User talk:Literaturegeek/Archive 1

reply to welcome message

Hey, thanks for the welcome. Just wanted to say that some people (not me!) might find it a little bit of a back-handed compliment to link them to articles that are just huge masses of help/standards/tutorial content. It seems like a constructive comment but one could easily assume implications, e.g. 'basically everything you do is wrong, here's a gigantic resource on how to do everything right', or 'I saw something you did that was wrong, I won't spend the time to point it out but read through the beginners tutorials for a few hours and figure it out yourself'. Again, I didn't read into it like that, just wanted to point out how it can look from the other perspective. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljcrabs (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Thank you for your views. You make some good points and indeed some people may misinterpret welcome messages as criticisms. I have welcomed many hundreds of people to wikipedia and I only recall one person who misinterpreted a welcome message in a negative light. There is an alternative problem, not providing newcomers with helpful guidelines on editing and policies can sometimes lead to conflict with other editors if they accidently break the guidelines, so I think overall the welcome messages are good. Perhaps they could be reworded though? I did not write them. They are part of an addon toolbar thing which I installed into my account on wikipedia and I simply click on a tab and select an option and it posts a welcome message. Happy editing on wikipedia. If you have any comments questions feel free to contact me. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll post here, since I am also replying to a welcome message. Just wanted to thank you, actually! I did get the sense that the welcome script was an automated thing, but felt that the sending of it was very considerate and, well, welcoming!

Regards, Lehacarpenter (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) lehacarpenter

You are very welcome. I assume that I welcomed you on an ip address and this is your new account?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Obscure Benzos

Hi Literaturegeek.

Ethyl dirazepate and ethyl carfluzapate both exist as they have CAS numbers and there is no dispute that the chemical abstracts service is a reliable source - they are the definitive source for chemical information, indeed there is an official collaboration between the chemistry wikiproject and CAS to verify and cross-check the information on wikipedia to ensure its accuracy! So the grounds for deletion you propose are not made out.

Unfortunately the CAS database is a paid-only site which I do not have access to, but the fact that these compounds have CAS numbers assigned means they have certainly been reported in the literature, and anyone who does have access to the CAS database could verify this quite readily and add the references to the pages.

Now whether these compounds are notable is a bit more disputable and you can prod the pages per WP:N I guess, but consensus for notability requirements of distinct chemical entities with defined pharmacological activity is fairly low, and if you have a look at some of the deletion discussions for other borderline compounds the general feeling is that anything that has both a CAS number and an INN name assigned would be deemed notable per se. Meodipt (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt, No problem and thank you for pointing this out to me. I will remove the deletion proposal. I just couldn't find any pubmed abstracts or other reliable sources but they must have been officially acknowledged somewhere as you say to get a CAS number. Maybe some drug company patented it but never brought it to clinical trials or something. I agree with you now that you have explained CAS, I should have checked the info box. I do not mind leaving the articles up, even though they are not very notable. I agree that we should have all CAS drugs on wikipedia. I was just worried about having non-existant benzos on wikipedia. Sorry to trouble you. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'll see if I can find some references for them. In regards to ethyl dirazepate it is reported in drugs of the future in 1981 and on various EU, US and WHO documents, but no references are given (or at least not in any documents I can find free online). See e.g.

http://journals.prous.com/journals/servlet/xmlxsl/pk_journals.xml_toc_pr?p_JournalID=2&p_IssueID=140

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:279:0767:0876:EN:PDF

Meodipt (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Code numbers appear to be CM-7101 for ethyl dirazepate and either CM-7120 or LS-34026 for ethyl carfluzapate, but no hits on PubMed for any of those either. I suspect these may be French or Spanish in origin and may only have been reported in non-english language journals, many of which are not indexed in PubMed (and are quite hard to search for online!) I will see if I can get someone with CAS access to look up the references on there...Meodipt (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Meodipt, thanks. I shall read the refs and cite them. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok both compounds are listed on psychotropics.dk but it is not the easiest site to navigate. Ethyl dirazepate is apparantly from Sanofi Winthrop and is hypnotic, anxiolytic and anticonvulsant, developed at the same time as clorazepate. Ethyl carfluzapate is from SmithKline Beecham and is a sedative hypnotic, developed at the same time as ethyl loflazepate. So presumably both companies reported several different compounds from the same series to the WHO who assigned them all INN names, but then only one of them was sold commercially while these others were assigned names but never marketed. There are references provided but none of them have these drugs in the title so they must just be one of a list used for comparison, I'll check to see if I have uni access to any of them when I have time, but the refs are all quite old as you would expect so may not be online.Meodipt (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job on finding that information and refs; I thought at some time in the past I tried to find those drugs on psychotropics.dk, I wouldn't put too much work into these obscure benzos, unless you are enthusiastic. As long as there are a couple of refs, then at least they aren't going to get flagged as "articles" lacking sources. Without clinical trials there is going to be only so much we can write about them anyway. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

Thanks for your comment. I do admit that BHRT and compounding are highly conflated, which makes parsing the sources problematic. I don't think the solution is to rewrite the page based on primary sources (or even review articles) about individual molecules. If you are interested in any of the sources that are not freely available, I have many of them in PDF format - just e-mail and ask. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I know what it is like to be stuck in entrenched disputes, very draining, I am happy to help out WLU. I am ill with a viral infection so I am lying up in bed with time to kill. :) I have just finished reading over and familarising myself with the article. I won't be doing a huge amount of developing of the article, but will keep it on my watch list and contribute to discussions. I shall contact you by email if I need a fulltext on this subject matter. I already have a comment and suggestion which I shall make on the article talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If you want general criticisms, I would suggest the position statements. If you want to see specific scientific claims addressed, I suggest Cirigliano and Boothby & Doering (2008) - which I can e-mail you or if you have access to an article database, it is PMID 18660693.

I've lost considerable perspective here due to the months of wrangling. If I'm misreading the sources or misapplying the policies, I also need to be corrected. I think the two editors in question (Hillinpa (talk · contribs) and Riverpa (talk · contribs) - note that despite the similarities of the names I've seen no evidence of being sockpuppets or otherwise) are new, inexperienced with our policies and convinced of BHRT getting a bad rap or insufficient scrutiny, but they're not listening to me and I've been unsuccessful in garnering sufficient external input.

As a content dispute, it's very difficult to get the kind of substantive attention required on the page, which is unfortunate since I think the sources are actually pretty easy to read and quite clear. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, I shall give it a read. I will point out anything that I disagree with you on, also please do correct me if I am making any mistakes with my opinions or views. I am not familar with the literature on this subject matter. Maybe they are friends on or offline? Strange they both have pa (philidelphia I assume) after their name but if they are not being abusive then I guesss it doesn't matter too much. Perhaps it is just a matter of reasoning with them, explaining to them why they are wrong (although you probably will reply and said you have already tried that haha).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be a huge expert or doctor to understand things, the articles are pretty easy to grasp IMHO. It helps that they converge on a common idea (again, IMHO).

There are "effective" ways to use a non-wiki connection to push the page, but I haven't seen them employed. If they're sock or meatpuppets, they're the least-effective puppets I've ever seen. I think they just share a common belief about BHRT, lack familiarity with the policies and their application, and a relatively innocuous link to their user names (geographic feature + city/state?). There are ways of gaming when you've got two editors but they've played fair considering. It really does come down to (in my mind) a content dispute that doesn't fly with wikipedia's policies. BHRT has a lot of proponents (like a lot of CAM in general - the buy-in fervour and conspiracy mongering are pretty clear on the talk page) and I'm not surprised to see this article raising tempers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read so far your views looks right, it is a content dispute but a very entrenched one and it is going around in circles. I am happy to try and help resolve it anyways.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you like pie? I will happily bake and mail you a pie if you manage this.

Circles is apt - there are fundamental disagreements about whether OR is being violated, whether there is a definition of BHRT, whether the page is using the right one, etc. It's not just a source issue, the sources are plentiful and easy to deal with. It's a wikipedia policy comprehension issue (in my mind - clearly there is disagreement). Or possibly I just haven't seen something yet and the problem is all me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you are talking. ;) I trust you are a good cook. In the meantime if you have any tips of how to skin, cook and eat a dogfish let me know. :) These "entire article" disputes really are exhausting, pity it wasn't just a single issue dispute, ugh this is gonna take time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way I know that you are joking about the cake lol, I am just joking wif ya back. :) Sometimes people don't know when I am joking or being serious LOL.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your patient, source-based, and very, very appreciated work on the bioidentical hormone replacement therapy page, I award this barnstar to one, Literaturegeek. Instead of a callused forehead (from banging my head against a wall) I now have a well-sourced, science-based article. Huzzah! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I just had a go at the adverse effects section, have a gander. Ran into an edit conflict but I don't think it was anything significant (your last edit was marked minor - I'm replacing the refs now). Sorry, I should have looked at it earlier after all the work you put into it! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Another note - should we remove the ® after estrace in the Barr Laboratories refernce, per WP:MOSTM? It's in the webpage title, but still... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me. Yea probably best that the registered symbol is removed. I didn't put in as much work into the article as you did! :) The article is looking good. I am surprised bioidenntical HRT is legal (with all of the serious side effects) in the USA, I don't think that you can get it over here in the UK.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed the trademark. BHRT is legal in both the US and UK - it's just called HRT, and happens to restrict itself to only a subset of hormones that can potentially be used to treat menopause. When it comes right down to it, the only real difference is that they avoid Premarin and related compounds. There's nothing illegal about it (except for estriol in the US) since it uses FDA-approved hormones produced from the same bulk preparations as pre-fab HRT. The only differences are the compounding (which can be dangerous), the dosage (which is uncertain, and often much higher than regular), the saliva/blood testing (which is useless, not actually used, and can lead to again prescribing dangerously high doses), the claims of effectiveness (not supported by research, and don't really make much sense anyway) and the expense (due to the compounding, dosage, testing and lack of coverage by insurance). I'm quite sure you could get "Bioidentical" HRT in the UK (one reference said that the compounds used are far more common in Europe than North America) but they'd just call it "HRT" (another reason why BHRT is almost solely a US phenomenon). From what I can tell, the differences between route of administration (oral versus transdermal versus troche versus injection/implant) makes a much bigger difference than the type of hormone used - equine estrogens get converted to human estrogens when they reach the liver and post-liver is the only place the type of hormone matters. That these points are not made by both doctors and advocates is part of the reason the issue is so damned confusing, as well as being the reason there's not much research into this. It's already been done and they found out that, surprise! it doesn't really matter what kind of estrogen you use, they all have risks. It fills me with bile, and is the reason I won't be surprised when Suzanne Somers either strokes out or her breast cancer reoccurs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

When I say legal, I suppose I mean licensed for sale to the general public without a prescription. I spoke to a lady in the USA who bought progesterone in a health food store with no package insert at all and she got bad side effects from it; that was what prompted my discussion on the talk page about package inserts. I don't think that HRT is available without a prescription in the UK, sure things like progesterone are available and commonly used but only by doctors via a prescription. Individual countries in europe have different laws. If you scroll down my talk page you will see a conversation about how some european countries ban melatonin sale to the public and it has a relatively benign side effect profile compared to HRT. To me the big risks are the self medicating, no professional over-site, no package insert with potentially dangerous compounds. If wyeth's hormonal range was sold to the general public without a package insert I would be similarly concerned.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the OTC sales of progesterone cream is surprising to me as well and I can't remember they "why" of that particular decision. I believe that progesterone is the only BHRT product you can do this for though (and its side effects are supposed to be not that bad - relatively) but why it is sold as a gel (which can be easily over-applied, wiped off, or contaminated) is a mystery to me. But where do pharmacists get estriol from if it's not FDA-approved? I know melatonin was banned in Canada but I think it was for contamination reasons (do I recall it used to be extracted from the pineal gland of cadavers? Perhaps...) rather than side effects. I totally lack the ability to understand advocates' assertion that this stuff is safe - "natural" does not mean "safe in all conditions". Death from diabetes, measles, blood clots, osteoporosis (indirectly), cancer, and eye-boring hookworms is natural, living past 70 is not. The body is always running a fine line of homeostasis with "dead by not enough" and "dead by too much" on either side. I'm outraged. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in the USA so I am not too sure how the system works over there, so I dunno about estriol. I have wondered if some of the advocates simply have not read the side effects of these hormones, and/or they have a positive experience without any immediate side effects and then conclude that their individual experience will be the same for everyone else and that the sales pitch of it is safe seems to be confirmed. I suppose I am saying is they are using themselves as a case report to generalise to everyone else. Of course then you have the people who make money out of it and their motives are obvious. I agree with what you are saying regarding homeostasis, too many people associate wellness with taking something even when they don't actually need to take anything and people selling cures make a fortune out of this. What makes this worse is unlike many herbs which are no better than placebo, this stuff can kill you or cause harmful side effects. Well here I am, now a mini wannabe expert in HRT LOL, how did this happen I am wondering lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Undent. That's why wikipedia is awesome. If you want a great overview of the Big Herb in the US (and their oversight, the role of the FDA), I highly recommend Natural Causes. Very readable, not too thick, and interesting. I gave it five stars. A for why advocates (and the people who take BHRT are so enthusiastic - placebo effect, money, they are effective at addressing menopause (because, you know, they're HORMONES!!!), their dangers are relatively minimal (there's a reason they're so highly prescribed!), cognitive dissonance (Mistakes were Made (but not by me) does a great job of walking through how people can justify dumb or ill-informed decisions, then bend their thought process to keep making them - great book, also gave it 5 stars), and the people taking them tend to be old - so they're likely to get cancer or some other illness anyway (and therefore don't blame the drugs). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the book tips WLU. I have some books that I still need to read but if I am looking for something to read I will get one of these books. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Our sociologist friend

Thank you for your notes. I'm 99% certain that Linda,LCADC is a sock. One of his habits is to create socks with some name that suggests some spurious air of authority. PuckSR seems to me to be just an innocent editor who mistakenly thought the lobbyist's page to be of some merit. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome Nunquam. Thanks for your reply and additional information. Yea I think that we can be pretty sure about Linda to and I shall give PuckSR the benefit of the doubt, per your comments. If Linda, causes problems we might be able to request a block based on WP:DUCK but has been silent for a couple of months now. Is the lobbyists personal website a popular site do you know? Anyway hopefully the severe drama that went on with socks and ref abuse won't ever happen again on alcohol articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Because he had around 400 links to his site from a popular site (i.e. Wikipedia), the lobbyist's site often rated highly in search engine results. When Wikipedia introduced the nofollow tag and we got rid of most of his spam links, his site's ranking has declined dramatically. However, there are still many of those sites that copy old versions of Wikipedia that point to his. I've never seen any serious person recommend his site as it is so ludicrously selective in the information it presents. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah right yea that makes sense. If you disagree with any of my edits do feel free to contact me and discuss them by the way. I have and probably will be in the near future doing more updates to alcohol articles. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on alcoholism page

Literaturegeek, I wanted to take the opportunity to reply to your greeting. I absolutely did not mean to scratch wounds by using a poor source. It was one of the first results for my search query, and being from a respected school...I assumed that it was a reasonable source. I did not realize how polarized the discussion of alcohol could be. As far as my corrections to the alcoholism article, I want to assure you that my motives are entirely altruistic. I am not trying to persuade or promote a certain point of view. I have just seen many people unknowingly distort statistical research. There still seems to be some problems with the current version of the quote. I also must apologize for my rambling responses. I typically only have a short period of time to make my contribution, and frequently my contribution is a direct transcription of my train of thought.PuckSR (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is okay, it was just the alcohol articles for a number of years came under attack by a sociologist who spammed the alcohol articles using that source and abusively used poor sourcing. He is a lobbist for the alcohol industry who campaigns for lowering the age limit for alcohol use and he created most of his sockpuppet accounts in 2006 so you can understand why I initially thought you were the same person. I am happy to try and listen to your point of view and try to work out a compromise. Don't worry about rambling responses, I have done so myself plenty of times on wikipedia. Many people edit articles and have a point of view on issues and it is easy to get worked up, the main thing is if we can work out some sort of consensus on what the sources say and how best to reflect them. I shall have a look at your latest comment on the talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. I honestly haven't been updating under this name since then because I didn't realize that user names were case-sensitive(and I forgot I had capitalized the last two letters). I assumed that wikipedia had a horrible policy of deleting users who didn't edit regularly, so I didn't bother to create another new name. I have made a few contributions, but I was doing them anonymouslyPuckSR (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the last time he was seen on the alcohol articles was late September so hopefully he has moved on now. I accept your explaination and sorry for any friction that you felt early on, at least you understand the background now. Hopefully we can work out a compromise via consensus. An easy mistake to make with username (case sensitive), lots of people make it on wikipedia such as when wiki linking to other articles. Article names are case sensitive as well. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, I wanted to ask a question, but I feel it would just clutter the alcoholism page. You discussed a twin study earlier regarding age of first drink and likelihood of developing alcoholism. I am curious, how would this study even be conducted? I am only familiar with twin studies being conducted to control environmental factors. The study cited claimed that they had "corrected for genetic factors". Now, my understanding is that a twin study is conducted under the assumption that twins have similar developmental factors. How would a twin study be used to verify the influence of an environmental factor? I can only assume they looked for twins who had drank at different ages. But wouldn't it be fairly abnormal for one twin to start drinking at 14, while the other twin started drinking at 22? You told me earlier you had read the article(I don't have access), could you please explain the controls in the study...since it seems completely counter to every twin study I am familiar with....PuckSR (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not conduct clinical research so I can only answer from papers that I have read, they are often conducted by national agencies, how they recruit I am not sure off of the top of my head. As far as alcoholism and heritability, I would imagine a family history would be taken to screen for a range of things in particular a family history of alcoholism and then do a statistical analysis and report on what reaches statistical significance. Screening for environmental factors I would imagine would be taking a history such as social and economic factors, psychiatric history of family and so forth and performing a statistical analysis. Yes it would be unusual for one identical twin to drink at 14 and another at 22, that is why they use more than one set of twins and why single case reports are not very reliable. They use many sets of twins and then do a statistical analysis and a followup study.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your User and Talk pages when viewed in Firefox browser

Hi LG! I've been enjoying our interaction and curiously strolled over to your User page, which is great except that in my Firefox browser the layout is very strange (the first column is compressed down the left side). It looks fine in IE7. I came here to your Talk page to let you know, and I also see the top of this page is distorted (overlapping boxes) in Firefox, also fine in IE7. Just thought you might want to know - no big deal. Keep up the good work - I'm very impressed by your contributions. -- Scray (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scray. :) I am enjoying the interaction with you as well, we have and are making good progress on the ciprofloxacin article. That is rather strange because I am using firefox now. What size is your screen and do you know what resolution you are using? I am going to test resolutions today or tomorrow. I appreciate you notifying me of this. It might be the formating that I used for my columns. When I try to fix it you will have to be my debugger to tell me if it is fixed. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolution 1280x768. You gave me the clue to figure this out: when I narrow my browser to about 900 pixels, your User page looks fine, and when I make it wide again the userboxes move upward and squash the text content (the issue to which I was originally referring). Interestingly, there's a different issue on your Talk page - it looks fine when I switch out of the Beta "Vector" skin back to Monobook (and browser width does not seem to matter). The "problem" I'm seeing on your Talk page is that the Contents box is overlapping with your ADHD announcement box (the latter on top of the former, with the text commingling). So, this might be a subtle Beta/Vector bug. -- Scray (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a hunch that it is to do with the quote box I was using. I had trouble getting it to display properly on my own resolution. Is it fixed now with the quote box deleted on both my talk page and my userpage? If not then I have an idea what the problem is. Thank you very much for the expert bug report. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All fixed! Glad to help. Sweet dreams! -- Scray (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I really do want

to apologize and express to you that I appreciate the effort you are putting in, and I am reading and absorbing what you have to say. However, I cannot resist at least trying to maintain the level of parity in the article which has already been attained. Previous experience has shown me that not acting is interpreted as giving carte blanche to massive edits. I had asked for comments on these additions for days (you can see my request further up the Talk page) and got nothing except some copyedit advice. So I can only assume that the content was deemed acceptable, so I will try to maintain it in its acceptable form.Riverpa (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Riverpa. Well WP:BRD is sometimes a good idea and I understand what you are saying, I was just hoping that everyone could tame down their editing while we were trying to reach consensus on the talk page is all.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

New section

Hello!

You notify contributors of en.wiki on AfDs, even such contributors as weakly involved as me in the particular case. Generally, it’s polite and good. Thank you. But you create new topic by editing the last section on a page. Not clearing the summary field even manually. It’s especially grubby, lame and, therefore, not good, even if there are thousands other users of en.wiki doing the same. I hate junks in the page history, which make creation of new topics untraceable. There is a special link New section (or + in some skins) intended for clean creation of a new topic. It even fills a special message MediaWiki:Newsectionsummary. MediaWiki coders provided a right way for section creating, not a lame way nor a grubby one, surprised? They were not so lame as you probably assumed. Please, use +/New section for new topic and forget clicking-over-the-last-header. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah your name was the first name in the edit history so I contacted you. There were no "main contributors" to the article, very little editing to that article. Thank you for the useful link to Mediawiki, very helpful and I shall remember to use that in future when creating new sections. Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

self harm

I moved the page and now there is a boat load of clean up that needs to be done. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Guerillero (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, can you give me some ideas as to what needs to be done?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: PTSD section deletion

Hey, thanks for chiming in. We'll see what others say, but I do think I'm thinking straight. I wish that settled it, but this IS the real world. It's nice, in any case, to have just a tad bit of support. TomCloyd (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. If no one chips in over the next few days I may go ahead and redelete it myself.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon welcome

Hah, I'm sorry. I am C6541 and I just didn't bother to log in. Cheers. 71.162.223.80 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok cool. :) Not a problem.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Still helping on BHRT?

Hi,

Still trying to help out with the BHRT page? I understand (but regret) if you've decided to back out. My editing is severely curtailed over the holidays, due to access and choice. If you're just going slowly, then that's cool.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi WLU. I am still up for trying to resolve the dispute. I have to admit that it is getting a bit difficult. Some of the recent interaction on the talk page I have found myself thinking both of you are making good points. I am wondering if it is worth trying to recruit another editor from wiki med to the discussion?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hola,

If you can manage to attract collaboration from WP:MED, I would be impressed and very, very pleased - I've tried three times now to no avail (SandyGeorgia and TimVickers have been involved for brief periods and regarding isolated issues, I've asked Jfdwolff for his opinion and he didn't really want to get involved, thus, apparently it's mostly a US thing which isn't a big surprise).

I've looked a little more into specific "hormones that are bioidentical" - one point that's been made many times is that these compounds already exist. Bar estriol, which isn't an FDA approved drug (and the evidence base has many problems that are discussed in Cirigliano for instance), most of them are already used as or in conventional drugs! I can see why there is so much focus on compounding, saliva testing, etc. because they are basically what distinguishes BHRT from "conventional" HRT. It sure isn't the molecules. In which case, could we define BHRT exclusively as just "conventional + compounding and a bunch of nonsense" and stick with the criticisms - then "bioidentical hormones" are delegated to the individual pages. The link between BHRT and CHRT becomes a table listing "bioidentical hormones" and that's it. The only issues then becomes the Moskowitz, Schwartz and Holtorf papers, which claim that "hormones that are bioidentical" are miraculous so long as you ignore compounding. In which case, BHRT becomes exclusively about problematic practices and relegate the individual hormones to the individual hormone pages (i.e. progesterone, estradiol, estriol). This monograph does a decent job summarizing the issues, but doesn't add anything beyond what's already there and simply echoes the points made by other sources. I still see a strong convergence - many, many sources are critical as BHRT defined as "compounded bioidenticals" but ignore noncompounded simply because that's regular HRT!

Anyway, more input is welcome as I'm getting kinda sick of the accusations of bad faith and edits I see as frankly inexplicable. It's been an unpleasant talk page for a while and I'm irritated at it now turning to me being blamed for it all. More input = a huge favour as far as I'm concerned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if we both made an appeal on wiki Med? Or else I or we could maybe ask Doc James for help, he might be interested. Do you want me to ask Doc James? I agree that saliva testing is bogus. When the other editors talk about progesterone in isolation having an increased safety profile, what do you think? Is it right to say this when using FDA approved progesterone? Or is this not true in your view? I agree that the compounded theory of bioidenticals is largely or entirely to promote bioidenticals as different. I am wondering about when they are used similarly to other nonidenticals as HRT, should we be more balanced when discussing this in tone or language or should we even discuss this in the article? For example in your view is it true that progesterone is safer than nonidenticals when used therapeutically (not compounded)? I honestly don't know what to think so I am asking. I suppose if I have any POV on this issue it would be women randomly taking these hormones without oversite of a doctor and getting decieved by exagerated or even bogus claims and possible side effects of taking unmonitored drugs. I am assuming that you can buy this stuff over the counter. Sure it is not thalidomide but it is not a homeopathic remedy either, these bioidenticals, they have risks that should be overseen by a doctor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I usually ask small questions of WT:MED and can generally handle specific issues myself through sourcing. I can't say I have huge experience with this kind of dispute-settling questions. I have no problem with Doc James being asked - one of my issues is I see a lot of the suggestions as transparently problematic, while the others do not. If everyone agrees my interpretation is inappropriate, then consensus is against me and I have to accept it.

Use of progesterone isn't "BHRT" per se - AFAIK progesterone (as one of several possible progestins) is routinely used as part of CHRT to prevent thickening of the endometrium and eventually endometrial cancer due to unopposed estrogens. Progesterone/progestins are used to prevent this from occurring (see Eden et al. for example - which advocates for progesterone/progestin use but in these cases of compounded BHRT it looks like the progesterone dose was either insufficient or poorly absorbed). As for use in isolation, studies are still preliminary - it looks useful for the treatment of hot flashes but not bone density and is available as an FDA-approved drug as well as over-the-counter preparations (that are poorly absorbed and of uncertain use - see Chervenak, 2009, which I can e-mail you if you'd like). But is it BHRT, or is it CHRT? I would leave safety and use questions to the progesterone page, rather than trying to decide if it's better because it's bioidentical. Progesterone has some support, used in isolation, to help with hot flashes, but there is no evidence for other benefits. How progesterone seems to be used "bioidentically" is via OTC preparations which aren't tested or demonstrated effective for much, but is included in the BHRT package where it's touted as a miracle. I haven't looked into the safety and effectiveness of micronized bioidentical progesterone because I see it as so tangential as it's nearly irrelevant - should we decide whether it's safe or recommended or not? Is it really "bioidentical", or is it simply part of conventional, symptom-relieving HRT for menopause? Progesterone is dealt with by many of the research articles, but should we synthesize the information? Particularly when there are sources that do so for us? Progesterone is cited as part of the "estrogen dominance" claims that are made by proponents (estrogen dominance has no mainstream medical meaning AFAIK) and is administered for cramps and headaches, but a study found it no better than placebo for the purposes of PMS relief (from Boothby et al 2008 - also available via e-mail). Boothby also identifies a series of claims made for progesterone by BHRT advocates, and then states that these claims are unsubstantiated - progesterone appears to be primarily used in CHRT to prevent endometrial hyperplasia and possibly reduce hot flashes, but that's it. Studies have looked at it's ability to be protective against breast cancer in infertile women of child-bearing years - does this translate to protective effects for menopausal women? They don't know! No studies! Boothby seems to walk through most of the claims for the specific hormones-that-are-bioidentical and most of them come up short on evidence but long on claims.

If we're going to discuss this for each bioidentical hormone, these are long conversations to have and I see the questions as either:

1. Easy to answer because the current BHRT-focussed articles such as Boothby, Cirigliano, Fugh-Bergman and other studies address them and point out that their evidence base is absent or weak, or;
2. Hard to answer because we have to go outside of these sources to examine the literature behind each claim, comparing synthetic progestins and estrogens with bioidentical progesterone and estrogens, and essentially reaching a conclusion on the basis of this literature. For one thing I think that this option delves into significant OR territory, and for another thing the preliminary digging that I have done suggests that is neither simple, nor clear-cut - see this very preliminary bit of digging I have done here.

So do I think bioidentical progesterone is safer or better? I would say that the sources appear to contradict this, but also say there is an insufficient evidence base for this and when the question is ultimately answered the extremely profitable party for bioidentical hormones will end because there will be nothing to distinguish CHRT from BHRT. I will also note that nonbioidentical progestins could have a place in modulating activity of the progesterone receptors by partially fitting into the molecule and thus activating some, but not all of the intracellular effects - in other words, the right nonbioidentical progesterone could possibly downregulate intracellular processes that cause hot flashes but leave unaltered the intracellular processes that can lead to reproductive cancers. But this hasn't been proven yet. Overall, my belief is that bioidentical hormones are drugs with all the risks and benefits of drugs, and not magic pixie dust that will fix things because they are bioidentical. There's a reason we use estrogen antagonists to treat cancers, some estrogens cause or accelerate cancer growth! But ultimately it's not me who should decide, it's the sources, and that's the most frustrating thing because the sources seem to speak with a very unified and clear voice - BHRT is unproven, problematic, and almost certainly carries the same risks as CHRT. This has been said by many sources, many times, and it's frustrating to me that Hillinpa and Riverpa seem to want to ignore this in favour of primary literature about progesterone, estriol, estradiol and estrone.

So should we summarize each bioidentical hormone, and link it to the {{main}}? I'm increasingly coming to believe that we simply focus the BHRT page on the "package" of compounding, saliva testing, unsupported claims and "naturalness", and leave the individual bioidentical hormones to those pages proper - our only link to be a wikilink between the pages.

End rant. I really, really see the literature as convergent, and that's a huge source of my frustration and the edit wars on the page. The only dissenting voices in the literature are Holtorf, Schwartz and Moskowitz, all with significant COIs, and against them are the AMA, FDA, NAMS, IAMS, ACOC, the Endocrine Society, Mayo, and a lot of literature. I think in general doctors see BHRT as unproven drugs being sold like a snake-oil panacea (and an expensive one at that due to the cost of compounding and saliva testing) with no real coherent justification for either the claims of safety, or the claims of effectiveness. Why would the hormones of a 20-year-old be a good choice for a menopausal woman past child-bearing years for any reason except hot flashes and bone density? I think it fails a priori and it seems to fail based on the literature.

Honestly, if you are curious about individual hormones, I suggest reading Boothby 2008 and Fugh-Berman 2007. They're actually quite short, 7 and 4 pages, while Cirigliano is longer (30 pages, ugh) but also very detail-oriented with much citation of many, many studies (195 sources). I'm sure I would be accused of focusing on these studies because I have an a priori commitment to BHRT being denigrated, but the discussions look very reasonable and agree with the acronym-salad crowd. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow I think This is the longest post I have received on my talk page before. :) I wonder is it worth discussing benefits or proposed benefits of these individual hormones if they can be well sourced in the main HRT page. I can see where you are coming from. What COI do Holtorf, Schwartz and Moskowitz have? I shall read over the article talk page and comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've posted longer. I actually cite WP:TLDR (in reference to my own comments) as part of the edit notice for my talk page :)

The thing is, discussing the benefits or risks of hormones-that-are-bioidentical seems unnecessary - these are simply part of CHRT and widely available in FDA-approved compounds. Their comparison to different molecules should occur in the individual pages. What makes BHRT really seems to be compounding and saliva testing. I'm really no longer sure what Hillinpa and Riverpa want - to discuss hormones-that-are-bioidentical on the page? I still see that as something that should be done on the estriol, progesterone, etc. page specifically. Otherwise we would (in my mind) be making the argument (i.e. COAT, SOAP and OR) that hormones-that-are-bioidentical are superior to nonbioidentical hormones, so long as you remove compounding, saliva testing and marketing. At best I would refer to Schwartz, Holtorf and Moskowitz' articles saying some people believe this, but if there were clearly superior compounds that had better risk/benefit ratios, there would be consensus. The idea that bioidentical hormones are risk-free because they are bioidentical just doesn't make sense - hormones are active compounds and can themselves be dangerous. Tamoxifen blocks estrogen because estrogen increases the growth rate of breast cancer. Testosterone causes virilization in women and man-boobs. Writing the page with an a priori assumption of improved safety because they are bioidentical ignores the fact that they are bioactive compounds with wide-ranging effects. Hormone preparations made with purely bioidentical hormones (see here for instance - there are lots) aren't sold over-the-counter and without warnings. They're drugs. They have risks. The url I linked to is a pretty good basic summary by the way, of the mainstream position. The more I read, the more astonished I get because so many sources say the same things.

Moskowitz works or worked for a company that produces bioidentical preparations (triest I believe). Schwartz and Holtorf both have private practices, the Holtorf medical group, Schwartz I'll have to look into.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WLU (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all Happy New Year to you WLU! I was joking about the length of your previous message hehe. :) Ok, good point with regard to bioidenticals being a part of CHRT. I am wondering if there is any point in renaming the article to "Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (Compounding)" or maybe that would just create more problems than it would solve? Hmmmm. Anyway just floating an idea that popped into my head. Another idea that is popping into my head is that perhaps we could cite the reviews which say bioidenticals as being better but also cite the conflict of interest. For example something like, "in a review published by an author employed by the manufacturers of bioidenticals came to a different finding,,,,,." That way the reader is getting all of the facts and can make up their own mind.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Pre-happy Chinese New Year to you! No worries, I do write messages that are too long, it's a problem and I know it. Bioidenticals are such a part of regular HRT that it's difficult to distinguish BHRT from CHRT if you don't include compounding, saliva testing, etc. And the reviews by Holtorf, Schwartz and Moskowitz are about individual molecules, not the package deal (thus arguably something for those individual molecules). Really, the question should be "do we have a page about bioidentical hormones"? That might clear some things up - presumably the ...pas won't object to criticisms of BHRT, compounding, saliva testing, etc. but that still leaves the problems of whether individual bioidentical molecules are better than non-bioidentical ones. I would suggest that arguably the jury is out. There are lots of contradictions and disagreements between the different authors, but the only ones really strongly promoting bioidenticals are non-researcher practitioners.

Also, the Rosenthal article on the ethics of BHRT is very, very interesting, I highly recommend it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm avoiding BHRT a little bit - some other pages are actively right now, I'm trying to buy a new car and that particular page actively causes a stress reaction when I read it. Seriously, I taste bile and my stomach knots up. But anyway, regards this comment has been made before, by TimVickers at least as well as by me (ad nauseum). It has never been picked up on by any editor.

Very interesting reading over the holidays, had a chance to delve into several articles, which again converged on basically what the page says now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This I think is one of the most difficult content disputes to resolve that I have been involved in. Do you think that there is any way using reliable sources that some sort of compromise could be made in some areas of the article? I see that there is another editor now on the page complaining about the article. From my experience dealing on other articles with content disputes there needs to be some sort of a compromise in order to resolve it. I am not saying that facts should be distorted but perhaps tone could be changed? For example changing "mainstream medicine" to "conventional medicine", that way we are not implying "majority truth" and are just reporting the facts and letting the reader decide for themselves what is the "truth". Don't get me wrong I am persuaded that the weight of evidence says that these bioidenticals are overhyped and dubious or even bogus testing methods are employed to promote sales etc and the article should reflect this. I am just wondering if there are any areas where some sort of a compromise could be made to bring an end to this dispute. From experience getting into an endless battle over an article is draining and when the battle is over looking back you think was it worth it, ya know. Good luck with getting your new car. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I struck out comments as it seems somewhere along the lines this has been resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Thank you, and Happy New Year to you as well! The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind wishes, and Happy New Year to you and your family too! Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I hope that 2010 brings you both satisfaction and some pleasant surprises! -- Scray (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not just happy new year - happy new decade !!! p.s. I'm still around - just taken a detour through the help pages ( Wikipedia:Help Project ) - I'll be back to my more usual haunts once I'm happy enough with these, see ya around ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. :) I have not had a good start to the decade ill at the moment with some stomach thing. Yes a new decade as well as new year leevan. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ever need help?

Hey, I love genetically-engineered and non-organic foods - I'd never pay a nickel more for "clean" food. But, I know a lot about benzos and their use in medical practice, I know a lot about addiction (I'm a CCDC/III [certified chemical dependency counsellor]), a lot about organic chemistry in general (a BSc in O. Chem), and an extensive knowledge of psycho/pharmacology (DPharmDipSci, Doctor of Pharmacology). My main areas of personal interest are the opioids and benzodiazepines and all of their uses and effects, their structure and synthesis, et al. My main area of currently active research is into the deleterious effects of cannabinoids on the brain, mainly, how cannabinoids interfere with the development of such. Past research includes similar research into NMDA-antagonists (dextro-methorphan [whose laevo-rotary brother is a nice opioid], phencyclidine, ketamine), and classical hallucinogens (5HT2a agonists [LSD and tryptamines])/psychedelic phenethylamines, with a focus on MDMA. "This user finds it funny that the drugs most harmful to the individual's mental health are considered the least harmful (probably due to their lack of obvious and immediate negative societal effects evoked by the "hard drugs")." If you ever need any help with the facts, or with referencing articles, I'd be glad to assist you in any way that I can. It seems we share those areas of interest, which, for me, border on obsessive passion. Along with security, particularly, information security. Quite a lot of school over quite a smattering of subjects, eh? I don't have any formal training in information security, but probably know more about it than all the aforementioned combined. I am Jack's compulsive desire to learn everything than can be known. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.176.190 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, the GMO controversy. What happens if a modification at a later date is found to be harmful to health or the environment but it escape into the wild? It can't be recalled like say drugs. I have even stronger views against mixing non-human DNA with human DNA and vice versa but hey we can always agree to differ. :) You sound like you have an extensive knowledge of psychoactive drugs. I would be interested to know what effects cannabis has on the developing brain. I know there is evidence to suggest an increased risk of psychosis if cannabis is used during adolesence. I still think that alcohol would be more toxic to the developing brain though. Which drugs in your view are the worst for causing mental health problems? I certainly agree that there is a lot of misconceptions about the harm of drugs in the public and to a certain extent even amongst heath professionals. I appreciate your offer of help and I will contact you if I ever need any advice. If you have any suggestions for any of the articles on benzos, alcohol or any psychoactive drug of abuse for that matter feel free to make them. Thanks for contacting me. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol is, bar none, the worst drug for the brain of any age when used to the point that I consider alcoholism - consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication at least five times a week (differing based on gender, weight, body fat), and/or experiencing delerium tremens when abstaining (different than the modern psychological orthodox definition of two or more drinks a day, which, in my understanding, is relatively reasonable drinking.) I drink rarely due to the medications I am on. For me, a 90kg 6'2" male, one beer is equivalent to four. The effects of alcohol on the brain are very well-researched and well-known, even here on our very own Wikipedia. I have conducted no research of my own in the field, except in the case of polydrug users. The risks for children are much the same as for adults, but with a lower tolerance and a general disruption of brain development across the board. MDMA is also very dangerous to the developing (and developed) brain when used in excess. In my research, I have found (in a non-controlled epidemiological study) that weekly MDMA use for as little as three months (10-14 uses) by adolescents between 12 and 21 years of age (n=168 average age = 17.1) can cause irreversible damage to the nucleus accumbens in specific, and the mesolimbic pathway in general (confirmed to the best of science's ability with SPECT scans, using technetium exametazine as a tracer). Intelligence tests were conducted. IQ was roughly one standard deviation lower than expected, correcting for all variables of environment, age, education, and socioeconomic status, suggesting a heretofore unknown, intangible, and unelucidated mechanism by which chronic MDMA use, even in the short term, causes a rapid degeneration of measured intelligence. Working memory was most strongly affected, taking roughly twice as long to complete block-assembly tests as non-drug-using peers. It also seems to cause a desensitisation to serotonin (vis a vis the serotonin transporter), as well as a decreased release of serotonin into the synapse. Correspondingly, higher rates of depression (nearing 90%) and suicide were found. There also was found a positive correlation to psychotic incidents. Investigation in to possible treatments for MDMA-induced depression were not conducted. Surprisingly, the incidence of manic-depression seemed to be drastically reduced, hinting at a role of the serotonin transporter and extra-cellular serotonin concentration in bipolar illness. NMDA-antagonists (PCP, KET, DXM), when used frequently amongst an equivalent sample (n=144, 13-21 years of age, average ages 13.9, 16.9, and 19.4 for DXM, PCP, and KET, respectively) at least once weekly for six months) cause a general degeneration and accompanying decrease in activity in brain structures, markedly in the mesolimbic pathway and prefrontal cortex. Mesencephalic reticular formation and medial lemnisci were also particularly affected. All brain structures outside of the brainstem and other "R-Complex" features were affected to a degree. An oversensitivity to glutamic acid was evident, and correspondingly, a positive correlation with psychotic incidents that do not spontaneously resolve after withdrawal of the drug. It is found, interestingly, and possibly as an artefact of information-culling techniques, that NMDA-antagonists co-administered with ethyl alcohol reduce the negative impact of each other. This may be due to the lesser average amount of total alcohol and total NMDA-antagonist consumption by polydrug users. This is not including the completely unquantifiable - the intangible sixth sense that tells you, "this person has done too much DXM," that you achieve after working in this field very long. Another definite and marked shift in personality, quantifiable only on subjective inventories, exists for all of the above drugs. It is impossible to compare such in a relative manner, as it is unknown, within the scope of my research (and, it seems, all ethical research), no matter how strongly suspected, whether the personality abnormalities or the drug use came first. Classic "chicken-egg" issue.

But this is known, and relatively undisputed. There is no corner of medicine, or any branch of psychology or neuroscience that I am aware of, disputes that ethyl alcohol, MDMA, and NMDA-antagonists are exceedingly harmful to developing brains, and there is ample research to show that they are harmful to developed brains. These are generally considered the "hardest" drugs, in terms of neurological damage potential, of all. It is ironic that the drug most people consider the "hardest" and most harmful - heroin - is absolutely non-toxic by any measurable standard over the long-term, except for scarring caused by sublethal hypoxic episodes endured by addicts experiencing sublethal overdose ("the nod") on a frequent basis. No measurable changes in the brain, except a decrease in the excitability of the NAc shell, and a marginal decrease in overall dopamine concentration, as well as a marginal increase in activity of the amygdala and a statistically insignificant increase in prefrontal cortex activity was noted in the heaviest and longest-term opioid users (n=98 ages 16-55) who had used daily for 2 to 29 years (including periods on methadone maintenance or in pain management, as long as on an opioid), some starting as early as 12 years old (average age at first use - 17.2-19.1), some with habits as large as 3 grams IV morphine equivalent daily (average habit - ~550-650mg IV morphine equivalent daily). Opioids, in the long term, are the least-toxic drug I have studied.

It is not nearly as well-known or accepted that cannabis is nearly as dangerous to the developing brain as the more well-known drugs. It's late and I've had a long day. I'll flesh this out with the continuance about cannabis, the full text of the study, more statistics, and corrections of any statistics I didn't remember correctly. Which isn't many with an eidetic memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.176.190 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I actually think that alcohol can do harm to the brain at lower amounts than getting drunk 5 times a week. There is evidence of cognitive impairments and possible brain damage from binge drinking just twice a week to the point of drunkeness, at least in adolescents anyway. Binge drinking also promotes neural kindling which promotes neurodegeneration and advances neuroadaptation furthering the risk of alcoholism.

I think that MDMA can cause neurodegeneration to the serotonin system much more quickly than alcohol causes neurodegeneration to the brain but in the long run alcohol is much more toxic to the brain. So say someone could go on a heavy binge of MDMA for say a week and do extensive long lasting damage to the serotonin system but a binge on alcohol for a week would not do much damage. However, if someone was to take ecstasy each day for a year or so or drink a litre of vodka a day for a year the alcoholic would have more profound neuronal damage as well as structural damage, not to mention the profound neuroadaptations which develop with prolonged alcohol use. Can I ask how you determine that it was permanent damage from MDMA? I was under the impression that the current research suggested that abstinence of recreational MDMA use for about a year leads to a full recovery of cognitive functions but admitedly I have not done an extensive reading of recent MDMA research. I do think that ring substituted stimulants are much more toxic than non-ring substituted CNS stimulants in terms of rapid neurodegeneration, eg methamphetamine would be worse than say dex-amphetamine or cocaine etc in this regard. Would you agree?

I think that taking probably any psychoactive drug is potentially risky for the developing brain but some are obviously more risky than others, eg alcohol is much more risky than opiods in my view. I have heard as well as read some convincing case reports of prolonged psychosis after cessation of prolonged ketamine abuse. Ketamine has only recently become quite popular in corners of the UK so the risks aren't fully known yet. I fully agree with what you have said about opiods, they indeed have the lowest risk of inducing mental health problems and of neurotoxicity. They certainly can be very psychologically addictive for susceptible people and there is quite a high risk of overdose. Heroin, is associated with blood-born diseeases as well as property crime which are its main risks.

When you say cannabis is underestimated in its risks to the developing brain compared to other drugs, which drugs are you comparing it to? I would be surprised if it was as toxic as alcohol to the developing brain but I have no doubt it has its harms in adolescents. I am slowly hardening my views on cannabis in recent years as more research comes to light.

I would encourage you to get a free username on wikipedia, you can add article pages to your watch list and monitor them for changes as well as lots of other benefits.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for all the questions, this to is a subject area where I enjoy exchanging viewpoints and knowledge. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quinolone articles

Just a note to let you know I've finally had a chance to review your edits of the quinolone article and have no real issues with any of them. Hope your tummy ache gets better soon.Davidtfull (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks david, glad that you are happy with my edits. I am feeling better thank you. I hope that things with your mother have improved. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

Hey LG we have hundreds of pages on signs and symptoms which our MOS do not address. Attempting to put together some structure recommendations for these type of topics. Would appreciated comments / recommendations here User:Jmh649/Sandbox8 and here [1] Hope you had happy holidays. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me Doc. I have commented on this on the MEDMOS talk.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Have star, need barn

Thanks for your appreciation. My flabber was gasted, and I got a great chuckle out of it as well. It is true that I'm passionate on the subject (PTSD), but even more so on the matter of thinking clearly and being a good scientist, as much as we can. That's the only way we can fight back the darkness and make the world a better place. I will also say that I'm only just getting started. I need now to follow through on my own proposals for the article. Soon! Meanwhile, thanks again... TomCloyd (talk)

You are very welcome. My gasted has been flabbered by this thank you note! I can't complain about your motivation to make the world a better place. :) You have done great work to the PTSD article and look forward to seeing its progression. I just thought your long hours of effort needed acknowledged. Have a good weekend. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

User:The Sceptical Chymist is engaging in his own form of harassment and vandalism. Although he isn't vandalizing my Talk page, which would not affect everyone else on Wikipedia, he is actually going into my edit history and reverting my edits without valid reason. Take a look at Risperidone, he reverted two reliable sources where they were needed. Editor182 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that two wrongs don't make a right. There has already been an edit war between you both and if you were to make allegations officially say on admin noticeboard or to an admin with regard to allegations of harrassment your vandalism of his talk page would get you into as much or probably more trouble. With regard to the risperidone article the sources are debateable as to whether they are suitable reliable sources. I personally would have left them up but looked for better sources such as recent peer reviewed sources, preferably secondary sources such as a review paper on somewhere like pubmed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of informal dispute resolution is the way forward. Also familarise yourself with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS so that you know which are the best quality of sources to use on an encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This computer

Thank you Literaturegeek for notifying my IP of Wikipedia's rules, but I think it will be in everyone's best interest to permantely block this IP since it is a high school library's. You know how kids are. 69.92.95.145 (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps yea but I am not an administrator so I can't block the ip address. The vandalism is probably not frequent enough for other administrators to justify an indefinite block. Thank you for your message. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ring substituted

A little mistake above, you cite methamphetamine as a ring substituted amphetamine, vs. dexamphetamine etc., so it would be more harmful. methamphetamine is not ring substituted, it differs from amphetamine only in the methyl group on the terminal N, not on the ring. Greetings, Anon 70.137.134.49 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah anon, still no sign of a username yet! I thought of a username for you, Anon70dot137! What do you think of that for an idea? As methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) is a ring substituted amphetamine I had assumed methamphetamine was also a ring substituted amphetamine. Thanks for setting me straight. As you can see I suck at chemistry LOL. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have to learn that. Its easy. 70.137.134.49 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Estradiol, adverse

Criticism: The reference lists the side effects mentioned as from "estrogen and/or progesteron therapy". Most of the side effects are to be attributed to the progesteron. Underlying study wrt. dementia, cancer etc. is not with "estradiol" but "CE/MPA = Conjugated estrogen + medroxyprogesteronacetate", which is not estradiol. Unopposed use (without an progesteron) is not advised except w.o. uterus. It is unknown if the side effect/risk profile is the same without MPA, says the reference. I would advise to more clearly differentiate between estradiol, conjugated estrogens, their mixture with progesterons in general, and in particular with MPA, a synthetic. As it sounds now the estradiol is the culprit, which the ref does not claim. Articles involved e.g. Estradiol and nature identical hormone substitution. Needs work, to be precise and not misleading. Convince yourself by reading ref again, precisely. 70.137.134.49 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In particular, the horrible effects of the synthetic estrogen Diethylstilbestrol, which has pronounced teratogenic and carcinogenic properties, even into the following generations, makes it plausible to me, that synthetic estrogens and progestins may have a different risk- and sideeffect profile than the naturally occuring ones, maybe only discernible in large statistical cohorts. This is the reason to assume that exact citation of the conditions of the reference study may be important. There COULD be relevant differences between e.g. progesteron and medroxyprogesteronacetate, until we have contradicting evidence, which I could not read from the references. So it could be too early for generalizations between the different substances and mixtures, which have been employed in the studies. Maybe you can take a look. Greetings Anon 70.137.134.49 (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this anon. I will look into it, maybe tonight when I have some time. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have read over your comments and the reference I used. Ok I admit hormones are not "my strong point so I appreciate feedback. You are indeed right that it lists estrogen + medroxyprogesteronacetate for the increased dementia and for side effects it says as you have pointed our estrogen and/or progesteron therapy; estradiol is an estrogen though. I have changed accordingly my edits accordingly, see this edit and let me know if it has resolved your concerns? I really think that your views and knowledge would be of use on the bioidentical hormone replacement therapy talk page. There has been an ongoing dispute there. Please feel free to tweak my edits further if you think that they are in error. Best to you anon. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Controlled drugs, treaty

In fact the membership in international treaties wrt. controlled drugs doesn't mean you have to follow their scheduling. Take Germany for an example, it has signed the UN treaty, but only the bulk drugs are controlled by the narcotics law for substances which are US CIII, CIV etc. The preparations (e.g. Diazepam tablets of 10mg, Codeine tablets up to 100mg per tablet etc.) are exempt and only POM. Only equivalent of US CII and CI (with exceptions) are under narcotics law. Exceptions e.g. Tilidine preparations which are US CI, but Germany POM. (probably because generally foreign pain killers, not approved for US, were as a class put in US CI, even if they were pretty low abuse potential). These things follow their own twisted logic and history, so frequently logical deductions will fail. 70.137.167.75 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, countries are not forced to abide by it, eg midazolam is a schedule III drug in the UK but I believe it is internationally a schedule IV. Ah you are meaning the controlled drug status of schedule III or higher I think where doctors have to use controlled drug forms and manually write prescriptions and where pharmacists have to have another witness sign before dispensing and also they have to be stored in a locked cupboard? Correct? The proceedures for scheduled drugs may differ a bit in different countries.

I am talking about whether it is controlled by the law. Benzodiazepines such as diazepam being internationally controlled as well as nationally are not simply prescription drugs. People caught selling them or even giving them away are committing a criminal offense in almost all countries and all western countries that I know of. The refs that I provided demonstrated this. I could (while it would be improper) give away or sell a prescription of amoxycillin to a neighbour who has a sore throat without worrying about landing up in court charged with supplying a scheduled drug, whereas if I was selling or even giving away benzos in my neighbourhood I would be breaking criminal law and could be charged with drug offenses. Benzodiazepines are not legal drugs and you cannot sell or otherwise supply them on the street is my point. Check national drug misuse law enforcement sites.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for wikistalking your talk page (I was actually looking at 70.137.xxx's contribution history) but I think you may have misinterpreted this, the obligation under international conventions is that the controlled drugs on the UN list must be placed under legal control, but how this is done is left entirely to the legislature of the country concerned, especially in regards to the drugs on the less restrictive schedules. There is no requirement that they be illegal drugs as such, this is why in many south east asian countries benzodiazepines are available over the counter at the pharmacy, because they are still controlled drugs, but in those jurisdictions pharmacists have greater ability to dispense drugs themselves, presumably because the population as a whole has less access to proper doctors. So diazepam is merely a "pharmacist-only" medication, i.e. has to be supplied by an authorised person (the pharmacist) to treat a legitimate medical need (anxiety, insomnia etc) but does not require a prescription from a doctor. Similar to the status of say diphenoxylate or orlistat in the UK, they can be dispensed by a pharmacist without a prescription but you can't just grab them off the shelf and buy them, you have to show a genuine medical justification for the drug. Meodipt (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure which part of my comment you are addressing. I was aware that benzodiazepines are available over the counter in some developing countries. Actually I think I know what you are saying, and I think that you are right that there is no obligation for countries to make drugs illegal. Although I don't know of any countries where it is legal for say high street shops to sell benzodiazepines for recreational use. However, cannabis is legal in Holland for recreational use as we know in some licensed cafés. I was misinterpreting international law. Thank you for enlightening me. :) You have my permission to wikistalk me a few times a month but no more! hehe ;-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lg. Yes, I'm stalking you, too. I know that you specialize in certain types of drugs and that the hormone melatonin is hardly on your list. However, you do know a lot more than most of us about the degrees of legal/illegal, regulated, available etc.

It seems so strange that one can get melatonin in any grocery store in the US, while it is forbidden to import in some countries (Germany), on a very restricted type of prescription (Norway), permitted to import for own use (UK, I think) or other variations. Would there be any international coordination re a substance of this sort? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh hello Hordaland, you are good at this stalking business, I have not heard from you in a while. :=) I hope that all is well with you. I am not overly knowledgable in drug legislation and how it is enforced in different countries but I can say that melatonin availability is not enforced nationally by any drug misuse legislation and is not covered by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Melatonin might be being restricted because some regulatory bodies are classifying it as a hormone and therefore a drug and legally restricting its sale to the public. Whether it is a medical regulatory body or a food regulatory body I am not sure, I dunno who decides, if you find out let me know as I would be interested to know out of curiosity. You may be interested in reading this article, Codex Alimentarius, which is an international guideline which has generated quite a bit of controversy and conspiracy theories regarding drug companies wanting to class all supplements as drugs and restrict them, I guess to increase people using pharmaceuticals.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Meodipt will be able to help, I shall ask him/her to have a look at your question.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Only the drugs on the UN schedules listed on the drug control treaties are subject to international drug control laws. All other medicines and supplements are regulated according to the individual country's medicines or food standards laws. The situation with products like melatonin is complicated, as it is found in some foods and therefore can be classed as a dietary supplement, but it also has well defined pharmacological effects and so is often viewed as a medicine, especially when sold explicitly as an insomnia aid. Melatonin is I believe classed as a dietary supplement in the USA, a pharmacy-only medicine in the UK and from the sound of things a prescription medicine in Norway. I did not think it was on the German drug schedule but perhaps it is listed as a medicine but is not approved for prescription, as this would make it similarly forbidden. This wide range of variation in between different countries is mainly because melatonin is very safe in the vast majority of people and has negligible overdose risk etc, but it can rarely cause adverse effects like lethargy, confusion and disorientation particularly in the elderly, which have led some countries to conclude it is not safe enough for general use. Meodipt (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! I've always thought the "dietary supplement" classification is utter nonsense. Yes melatonin is found in rice and some other foods, at levels never to have been shown to affect (the circadian rhythms of) humans. It is a hormone.

In Norway, not only is a prescription required but also a named-patient annual application. (Melatonin is in use, as much as 9 mg daily, for pediatric ADHD according to my sleep specialist, so the application must be pro forma.)

All I know about Germany is that, last I looked, it was listed on a U.S.Postal site that melatonin, along with guns and ammunition etc., is illegal to send in the mail to that country. Thanks again, Hordaland (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Chronic pelvic pain

Hey LG moved this page to Pelvic pain from Chronic pelvic pain as before it was a redirect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool, I have made the chronic pelvic pain talk page a redirect to match the main article which is a redirect. Hope that that is ok.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I have responded accordingly to your messages on my talk page. Rapunzel676 (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

aryan wikipage

Some people are vandalizing this wiki page. I have provided ref (see also talk page). What can i do ?.Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I made three reverts in favour of the longstanding version. My reverts were spported by another editor. Our "opponent" has made at least five and has, as above, falsely labelled his reverts as undoing vandalism. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

your version is not the longstanding version. Sorry.Rajkris (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop fibbing. Here's what it looked like before the vandalism in mid-January [2] and here's what it looked like in July 2009 [3]. Here's what it looked like in 2006 [4]. I could go back a lot further. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is true then ok. We can have discussions to change or not (but i'm very busy). Thanks. Rajkris (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well ref or no ref, right or wrong, you are both about to lose the battle because you are continuing to edit war even after I issued a 3rr rule; you are at great risk of being blocked. There are a number of avenues you can take, such as WP:ANI, WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Mediation. I am not going to request your block though, I have just requested page protection.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make false accusations. I have not continued to edit war. Arguing is not edit warring. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, my apologies, you Paul did not continue to edit war after I issued a 3rr whereas Rajkris did. I really don't have an interest nor knowledge of the subject matter let alone this dispute; I just saw it pop up on wikipedia fringe notice board. I think that I have done as much as I can and want to. I recommend for starters that you both go to the article talk page and work out your dispute there and if that fails then one of the options I suggested above.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Midazolam GA1

Just a quick heads-up that an editor has offered to review Midazolam for GA, and has left some comments about referencing (in case you had missed it). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good news. :) Thank you for notifying me RexxS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: recent archving activity at PTSD article

First, thank you for you attention to the need. Until now, I've been the only one concerned about archiving (I set up the archives, upon becoming active with the article, my main focus at Wikipedia). It's nice to have someone else taking an interest.

Second, I just moved back to the active Talk page two sections you archived. I tried to explain why in the "edit summary" note accompanying each edit. Basically, these sections still have an active function. One saves me labor, and the other is about organizing my work at PTSD and inviting comment - in an economical way.

I hope this make sense to you!

Tom Cloyd (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome; that is fine to move those two sections back, I did wonder and think twice about moving them at the time as I thought that they might still be in use. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing an AFD nom

I must say that I am not entirely sure, as I have never nominated anything to AfD. I have seen normal editor closure before, but i'm not entirely sure how that works. But what you put works as well, i'm sure, as an admin will come around eventually and see it. To further help this, you could strikethrough your intro paragraph there. That's generally done when someone changes their mind. Silverseren^C 01:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Silver, I have nominated before but just never withdrawn an article and couldn't find any guidelines on how to to it. I have struck my comments as you suggested. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked for the guidelines too when you first asked me, but I couldn't find them either. I've needed them at other times too, so it's kind of annoying. :/ Oh, and you didn't need to strikethrough the comment as well, but whatever. :P Silverseren^C 01:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD discussion as speedy keep, as a withdrawn nomination is covered under that guideline. Editors can close some AfDs , the policy is at WP:non-admin closure (I myself am not an admin). You don't need to strike your comments, just the phrase "withdraw nomination" is enough, and if there are no delete !votes then it qualifies for speedy keep. Hope this helps. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your tips. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)