User talk:Doc James/Archive 92

Respect

I think it should ask some respect the user Jytdog. I feel that he is entering personal attacks. [1] [2] [3] and he makes mistakes in his conclusions, as for example this.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Describing your behavior is not a personal attack; if you read what other people are saying at WT:MED, you will see that they are all saying you are giving UNDUE weight to gluten; this is what POV-pushing is. Please hear that. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are describing my behavior, judging my intentions and my goals (you do not know me...) and you are making many mistakes, as we see here and here.Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. You're saying it's my POV, but it is supported by the scientific literature, official guidelines or consensus, and supported by reliable sources. You are saying that I include information of my point of view, but most final texts that you attribute to me are the result of teamwork or have been reviewed. And you're using unsuitable language.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the emphasis that you, as a Wikipedia editor, are giving to this stuff, in light of the rest of the literature on a given topic. This is about editorial choices that you are making. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement appears to be based on issues of "due weight". The sources BB uses are typically good. Conclusions in many situations are tentative however. As celiacs and the other conditions are both common of course there will be a subgroup that has both. As celiacs is often undiagnosed their will also be a group that has a common disease and celiacs but does not realize it. Treating either will thus generally result in improvements and often in both. I guess the question is how much of this discussion should occur outside of the celiacs article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good statement of the question (and it is of course true that treating any co-morbidity will improve things). Please do weigh in at the discussion at WT:MED. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, from the beginning of my edits on Wikipedia, I have been working with you and asking advice. And I have also asked advice from other admins, as Jfdwolff. I was looking for someone to guide me, this is no my native language and you have helped me a lot! You have supervised my edits, we exchanged views and we have reached agreements (talking on talk pages, on our talk pages or on summary edits).

And you know that I am not only editing on gluten-related disorders. For example, my first editions were reviewing a puppet user along with you, who was blocked thanks to our work. Or undoing spam issues, such as inclusions to blausen.com, or fixing ref errors, or adding required sources, etc. I do what I can to help the common Wikipedia project, within my means.

I've never been imposing my view. I always thought we were working very well together. I have always followed your advice and those of other users. I have always been polite and respectful. And I'm willing to talk and reach agreements, respecting the policies of Wikipedia. I think I have shown you during this time, right? I would like that you tell on WikiProject Medicine.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree you have always been polite and respectful which of course is appreciated. I hope that I have been the same. As mentioned I am traveling and have not had time to follow up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BellenaBlanca you are missing the point. No one has accused you of being uncivil. What I am saying that is that you are advocating and that you are civil POV-pushing. Doing it in a civil manner doesn't make it any less POV-pushing. I am telling you that we get a lot of editors who do what you do. The approach is not uncommon. Again, there is no - absolutely no - criticism that you have been uncivil. That is not the point and is a distraction. Please don't distract yourself or others from the issue. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has accused you of being uncivil. I know. I never said I am being accused of uncivil. I am talking with Doc James, describing my work, and asking his opinion. I'm in my right. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is your right. It just has nothing to do with the dispute. Nothing. It is a distraction. You opened this section to try to deflect attention from your violation of SOAPBOX and that is not going to fly. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, Doc James. Use the time you need, of course!

I perform again the request of respect. Jytdog continues judging my behavior, my intentions, and my goals saying that I edit POV pushing, advocacy, etc. despite my requests. He is getting into personal issues without evidence: he doesn't know me, I never said what I think, I have never given my opinion, I use secondary sources and seek neutrality. And it seems that he continues ignoring the fact that the edits are supervised or written by other users after reaching agreements on talk pages [4]

I accept your observations that conclusions in many situations are tentative. Really, so far I have always accepted when you have modified for this reason, right? And I'm often asking your advice. I have already said, I like to work with you and seek balance with your experience. Is this a mistake? And I also say now that I have no problem correcting my mistakes.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you take criticism of your work as personal attack or a lack of respect, you are confused and showing an unwillingness to acknowledge the problem or to change your behavior. What I am doing now by talking with you directly and seeking community input, is trying to get you to see the problem so that you can change your behavior. I would like for that to happen, because you do make useful edits here. But if you cannot hear the feedback, acknowledge the problem, and start to change your behavior, I will seek a formal topic ban from editing about gluten in Wikipedia. That would be an unhappy outcome and a big waste of time for everyone, and we never like to lose editors. But that is the procedure here in Wikipedia. Again, please stop deflecting and deal with the actual issue. Please listen to the community feedback at WT:MED. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zika

Hi . . . I've seen that you're one of the folks who worked on the Ebola pages. We sure could use some help with Zika virus outbreak (2015–present) and the associated pages. Just in case you were looking for something to do ;) Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes have worked on the disease and virus pages a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPAP PRO

Hi! I was just wondering why you deleted my article on CPAP PRO, even though I used sufficient sources? $\mathbb {N}$ iceley 16:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We redirect brandnames to generics. We do this even for Tylenol

Also some of the text is too similar to [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do not revert others when you are reverted

Your recent editing history at Zika virus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Wuerzele (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wuerzele would help if you would reply to the concerns on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of merging/renaming Targeted Temperature Management article

Doc James, I see that you've made major contributions to the Targeted temperature management (TTM) article, having renamed the article from the earlier title of therapeutic hypothermia back in 2014. The article appears to presently be well focused on TTM as defined in the lede. Be aware that this weekend there has been discussion of moving the topic of Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest into the TTM article, which seems clearly inappropriate for reasons given by User:Sbharris, MD, and others, or alternatively renaming the TTM article into a more expansive title. I've made my opinion clear, but thought you might want to chime in as well. If the DHCA article is deleted, something that is still unclear will need to happen to the TTM article, its lede, and its titling. As I write this, content has been added to the TTM article that is certainly not TTM. Cryobiologist (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TTM is the current term for temps between 32 to 36 C used for a number of conditions. Will look thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Parenthood is now GA

Hi, Doc James. I worked hard for a solid month and got Planned Parenthood promoted to Good Article status. The article is getting 905.000 estimated page views per year.

If you could spread the word about the promotion you could probably kick it up over a mil.

I am now working on a DYK mention, but it got kicked to the curb once. PP is getting unusual scrutiny at DYK, IMHO, and now it has stagnated there.

At the appropriate time, I shall nominate PP for a Featured Article promotion, as it is a women's health, and everybody's health high-importance article. Take care. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiNews article for Zika virus

Hi, Doc James. Have you ever written an article for WikiNews? I noticed that Zika virus does not have a WikiNews article. If you click on "random article" you can see the format. It is a lot like Wikipedia. Click the redlink and you are off to the races. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No never wrote for WikiNews. Wikipedia takes enough time :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anorexia nervosa

Hope you enjoy your vacation. Just wanted to direct your attention @User:Doc James to Talk:Anorexia nervosa 182.255.99.214 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thanks will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: References

The reference I cited in the Naloxone wiki is a peer-reviewed scientific article from the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics in 2009. I included a proper citation, including PMID and DOI (doi: 10.1124/jpet.109.152678). This is considered a high-quality reliable source. The wiki previously stated that the drug was a pure antagonist, when in fact it is considered an inverse agonist. Please do not revert back to the old version with incorrect information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.86.250 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source. The request is for you to use a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. It was supported by a high quality secondary source before. Here is the ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=19435929

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Op-ed: Should prison inmates be permitted to edit Wikipedia?

News and notes: Denny Vrandečić resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board

In the media: Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case; Tex Watson; AI assistants; David Jolly biography

Featured content: This week's featured content

Traffic report: A welcome return to pop culture and death

Arbitration report: The first case of 2016—Wikicology

Gallery: A history lesson

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decontamination or Detoxification or Detoxication?/Or or of?

Hi, Doc James. I am translating the article "Calcium channel blocker toxicity" and I think it would be better that section Decontamination be called Detoxification or Detoxication. What do you think? Also, I think there is a small error in the section Other, namely, I think where it says "or the benefit of lipid emulsion in ..." should read "of the benefit of lipid emulsion in ..." If you agree I could correct it. Thanks and regards--1mssg (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:1mssg I have only verified / written the led of that article and am only encouraging people to translate those. Have not really looked at the body of the text. The changes you mentioned should reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my edit summary was intentionally inflammatory :)

But I did smile while writing it.[6]. --DHeyward (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About small changes ...

Okay, Doc James. Then I will make those small corrections. Thanks and regards.--1mssg (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deuterium-depleted water

Do you mind taking a look at the medical claims in Deuterium-depleted water? Msnicki (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed them as poorly supported. I am not finding any good evidence on the effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Feed intolerance"

"Feed intolerance" is not the same as "food intolerance", we need something for coverage of the neonatal disorder. What do you think Dr James? Attn: Talk:Food intolerance 1.129.97.99 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is a blog page not a blog?

Hello Doc James,

I added in the revision: Charlotte's web Hemp Extract is a high cannabidiol (CBD), low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Cannabis extract marketed as a dietary supplement under federal law of the United States and medical cannabis under state laws.^[1]^[2]^[3] It is produced by the Stanley brothers in Colorado. Because it's was initially brought to public attention as being infused in oil, it was initially referred to as Charlotte's Web Hemp Oil. It does not induce the psychoactive "high" typically associated with recreational marijuana strains that are high In THC.^[4] In September 2014, the Stanleys announced that they would ensure that the product consistently contained less than 0.3% THC.^[5] Charlotte’s Web is grown under the Amendment 64 in Colorado that allows for the industrial production of hemp and has been independently verified by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as hemp.^[6]^[7]

You said, "We don't use blogs." Reference link #7 is a page from CW Botanicals web site. It's not a blog. Maybe their site is a Word Press template, and so it "calls" the page a blog. If I just omitted that #7 reference, would the rest of what I wrote pass muster?" I'm new at this and I appreciate any coaching. This article is outdated. If anything, Charlotte's Web (cannabis) should be a separate page about the strain of cannabis by that name. The actual product is Charlotte's Web Hemp Extract. There should be a separate page that doesn't confuse the reader by discussing cannabis when Charlotte’s Web is grown under the Amendment 64 in Colorado that allows for the industrial production of hemp and has been independently verified by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as hemp. Thank you! Listenforgood (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the name of the page please start a WP:RM

I'll look into that.

This link is kind of spammy http://cwbotanicals.com/blog-charlottes-web-oil-quality Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to post: Charlotte’s Web is grown under the Amendment 64 in Colorado that allows for the industrial production of hemp and has been independently verified by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as hemp.^[8]? Listenforgood (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better source User:Listenforgood? Maybe one from the Colorado government? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CW Botanicals/ Realm of Caring has a certificate from the Colorado Department of Agriculture that is renewed every year. Unfortunately it has the address of the actual farm on it and they don't want that revealed. I've requested one be put online with the address redacted, but I don't know if they will go for it. They would be in a lot of trouble if the hundreds of bottles they sell and ship didn't land precisely in the hemp category. Doesn't the legal logic of that fact give weight to their statements? Same thing with the "spammy" CW Botanicals reference. Eyes are on this company/product - and their stated facts are weighted with the legally continued allowance of their growing production.

Why did you reverse my edit to move the "Name" section and "Publicity" section closer to the top? The entire reason CW is known is because of her story, and the accepted public knowledge is largely based on the media publicity, not the clinical studies (which seem prioritized and slanted against the product). Would you explain whatever the Twinkle link is and why you referenced that about my moving the text sequence. Thank you. 11:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listenforgood (talk • contribs)

We format medications and supplements per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference ROC_about_us was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Martinez was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Cordell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Allen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Waltz_shipped was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ https://www.theroc.us/updates/item/12-cw-and-cwho
^ http://cwbotanicals.com/blog-charlottes-web-oil-quality
^ https://www.theroc.us/updates/item/12-cw-and-cwho

Thank you, but

References

redirects to "Wikipedia:Template messages" and I don't see any reference to putting Evidence before Name. Doc James I know you must be very very busy. Can you help me a little? Where is the rule that I can't put Name in front of Evidence? Everyday people are interested in CW because they hear good things about it. Shouldn't the remarkable everyday story be elaborated on before discussing the complicated science? Listenforgood (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could try a RfC. Not sure the purpose of DR but up to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PTSD

Sir,

This is the second time you have changed my terminology on the PTSD page without researching my stated reason. You initially changed "psychotherapy" (an umbrella term including virtually all non-pharmacological mental health treatment) to "counseling" (a specific type of treatment which is not evidence-based for PTSD and certainly not the gold standard). You also removed examples of gold standard psychotherapies (CPT, PE). I understand not wanting too much in the lead for the second point, but the the first point is inaccurate. I am a psychiatrist and while I understand people often erroneously use the terms synonymously, they really shouldn't and I worry patients reading this might delay getting gold standard treatments if they start off looking for counseling. Such delays can be detrimental with this disorder -- which brings me to the first time you changed "mental disorder" (an internationally recognized and medically appropriate term) to "mental illness" (an antiquated and stigmatizing term rarely used by mental health professionals). I undid your change for fear it would turn off PTSD patients reading the article, but you repeatedly changed it back without understanding the reasons. In mental health (as in most life), words are very important. Since you make thousands of edits to various topics (while I tend to stick to a few just in my field), I respectfully request you do more research in the future before haphazardly changing them. You claimed I made "good faith" changes, but it was you. If your goal is truly Wikipedia accuracy, I'll hope you consider my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg16540 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at your changes and already started a discussion on the talk page here [7].

The article currently uses "mental disorder". Mental illness is synonymous as is psychiatric illness and psychiatric disorder. I am happy with whichever.

Yes because I changed it back after you changed it to the stigmatizing "mental illness."

Also we should work to use easier to understand language. Lets discuss on the talk page User:Jg16540 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be "easier" but it is not correct. Besides, that is the purpose of using a link, so people can look up the definition for terms they are not familiar with.

Forcing people to go to another page to figure out a bunch of words is not the best. Changed it to "therapy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibogaine wiki

Thanks for the reminder about the citations and style rules. I will go back and add citations regarding the 5-ht2a and nmda binding affinity. I have added medical citations before (specifically re some additional side effects on the baclofen page). I suppose I was incorrect or possibly incomplete by just referencing the table which was already presented in the article. It shouldn't be hard to find the supporting documents and add them. So i don't mind that at all.

Also, perhaps the mention of kappa effects could stay if it is clear that any effect which is contributed through kappa receptors is speculative? I did not add this, nor the reference to salvia, but was only trying to make the connection more relevant with my edit. At least that was my intention. Perhaps the salvia reference is not needed, or perhaps it belongs elsewhere? What is your opinion on that? Maybe a reference to general analgesic, hallucinogenic, and dissociative effects from kappa agonists would be better than a reference to a specific kappa ligand?

I apologize for being hasty and incomplete. At the same time I will try to be more concise as well. Sometimes my ADD/ADHD meds tend to make me overwrite and/or ramble. This message is probably a good example of that. Haha!

Cheers! Dogtoy (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries User:Dogtoy Thanks for the note :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibogaine wiki again

Nevermind about any speculation.

I can see that it is best to just report the facts, however, my opinion is that it should be stated within the pharmacokinetics section that the pharmacokinetics of Ibogaine is very unique and complex. I also think it would be best to state that the full mechanism of action is not completely understood. While also stating that the complex effects of Ibogaine are likely a result of its combined action upon receptors a, b, c, d, and e. (Full citation here). Then a statement that these may not be the full cause of effect and other currently unknown or not yet fully researched mechanisms may also come into play.

Of course not worded exactly in this manner. What is your opinion on this? Is it redundant due to previous presentation of the binding affinities in the table? To the majority of people the raw binding data will not mean very much, but then again the majority of people will have not ever even heard of Ibogaine. Those who find the page will have found it through researching Ibogaine or a similar topic already and will have some sort of prior knowledge.

The way the pharmacokinetics section stands currently feels incomplete to me. Cheers! Dogtoy (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are good high quality secondary sources than sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will look around and do a bunch of reading and see what I can find. I'm sure that this section can be updated and expanded a bit. Sorry if my formatting in the talk is off. This is my first time to use it :-)

Dogtoy (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed

For most of the debate on SIDS, I thought you might be engaged in a good faith discussion over a principled disagreement (and I should say, not all users were giving me that impression).

Your lastest reflexive no (disagreeing with your own proposal!) makes it hard to think that you're one of the good guys. Wpegden (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have interjected off topic policy discussion on the talk page of the SIDS article. When hatted you unhatted.[8]

RexxS's and Zad68's comments made me shift my position slightly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of us gave a "reflexive reply", Wpegden. We all gave policy-based responses based on long experience and no less than three administrators with long experience editing medical/health commented there, and only no one experienced editor agreed with you. You are just not listening nor learning. That is your choice, of course, but doing that will not lead you to a productive or happy time here in Wikipedia. The problem you encountered at the SIDS article was due to your actions; not others. Please read WP:IDHT (really!) and reflect on it. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

As was typical for this whole debate, you are misrepresenting things when you say that "no one agreed" with me. Although he/she had less time to participate than some of us, WhatamIdoing also agreed that research on fans and ventilation should be given more weight in the article. I realize now that you probably already know this, and are intentionally misrepresenting the debate. Wpegden (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last response to you until you show some different behavior. The only person arguing your perspective is you with some support from WAID. No one else supports what you want. You are violating the foundational principle of Wikipedia by pushing and pushing and pushing and not listening to anyone else. You will end up leaving here very frustrated, or you will get indefinitely blocked. that is the path you are on. You can choose to keep going that direction, or you can change. It depends entirely, and only, on you. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I believe that my perspective on what's best for that article is much closer to Wpegden's than to yours. He is not incorrect to say that I agree that the HVAC issue should be given more than a single, dismissive sentence that states nothing at all about the subject except the current lack of definitive scientific evidence. Some of the responses on the page are misuses of MEDRS to promote the WP:SPOV to the detriment of WP:NPOV, and I don't agree with that. There is more to medicine than the current state of the evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, and my mistake. Wpegden + 1 it is. i fixed that above. Doesn't change the point of what I wrote Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and btw WAID, you know that i believe evidence-based editing goes too far sometimes, and believe in following medical consensus, which includes but is bigger than evidence Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re Doesn't change the point of what I wrote: then see my 7:05 post at Talk SIDS, written simultaneously ie unknowingly of this post. -DePiep (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your scientific editing DePiep but that remark is sloppy garbage and is way, way beneath your research skills level.Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving 'forward' into PA? DePiep (talk) -07:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new section titled Moving On, in which I accepted the community consensus, and proposed making an edit that Doc James had proposed earlier himself. His "NO" was 7 words long. Wpegden (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the prevalence of amblyopia

Hello, It seems that you are interested in writing about the prevalence of amblyopia with me. I stated a discussion thread directly there (in amblyopia), given I replied on my page, asking for more info, and you did not see. As I say in the thread, there is no big deal giving a range 1-5% in western countries, given all reviews agree. They agree no matter what is the age so I will remove the 'children' aspect. I took into account your comment and added two reviews (so secondary sources) as you asked and...you removed them (they are the ones in the thread). So now I am a bit lost for those two. Please reply there. Have a good day.--Adrien Chopin (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK it is fine - I just saw that the children is after and the review is there: sorry that I got confused. Thank you for your work. --Adrien Chopin (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adrien16 we tend to organize articles per WP:MEDMOS so I joined the text you added with the section on epidemiology. Let me know if there are further issues. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huber page

Doc James, Thank-you for edits on Christoph Huber page, I left you a msg on his Talk Page, thx for your time,KHBibby (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

News and notes: Lunar project; steering group formed to search for next executive director

Op-ed: Knowledge Engine and the Wales–Heilman emails

Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot

Traffic report: Two for the price of one

Featured content: The double-sized edition

Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common cold

Hallo,
Your deletion of my edit didn't surprise me. It's good to know that someone is keeping watch over wikipedia's quality. Maybe I'll have some questions in the future:)
--Stankot (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look to see what newer reviews I can find User:Stankot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030031 will add soon plane pulling out Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Fan For You!

Fan!

Spidersmilk has given you a Fan! Fans are good for two reasons: They blow air and allow hot wikipedians to cool off, and also cheer them on when they need it, Just like a fan of a football or basketball team. Cool off, and enjoy the cheering and the breeze. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread "WikiLove" and "wikicheers" by giving someone else some a fan, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone who just needs a some fan to cheer them on and/or a good, refreshing breeze.

To spread the goodness of fans, you can add {{subst:fan}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or enjoy the breeze or cheering on the giver's talk page with {{subst:Breeze}}!

Thanks User:Spidersmilk Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cabozantinib

That Nivolumab and Cabozantinib are the only second line therapies to deliver overall survival benefit are not in doubt based on their large, international phase 3 trials and FDA labels. This is valuable information for patients (specifically of community oncologists) seeking understanding of treatment options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.74.132 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MEDRS and use secondary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carbidopa/levodopa

Hi, Doc James. While translating the article Carbidopa / levodopa I noticed that the page that refers reference number 13 is no longer available. I found another page, another, another and another and I'd like you to tell me which of the four can serve. If none is useful, please let me know. I also take the opportunity to ask you how many months equals "months" in this sentence: "In the United States a months supply is about 50 to 150 USD". Please excuse my bad English. Thanks and regards.--1mssg (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carbidopa/levodopa II

Hi, Doc James, I am again. I have another question. I think it makes little sense to talk of prices in the wiki, not only because the cost of a drug today has little to do with what it costs tomorrow but also because that does not seem to be an encyclopedic subject. What do you think about it? Thanks and regards.--1mssg (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed price in the past. IMO price is important. There is a price at a given point in time. And we have used international prices aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carbidopa/levodopa

Sorry, Doc James. I did not know it.--1mssg (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cabozantinib

Please refer to table 5. in the official FDA label for Cabometyx: https://www.cabometyx.com/downloads/CABOMETYXUSPI.pdf OS benefit is stat-sig with p=0.0003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.231.178 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a comment on a single study and not really a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard ratio is more reflective of the proportion of accrual of the instantaneous risk of death at a given time in a trial over the entire trial than medians and this ratio is a commonly accepted statistic in comparisons of survival. (I would suggest reviewing survival analysis literature if this notion of hazard ratio is unfamiliar to you.) Moreover by the definition of p-value :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_I_error

the probability of a type 1 error in this comparison of hazards is 0.0003 (out of 1). This is a better hazard ratio and a p-value than that achieved by Nivolumab over the same control, and Nivolumab exhibits the same overlap in its 95% CI for its medians in its Checkmate 025 data:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1510665

Control: (17.6 - 23.1) Nivolumab: (21.8 - not estimable). Notably, the patient population is sicker in the METEOR trial with admission of patients with pre-treated brain mets and more than 2 anti-angiogenic drugs. I think it's worth adding this note about Cabo as it offers an important followup to patients progressing on nivolumab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.231.178 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cabometyx official FDA label

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/208692s000lbl.pdf

See Table 5 for updated overall survival kaplan meier curves, superiority of hazard ratio with p=0.0003.

The confidence intervals for survival overlap it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

The FDA provides the standard for US drug approval, it could be mentioned specifically that a survival benefit appears on the FDA label if you truly believe that a peer reviewed journal is the crucible for the use of more general language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.231.178 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurvedic treatment for Kidney stones

Dear James,

I have included a video documentary reference of ayurvedic kidney stone treatment. You have reverted the changes. I am not updating this information blindly. I have made a research in this and found it to be correct. Please review these sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1s2sGOSJA

I request you to be unbiased in evaluating these sources.

Thank you.

Ganesh

Please read WP:MEDRS. Youtube videos are not reliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit on Finasteride Page

Hi Doc James,

I have a comment about your recent reversion on the finasteride page to make it say "Whether finasteride causes long-term sexual dysfunction in some men after stopping drug treatment is unclear." My concern is that this is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. There is not a single source that summarizes the current debate in that way, especially none that have been justified to include this text. The current phrasing takes the liberty of acknowledging the body of evidence that supports the causal link of these side effects and has the effect of minimizing their substance. Will you help work with us to come up with a more accurate way of presenting a balance in this article? I think it would be better to create a sentence that summarizes the weight of both sides, rather than having the status quo dismiss the newer viewpoint. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]