Talk:Hyperemesis gravidarum/Archive 1

Hyperemesis Gravidarum Now I know what hapened to me

I just came about this information. My last pregnancy was horrible. So bad that I had decided not to have another child. after 9 months of being sick, getting blood tests done with IV and no diagnosis - I just couldnt consider going through something like this again. I even had an abortion since getting pregnant again after my daughter was born. I then had an IUD put in becuase my husband convinced me to not to get my tubes tied. He begged that I wait at least 3 to 5 years and think of having another child. I feel a relief now knowing that there is indeed a name for the condition I had that cost me my job, so much stress, an abortion and almost my marriage. At the time, my daughter was only 6 years old and I was too sick to be a good mother to her. Our quality time during the 9 months was her laying in bed with me whenever I could stand the smell of her and my husband. I was told over and over again how my condition was just morning sickness. It was the worst experience of my life. THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS INFORMATION because now my husband and I decided we will have another child. My husband is very happy and so am I now that I know what the heck was wrong with me. The third time around, we we will be prepared to handle the horrible symptoms of this condition. Please continue studies to try to find treatments whatever they may be to help women in this world with this condition. THANK YOU WITH ALL MY HEART.(192.91.173.42 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My experience

Hyperemesis gravidarum. I would just like to tell of my experience with this. After becoming pregnant with my first child, I became very nauseated, I could only swallow two teaspoons of water a day for a month. I was in bed and could not tolerate anyone even sitting on the bed. I could not have ridden in a car to go to a doctor. My husband had put in a wood stove and cut wood for the winter. I could not stand the smell of wood burning. He had to get an oil burning stove. After that month I started throwing up, and though the bathroom was only a few steps away, I often could not make it there in time. But then I was able to eat a few things and not stay in bed. I went out on my back porch and threw up seven times a day and each time out there, I threw up seven times, so I threw up 49 times a day, every day, until bile came. I was still throwing up the day my first daughter was born. When I came out from under the anesthesia, I was so surprised that I was not sick. I felt like I had stepped back into myself. I had no idea the sickness would, or could, leave suddenly like that. I have been sick and have thrown up from flu, and other things, but the nausea from HG is a much worse nausea than any other kind. I didn't take anything or go to the hospital for this, I thank the Lord nothing happen to my daughter. My next three pregnancies weren't as bad as that one. Later on, I heard of two other women that were sick like this, and they were hospitalized with IV's for several months.Darcylane (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Middleton

I have added a short but comprehensive paragraph on Kate Middleton's condition. I would hope what I've written is suitable (two references, careful to WP:BLP, etc) but the issue has come up that the subject is "WP:NOT#NEWS" (for a previous edit, at least). Arguable, perhaps, but I'm of the opinion that if the mother of a potential heir to the throne of England had this condition, that's pretty notable in and of itself, whether today or in the future. It also adds real-world context to the topic. The fact that an IP address came along after me and changed [only] "had" to "has" complicates the matter, because then it could appear to be just news, but that's a style issue.

In any event, to preserve good faith, there should be a better solution than to have contributors walk blindly into a situation where their hard work is going to be wiped clean with a click. I fully understand WP is a fluid, malleable thing, but also seems a good way to dissuade new users, or even start an edit war.

I was finally able to add a hidden HTML comment to this effect right above the text, to afford people that don't view edit histories beforehand (and I'm one of them) a chance to avoid this dilemma. VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MUST the royals be worked into every flipping article, where possible? I do not see "notable cases" for most disease states enumerated on wikipedia. And if you are going to include it, at least use the woman's proper title instead of perpetuating "Kate Middleton". Personally, I would deep-six it, particularly the "speculation" bit, as everything they do is subject to speculation. If this site is to become an independent, neutral encyclopedia then it ought to be doing away with such stupidities and irrelevancies.65.93.35.157 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'In December 2012, it was reported that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, had been hospitalized with the condition.[22] This also confirmed her pregnancy and generated interest about a potential heir to the throne, as well as speculation that she could be carrying twins.[23]'

I'm removing the second paragraph. It has nothing to do with the condition and it to current. It will mean nothing soon Sweetie candykim (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Generated interest about a potential heir to the throne'

'In December 2012, it was reported that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, had been hospitalized with the condition.[22] This also confirmed her pregnancy and generated interest about a potential heir to the throne, as well as speculation that she could be carrying twins.[23]'

I'm removing the second paragraph. It has nothing to do with the condition and it to current. It will mean nothing soon Sweetie candykim (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. At the time, I added that because I didn't want a lone sentence to appear as "news", and understood there to be a probability with HG that the baby may be born a female and/or twins. I wouldn't mind another ref on the end, but frankly, at this point I'll settle for what's there — I rarely stay on one article too long lest I get into 3RR or feel an ownership (which is also why I didn't respond to the IP/anon's comment saying the royals are "worked into every article", since, speaking as an American, I find myself working them into remarkably few ;) Thanks for your rationale here, candykim, I do appreciate it. Hopefully this is WP:N for at least a time. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What worked for me.

With my first child I started getting sick right away. The doctor said to me in a condescending voice do you want to go to the hospital. I thought that the hospital was for really bad cases. She never believed me how sick I was. And she was really annoyed when I would call her office crying. I thought I was a wimp and that this is what all women must go through. I now know I was one of the bad cases and I should have been in the hospital. I threw up many times a day for 5 months, after that it gradually got better but it never went away until I gave birth. I was so sensitive to odors, I could barely walk, work was out of the question, life was out of the question, Iaid in bed all day long. At 5 months I questioned if I could go on with the pregnancy. Finally my OB sent me to a nutritionist. The nutritionist had me stop taking the prenatal pills and told me to stop eating healthy. I should just focus on protein so I ate cheeseburgers for the remaining time of my pregnancy. Things really improved after I stopped taking the prenatal pills and just ate burgers. I still puked, had nausea, and odor sensitivity but I was at least able to get out of the house occasionally. I lost about 25lbs and it took awhile for me to get my strength back. The odor sensitivity stayed for awhile. In fact I couldn't abide the smell of garlic for years.

With my second child I got a different OB and met with her before the morning sickness even started so we would have a plan in place when it kicked in. 3 weeks pregnant and it started; all the same symptoms. I never started the prenatal pills and I started my cheeseburger diet so that delayed the worst symptoms for a few weeks. Eventually I had to go on the IV and I put my first child in day care because I was bedridden. For 3 months this continued and I eventually got better. At around 5 or 6 months I stopped puking all together. I still had my odor sensitivity but I could function and was able to bring my first child back home. I never felt 100% until my second child was born but I didn't lose (or gain) any weight and was a lot healthier after my child's birth.

What worked for me... 1. Insist on treatment from your doctor 2. Stop taking prenatal pills 3. Eat only protein 4. IV, IV, IV, IV, IV, IV, IV, IV. This was a life saver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbie13410 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a reference source, not a folk remedy and cure-all compendium. Please take your heart-rending descriptions of your own HG and post them on pages that welcome such stuff - such as iVillage. 65.93.35.157 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References for sentences regarding THC

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed some text based on primary sources per WP:MEDRS Sources where

A survey http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16401527

The daily mail and salem news [1] [2]

And another primary research piece of 59 children [3]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have asked for further input to the question posted here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was just coming here to say the same thing. Wikipedia's guidelines for biomedical claims is WP:MEDRS, please refer to that for your sourcing, thanks.... Zad68 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks for the welcome? I appear to have been editing here longer than you, but of course that isn't relevant for our present concern about this article. My point is just that maybe you shouldn't include the "welcome to Wikipedia" by default, if that is what you're doing.

First, you appear to have hastily and inadvertently reverted an appropriate addition to the first paragraph. I am going to restore the text. Please be careful about editing more than you mean to, though perhaps our edits were just so near to each other that you were unaware of what happened.

Second, there are roughly two types of statements in what you have removed about THC: medical and other. The "other" information, about Queen Victoria and legalities, are more than sufficiently supported by the citations. Based on that, your removal of that information was hasty and overbroad. Regarding the medical statements, a tradition on Wikipedia has been for editors to add concerns about quality or citations rather than just removing text entirely so that others may find more appropriate citations to authority. Based on that, your removal of the medical information was hasty. I see nothing in WP:MEDRS that appears to favor the removal of information versus voicing concerns about quality like through the tags listed at the bottom of WP:MEDRS. Further, please -- at least for my sake -- please clarify what is wrong with the specific sources that were cited, specifically PMID 16401527 (from Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice) and PMID 1957518 (from The West Indian medical journal). For example, do you not like those particular studies? Or are you making a generalization about what they were published in? Or what? Based on the existence of the quality tags in WP:MEDRS, I am going to restore the text again and you can then put the tags in if you wish, or bring us to a stalemate with WP:3RR. Surely there is a way of presenting the information with a disclaimer that would be acceptable to you, unless you just have something against medical marijuana? JonathanFreed (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content on the royal family was moved here Hyperemesis_gravidarum#Notable_cases. We do not like primary research. Please use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick look at all the proposed content and sourcing:

Inline cite and link to helpher.org is not necessary, it's already in the ref, and doing it like this looks like advertising
The second addition of the link to helpher DEFINITELY looks like advertising, see WP:ELSPAM
PMID 16401527 is survey-based, old (2006) primary study and per WP:MEDRS should not be used
The Daily Mail article does not mention HG
The Salem News article does not mention HG
The court docs do not mention HG and anyway we don't use WP:PRIMARY legal documents like that
PMID 1957518 is a primary study and also does not appear to mention HG

That's why the edit needed to be reverted, cheers... Zad68 21:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and you explained it better than I did :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68, do you have a citation for your edit comment that "you need to gain consensus on the Talk page first before making these edits"? Citations for the position opposite to yours include WP:BEBOLD and, more specifically, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".

Jmh649 and Zad68, though you may not like primary sources, there is nothing on WP:MEDRS that forbids them. Rather, the appropriate action according to WP:MEDRS is to find secondary sources and put those primary sources in the context of the secondary sources. Therefore, you should appropriately add a tag like Template:Primary source-inline rather than removing material. According to that same template page, removal of material is warranted if it is both "doubtful and harmful". The onus is on you to prove that the material you removed is both "doubtful and harmful", and if you cannot prove that, then you should not have removed the material and you should have instead used the Template:Primary source-inline tag. Right? I simply see no justification for utter removal, and you haven't provided one.

Zad68, yes, the link to helpher was in the ref, but the article itself did not tell readers about the HER Foundation. It is appropriate for the foundation to be mentioned in the article text itself, especially when it is a leading source for the first few paragraphs of the article.

Zad68, no, the Daily Mail and Salem News articles do not mention HG. That is besides the point. They are mentioned in the context of how others who may not have even had HG used cannabis to treat symptoms that are also on the continuum of naseau of vomiting in pregnancy. And who is this "we" for "we don't use legal documents like that", and according to what? What Wikipedia guideline etc says that we don't use legal documents like that? JonathanFreed (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the text you added is "doubtful and possibly harmful". Thus I have removed it. It is impossible to prove a negative thus it is up to them who wishes to add content to supply the refs. One can either remove the text or tag it. I have chosen to remove. If you have better refs fell free to present them. I was unable to find anything. Testimonials are not medical evidence and if they belong at all it is in a section on society and culture which is where these were moved.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what evidence do you have that the material is "doubtful and harmful"? You only said that it is "possibly harmful". And while you're at it, what is the purpose of the Template:Primary source-inline tag from WP:MEDRS if it is not for this specific scenario? JonathanFreed (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to use this primary source. We do not mention every primary source in an article. This study is simply not notable. The primary sources that we would use include stuff like the "Womens Health Initiative" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Not notable"? Now you're switching from "doubtful and possibly harmful" -- which isn't the standard -- to "not notable" and no consensus? Why don't you actually go talk to some women who have HG and then tell me that this study is not notable. And please be consistent about what you want. You first wanted compliance with WP:MEDRS, and now it's compliant. So apparently you just don't want any mention of medical marijuana for the treatment of symptoms? Why don't you go over to the medical marijuana page then? They talk about its efficacy for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. You're not being a constructive editor. JonathanFreed (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in doi:10.1007/s00406-009-0027-z and doi:10.1016/S0074-7742(09)85009-5. They are more up-to-date (per WP:MEDDATE) than what you were trying to add, FYI. Trying to cite a 1991 study is a primary source cherrypicking red flag in the eyes of medical editors. That said, you may find text you like in those publications. I have not read them outside of their abstracts. Other reviews of interest could be doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.09.003, doi:10.1007/s00213-010-1892-x, doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2012.00002, and doi:10.1021/cn300014e (though there is a large emphasis on rodent models there). Best. Biosthmors (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before it makes sense to discuss the adverse effects of THC we must provide some evidence to discuss it in this context at all. I have seen no decent evidence for its us in HG yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68 and Jmh649, you appear to be engaging in an edit war. You continue to completely remove substantive material from the article to which appropriate caveats have been added to address your concerns. You are acting in a destructive fashion, not a constructive fashion. I am reporting this issue to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. JonathanFreed (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've already opened an WP:EWN report about the inclusion of source PMID 16401527, you are welcome to add your comments to the existing report. Zad68 13:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]