User:ArkhipovSergey

ArkhipovSergey - Doctor of Biological Sciences. ArkhipovSergey - the author of scientific works in the following scientific fields: immunology, oncology, pathophysiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, cell biology.

    I joined Wikipedia in December 2019. Why? I will explain below. I did not want to write about myself more than what was already written here. However, recently, something concerning me happened on Wikipedia that made me write this note. If you have a desire, you can find and learn everything about me on the Internet - where I live and work, what I published and where, you can even find and read my autobiography.
    I have always been interested in the history of science and have read many books about great scientists and their discoveries. And when I learned as a University student that I could attend a meeting with twice-Nobel-Lureate Linus Pauling, I was happy. In 1978, I went to a meeting with Linus Pauling and listened to his lectures on some problems of orthomolecular medicine and the role of vitamin C in human health. I would express his life position in science with a line from the poem "Ulysses" by the English poet Alfred Tennyson: "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield". Linus Pauling became for me an example of a true scientist, a person always looking for the truth.
    My first research paper (student paper) was published in 1975. She was devoted to the role of spontaneous activity of the cortex of the brain in research behavior of animals. Further, I had conducting experimental and laboratory and clinical studies related: to metastasis of malignant tumors, cancer genetics; immunological aspects of pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis, adhesive disease of the peritoneum, erysipelas, tuberculosis; mechanisms of differentiation of epithelioid cells in granulomatous diseases; desynchronosis of biological processes; complications of hyperthermia; the role of apoptosis in some pathological processes; the development of promising new-generation anti-tuberculosis drugs on molecular nanosomal carriers; the influence of nanodiamonds on macrophages. Currently, I am officially working as a research associate in three state institutions with a scientific profile. The research area currently includes: laboratory and clinical research of breast cancer (features of cytokine production and expression of various receptors by tumor cells and its microenvironment cells); study of the role of the immune and lymphatic systems in the development of some pathological processes in the liver and skin; the study of the role of melatonin and its receptors in the biological rhythms of animals and humans.
    Now get to the point. In 1978-1979, when conducting my own research, I discovered the effects associated with metastasis of malignant tumors, which were discovered almost at the same time by other scientists, but on other models, which were quickly followed by the terms immunological “sneaking through phenomenon” and “concomitant immunity”. Some employees told me that these effects are artifacts and did not allow them to be published. However, within a few years there were works that described similar effects. I did publish my data, but the priority of research was lost. Since then, I have been trying to fight stagnation in science and people who block new (scientifically based) points of view and developments.
    I have always willingly used Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. However, I sometimes noted that some Wikipedia pages for many years contain information, although generally recognized, but do not include modern scientific data from some researchers, whose point of view does not exactly coincide with the views that have been established for years. That's why I decided to take a little dip into the world of Wikipedia to add additional aspects, points of view, and little-known information to some articles. I have studied all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia.
    However, I have already encountered the phenomenon of rejection of new points of view expressed by individual scientists, which are not yet generally accepted, but have already been published in scientific publications with international press indexes. What to do with these scientists? Maybe not letting them go to Wikipedia pages? But then the real authors of the conflict of interest will be those scientists and Wikipedia contributors who for some reason are not interested in spreading new ideas about new phenomena and processes. 
   If we follow this logic, then if Wikepidia had existed in the time of Copernicus and Giordano Bruno, then references to their works and the works themselves would not have been included in Wikipedia, because their views about  heliocentric system of the world, contradicted the centuries-old ideas about the geocentric model of the world.  But times seem to have changed?
   I believe that any point of view or theory expressed by just only one person that has scientific confirmation and is published in journals or books that have international registration indexes has the right to be included on Wikipedia pages. As far as I understand correctly, this does not contradict Wikipedia's policy.
     I personally don't have any personal interests of my own that I would promote on Wikipedia. But I have a desire that all the reliable and important information  that was received by scientists (I also belong to them, since I have a degree, and a scientific title) was published on Wikipedia pages.  This will to some extent help to avoid local stagnation in science, since Wikipedia is considered one of the available sources of knowledge that many people trust.