Talk:Immunomodulation therapy

Let's work

Let's work to build up this page. If Scray and Keep 'em busy keep at their work, the entire Wikipedia will disappear. Does anyone have something to contribute regarding immunomodulators? No deletions please, unless references are lacking, and even then only after it is shown there are no references. --Infinitesimus (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of this edit

Your edit suggests that the cited reference shows that Dzherelo (ImmunoXel) increased IL-2 production and decreased TNFalpha. It should be noted that:

this is a primary reference, not a secondary source, hence not the most reliable source
this was an open-label, unrandomized study of people being treated for TB, which your edit does not acknowledge. For one thing, it is not possible to say whether any difference observed was due to an effect on the TB organism or on the human.
the p value for the change in TNFalpha was 0.06 (i.e. insignificant by the threshold of 0.05 set in the methods section of that same paper)
the change in cytokine levels in peripheral blood is not shown to be of any biological significance
one of the authors is an employee of the company marketing this compound

Taken together, these weaknesses justify removal of the claims as insufficiently supported. -- Scray (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above 4 points are valid - see argument on my talk page. No edit wars please, just well-researched material. Thanks.--Infinitesimus (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my list has 5, not 4, entries but that's a minor detail. In your earlier edit, you claimed that Immunoxel has been shown to concomitantly increase IL-2 and decrease TNF-alpha; now you claim that "Dzherelo/Immunoxel" and "Anemin" can concomitantly increase plasma IL-2 and decrease TNF-alpha. Those are different claims (the former only Dzherelo, the latter includes both Dzherelo and Anemin). Neither is supported by a pair of significant p values. For the former claim (Dzherelo alone), I pointed out that the p value for TNFalpha was 0.06. Now you've switched to the combination treatment (Dzherelo + Anemin) and the p value for IL-2 for that one is 0.06 (not significant by the authors' own criterion). In addition, your just picking and choosing 2 cytokines when 5 cytokines were tested, so there's a problem with multiple comparisons. This is not a reliable source for multiple reasons I've listed above, which is why I'm reverting as I've done before. -- Scray (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read further and you will note the statistical test that includes time effect. Immunoxel/Dzherelo alone and with Anemin are excellent examples of polyphytochemical formulations that significantly influence plasma cytokine levels, AND are associated with disease endpoints that have been published after 10 small clinical trials.--Infinitesimus (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS we stick to major conclusions in primary references. The analysis you're referring to was not a major conclusion of the paper, which is a primary reference. -- Scray (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, stick with major conclusion then: combo of herbal extracts in Immunoxel/Dzherelo and Anemin have a large effect on cytokines - especially IL-2 and TNF-alpha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitesimus (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a major conclusion, it isn't in the abstract, and the modest findings of that study are reflected in its title, which makes no particular conclusion: "Cytokine profiles of HIV patients with pulmonary tuberculosis resulting from adjunct immunotherapy with herbal phytoconcentrates Dzherelo and Anemin." -- Scray (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again. You lost the scientific arguements. You said plasma cytokine levels don't matter, they do. You said the example herbal product(s) don't significantly affect plasma cytokine levels, they do. You said there was no secondary reference, I added one. Go away and find something else to edit please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitesimus (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say cytokine levels did not matter. I specifically refuted your statements based on the numbers in the primary reference you cited. I did not remove the secondary reference you added. -- Scray (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scray did indeed say, and should not try to take it back, "the change in cytokine levels in peripheral blood is not shown to be of any biological significance". And Scray did say that the reason he/she deleted my edits in the first place was the p=0.06 on one specific statistical test. Now he/she sees that the p levels are very low indeed when looking at the time progression over a period of months of treatment with one, or both of the refenced herbal concoctions. Any further changes to the argument, or it is time to concede and let good data stand as an example of the point made in the article. Don't delete this again, or you will be considered edit warring. --Infinitesimus (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said, the change in cytokine levels in peripheral blood is not shown to be of any biological significance, I was referring to the specific reference you provided (that was the preamble to my statement - it was in context there). I totally agree that cytokines can be important, but the changes in that specific paper were not shown to be of biological significance in that paper. I have consistently used the p values from the abstract - sticking to major conclusions - and have not varied in that. -- Scray (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you worked as hard at issues that are dead set wrong, wikipedia would improve a lot. The abstract says: " TNF-alpha was suppressed in two immunotherapy groups by 19.1% (P=0.06) and 76.3% (P=0.02)". The two immunotherapy groups are (1) Immunoxel/Dzherelo alone, and (2) Immunoxel/Dzherelo with Anemin. Next point, whether or not the paper showed biological significance, it showed a change of 76.3% (p=.02) in TNF-alpha, and that can be assumed to be of biological significance for the moment, given that the paper does mention a dozen other papers that show large effects on ALT reduction, AST reduction, sputum clearance rate increased, etc etc. Give the article a chance to grow - edit something else for a week or two, it won't hurt too much. --Infinitesimus (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns listed above have not been refuted. All I'm suggesting is that article edits stick to policy and guidelines. -- Scray (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to others to decide whether your arguments have been refuted, and reverse your edit. The reference you removed is the first of many that demonstrate the effect of various agents, herbal and otherwise, on circulating cytokines, as their primary immunomodulatory mechanism. Reverse your deletion please.--Infinitesimus (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate your polite appeal, but saying "please" does not make a reference more reliable, nor would adding other references. The latter effect (combining references to build a case for something) would be synthesis and is against WP policy. I hope you can see from my retention of the more reliable part of your edit here, as well as our exchange on HIV vaccine, that I have no vendetta against your editing and I welcome contributions that enhance WP according to established policy. -- Scray (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The politeness was unintended. Must have slipped by unnoticed, like the fact that there is no case-building using the multiple references, and you are dissembling by saying so. Each is significant on its own.--Infinitesimus (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that I am lying is neither WP:CIVIL nor accurate. Goodnight. -- Scray (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. "Lying" is quite a harsh accusation that I would not make without a DBPC and a secondary reference in a high impact source. "Dissembling" seems, to me at least (subjective I admit), to imply creation of a false appearance. Lying usually implies intent, whereas dissembling can be quite inadvertant. Anyone agree?--Infinitesimus (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

The definition of Immunomodulators offered here is poetic but in the context of Immunomodulation therapy the use of the qualifier "exogenous or endogenous" for "bioactive agents", ("bioactive" is itself redundant within this context as in the phrase "my personal opinion", all opinions being personal, as all immunomodulatory agents must be bioactive), adds nothing of value to the paragraph. What does it matter if their origin, these bioactive agents, is within or without the organism? One might as usefully say they originated on earth. But it is "poetic". Immunomodulators is so broad a term, sunlight is an immunomodulator, a kiss and fornication are immunomodulators, that this paragraph's purpose and approach needs reconsideration. It might be more useful to provide a list of different classes of immunomodulatory approaches in therapy, classes or categories of immunotheraputic agents. As is I move to edit as I now will to simplify and remove the redundant material, poetic as it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FQ1513 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Immunotherapy

Article immunotherapy seems to be about the same topic and more complete. 88.217.104.130 (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing this discussion there. -- Scray (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month and, as nom, I plan to proceed with merger. While this has not been a robust discussion, it also seems noncontroversial. Please go to the merge discussion linked above if you feel otherwise. -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]