of the quackfighters. this is just as bad as the one it mocks; please self-nominate for speedy deletion. Jytdog (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted it as a substantial re-creation of a page that was deleted via MFD. Zad68 12:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Male rape article

Any WP:Med editors mind helping out with the Male rape article? I mean, assessing the sources and content and collaborating on what should stay or be pulled out? I've noted this article here before, and I got a little input from WP:Med at Talk:Male rape, but the article is still a mess and is getting worse. For example, see this edit, which I partially reverted (followup note here). WP:Copyright violations have also been noted at that article's talk page, and there is likely still WP:Close paraphrasing in the article (I haven't yet had the stomach to check). I would start pulling out content from the article myself, but I'm sure that I would get opposition from men's rights editors, and I'd be the lone WP:Med editor there going up against that. For those who are not familiar with what I mean, see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Triple antibiotic ointment

Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Polysporin, in which one view is to merge with Neosporin, another is to leave the two articles separate, and a third is to merge the two under the generic name in the header above, which now redirects to Polysporin. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

important talk give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)