Talk:Keratoconus/Archive 2

Fresh research - low expression of two proteins in the KC corneas

Molecular changes in selected epithelial proteins in human keratoconus corneas compared to normal corneas.

Quote:

The results showed relatively low or negligible levels of alpha-enolase and beta-actin in the wing and superficial epithelial cells of keratoconus corneas compared to normal corneas. This was attributed to relatively greater degradation of the two proteins in keratoconus corneas compared to normal corneas.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CopperKettle (talk --CopperKettle 11:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Did a page for alpha-enolase; included the two refs concerning its lowered expression in keratoconus. The papers are from different groups, so the finding seems to be replicated. Interestingly, autoantibodies for alpha-enolase have been found in patients with Hashimoto's encephalopathy. CopperKettle 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Another clue: there's a hypothesis that some cases of keratoconus may correlate with magnesium deficiency. And alpha-enolase is dependent upon magnesuim for its proper action. Would be great to have a fulltext of some latest review on magnesium-keratoconus association. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Artificial cornea?

I recently was amused to know that applicable artificial corneas exist (just google for it). Maybe the use of them should be mentioned in the article - as an alternative to corneal transplantation. Best regards, CopperKettle 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Are there any reports of them being used in the specific treatment of keratoconus ? — BillC ^talk 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't properly looked yet. Just thought someone would be interested. CopperKettle 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Places where cross-linking treament gets done.

I believe it is of vital importance to list the places where such a treatment can be done, in order to save eyes of people.

BillC politely submitted me some doubts, which I try to answer point-by-pijnt as follows:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a 'how-to' guide. A list of places from which to get treatment does not fit into an encyclopaedic article, the focus of which is an academic treatment of its subject matter.

I kind of disagree, it would be like saying that Wikipedia doesn't list venues where NBA takes place, but only the rules to the basketball game. also, it is of vital importance.

2. If this treatment is increasing in popularity worldwide, the list will be become hopelessly out of date in a few months.

then it will be updated as it grows, it's exactly how wikipedia works!!

  3. Cities in Italy and Germany have been named, but not those in other countries where the treatment is in common use. Why is this?

That is simply incorrect. I listed Los Angeles and Zurich precisely. Other cities, I do not know them at the moment.

4. If the treatment is carried out in many cities, why are those par ticular ones named and not others in Germany and Italy?

I in fact listed all the known (to me) places in Italy, and I have yet to get a full german list, but I should be able to very soon.

5. I have looked around several medical articles on various topics, and none contained lists of places where particular treatments are car ried out.

I looked around too, and found such places. as simple as that! :)

6. None of the other keratoconus articles appear to have lists of places where C3R treatment is carried out.

this is not simply an 'article', or a pice in some journal!

  7. The statement is unsourced.

what do you mean exactly ?

8. '&c.' is not an recognised abbreviated in English. Even 'etc.' is frowned upon in formal English.

Incorrect. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/&c.

Thank you for replying.

1. I stand by my comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; its treatment of its topics should be encyclopaedic. Lists of places where to get treatment are not. A better place for writing such information is a personal website.
2. Such a list is unmaintainable. Should we add a city each time C3-R becomes available in it? When do we stop?
3. My point being that there are many cities where C3-R is available; this list is cherry-picked.
4. Is the list full for Italy?
5. No list of cities and countries in which to get treated is found in Acute myeloid leukemia, AIDS, Asperger syndrome, Asthma, Chagas disease, Cholangiocarcinoma, Coeliac disease, Cystic fibrosis, Influenza, Multiple sclerosis, Pneumonia, Prostate cancer or Tourette syndrome. All these, like Keratoconus, are featured articles about diseases, representing "the best articles in Wikipedia".
6. This is an article: it's the Wikipedia article about keratoconus. My point may have been unclear -- I was referring to the articles in other-language Wikipedias.
7. "The statement is unsourced" means that a citation (reference) is at least necessary.
8. As that article says, "Archaic abbreviations, most commonly used in legislation, notations for mathematics or qualifications, include &/c., &c., and &ca.". In other words, its use is archaic and should not be used here.

Would you be willing to consider dispute resolution via the MEDCABAL?

Regards, — BillC ^talk 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from WP:MED: Hi, seeking guidance on this edit. Is such information appropriate for any medical article? Its author believes so; a point of dispute between us. Your input would be welcome. — BillC ^talk 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a pointless list of cities and countries. Axl 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not strike me as being encyclopedic. It would make for a nice brochure, however. Antelan ^talk 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The listing of cities is not of any value to this article. The logical end result of doing this would be a list of every major city in the world. Any patient needing this treatment would get a doctor's referral to the place best suited to them, and your list does nothing to help that, so adds no value. It would add slightly more value if it was properly referenced (see WP:CITE), but it would still be a list with no practical application. Transfer your logic to other articles, and you would get a list of every city with an ambulance service (a life saving service - more so than this surgery - but a pointlessly long list) or every city where plumbers work. The only time there is value in putting a location is if the surgery is performed in one or two places worldwide, and in your own writing, it says it is widespread. Owain.davies 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've benefitted from two corneal transplants due to keratoconus, so am not unbiased, but I don't see how a listing of cities where this is done has any value at all. Wikipedia ought to be encylopedic, not the Yellow Pages, and all that's really required is to describe the treatment and provoke a discussion with his/her doctor. An optometrist or opthamologist would certainly be able to guide the patient with condition- and region-specific advice, leaving Wikipedia out of the loop save for the inspiration. SJFriedl (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavin Section and Boxer Wachler

I've removed edits made by User:Scubadiver99 to the section Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavinon because:

(1) they made the section unreadable

(2) I'm not sure C3-R is approved in Europe

(3) they give the appearance of promoting Boxer Wachler and his clinics (although I recognize his role in C3-R development)

(4) the similarity to usernames associated with the Brian Boxer Wachler and LASIK articles (i.e., User:Scubadiver5, User:Scubadiver1966, User:71charger) suggests there may be WP:COI involved

I'm requested that User:Scubadiver99 post something here explaining the edits, but they have not done so. I'd like to find a consensus on this, so any comments are welcome. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's add a couple of anon IP editors to the list: Special:Contributions/71.160.148.228, and Special:Contributions/67.113.220.102. I'm not accusing anyone - just pointing out a pattern and inviting some discussion from the involved parties. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding one more possible sockpuppet that I missed earlier - Special:Contributions/71.118.49.99 Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What we need to get the article moving is:

• What are the differences (if any) between C3R, CXL and CCL?
• Can we have a couple of well-referenced sentences on the history of the technique? — BillC ^talk 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle keeps deleting any recognition of Dr. Boxer Wachler's contributions on both keratoconus and LASIK sites. These deletions seem to indicate some kind of bias. C3-R was the first acronym to describe the collagen crosslinking procedure, which Dr. Boxer Wachler presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting several years ago. Recently, CCL and CXL names have been developed, but C3-R is still the most common acronym by and large. So it is hard to understand why Delicious Carbuncle insists on deleting C3-R, when clearly it is relevant and topical. In addition, the group in Germany is credited for developing the epithelial-off crosslinking procedure and the Boxer Wacher Vision Institute is credited with inventing he epithelial-on technique, which has advantages over epithelial-off crosslinking - no pain and no corneal haze formation. It seems appropriate to cite this information regarding Dr. Boxer Wachler because it is true, factual, and relevant. Citing an individual does not itself constitute "marketing" just as citing Henry Ford for streamling automobile production does not = marketing for Henry Ford. An important fact is an important fact.

Scubadiver99 ^talk 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if we address the questions I posed then we might make some progress here. — BillC ^talk 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Scubadiver99, I have no personal connection to LASIK or keratoconus treatment, and no bias against Dr Boxer Wachler. My edits are based on maintaining readability and accuracy of the article. I think it would helpful if you would declare any conflict of interest that you might have, and propose the change before simply reverting edits. Both User:BillC and I have posed questions that might help guide this to a consensus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the criteria for inclusion in any article is readability and accuracy. My only bias here is to be an advocate for fairness. Given this criteria, reference 58 is a publication describing the epithelial-on C3-R procedure and web article that is referenced below is the first publication using the first acronym for crosslinking, C3-R. As what I have written has been met with criticism, than it makes sense that either Delicious Carbuncle and/or BillC be open to drafting language that reflects information that includes 1) C3-R acronym, 3) describes epithelial-on, and 3) credits Boxer Wachler for inventing epithelial-on. To move this forward, this makes the most sense. Scubadiver99 ^talk 13:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am more than open to such a treatment, though I'm not sure I see the need to credit him or anyone directly in the body of text: Spoerl et al., for example are only named in list of references. — BillC ^talk 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Scubadiver99, just to be clear, are you saying that you have no connection to Dr Boxer Wachler or his businesses? And no connection to the accounts User:Scubadiver5, User:Scubadiver1966, User:71charger, or the IP accounts User:71.160.148.228 and User:67.113.220.102? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the facts, but I am familiar with Boxer Wachler and follow his research. I do have a direct connection to the other accounts which are not active as I forgot my passwords. The issue at hand is how to incorporate this information: 1) C3-R acronym, 3) describe epithelial-on procedure, and 3) credits Boxer Wachler Vision Institute for inventing epithelial-on crosslinking. I agree that Dr. Boxer Wachler does not need to be credited in text, but it makes sense to credit their institute for epithelial-on C3-R since the text credits the institute Technische Universität Dresden with epithelial-off C3-R. To move this forward, who would like to draft these edits? Scubadiver99 ^talk 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe we are dealing with two issues here. One is the inclusion of information on C3-R, the other is your repeated insertion of commercial links into articles for Keratoconus and LASIK. You were asked to stop in Sept 2007 [1], but you didn't stop. You have answered my question about your connection to Boxer Wachler with misdirection rather than confirmation or denial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just ran across this discussion and can answer #2 of Delicious carbuncle questions above. C3-R does have a CE mark and is approved for use in Europe. Also, to answer BillC question, there is not any difference between C3-R, CXL and CCL -- they are all the same names for Corneal Collagen Crosslinking with Riboflavin. I wanted to share these facts here in the Discussion to gain consensus before I post to the Article. I recommend C3-R is added to the list in the first sentence based on the following source which clearly cites C3-R as approved in Europe: Review of Ophthalmology Vol. No: 14:09 Issue: 9/1/2007 (http://www.revophth.com/index.asp?page=1_13506.htm). Mightyeyes (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Mightyeyes

It's sourced, so I don't think anyone would have a problem with your suggestion of adding it to that list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, Mightyeyes. I have had a go at editing the section; see what people think. — BillC ^talk 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work,BillC. Since collagen crosslinking with riboflavin goes by multiple names, I've changed your abbreviations to the full term, and I've added the European/FDA approval status. Do we have something everyone can live with? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, we've now had someone come along and say that epi-on has not been peer-reviewed and enjoys the support of only a couple of doctors, in other words, that it fails WP:WEIGHT. This may or may not be true, but requires discussion. I have for the time being reverted back to Delicious carbuncle, since I think that at least there are peer-reviewed papers on epi-off. However, I am prepared to be shown that I am wrong; as I say, some discussion is needed. — BillC ^talk 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left 3 messages for User_talk:62.56.89.219 to join the discussion (or at least provide some references for their edits), but so far no response except continuing to make unexplained edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response... I was not being notified when the page updated. BillC thank you for your post/rewrite -- let me review more closely. Specifcally to the question at-hand: To the best of my knowledge epi-on has been peer-reviewed. See reference #61. User_talk:62.56.89.219 is incorrect. Mightyeyes (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The name C3R was coined by the Dr who don't take the Epi off. It is getting confused with the original and proved method which has been animal tested and is CE approved (which is the Epi off method). The Epi on is not what is CE approval, it is the Epi off which has this. There are no peer reviewed studies (meaning other drs have not proved Epi off is effective) The FDA approved trails in the US IS FOR THE EPI OFF. Have you guys talked with European Dr's who invented the whole thing? or even been to any of the CXL congress's? if you did then you would know more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.73.124 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So when you say the "trend" is to do the Epi ON, that is wrong, the very latest development and trend is that the FDA US trails are being done with the Epi OFF, so the tread is not what the ONE DR in the US is doing IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. What ever that is he is doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.61.142 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, the article should reflect that. Does anyone have access to the reference Mightyeyes refers to above, or any information suggesting anyone other than Boxer Wachler is doing epi-on? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full article, though I have a rather telling quote from an article by Gregor Wollensak, one of the European developers of the technique:

"The invention of fancy, stylish names for the new treatment by people somehow trying to claim the new method as their own is also deplorable..." Wollensak G, "Crosslinking treatment of progressive keratoconus: new hope", Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006 Aug;17:356-60.

— BillC ^talk 19:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link which I wanted to pass on to you guys http://www.osnsupersite.com/view.asp?rid=25785 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.61.142 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the article 62.56.61.142 - this is exciting news for the USA. First, let us all agree that FDA and CE certification is given to medical devices - not procedures. The device in Europe that is CE approved is being used by doctors for both epi-off and epi-on crosslinking in Europe. Separately, I would have not suggested adding the EPI-ON procedure unless it was being done by other doctors than Dr Wacher in the USA (who I think did epi-on first). Here is a link to at least one other: Dr. Pinelli (Italy) http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=3797. So, I agree with our anonymous contributor that the word "trend" shouldn't be used. Maybe something like "a recent development" or "new non-invasive option" would be more appropriate. Mightyeyes (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Alternative"? I've had a go at the article, and tightened the wording a little.

Incidentally, the rest of the article would definitely benefit from a look-over by some of the experts here. It would be great if someone could spare a few minutes. — BillC ^talk 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if I use a name it still would be annonymous, this way at least I don't need to log on.

I think it should be added where the Epi on is "at". In that it has no Animal studies but it is being used on Humans with out that. Also that the FDA is doing trails with the Epi OFF ONLY. Dr P and DR BW are the only advocates for the Epi on, one is in Europe and the Other in the states. So when its said "The device in Europe that is CE approved is being used by doctors for both epi-off and epi-on crosslinking in Europe" it should be said ONE Dr in Eurpe is doing the Epi On and the vast majority is using and increasingly using the Epi On. What not the more detail ? Dr BW was on his site using the European studies to push something which is not the same treatment, and he does not make it clear on his site where his method is "at". Marketing for humans with out animal studies, is that a good thing ?

It is too early to say what the efficiency is on the Epi on, people should be made aware of this. Why this has to be said by me and is not obvious I don't know, but I can guess.

Anyway personally I think the Epi on being used now is just to profiter (as there is no proof it works) and its done by creating confusion through hype alone, there should be multi centered scientific proof spanning a number of years first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Is Dr BW doing trails ? has he done trails ? Why does he call Crosslinking a Vitamin supplementation ? (he says this on you tube) where is the proof of that, does other Dr;s call it that ??

The CE Device in Europe are to be used with in certain parameters that was proved to work, and Dr BW is not the first to use this in the states, its the FDA trails.

Why is there a disproportionate amount of "are time" given in the wiki article on the Epi off WHEN ONLY TWO DRS ARE DOING IT ? IT'S SIMPLE, FIRST DO ANIMAL STUDIES, THEN USE IT ON HUMANS. Who are the authroities in the states that should be contacted about this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The "alternative" Bill, with respect, is mis-leading. I think that it should be stated that there are no published animal studies on the Epi on. They are pushing this "Epi on" with out that. That is wrong and calling me a vandal for telling the truth, when in fact it was others who was doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to create an account, but having a consistent username makes it easier for other editors to know that they are communicating with one person instead of several. And editors can leave messages for you on your own pages, where you will see them. It aids communication, and makes life easier for others. Please read WP:CONSENSUS to better understand the process that is being followed here - it may make you less frustrated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The point was about being anonymous, I am the only person here with out an ID so that is my ID, and I don't want to log in all the time, I like it like that. Can we keep this off topic stuff away from here ?

To get back to the topic please take a look at this link http://www.osnsupersite.com/view.asp?rID=26241 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem - since you won't create an account, I have no where else to leave this "off-topic stuff". And you still aren't signing your comments. I appreciate what you're trying to say, but you're making it very hard for other editors to work with you. I'm running out of patience. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, from the start it was made to look as if I was a vandal and that I would not come here to talk. The fact was and is I don't want have an account to check for replies etc etc. Can we have less of the etc etc like the off topic stuff and about your patience. If i'm loosing my patience will that make a difference ?? Stick to the topic in hand. You want to leave me messages ??? what makes you think I want to get messages from you ?? You have had no trouble in knowing I have no account, so why do you think others will ?? Lets stick to the topic, I am not interested in anything off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The topic on this page is the article, not KC itself, nor whether BW has conducted animal trials, or anything else. I am sorry that you may not want to receive messages from people here, but it is essentially a requirement for editing at Wikipedia. WP works on consensus and discussion, and there can't be any place for those who wish for neither. You weren't accused of vandalism until multiple attempts to contact you and request that you discuss your edits had failed.

You certainly aren't under any obligation to create an account, but be aware that a person or persons have edited this talk page or the article under the following IP addresses: 62.56.89.219, 62.56.73.124, 62.56.61.142, 62.56.51.99, 62.56.86.223, 62.56.76.203, 62.56.116.254, 62.56.120.90, 62.56.93.157, 62.56.75.48, 62.56.52.32, 62.56.68.200, 62.56.65.193. We haven't had any means of telling if these are you, or other people, or what. If 62.56.73.124 says something on the talk page, and 62.56.116.254 agrees with it, are these two different people, or the same? What if they disagree with each other? Creating an account makes it much easier for everyone concerned. You don't need to check for messages with an account; unread messages are automatically highlighted whenever you load up any page in WP. — BillC ^talk 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again this is not the real issue. And again I will have to explain. the first two numbers ie 62.56. is the same, because its the same Ip address. I can not see anything more sad than to have a page for people to leave off topic messages by creating an account. Now can we go back to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This was posted after I last posted (why I have no idea)

"The topic on this page is the article, not KC itself, nor whether BW has conducted animal trials, or anything else. I am sorry that you may not want to receive messages from people here, but it is essentially a requirement for editing at Wikipedia. WP works on consensus and discussion, and there can't be any place for those who wish for neither. You weren't accused of vandalism until multiple attempts to contact you and request that you discuss your edits had failed."

The topic is the article ? and what is the article about ? it is about KC is it not ? Why was it said that the trend was the epi on... and then changed ? so its you who was wrong not me. You said before that I don't need to get an account, now you say its a "requirement"... so which is it ? Do people have to now have an account to edit ? I don't know if anyone tried to contact me until I was not able to put right your mistake, so there was a failure in your system as you thought I was a vandal and that I did not want to talk, well I'm here talking, so thats not true, you presume everyone knows how you work... well that is not the case. Can we now go back to the topic here which is described in the topic title here ? are you going to put down that the new trend is what is mentioned in the last link I posted here ? And you can't force an account on someone who don't want one, you told me to come here, so here I am, then you want me to have an account, then after that what do you want ? I could post a lot of info. here and on the article, but look at how it is after I was called a vandal and still no apology, why are you trying to say I don't want to discuss ? it was your consensus that was wrong to start with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(arbitrary section break)

It's not a requirement to have an account. It is a requirement on WP to receive and respond to communication from other editors, which you implied you were not prepared to do with the comment "what makes you think I want to get messages from you ??". I am more than happy to put this conversation aside and discuss the topic at hand. What would you like the article to say? — BillC ^talk 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you want me to be an editor, I thought anyone can edit ? if you want me as an editor please just say so.

I think it should say that the epi on has not been proved yet with animal studies, you can put the last link i posted up as well. I am not going to edit as you guys have made it clear that you don't want me to, and if I do all this will just happen again, even though I had a lot to submit, I will be attacked, I think there is a bias here, I was prejudged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC) What I did say was that I don't want to talk about off topic stuff, not that I did not want to communicate. See, it keeps happening over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You might like to take a look at WP:WEIGHT. If, as you say, there are only two doctors espousing epi-on, then per that page, it probably doesn't merit mention in the article. Mightyeyes however said earlier that he thought it had been peer reviewed and presented a reference for this. Scubadiver99, even earlier on, argued strongly for a greater mention of BW. Someone needs to tackle the article and provide citations for their material. — BillC ^talk 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Epi on was first done in Africa or south America, would there be this discussion. Its because you guys are on the side of your fellow country man. Do you think ? Whsat do you mean that someone "thinks" there is a peer reviewed article ? Has Epi on been covered by The Cornea Journal ? And what is Dr BW doing ? trails ? So Bill, why do you think you know best, why are you lord and executer ? why did you try to pain me as being bad ? I posted an article which compared the epi on and epi off, from ANOTHER DR, can you show we an article which shows the opposite from ANOTHER DR ? why havn';t you said nothing about the FDA trails in the US which is being done with the Epi off, you you think they are stupid to be do this ? as you said the Epi on is the alernative... you don't know what is what do you ? and can you stop skipping over the points I make, but supporting your friends because for the sake of supporting your friends. Yoiu have attacked me over and over again, anyone can see that reading this, and not even an apology, not even once, you are just going to do what you want to, there is no discussion here when I was told there was.

Even if the Epi on is not mentioned in the article, people still needs to know which one has been approved, is the orginal one, and used by the very vast majority, has passed animal studies, other-wise it is just marketing of something unproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Will you allow to be held responsible when people find out that you have been promoting something which has not been approved ? Why haven't you answered none of my questions ?

Three points: (1) You are misinformed: I am not American. (2) Before no more than a few weeks ago, I had never heard of Boxer Wachler, until some other editor started adding material about him in this article. (3) I have no involvement whatsoever in the ophthalmological industry, nor does anyone I know or am related to; I simply have KC. Your aggressive manner is making it very difficult to work with you. — BillC ^talk 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• As BillC asked you earlier, what do you want the article to say? No one is preventing you from editing the article, simply asking you to discuss proposed changes due to the recent problems with other editors pushing for inclusion of more Boxer Wachler related material. We're trying to find a balance here and still have an article that is broadly accurate, but that doesn't seem to be easy lately. I'm sorry if you feel like we're attacking you - that certain;y isn't my intention and I'm sure it isn't BillC's either. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys I have explained already what should be there, however I understand that it may be something people don't want to taken in. Please just go by whats been published by the Cornea, the unaware deserve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why has Bill posted his last message before mine again ? it should be after mine ? I never said you was an American, you never heard of Dr BW until two weeks ago, thats funny, links to him have been on the article longer than that. If you simply have KC why are you trying to dictate things, why should I pass things by you, when your just as same as me. Why do you keep doing this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was you who attacked me first, and are still doing it !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who your last comment is addressed to, but it's a moot point. I'm sure you have valuable information to add to this article, and to WP in general, but you seem to be confused about how Wikipedia works, and unwilling to learn. This isn't productive. I'm going to ask for some help at WP:WQA. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you guys seem to presume that I have time to lavish here or that I should love it here and be grateful or glad to be here. Its been a bad experience and there does not seem to be no end in sight to it. There was no welcome, is this how you treat your guests ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to dictate anything to you, or anyone. I haven't attacked you, not lately, or at any time. Can you please identify the most recent statement by me that you consider an attack? I don't know why you are saying I am typing my comments before yours. My "Three points" message was added at 00:03 UTC, 7 March, five minutes after your last edit at 23:58 UTC 6 March and two hours, six minutes before your next at 02:09 UTC 7 March. If you click on this link, which shows the point at which I made my edit, and scroll to the bottom, you will see it is the last comment on the page. The time stamps in signatures also show the times the talk page messages were posted. It is possible you are not not viewing the most recent copy of the page when you make your edits; you might like to check your browser cache settings. With regards to the American issue, you suggested that "you guys are on the side of your fellow country man"; to whom were you referring in that statement? — BillC ^talk 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1) So do you admit to attacking me then ? then why was I labeled as a "Vandal" and then banned ? (I told you this a few times already, why do I have to repeat myself?), so why are you allowed to do that and others are not ? 2) You can say what you like, I think your playing games and certainly you have been playing on here for a long time to know how to, your post was not there when I posted, then when I looked it was there, you just can't answer my questions so you trying hard in other areas. Your trying to attack me again to take the focus away. 3) Did I mention your name as being on the side of your fellow country man ? 4) You still have not answered none of the other questions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, I have not attacked you. You were labelled a vandal because repeated attempts were made to get you to discuss your edits, and you would not. Every time you logged on, there would have been an orange box that persisted at the top of every page until you clicked on the text that said 'click here to read'. In desperation, we then tried sending standardised messages to you over tghe course of several days, but still no response. In the end, I saw no option - not to get you blocked - but to request a short period of semi-protection for the article. The text of my request is here. The Wikipedia administrator who read that disagreed and blocked you for 48 hours. This was regrettable, but you will have to take it up with him, not me.

You said in a reply to one of my posts "you guys". Since only DC and I were posting, I cannot understand how you could claim that you were not talking to me. — BillC ^talk 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Look it was not that I would not discuss, I did not know there was something like this or what the hell was going on. Do you get it now. You are still trying to color me as being bad. Being called a Vandel is an attack on me, you could have said or requested something else to let me know about how you do things, we are not knowing how you run things. And you should know better because you know what is what, and to a newcomer you should be nicer.

Again you try to narrow what I said to your liking, I said "you guys" in that in whole from reading this page and all the pages you talk about KC. Again, you seem to what to skip over the real issues. I think you are biased, you have the right to your opinion and so do I, but you want to give a warped opinion of the truth I was trying to get across to now. Will you ever change ? I doubt it, you have tried so hard to make me look bad, but thats all you can do. You keep give out wrong information, I just don't know what your problem is, but it is not Keratoconus you are interested in, thats for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Can you stop waiting mine and other peoples time ? and answer the questions put to you on this page, you think its your tree, so you should at least try to answer question, not try to go on a tangent at every opportunity to take the focus off you. Its you who has caused all the problems and got things wrong where I was called a Vandel, when in fact it is you writing wrong stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited the unproven as the matched-controlled study cited already by Dr. Pinelli provides compelling data to justify removing "unproven". Scubadiver99 Oct 21, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubadiver99 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. A limited "study" undertaken by Dr Pinelli does not mean that the method is anything other than experimental - to the contrary, the fact that it is still at the small study stage reinforces its status as "unproven". In addition, I've personally had more than enough of the Brian Boxer Wachler COI editing here and will be asking for blocks if it continues. (See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Scubadiver99). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin response

62.56.51.99 (talk · contribs), 62.56.89.219 (talk · contribs), 62.56.86.223 (talk · contribs) and Scubadiver99 (talk · contribs) (I haven't dug through the article's history fully) all indicate a revolving single purpose account. Discussions have been lacking on their part that are conductive to gaining consensus, and edit warring has ensued. I've reverted the latest change on the basis of consensus and discussion on this talk page. I cannot reiterate enough -- use the discussion page to gain consensus, and ensure that your edits are well sourced and referenced. The one who adds in the content is responsible for doing this, not other editors. Any further questions or comments, please let me know. seicer | talk | contribs 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be incorrectly lumping two separate editors together. I'm certain that 62.56.51.99 (talk · contribs) is not Scubadiver99 (talk · contribs). The recent issues with this article can be summed up with reference to the work of Brian Boxer Wachler. The IP editor 62.56.etc.etc is anti-BBW, whereas Scubadiver99 (talk · contribs) (and more recently Mightyeyes (talk · contribs) are pro-BBW. See also here. This is an oversimplification, of course, but illustrates my initial point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. May I clarify; I am not pro-Dr. Boxer Wachler or anti-Dr. Boxer Wachler. I have referred patients to Dr. Boxer Wachler so I am aware of his research. That's all. My goal was just to make the article as accurate as possible. Including information and research on both procedure options is what I feel we should do as editors. I agree with our anonymous contributor that including information on the US Trials for epi-off is really important to keep the article current. But I also feel strongly that epi-on should also continue to be mentioned (as it is) since trials do continue and it is an option for patients. Mightyeyes (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Dr BW doing trails ? has he done animal trails ? usually that is done before human trails. I think you will find he has not. If he is doing trails in humans why doesn't he say that on his site ? and if he is doing trails why does it cost a fortune and not free ? when the original method of epi off (which passed animal trails in 1998) costs much less and was free for animals and humans for it to be passed. And I am not annonymous I have an IP address which comes up. Does it say "Mighty Eyes" on your passport ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.52.36 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It was you guys who "by consensus" called me a vandal. And "by Consensus" say I'm anti anyone. All because you can't answer (and want to hide this information): Where are the animal studies for the Epi On ? Its was "by Consensus" that you got the article wrong. It is simple and easy to just attack me instead.

1) Can this link be added ? http://www.osnsupersite.com/view.asp?rID=26241 someone added the OSN article on the US trails... why not this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"With the epithelium in situ, [the] riboflavin concentration in the stroma is very low, not time-dependent, and the cross-linking effect is limited to the first 80 µm to 100 µm of the anterior stroma. If the epithelium is removed, riboflavin penetration is time-dependent, much deeper, and the cross-linking effect is well distributed in the 300 µm of the anterior-mid stroma," Dr. Caporossi said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.51.99 (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

2) Why was this article ignored but the US trails article put on the KC article ? what is your excuse this time ?

3) Why was my last edits deleted on the article ? (I though you said I could edit, and to come here and explain first, well its not true, why are you saying untruths like that for ?)

4) So who are the objectors, please make it known ?

5) You said come and discuss, where is the discussion ?

External links -- Vision simulation

The link that claims to show vision simulation (which would be totally cool, and is just the think that the ==External links== section exists for) doesn't seem to have that content any longer. If it's there, and I just couldn't find it, could someone put a more direct link to it in the external links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External links -- redirected

I redirected several links for organizations to pages that are primarily about KC, instead of being primarily about the organization or fundraising. These pages are more likely to be useful for average readers as well as patients, so they seem preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External links -- internet chat rooms and personal experiences

Wikipedia's external links policy and the specific guidelines for medicine-related articles do not permit the inclusion of external links to non-encyclopedic material, particularly including internet chat boards and e-mail discussion groups. Because I realize that most normal editors haven't spent much time with these policies, please let me provide specific information from the guidelines:

• This page, which applies to all articles in the entire encyclopedia, says that links "to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists" are to be avoided. 'Blogs, or other personal websites are also strongly deprecated (especially when they haven't been updated in a very long time, which was certainly the case here).

• This page deprecates ""helpful" external links, such as forums, self-help groups and local charities."

• This medical-specific page reinforces the pan-Wiki rules, with a note that "All links must meet Wikipedia's external links guidelines, which in particular exclude discussion forums."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it may occasionally be useful to patients or their families, it is not a web directory for support groups. Please do not re-insert links that do not conform to the standard rules. Any editor, BTW, is welcome to read all of the rules and perform an "audit" in the remaining links. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How

How about answering the questions above, I was banned and told to come here to discuss, why are you not doing as you said you would ?

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), and consider using a colon (:) to indent your text (so it's easier to see that you posted something. Also, you can create a new section on the page by using the "new section" button at the top of the page. That also makes it more likely that your comment will be noticed.

Finally, in response to your comments:

• I wasn't involved in any of your previous conversations, so I can't be expected to answer your questions about it.
• I haven't ever promised to do anything for you.
• And the usual meaning of "discuss it" is "if a discussion isn't already underway on the talk page, then you should start one."

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1) The reasons above is not the reason for the bias

2) Can you then tell me what happened to Bill and his followers ? that is what was required

1) I don't understand what you're talking about.

2) I have no idea. Why don't you leave a message on the other editors' talk pages?

Were you aware that you can click the little [edit] link at the top of each individual section, so that your comments actually get put with the relevant discussion? You don't have to always add a comment to the very bottom of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer to the content of my words ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.70.109 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I can not "answer to the content of your words" (whatever that means: English is apparently not your native language) because:

1) I do not know what "reasons above" or what "bias" you are talking about.

2) I do not know any editors named Bill or any "followers" that he or she might have.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a big generalization isn't it ? that English is not my native language ? and very rude, how come you can get away with saying that ?

So who is bill who commented above and then others ? who are you too ? you seem to think your own the joint ? so don't you know anyone here ? you could be bill, how do I know ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.113.110 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

DNFTT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.113.110 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One rule for one another rule for another

Why are my words here getting deleted ? name calling, hiding info (that the epi on method was shown in a study not to be very good - this study I put on the article but was removed - i thought you wanted references ?? - now I see that other edits have been made with out any references ??) Very shoddy !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.120.240 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is edit warring and no discussion - can the person deleting my words be called a vandal and then banned, just like I was ?

Well the Admin (seicer SP!?) keeps deleting what I write on his discussion page... who do I contact now about this and this whole thing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.91.247 (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Declining endothelial cell density

As I understand, there is an ongoing decline in the number of the hexagonal cells of corneal endothelium after the corneal transplantation, according to one study. However, another study of pre-operational eyes finds no significant difference in the density. Quite interesting. --CopperKettle (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory processes in keratoconus (info added)

I was bold to add the info from a recent study showing an overexpression of inflammatory cytokines:

While keratoconus is considered a non-inflammatory disorder, one study shows that rigid contact lense wear by patients leads to overexpression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6, TNF-alpha, ICAM-1, and VCAM-1, in the tear fluid.

That seemed an interesting and important bit of information to me. Best regards, --CopperKettle (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference no.1

..is no longer there, a 504 Error comes up. --CopperKettle (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Crosslinking

I have edited the cross-linking section to cite and account for recent research, that both supports the effectiveness of crosslinking treatment and disproves the effectiveness of the on-epithelial vitamin based C3-R treatment which many believe was created to get around FDA regulations. I believe it is being unethically promoted as a more effective treatment than it really is...--arpowers (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)