Talk:Wiley protocol/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

how it works

I'm trying at a description. My main sources would be the senate testimony and the patent application I think. Quickly reviewing the senate testimony I didn't find anything clear enough to have a description, but the patent application did. There's only one real paragraph which is useful, 0006, and it's bascially got the same information that's already on the page in Wiley Protocol#Hormone delivery, which makes me wonder why I'm writing this... Anyway, I'm trying to avoid the testimony, it's very POV-ish, very conspiracy theory, and in the 48 pages there doesn't seem to be much on the protocol itself. From the above, here's some things I wouldn't mind including, were it to have a source:

• The actual dosage levels are higher than is typical because the goal is to approach targeted serum (blood) concentrations.
• Women on the protocol who have not had a hysterectomy resume or continue menstruating. Those who have had a hysterectomy follow a lunar calendar.
• The compounds are dispensed by compounding pharmacies who have contracted with Wiley Systems to adhere to strict conformance with the ingredients, methods and materials specified by Wiley.
• Estradiol levels peak at day 12 then drop to a low level for the remainder of the cycle, while progesterone is not administered until day 13, peaking onday 21 then falling rapidly
• The protocol is standardized for the first three months, after which it is tailored to the specifics of patients based on a manual produced by Wiley. Prescribing physicians who modify the protocol beyond certain proscribed limits must discontinue referring to the program as the “Wiley Protocol” and pharmacies may not dispense Wiley-marked materials.

I'm trying to not us Sex, Lies and Menopause as a source and I refuse to use Greg Wolf - the first isn't accessible (or needed to date, but if no other source can be found then it could be used for the above) and Wolf just isn't reliable, doctor or no. I'm done with the re-write, I've tried to source just about every sentence so it's clear where everything comes from. WLU (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks neutral and accurate, except that the lead doesn't yet reflect WP:UNDUE; it reflects the claims, but not the criticism. Once the lead is balanced, I would think the neutrality tag could be removed. Also, as long as there are no actual COI edits to the article, can the COI tag be moved to the talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the COI protocol, but given Deb & Neil's restraint from any direct editing and willingness to make their demands known to other editors, I'm OK with that. Though we haven't heard feedback from them about the latest version... WLU (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently had a similar situation at Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and the admin who placed the COI tag agreed that it could be removed to the talk page, because I was watching the article. It the "peace" holds, it seems like the article wouldn't need to be tagged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, done. WLU (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

changes to talk page

I've archived the stuff from months past, and added some headers - even though it's been calmer here than in the past (thanks to both Debv and Nraden for showing quite commendable restraint and patience after a very rocky introduction to wikipedia, it is appreciated) I expect it'll be controversial in the future until there's a couple years worth of science to support or refute. It's also under WP:MED as far as wikiprojects go I think (and of low importance until mainstream medicine and research have had a go at it), plus an additional reminder to stay cool. I'd say this isn't aimed at the 'current' contributors, who again have managed a very nice 175° turn-aroud (it's only 180° when you become friends :) and have kept things cool. Good job. If there are any issues that are left in the archives that people feel still need to be addresesed, I ask that you create a new section and put it there with a prose summary of the issues involved. WLU (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and taking the time. It's not all that I'd like to see, but it's better. I will try to give you sources for the elements you listed above but did not get into the article. As for debv and me becoming friends, I wouldn't wait under water if I were you. There are some things that still bother me. Suzanne Somers is not a spokesperson. I saw her give a speech in Las Vegas just a few days ago, and she described the WP but never mentioned it by name because she has her own business now, Menopause Centers of America, or something like that, her medical director has modified the WP and is selling it under Suzanne's name. If you go to www.suzannesomers.com and search for "Wiley," there are no hits. So please, you cannot source this statement, so let's remove it. The statement "...follow-up program to monitor the serum of the bioidentical hormones," should read "(blood) serum levels." The reference #3 about ACAM and the "serious" concerns was discussed before, check the archive. I spoke to one of the authors of that report last week, Ellie Highnote MD when she attended Wiley's 2-day training class and she was quite surprised that the summary was being interpreted that way. She is, by the way, the President-elect of ACAM. These concerns were raised by only one doctor and a friend of Debv (not a doctor) who attended solely to heckle and disrupt Wiley's keynote, not the doctors in attendance and not ACAM as an organization.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to have to wait a couple years, all sorts of interesting things are happening. I am a little put off by your comments about Dr. Wolf. Just because his site mentions homeopathy, you feel that you can dismiss his comments. I think that's wrong and maybe another editor should look at that. I think chemotherapy is mostly a waste of time, money and people's quality of life, so if I edited an article and removed a thoughtful reference just because the doctor was an oncologist, whould that make sense? Wolf described receptor anticipation very well and it's not something you will find discussed in ANY hormone replacement therapy. It's central to understanding why the WP is designed the way it is. Neil Raden (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Promoted By

I was not content with the first paragraph as User talk:WLU wrote it, but User talk:Invertzoo came along to "clarify" it and made it even worse. Here is the way it reads now: "The Wiley Protocol is promoted as being a means of restoring or preserving health, which its proponents claim is a step beyond the symptomatic treatment of conventional hormone replacement therapy. " I don't see how the phrase "as being" clarifies anything, it isn't even good writing. But I'm more concerned about this word "promoted." As I've learned, there has to be a source for everything and I can't find a source where the the "proponents" (who are they?) are "promoting" the WP as a means of restoring health, etc. What is DIFFERENT about the WP is that it is a therapy that was designed to improve health, not just just relieve menopausal symptoms. period. No one has claimed that it has, other than anecdotal evidence. So you need to rewrite this and User talk:Invertzoo, if you're going to contribute here, show a little courtesy and respond to comments in your talk page rather than deleting them. Neil Raden (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes look fine to me - since there's no proof, and since Wiley thinks it's better than just HRT 'cause it aims to do more than relieve symptoms, it seems accurate. You can't say 'proven' 'cause it's not. All we have is Wiley's word saying that's what she thinks it should do and that's what she's going for. She would be the proponent. Tried to clarify. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS, I also emphasized that it has not been empirically tested or verified yet.

Incidentally, I looked over Invertzoo's talk page history and couldn't find you anywhere. It doesn't look like s/he deleted anything (only admins can delete history versions I think) so you may have done something wrong, but I've no idea what. WLU (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about being bioidentical

I made this comment before, but here it is from the horse's mouth: "We don't know if bioidenticals are better. My argument is that they probably aren't much better, unless they're dosed naturally. I think the dosing schedule is the key to the whole thing. Hormones act in a dose-dependent way. So, if you don't reach a crescendo of hormones in your bloodstream on day 12--all the things that are supposed to happen to facilitate using the progesterone in the second half of the cycle never happen. And I don't know why no one has ever approached that idea before, but they haven't." The importance of the WP is not that it's BHRT, it's that it's the cycle how hormones and receptors work. None of this comes out in the article. There is a long interview (WP:EL) with Wiley at [1] Neil Raden (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't work as an EL for this page, but could work as an EL on Wiley's if the EL section isn't that long. I'll adjust the dosing section to demonstrate that Wiley believes it is the dosing, and change in dosing over time, that is the important part. Is there a text summary that could be used instead of the podcast? WLU (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made the changes - I can't access the interview right now, so that's the best I can manage for the citation template. I may try again later if I remember. WLU (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

FDA

The FDA sent warning letter to a number of large compounding pharmacies that they should stop using Estriol (E3) in compounded hormone replacement therapies and they should desist from using the word "bioidentical." They #1 most popular compunded HRT is something called bi-est, originally devised by Jonathan Wright MD. It's called b-est because it combines estradiol (E2) with estriol. That is now banned. The Wiley Protocol, on the other hand, only uses E2, not E3 or E4 because Wiley always argued that E3 and E4 are metabolites and if E2 is present in the proper amounts, the normal metabolic processes will produce the correct amounts of E3 and E4 (this is because sex hormones that are metabolites are produced by the action of enzymes, not produced by adrenals, gonads, etc.) This is one area where the WP has been at rather extreme variance with most other BHRT. As for the bioidentical label, Wiley said, on the record at the Senate hearing, that the correct term should be biomimetic, because even molecules with the identical chemical composition can be differnt in other ways, which she explains in the pharmacists' and doctors' manuals for the WP. Neil Raden (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs sources to be added to the page. WLU (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've made some errors here. Estrace is not a hormone, it's a branded drug that contains estradiol. E1 is estrone, E2 is Estradiol and E3 is Estriol. E3 is a spent metabolite of E2. Source? I wasn't including this for the article, just something that is very relevant to this subject, but here is a source from the NYT about the FDA's actions: [2]. For a discussion by Wiley about estriol, see [3] Neil Raden (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input and the self-published website of the protocol in question aren't reliable sources of medical information. The FDA's statements do not mention the Wiley Protocol. What kind of content are you hoping to get out of these would-be sources that belongs in this article and is reliably sourced, and not a conclusion you are drawing? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, please watch civility - Neil has repeatedly acknowledged his involvement in the WP, and also agreed to not edit this or T.S Wiley's page, instead suggesting edits to third parties. He has demonstrated his dedication to this repeatedly and with good patience. He ain't perfect, but he doesn't deserve scorn heaped upon him.

The NYT blog doesn't seem to be reliable enough for inclusion, and if it fails to mention Wiley specifically, it's not really suitable. Given that, and that there's no mention made that I've seen of the WP by the FDA regards this announcement, there's no real point in having a Wiley protocol reply to the FDA's announcement.

Also note that this is not a forum, so if you're just discussing, then it's not appropriate. Naturally, it would be suitable over at estriol and compounding, though specific mentions of the WP would not be kosher. WLU (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain where I have been uncivil? I made a statement regarding the lack of reliable sources, and pointed out that drawing conclusions is original research (synthesis). I'm sorry, but my comment was well within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. I made no statements regarding Nraden or his involvement with the protocol. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Sorry, the talk page has been full of incivility in the past and perhaps I was quick to judge because of it. Struck through. I will point out that on-wiki, calling something OR and putting in easter-egg links to policies like SPS and COI can get people's backs up, particularly if they're aware of what those policies mean in the community. WLU (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider those easter eggs. "self-published website" linking to WP:SPS is hardly a trick or difficult to see where it's going. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Though it may be misplaced in this instance, I'm pleased to see an expression of concern about the civility issues here. Debv (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then we'll see some of that civility leak through to your website Neil Raden (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks. This comment has no bearing on the article or discussion at hand, and is completely unacceptable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

About this FDA thing, I thought it was useful to point out that the two items the FDA came out about, estriol and the use of the term bioidentical, may not affect the WP. If that was making this page a forum instead of a discussion, I'm not sure I see the difference. And as for Cheeser1, we've been through this before. The WP is notable and is, in most cases, the only source. So the choices are to allow it's inclusion judiciously, or to delete the article. As for the your comments about sources, on page 198 of "sex, Lies and Menopause," a book written by Wiley with the contribution of a PhD and an MD and published by a major publisher in hardcover in 2003, Wiley goes into detail about estriol and why it has no place in hormone replacement therapy. So, what is notable here is that most established BHRT's use estriol (bi-est and tri-est), but the WP never has. That's significant given what the FDA said, and that's why I brought it up. Now if you were doing an article on, say, Kimberly-Clark and the EPA just released a report that it was banning a paper manufacturing process that leaked dioxin in the environment, but K-C was the only manaufacturer that used a different process that didn't leak dioxin, wouldn't that be notable?Neil Raden (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I question the notability of this protocol. Please refer to WP:SYN. Also refer to WP:N. "Notability" has nothing to do with what particular content or claims are included in an article. You need to become more familiar with policy, otherwise you'll find yourself talking past everyone. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. It wasn't that the Wiley Protocol is or isn't notable, that has already been established. It was, that the FDA story was notable vis-a-vis the WP not using estriol. We've already agreed here that if the subject is notable but there is little to no non-original sourcing, then we have to carefully use the original source. See the comments by User:SandyGeorgia. Wiley's book, a published podcast, New York Times blog by one of their leading science writers and an official document from the FDA, have been suggested. The fact that the latter two do not mention the WP is beside the point. Wil;ey has been clear from the outset about estriol and now it is banned, Thjat's notable. As for me getting more familiar with policy, I'm more concerned with content, and so long as I'm not an editor of the article and there are policy experts on board, I suppose that will take care of itself. If a substantiative discussion of the subject matter is "talking past" people, then I despair for the future of this enterprise. The point of policy is to get to the desired outcome. That isn't happeneing here - it's still a very weak article. If you have some comments about the actual information I've supplied, I would be happy to hear it. We're here to discuss the WP article and the issues around it. Neil Raden (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the FDA news release is not the subject of an article. It can't be notable or not, that's not what notability is used for. Drawing conclusions by combining information from two sources (e.g. the protocol's website and the FDA release) is synthesis, a form of original research. Please read these policies. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I've been trying to do is to get this article written in a way that readers can come away with an understanding of what it is. We spent the last nine months fighting over the inclusion of negative points of view, but it seems that has finally died down a little. Why this estriol thing is important goes to the heart of understanding what the WP is all about. Estradiol (E2) is the big daddy of the estrogens, but most doctors (and most people I suppose) are afraid of it because they think it causes cancer. The major thrust of Sex, Lies and Menopause was about that and why it isn't the case. Even debv's friends agree about that. But timid doctors, feeling estriol was a "weaker" estrogen, presribed it instead but there is no science behind it. Dr. Wright claimed that a woman in her third tri-mester of pregnancy was pretty healthy, so getting a "balance" of the three estrogens in serum for all women to match that was a good idea. Besides being a questionable premise to begin with, it's the fetus that produces the estriol, not the mother. Wiley spelled out the science in S,L & M and it is to my continuing dismay that it isn't reflected in this article. I'm making no claims as to its effectiveness here, just stating the facts - what it is and why it is what it is. The article as it stands is a disservice to the WP and needs to be completed. Neil Raden (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Article

A re-write of the article has been written/moved to User:Nraden/WP re-write to allow for wikification and formatting. WLU (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

COI vs POV

An editor who may have some opinion, positive or negative, about the subject of an article does not have a conflict of interest. An editor who is married to the subject of an article does. WP:COI is very clear. No user should be removing the appropriate COI tags, or disruptively adding one for a user who allegedly has a negative opinion of the Wiley Protocol. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Debv has a COI. It's already been established here. We both agreed to not edit the article, only the discussion. You are apparently unaware of this. Debv does not just have a negative opinion, she is the master of a website desinged to discredit Wiley. She is actively involved in a campaign to stop Wiley, on a regular basis. She has skin in the game. She is not just someone with an opinion. Let mer put this in terms that even you might understand. I don't like John McCain. That's an opinion. If I'm Mitt Romney, I have a COI. Debv is campaigning against Wiley in the media and all over the internet.

Now, either add the template for debv, or delete mine, then go away, otherwise I will do it myself. If you keep reverting, I'm taking you to 3RR. Given the agreements we made here long before yuo got here, it's you who is disruptively. You have no business here. I'm going to see about getting you blocked if you don't stop this. You're clearly retaliating for my pushing a WQA about you and acting like a bully because you've read more procedures than I have, but I'm a quick study. Neil Raden (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, read WP:COI. Then try reading WP:3RR. It doesn't apply to my re-instituting an obviously applicable COI template that you (the subject of the template) demand removing. If you want to explain to everyone how good you are at "studying" the system, so that you can game it so well, feel free, but threatening me with nonsense is not going to get you anywhere. Your complaints against me have no merit, your abuse of the COI template is out of line, and you're seriously not doing yourself any good by telling me that you're "going to see about getting [me] blocked." --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a comment for both of you on my talk page. It is arguable that Debv has a COI per the policy (and her website is very critical of the WP, it's not an allegation), I could see reasons to have it and reasons why it's not needed. However, Raden has a clear one, so the template at the top is definitely warranted. BUT, since both have agreed to not edit the main page, I've not seen either edit the page since agreeing not to, and I am monitoring to ensure they don't (and have agreed to edit in response to their edits), it's kinda immaterial if there's one or two templates. If Debv edits the page, you now have two editors you can bring this up with, me and SandyGeorgia. Possibly Cheeser if s/he's willing. If you want to settle the template, go ask an admin or bring it up on a noticeboard. I certainly don't see a reason to edit war over a talk page, that's just lame.

Also, Raden, you're falling back on your old ways. Wikipedia is not a battleground. The blocking policy is not a stick to be waved, particularly at editors with much more experience than you (the community is going to look much more sympathetically on an editor with much broader interests, editing experience, and no COI, than a near-WP:SPA with COI. Waving WP:BLOCK is not going to get you much positive attention). There are much better ways of conflict resolution - at the first instance of a reversion, talk to the other editor and give you reasoning. If you can't resolve it through discussion, agree to disagree and go to WP:3O or WP:RFC. Edit warring is pointless. I'm not commenting on Cheeser 'cause I'm not as familiar with him/her, and he's not threatening to have people blocked. WLU (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a deal with you. I will stop communicating with Cheeser1 if you can get him to stay away from this article. He has no interest in the subject matter, he is only here to fight. Neil Raden (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not WLU's responsibility to keep me from contributing to Wikipedia as I see fit (you know, since I contribute to many articles of different sorts, and help with non-content parts of Wikipedia, instead of tendentiously editing a single article that I have COI issues with). If my actions are inappropriate, they will be dealt with (and not by you and your empty threats and system-gaming). The fact that you are holding an overblown grudge against me because I responded when someone reported you for your highly inappropriate conduct is really growing quite tiresome. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to not engage you, so this will be the last time. You're wrong as usual. I edit 8-10 different articles, and I've only had problems on this one. Also, Debv, in her complaint, said "Both of us are obviously COI," but you singled out only me for the template and reverted the one I inserted for her. Your behavior is patently unfair and unwarranted. It's been pointed out to me that you are a much more experienced editor than me, so it is very unlikely that other editors would take my complaints about you seriously, which has been the case so far. So I'm just going to turn you off and appeal to any other editor here to please straighten out the COI template mess here. Get the last word if you like, but I will not communicate with further (though I will keep an eye on you). Neil Raden (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, nobody takes your complaints about me seriously because they are more-or-less frivolous backlash because I stepped in when you made highly inappropriate comments to another user. And that isn't change by the fact that my approach to intervening was too blunt for you to resist starting some ridiculous conflict. Don't hide behind some "oh gosh, I'm the inexperienced editor who's being ignored and suppressed." The fact that you're a 100% SPA is interesting and relevant (as well as blatantly obvious, despite your denial), but even that isn't the reason people are dismissing you when you demand that I be blocked, sanctioned, or whatever else - they're being dismissed, ignored, or taken lightly because they are without merit. And you feel free to "keep an eye on me" if you'd like, but I will warn you that continuing to harass me or demand that others take obviously unnecessary administrative action against me can actually get you in trouble. As for the COI thing, Debv has a negative opinion of the Wiley protocol, and the fact that s/he said "COI" doesn't change the fact that unless s/he's advertising her website here (which is more spam than COI), she's only got a negative POV of the article's subject. It's a common misunderstanding of "conflict of interest." Rather than read the policy, why are you citing Debv's incorrect use of the term COI? You have a COI. It has been acknowledged and you removed the template to make a point about using a similar template for Debv, which is clearly not warranted. This isn't the article about Debv, or Debv's website, or Debv's hormone therapy, or Debv's wife, or her hormone therapy. And as you have been told now by others, do not assert ownership of this article. You are not in charge of who contributes here - you especially, since you shouldn't be editing the article pretty much ever. After all, if you hadn't made those hostile and grossly inappropriate comments to Debv, you would never have attracted this much outside attention anyway - you have no one to thank but yourself for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I take Neil Raden's complaints about Cheeser1 seriously. So much for Nobody. Apart from me, there is also ample proof on Cheeser's talk page that his civility is not equally appreciated by everybody. --Achim (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a lonely outpost here. Neil Raden (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Achim (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a valid complaint to make, make it. But wait, you don't. Are you going to hunt me down every time someone else retaliates against me for a WQA complaint like you did, just so you can join in? Seriously? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove COI from Main Article

In point of fact, the creator of the page was WLU, so it is factually incorrect to have that template there. In a ddition, the two editors who are COI never edit the article. So let's take it down. Neil Raden (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm referring to the COI banner on the actual article, not the talk page. Neil Raden (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While you're missing the part about "main contributor" (you are one on this article) that comes right after "creator," you have not contributed to the article for long enough that it has changed substantially in that time. This tag is not necessary, as far as I can tell. If anyone has specific concerns about content from the article prior to Raden's most recent edit to the mainspace, point it out specifically and re-add the tag. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Somers

Finally a source. In the December 2007 issue of Discover magazine, Somers said, "I don't advocate Wiley. I don't get my hormones from her." Now will you PLEASE remove the references that she is a spokesperson in Wiley Protocol and T.S. Wiley. Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Discover reference is Susan Kruglinski (December 2007). "Forever young. Suzanne Somers says special hormones can keep women young. Should they listen?". Discover Magazine. Nraden, can you propose a properly-qualified replacement for the current reference to Suzanne Somers? I gather she was never an actual spokesman for the protocol, though she refers to Wiley in her book Somers, Suzanne (2006). Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 0-307-23724-9. Apparently Suzanne Somers has appeared on the Larry King show along with T.S.Wiley. These details might properly belong in the Suzanne Somers article, but I don't know yet if there's a strong case for including them here. In any case she shouldn't be identified as a spokesman if there's no source to show she was. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They appeared together on Larry King because of the controversy started by Erika Schwartz. Somers has never been a spokesperson for anything but Somers. She has said in public many times that she chooses the Wiley Protocol for herself, but she never promotes it. And lately, she has stopped talking about the WP at all, using only veiled references such as rhythmic dosing. I would say only that Suzanne Somers was clear about her use of the Wiley Protocol in Ageless, that Wiley and Somers have a personal relationship, but that is the extent of her involvement with Wiley and the Wiley Protocol. I found her comment in Discover odd, though, when she said she doesn't get her hormones from Wiley. Wiley doesn't provide hormones, pharmacies do, and Wiley doesn't provide hormones to pharmacies. Neil Raden (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. I believe there is a similar statement at T.S. Wiley. You mind having a look? Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethical problems with bioidentical hormone therapy

http://origin.www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v20/n1/full/3901622a.html

Ethical problems with bioidentical hormone therapy

M S Rosenthal

Program for Bioethics and Patients' Rights, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA

<redacted copyright violation, abstract>

M. Sara Rosenthal (December 2007). "Ethical problems with bioidentical hormone therapy". International Journal of Impotence Research. 20: pp. 45-52. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

37. Levine RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research 2nd edn. Yale University Press: New Haven, 1988.

39. Suzanne Somers debates doctor. Transcripts.Larry King Live: CNN, A Time Warner Company; November 16, 2006.

41. What is the Wiley protocol? The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 16, 2007, at http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

56. Somers S. TS Wiley: rhythmic cycling. In: Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones. Crown Publishers: New York, 2006, pp 154–165.

57. How hard is it to get the Wiley protocol? The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 17, 2007 at http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

58. Schwartz E, Schwarzbein D, Rosensweet D, Randolph Jr CWR, Northrup C, Murray J et al. Letter to Managing Editor, Crown Publishers,October 11, 2006. Posted at: http://drerika.typepad.com/notepad/2006/10/letter_to_suzan.html.

59. Finding a Wiley protocol doctor or prescriber. The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 17, 2007 at: http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

60. Participate in data gathering. The Wiley Protocol, Accessed March 17, 2007 at: http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

61. Feig S, Hynote E, Speight N, Magaziner A, Miranda RA, Schachter MB. Summary of the American College for Advancement in Medicine May 2005 Conference. Evid Based Complement Altern Med 2005; 2: 413–419. | Article |

62. Somers S. Effects of aging; bioidentical hormones and aging; sex, sleep and stress; Dr Julie Taguchi: breast cancer; TS Wiley: rhythmic cycling.In: Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones. Crown Publishers: New York, 2006,pp 86–87;105–9; 18–29; 54–65; 232.

63. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Drugs for Human Use 21 C.F.R., Part 312.60.

64. Why the Wiley protocol? The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 17, 2007 at: http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

65. Our Wiley protocol history. RhythmicLiving.org. Accessed March 27, 2007 at: http://rhythmicliving.org.

66. Wiley Systems. Wiley Protocol Registered Pharmacy Registration Agreement 2007.

67. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Drugs For Human Use 21 C.F.R., Part 312.7(d).

Debv (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted the abstract as a copyvio, but placed a link instead. Reliable source, therefore suitable for inclusion. Neil, if Wiley produces a rebuttal, it'd probably be legit as a source as well though any science she quotes would be more tenuous. WLU (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the reference. Before any hooplah starts up, this is a peer-reviewed, pubmed-indexed journal article, meaning it is pretty much THE BEST reliable source that we have, in keeping with the much higher standard of WP:MEDRS. It can not be removed due to any challenge of reliablility and since it mentions the Wiley Protocol specifically it is 100% appropriate for the page. Any arguments should be restricted to interpretation, wording, and how to best represent it. Any rebuttal that has been raised by Wiley to this article is welcome for inclusion, but the source itself has been summarized and can not be removed completely. WLU (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE in this industry is without an agenda. I won't discuss Rosenthal's, but most of what she says about is completely false. There isn't an IRB approval for a study, THERE ARE TWO. Pharmacists don't buy pharmaceuticals from Wiley. There are two studies underway, both from qualified PI's. But I've grown weary of the fight and I've even blogged about my low opinion of and disappointment in Wikepedia. If this kind of misrepresentation is reliable because it's published, well, I guess Wikipedia believes there were WMD's in Iraq.

So I'm off. I'm not doing this anymore. I'm soured and bitter fron the experience. See you around, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. As I have said before, if there are counter-claims that can be sourced, even to Wiley's own webpage, they can and should be added (though a third-party source is of course preferable). The Protocol has received attention from a scientific journal, which hopefully will raise its profile and scientific interest, making it easier to write a decent page with information fairly representing all 'sides'. Simply put, a scientific journal article that mentions the Wiley Protocol specifically must, as much as anything is a must on wikipedia, be added to the page. It's the best source available. If it's truly a misrepresentation of the Protocol, hopefully a rebuttal can appear in some official medium and be reported here as well. I'm very pleased to see such an unequivocal discussion of WP, and only wish there were something similar discussing the background and mechanism in a more favourable manner. WLU (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring or Preserving

I don't understand the point of the recent "tweak" to add quotation marks around "restoring or preserving health." I've searched for a reference for this phrase, and the only ones I've come up with are here at Wikipedia. So in my opinion, it is a summarization or abstraction of Wiley's concept, not a claim or a quote. This concept is, essentially, that HRT has to be Replacement (the R) not just a temporary measure to relive some symptoms. That is the absolute core of the proposition, but it has never been properly explicated in this article. The "controversy" over the Wiley Protocol stems from a lack of understanding of this concept. Without it, the means and methods of the protocol would appear to make no sense. But things are changing. Some of the earliest detractors are now promoting the protocol as their own (without attribution of course). See Daveed Rosensweet's (a signer of the Erika letter) new book, "menopause and Natural Hormones," 4th ed. Also Eugene Shippen MD. Neil Raden (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The quotes should only be used if it is indeed an exact quote, so I've rephrased to remove. Incidentally, I don't think you'd have a COI for creating or editing a page on Rosensweet's protocol. WLU (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure I would. Besides, it's not notable. It's a self-published book and he is not an expert, has done no research. Neil Raden (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you'll take another look at User:Nraden/WP_re-write and SandyGeorgia's comments? I really don't want to get involved in this again, but I'd be willing to act as a resource. Neil Raden (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You may have an opinion, a strong one, but that's different from having a conflict of interest and is not barred. You voluntarily refusing to edit the page because you doubt your own ability to be neutral is understandable, and somewhat admirable (though the better option would of course to be forcing yourself to be neutral, not that it's easy). If it does get public press attention, it's legit but if it's a self-published book (ew, terrible source) it can only be used to justify what he believes and should only really appear on that page. I've commented on your WP re-write sub-page's talk page as well, but I'm not being very helpful. WLU (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Clinical trials

I don't think the term "clinical trials" is accurate. There is the UT-Tyler study that Rosenthal criticizes. Are there others? If so, then of course they should be referenced. And I don't see anything that verifies that the UT study is actually a clinical trial. If anything, the Rosenthal article argues otherwise. Debv (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be prudentr for you and Rosenthal to withhold judgement until the actual trials begin. Almost everything in Rosenthal's article is wrong. It's stunning to me that an academic and an academic journal could get some many facts wrong. Here are a few, from the excerpt on your site -

Your Excerpt

"A glaring example of unregulated and unethical research in BHRT is The Wiley Protocol, which became more widely known to the public through Somers' promotion of it as legitimate research.[39][56]

>Somers never promoted the Wiley Protocol as legitimate research, but even if she did, that has no bearing on the ethics of Wiley or the Wiley Protocol.There is not now, nor has there ever been, any relationship between Wiley and Somers except as described in Somers' book - an investigator who provided material to a writer who chose, on her own volition, to follow the program that Wiley devised. To insinuate that there was some sort of collusion between Wiley and Somers to promote the Wiley Protocol is not only wrong, it is deliberately misleading and brings into question Rosenthal's intentions.

The Wiley Protocol has involved over 1000 participants in the administration of 'a trademarked, patent-pending delivery system consisting of bioidentical estradiol and progesterone in a topical cream preparation dosed to mimic the natural hormones produced by [a 20-year old woman].'

>Correct

This protocol emphasizes a 'rhythmic' dosing schedule using potentially unsafe high dosages of hormones.[39][57][58]

> There is no published study that confirms this. Other BHRT regimens followed the Premarin/Prempro templates and it is only in comparison to that that the WP is considered "high." Again, there is no one published study to confirm this.

Somers' book misrepresents TS Wiley, its lay investigator, as a respected and published scientist.

> Somers never represents that Wiley is respected by anyone except Somers herself, so there is no misrepresentation. Furthermore, Wiley is a published scientist. Rosenthal knows this but distorts the facts here.

Somers' book also serves as a recruitment tool for unwitting human subjects.

> This doesn't even merit a response. What place does a statement like this have in a scholarly journal? There is no recruitment, women come to the protocol by word of mouth or on the advice of their physicians. Somers has no stake in recruiting for the Wiley Protocol. Never has.

This is a multicenter Phase II trial (with no record of Phase I testing) involving 129 study sites in 29 US states, and 2 study sites in British Columbia, Canada.[59][60]

>Actually, there is no trial. There are women on the protocol. Some are being followed by their physicians closely, of their own accord and others are not. There are two PROPOSED studies, but they have not been started. If and when they are, women currently on he protocol will not be part of the study. The study methodology is in conformance with standards and practices of studies of this nature. Both studies, contrary to Rosenthal's claims, have IRB numbers, from Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and the University of Texas at Tyler.

Since data is being collected and presented on women enrolled in this trial,[59][60][61][62] but has not been IRB approved (interviews: TS Wiley, and D Turner, 13 March 2007; J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), or monitored by an investigator with experience in scientific methodology or clinical research,[41] it does not meet criteria for regulated or ethical research.[37][63]

>Again, a complete distortion of the truth. The IRB numbers are there and the PI's are very well-qualified. Those individuals interviewed by Rosenthal provided this information. Rosenthal's egregious misstatement of the facts should be dealt with by the appropriate academic institutions and journals.

There are no formal exclusion or inclusion criteria for patient enrollment (interview: J Taguchi, 15 March 2007), and the study population spans women aged 19 through 90, who may not understand that they are enrolled in unethical research.[64]

>Interesting circular logic. Again, this does not line up with the study methodology already in place.

Serious safety concerns about this protocol have been raised.[61][65]

> One of these references has been rejected here as not reliable and the other states only that "objections were raised," not that the organization took that position. Those objections were raised by a member of the other organization whose site is considered not reliable for Wikipedia. This is true torturing of the facts.

Co-investigators appear to be prescribers of this protocol who widely vary in training, ranging from physicians to massage therapists;

>This is an outrageous claim. In fact, the ability to prescribe hormone therapy varies by state, and if it is permitted for a massage therapist to prescribe (which I doubt), there is nothing Wiley can do about it. But if this is true, then in those instances, a massage therapist can just as easily prescribe other therapies that Rosenthal (or the authors of 61 an 65) approve of. Medical societies and state boards are responsible for policing their ranks, this is not an issue that reflects on Wiley. Do the doctors varying widely in training? Yes. There are doctors from every specialty prescribing the Wiley Protocol.

and pharmacists who are contractually obligated to Wiley as a source of the compounded pharmaceuticals sold to participants of the protocol.[66]

> Again a complete fabrication. The protocol will be provided to the study subjects free of charge, just like any other pharmaceutical trial. This is a cornerstone of the compounding pharmacy agreement - providing a certain number of prescriptions for a national study. It has always been there. It is impossible that Rosenthal was not aware of this.

The study is funded by participants, who are paying for the protocol with their prescriptions. Typically, study agents should not be sold.[67]"

> Again, complete misrepresentation

> I find it inconceivable that Rosenthal could make so many mistakes in one paragraph innocently. I can only assume that this was malicious, an attempt to smear someone she violently disagrees with. Those interviewed by Rosenthal reported that she was hostile, combative and aggressive and one doctor complained that she felt like she was being "cross-examined." I think this behavior is unforgivable in an academic, and especially ironic for someone who purports to be an "ethicist." I will forward this matter to the journal that published this sorry mess and also inform the academic department at her institution, the University of Kentucky. There should be a full retraction from the journal, and a statement by Rosenthal on a reliable website (that can be cited here) to refute what has already been published on Wikipedia. Neil Raden (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for the discussion of the Wiley Protocol article and ways to improve it. It is not for the dissemination of personal opinions or original research. See WP:TPG. If you or your wife wish to rebut the Rosenthal article, you're certainly free to do so, but this place is not an appropriate platform for such.

That's a good idea. If you would like to publish this rebuttal on your website, where you've published the Rosenthal material quoted here, then I will remove it. You've "moderated" out my previous attempts. Neil Raden (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The question remains whether the words "clinical trials" are accurate and justifiable. Debv (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Let the experts debate that. Neil Raden (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability determines content - Rosenthal discusses problems as a Phase I/II clinical trials, ergo the page discusses clinical trials. If I'm mis-interpreting the article I'll be happy to re-visit. WLU (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no clinical trial. It doesn't exist. Rosenthal fabricated it. There are IRB numbers and an intention to move forward, but it hasn't happened yet. An unbiased researcher could not make this mistake. Look at this: [ http://www.thewileyprotocol.com/content/view/176/88/]. Everything is in future tense. Rosenthal is so determined to criticize Wiley that she not only invents things to criticize, she invents the whole trial. So there is no need for discussion of the trial, but there is a need to discuss Rosenthal's shoddy scholarship since Debv introduced it. Neil Raden (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosenthal discusses exactly one study involving the Wiley Protocol. And it is an observational study, not a clinical trial. [4] Rosenthal does not state that it is a clinical trial (though I can see how one might make that assumption). Debv (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosenthal mixes up the "research" (she never uses the word "study") with the entire administration of the Wiley Protocol as "unethical research." Again, there is no study or research, only planned ones, with IRB numbers, contradicting Rosenthal. There is no controversy over this, there are no guidelines for "high doses" or "low doses." There is no basis for calling something "potentially dangerous" unless you can identify the potential. This is shoddy, schlock scholarship and it needs to be outed. Neil Raden (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Positive Comments

Here are some positive comments by doctors [5] Neil Raden (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wiley Protocol: an analysis of ethical issues.

Menopause. 15(5):1014-1022, September 2008. Rosenthal, M. Sara PhD

From the abstract:

Results: The Wiley Protocol is an example of unregulated research involving potentially unsafe doses of bioidentical hormones applied to an unselected population of women. This protocol fails to use research ethics guidelines such as informed consent, investigator expertise, sound methodology, standardized data collection, and data safety monitoring.

Conclusions: Clinical ethics breaches include lack of full disclosure of risks, coercive influences, as well as misinformation about the study goals and safety. Breaches of professional ethics include conflicts of interest with respect to financial incentives, patient accrual, and inadequate standards of awareness and proficiency among participating investigators. It appears evident that the failure to regulate nutriceuticals and products of compounding pharmacy has provided the opportunity for these ethical violations. Debv (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already disputed every one of these conclusions as deliberate distortions by Rosenthal. An MD, a PhD and Wiley have recently addressed their concerns to both the journal and Rosenthal's academic institution. Neil Raden (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What you have disputed so far was just a section of an article in which the Wiley Protocol was criticized. (And you've amply attempted to impugn the author's character, I think it's fair to say: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12].)

What we see now is a full article -- also peer-reviewed and by a separate journal and editorial board at that -- challenging the safety, ethics, and legitimacy of your wife's protocol.

Lately you seem to be arguing that there exists no research to be criticized in the first place [13], and thus any criticisms of such research, proposed or actually implemented, must be "fabrications" [14]. Yet around the time that the same study was being proclaimed by your wife and her organization in press releases [15][16], not quite a year and a half ago, you added the following words into this Wikipedia article:

The University of Texas at Tyler is conducting a longitudinal, observational study of the Wiley Protocol, Dr. Janeth Williams Principal Investigator. Approval by the Internal Review Board was granted the first week of May, 2007. [17]

I don't believe any of this would be worthy of mention or discussion if these were not your precise actions here on Wikipedia as an editor with a significant conflict of interest in regard to this article. Debv (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Settle down. This is a sourcing issue - there is a source to justify the criticism, I've seen no reliable source to counter them, so we're done. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a sourcing issue? What are you referring to? Please be specific when you make references, else open discussion is difficult. assuming possible.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think we're done here. I wish it were that easy. Debv (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rosenthal's paper is published in a reliable source, and from what I can see is accurately summarized (expanded to include the extra criticism of COI from the abstract that was missing previously, but mostly it's repetition of previous criticisms). There is no counter-source I have seen to qualify his/her analysis, and I am not willing to engage (or post) in the original research required to criticize Rosenthal's analysis. To date, all of Neil's comments and criticisms that I've seen of Rosenthal's research have been unsourced (as a primary source, his statements can not be used to change the page). He has also, as is appropriate, made his concerns apparent to an intermediary (generally me) rather than editing directly. I have a lot of respect for him doing so when it is obviously very, very important to him and source of personal interest as well. I am unimpressed with your overly-personal post that verges on a personal attack if not simple uncivil harrasment. I do not want the page locked or have to babysit the talk page. The page will not change based on Neil's assertions. So stop bugging him about it. If you've a problem with Neil, take it up somewhere besides this page. This page is for discussing improvements to the WP main page, and I see no evidence of any suggestions in your last post to Neil. So drop it, if you want to flamewar and fight, go to a web forum. If there are no more reliable sources to be discussed, we are done. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to him, I was responding to you. I think we should continue this on your talk page. Sorry to everyone else . Debv (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My civility comment was in relation to this post by you, at Neil. If you have further questions about the sourcing I will be happy to address them here or on my talk page (I think my talk page is fine for this, most wikipedians would agree with my analysis I think). I've seen no new sources ergo no reason to change the page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article I referenced above? Debv (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading these comments more carefully, I think there may be an oversight here. There was the first Rosenthal article which was a broad assessment of the BHRT field with a section on the Wiley Protocol. That has been incorporated into the Wikipedia article. This new article above focuses entirely and specifically on the Wiley Protocol. Debv (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Undent. I've read and re-read the full article in IJIR and the abstract of the Menopause article. I've not seen anything that is missing from the main page based on my re-reading. What do you believe the main page lacks? General criticisms of bioidentical hormone replacement therapies belong there, not here. This page should deal exclusively with the Wiley protocol and leave problems with BHRT as a whole for that page to deal with. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarize what has happened here from my perspective: Relevant here is the IJIR article published about a year ago that assessed BHRT in general and with a section focused on the Wiley Protocol. There is now an article by the same author entirely and specifically addressing the Wiley Protocol. I posted the relevant info above a couple days ago. T.S. Wiley's husband earlier today responded, "I've already disputed every one of these conclusions as deliberate distortions by Rosenthal". This is, I think, a clear attempt to disparage and dismiss this source by a conflicted editor, and the statement is absurd given that the paper was just published and hasn't been discussed here yet. And I think most wikipedians would agree with me on that. Though my response wouldn't win any civility awards, it was not a personal attack as, I'm sure you're aware, it is not a personal attack to criticize another editor's actions nor to note that the editor may be acting in his own self-interest and contrary to Wikipedia's. You will please note that I have not asked you or anyone else to do anything in regard to this article at this time. Debv (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And both articles are currently cited in the main page, with no criticisms, no qualifications, no need to post anything in reply. IJIR has been on the main page for months now, the new article in menopause added very little, but is now also on the main page. Neil's statement had zero effect on the article, and I never indicated it would. Neil is within his rights to criticize Rosenthal's work, but that doesn't mean the page changes because of it and does not necessitate a lengthy post directed at a single editor, who has admitted their COI and agreed not to edit the main page. You should be commenting on the content, not the contributor, particularly given the acrimonious relationship between the two of you. Is there any problem with the current page? If not, I suggest letting it drop and not continuing this discussion. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 22:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean the abstract of the new article, correct? I've asked already, but I'm assuming you haven't read or incorporated the article itself at this point?

And please, condescension is not helpful. Your responses raise issues and questions relevant to this article and thus we have a discussion. Debv (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither is taking unneeded jibes at Neil, you two may not get along but please understand my frustration at still having to negotiate this like it were a sandbox and I were a teacher. You're both single purpose accounts and I've had quite enough of those to last me all year. I've read the abstract of the Rosenthal article published in Menopause that you refer to in your first post of this section and integrated it in this set of edits. That is why I am asking if there is any other changes to be made, because I believe I have already adequtaely integrated the reference. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll go through the actual article when I get a chance and if I find anything that may be relevant, I'll bring it here. Debv (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, please do so. If you have an electronic version, I would appreciate if you could e-mail me a copy. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 12:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know your email address, but anything that comes up will be public. Debv (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Undent. All user pages have the option to e-mail the user in the left-hand side of the page, provided both users have enabled e-mail. Public doesn't normally mean full-text access, which often students, professors and professionals have access to via e-mailable pdfs. If it's a full-text via weblink, then it should be linked in the main page for ease of referencing. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever may come up of relevance, it will be presented for full public view and evaulation. Nothing will be emailed to any specific editor and to the exclusion of the community. That's all I'm saying. Why an editor would ask for information relevant to a public article be emailed specifically to him, in any context, I have difficulty grasping. Debv (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask for the article because an abstract is inadequate to give the full context and content of the papers. It's a courtesy I request, and extend, to any other editor I work with. And frankly, if you're working with another editor on the same page, it's only common sense to share articles otherwise how are you supposed to come to consensus on the adequacy of the article's contents and representation? Refusing to share with other editors is a needless and silly impediment to improving the page, and suggests you're here for something other than improving the page. So if you don't have it, and if you don't have any other suggestions for the page, I'm about done here. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I consider the talk page the appropriate place for sharing information relevant to an article. Exchanging information behind the scenes could be seen as discourteous to the community or worse.

Regardless, I couldn't send you a copy without violating the copyright and license terms. To the extent that I can share information, within fair-use, it would appropriately be done here for all eyes to see. Debv (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To add, the article is available for $20 from here by clicking the "PDF" link at the top and registering an account. Or of course you could simply see if your local library subscribes to this journal. Debv (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

News articles

News articles taken from EL section - should be in-line citations rather than in the EL section. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sherr, Lynn and Glenn Ruppel (February 16, 2007). "Suzanne Somers: Super Saleswoman: Has Somers Found the Fountain of Youth?". 20/20. Retrieved 2007-12-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "A Real Somers Storm: At war over Suzanne Somers's book on 'bioidenticals'". Newsweek. November 13, 2006. Retrieved 2007-12-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

On what basis, please. Debv (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO point 1 - they are simply not good choices for external links due to their brevity. The EL section should contain links that can not be included because it is impossible (i.e. images, audio files or animation that can not be uploaded to wikipedia; very lengthy documents that are highly relevant but impossible to accurately summarize) - in this case, the two prose sources could easily be included as inline citations. They are reliable sources, but they (per a re-reading of MEDRS, they are dubious as even inline citations) are not good external links and the EL section is not a dumping ground for yet-to-be embedded sources. That's what the talk page is for. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ELNO point 1 says nothing about brevity. I'm not sure how you expect this justification to be interpreted. Impossibility ("images, audio files or animation that can not be uploaded to wikipedia; very lengthy documents that are highly relevant but impossible to accurately summarize") is not at issue, is it? You say that the two sources could be easily included as inline citations. Is that your intention? Debv (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I may integrate the sources if I make the time. No article is served by having a long list of brief news stories about the subject; in medical aritcles (which this is somewhat an example of) we are urged to avoid citing popular media (see WP:MEDRS). Also, neither story is about the Wiley protocol, they dedicate a small portion of their text to the protocol, most of which repeating previous criticisms. They are extremely poor choices for external links and borderline for even regular inclusion. Even as sources, they are more accurately described as criticisms of Wiley, not the protocol, and they are appropriately used on the T. S. Wiley page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure my questions have been answered but I agree that a long list of ELs would be counter-value. Here there were four ELs of which two were removed. So, hearing an argument that no article is served by "a long list of brief news stories about the subject" in this context just isn't connecting with me. To be honest, it's raising more questions than it's answering.

These links were originally added by SandyGeorgia, a respected editor of medical articles by my reckoning. I don't know if she's interested but maybe what's needed here is an outside perspective. If I get a chance, I'll ask and see if she has time to offer any thoughts and insights. Debv (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, ask Sandy, I've no problem with that since I was the person who initially asked her to assist with the page. There's no reason for these links to be external links, and also little reason for them to be in the page overall since they are either recapitulating previous criticism, or talking of Wiley herself rather than the protocol. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What matters is whether this edit was appropriate or not. Hearing your responses, I remain unconvinced and would like to hear some expert opinion. Debv (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Undent. As you like, but there's no real 'expertise' on wikipedia, only consensus. Sandy is an excellent editor, well respected and one of my favourite people on wikipedia, but I'm sure she'll be the first to state that discussion rather than expertise determines page content. Please link to any discussion for ease of centralization and so I've an opportunity to venture an opinion. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean expert simply in the sense of highly experienced at editing medical articles and conversant with their special requirements. There is such a thing as "expertise" in Wikipedia in that sense.

And believe me, I'm all in favor of discussion. When editors don't respond to simple questions and when their responses seem evasive, it's very disappointing. To me. Debv (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that amusing considering I have been described as such. So, how is the page improved by adding these as external links? Where might they be added as inline citations instead? And if you are referring to me as evasive, I consider myself quite blunt but I do have a tendency to read quickly. But I persist in believing they are not appropriate external links, for the largest reason being they are not actually about the Wiley protocol. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 19:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, some bonafide third party coverage, especially the part that contradicts Rosenthal: "Clinical trials soon will be under way, and patients’ full compliance to the system is critical to gaining FDA approval." That is completely opposite to what's been averred by certain references. I hope you read the whole article at [18] and will incorporate/fix some of the inaccuracies in this and the T.S. Wiley article. Neil Raden (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Update

This article only reflects the negative opinions of a handful of people. There are dozens of testimonials from doctors and patients on Youtube now. The Protocol is supported by a CME-certified 2-day class for doctors given five times per year. There are multi-hundred page manuals for pharmacists and doctors. The protocol has expanded to a number of other treatments. Pharmacies and doctors are certified now in Europe, Africa and Australia. I think it's time to rewrite this article. Neil Raden (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone therapy is itself extremely controversial, and the Wiley Protocol is part of this. As a medical article, the only way to rewrite this is to use reliable sources. I've a couple new ones, and one that specifically mentions the WP. I'll have a look when I make the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have some other sources too. In the meantime, I see that User:Debv has directly edited the page. which we both agreed some time ago to not do. Neil Raden (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "agreement", no detente protocol in Wikipedia to my knowledge, though I stand to be corrected. If you object to my changes (stripping "www" off of URLs to avoid redirection), then post your objection with reference to WP policy and/or guidelines. Nothing prevents you from making similar changes. Debv (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)