Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 98

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

→

Archive 105

ISUM / Conflict of Interest

Hello folks of WikiProject Medicine,

I hope you're all doing well. My name is Alexander, a 20 year old pre-med student residing in London and a team member of ISUM. While our website provides a more comprehensive guide of what our goal is, in short, our goal is to extend the reach of medical information using technology. One of our missions involves the cleaning up of broken links on the web to information that we have cached (to date, we have more than 3,000 hosted resources, mainly PDFs).

Before going on an editing streak, I wanted to give you a heads up that I am not an automated search engine spammer (per a note I received on my talk page). Obviously that's not a very enticing argument, so I am happy to be on probation for the coming weeks just to prove my legitimacy and mission to help. I understand that with the nature of Wikipedia and the fact that it can be edited makes it a prime place for spammers, and while that does make my job harder, my mission is to help others. ISUM doesn't publish any medical information and we simply rehost old documents.

I'm happy to provide a list of documents we currently have on hand (though it's ever expanding). Just wanted to give you folks a heads up, as I understand that your goal is to preserve the integrity of the Wiki.

Alexander ISUM (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes by User:Alexander ISUM include this [1].

Why use ISUM instead of internet archives? We have no guarantee of the stability of your website. Here is a web.archive version[2]

Also before you add further links you will need to get consensus here. My position is internet archive links are better.

By the way what is your relationship with the companies whose links these are? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

While there may be some overlap between the documents on ISUM and those found on the internet archive, there are some that the Wayback Machine does not crawl and have in their index that ISUM has archived (ex: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pfizer.com/system/files/presentation/2017%20Proxy%20Statement.pdf). I understand the issue of stability, but the next best option is the internet archive, which I think we can both agree on, is quite slow and unreliable at times (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22wayback%20machine%22%20%22slow%22) because it has to handle millions of snapshots at a time and serve millions of visitors. For ISUM, this problem is nonexistent, as our current infrastructure allows us to scale more than 50x without running into server bottlenecks.
In regards to the stability of the site, our server is more than capable of handling whatever can be thrown at it. Unlike the internet archive, we focus on a specific subset of the internet and this allows us to provide such data reliably, instead of focusing on covering the whole internet. Especially for articles where there is no internet archive alternative, I believe a broken link is inferior to an ISUM-hosted one. In terms of data and reliability, our names are on the line. We have poured countless hours into ISUM, and personally, I have put funds towards purchasing the domain ISUM.com for our efforts (I think we can all agree that InternationalSearchtoUnderstandMedicine.com isn't very user friendly) and am personally dedicated, as are the rest of the team members, to our mission.

I plan on making quite a few edits, so I propose a Google Spreadsheet that is publicly linked on this page for a certain period of time (say 30 days?) as a probation. All edits will be recorded there, including the URL and date, to ensure that we're not using Wikipedia for nefarious self promotion. I myself and ISUM does not have any relationship to any companies, including those of the large pharmaceutical company pages I edited

Alexander ISUM (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Alexander ISUM: First of all, I'm pleased that students have taken such an interest in helping others understand medicine. You probably have some overlap with both Wikimedia UK and m:WikiProject Med Foundation, but we can talk in another place about how we may be able to help each other.

Now, I can see value in having an archive for pdfs related to medical subjects. Web archives like https://archive.org/ don't always cope well with pdfs – I just searched for https://www.gsk.com/media/279935/annual-report-2008.pdf (the 404 dead link that Alexander replaced) and got a message: "The search engine encountered the following error: Search engine returned invalid information or was unresponsive. We are working to resolve this issue. Thanks for your patience." So I can see that the ability to use https://isum.com/files/annual-report-2008.pdf is attractive. Although a well established and guaranteed-stable archive is obviously optimal, I'd be happy to make use of ISUM where archive.org isn't doing the job. That is, as long as we don't lose the original information, so there's a possible recovery option should ISUM ever go down.

So Alexander: I'm going to ask you not to replace broken urls. You need to be using |archiveurl= and |archivedate=, so that you're clearly adding information, and not losing any. For example you should be changing cites like this:

• {{cite web |url=https://www.gsk.com/media/279935/annual-report-2008.pdf |format=PDF |title=GlaxoSmithKline Annual Report pg 177 |accessdate=2015-10-08 }} → "GlaxoSmithKline Annual Report pg 177" (PDF). Retrieved 2015-10-08.
• {{cite web |url=https://www.gsk.com/media/279935/annual-report-2008.pdf |format=PDF |title=GlaxoSmithKline Annual Report pg 177 |accessdate=2015-10-08 |archiveurl=https://isum.com/files/annual-report-2008.pdf |archivedate=2017-05-14 }} → "GlaxoSmithKline Annual Report pg 177" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-05-14. Retrieved 2015-10-08.

If you don't understand that, please feel free to ask for help

We don't need a spreadsheet, just the usernames of your colleagues who may be adding these links. It's trivial to check your edits from the 'User contributions' pages for your accounts. I wish you luck in your efforts, and hope that perhaps we can work together in the future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I will follow suit and use the archiveurl and date tags when referencing ISUM articles. It seems like my edits have been undone en masse by Jytdog, so I've a fresh slate to go back and add archive URLs.

Alexander ISUM (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

While I support fixing broken links, an alternative to finding an archive of the old page is just to find a current live source. Especially for some types of medical information (for example the contents of approved medicines), a static snapshot only demonstrates that something was true at that time but gives the impression that it still is because the ref is "still there" and no indication that it is a possibly mutable original. If a link is dead, that could instead mean that the wikipedia content itself is out of date. Finding a current live link would be a better way to WP:V that some statements in the article still are correct, or else tell editors the new information for correcting the article. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: You make a good point. Currently there is no internal check for whether or not an updated version of a document is available, but seeing your edits following my own, that seems most appropriate, especially for prescribing information or medication guides. I'll check with the team and see what we can do in terms of updating those old documents that are 404d, but simply have changed URLs. Thanks!Alexander ISUM (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay so will you check first that internet archive does not have the link and than only add it as a archive url going forwards? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: While Archive.org may have some of the same documents archived, I wholeheartedly believe that if the file exists on both sites, that ISUM would be the superior option. A simple Pingdom speed test shows that, out of ten times, ISUM serves the content in under 1 second and 3 out of the 10 times the internet archive is unable to serve the content, and the other times it takes several cycles longer to serve the same content. I think it's worth nothing that I went ahead and renewed the server for 12 renewal cycles and added 10 years to the registration period of the domain, the latter of which is verifiable via any website providing whois information on a domain owner. I want to stress that ISUM is here in the long run, and go even as far as suggesting modifying archive URLs to the respective ISUM-hosted versions once you verify that ISUM is indeed here to stay and not here for nefarious reasons. The focus of ISUM is only medical documents and the like, and as such, we can guarantee reliability when serving that content to users. As you can see from complaints in the Google search link above, and even from RexxS own experience above, the internet archive is a helpful resource, but in this case, inferior to the reliability of ISUM-hosted files. Alexander ISUM (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What is your funding model by the way? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• User:Alexander ISUM stop adding links to ISUM until after you get consensus and we work things out here. I am on the edge of nominating isum for the spam blacklist. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: All funding is from my own pocket or the pockets of generous university members who are also in ISUM. @Jytdog: Teething troubles. I appreciate your patience, but please understand that what takes an hour for me to edit takes a minute for you to rollback. All edits made the first time you rolled back my changes en masse resulted in a respectful message on my talk page saying to come and introduce the topic of ISUM here (by another individual). After I did, and I was told to use the archiveurl and archivedate tags, I did so and made edits in the second round, which you rolled back with the comment "spam". You are not the only one here who is putting effort and what I spent two hours editing was undone by you in a minute. You're not the only one frustrated, and I am trying my best to be respectful and I'd appreciate the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander ISUM (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You were advised to get consensus first on your talk page. That you decided to ignore that and keep adding your website while you started trying to obtain consensus, is no one's fault but your own. As I said, if you keep adding links to isum, isum will go to the spam blacklist. Please read WP:COI and stop trying to force your website into Wikipedia. Get consensus first. That is how things work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• fwiw, this feels hinky to me. why would we get a pfizer proxy statement or GSK's annual report from some site like isum when SEC filings are available free from SEC EDGAR, forever? Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

After being advised to get consensus, I stopped making edits and consulted this page by creating a new topic. Only after RexxS' comment (and your rollbacks) advising me to make archiveurl & archivedate attributions to ISUM-hosted files did I go back to editing, with a note here. You rolled all of those changes back again, and only after did you comment on the topic on this talk page.

You could get your information from SEC EDGAR, but I already answered that comment when replying to GMacks' comment on updated files. My goal is simply to find and replace / attribute archive URLs to old PDFs — identical to the file that was originally linked. You're more than welcome to link to SEC EDGAR, but in a situation where the link is broken and no link to SEC EDGAR exists already, I don't believe the edit made was in vain. It's what was originally cited, and the updated version of such. I think it's worth noting that proxy and financial statements make up only a small portion of the files we have (re)hosted.

All I ask is that you give me a chance. I have nothing to gain here and my goal is to help users. Albeit a bit foolish at first and quick to act, I'm learning the ropes. If you find any wrongdoing, you and other more authoritative Wikipedia users have the ability to rollback every change I have made with the click of a button, like you have demonstrated already. Assume good faith Alexander ISUM (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "giving you a chance" - it has to do with understanding what is going on. I still have no idea why this is important to you and I especially don't understand why it is so urgent that links to isum be added to Wikipedia immediately. What is the rush? There is no deadline here in WP, that's for sure. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

My guess that his "rush" to add these links is that he (not unreasonably) thinks that a working URL is better for readers than a broken URL. What's your rush to remove them? Is Wikipedia going to be hurt by leaving them alone until the discussion concludes? (It will be slightly hurt by you removing them and then restoring them later if – as seems not unlikely – the discussion accepts some of them, but Ops isn't going to complain about this, and nobody's likely to tell you that you're not allowed to spend your own time doing this, so long as you commit to personally reviewing everything you've reverted and self-reverting all of the desirable edits after the discussion closes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Doc James asked you above if you have any relationships with companies whose documents you host and what your funding model is. Please answer. Also isum apparently started out in a university incubator, per an earlier version of your website. Is isum incorporated? It is a for profit or nonprofit? If you change a shitload of links to be hosted at isum what will happen 3 years from now? These are some of the concerns. Please slow down and explain the context here. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexander answered that in his very next post: "I myself and ISUM does not have any relationship to any companies, including those of the large pharmaceutical company pages I edited". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Alexander ISUM -- this is not accurate and it is a pretty serious thing to make that kind of misrepresentation. The process of discussing isum has only just begun. Please make that accurate. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That was the goal as one of our members, Dyar, had a close relationship with the folks at an accelerator in London. We were under the impression that we were accepted ("dude, we're totally in! i know one of the main guys behind the project"), but we soon realized that ISUM would not be a good fit, as their focus is on for-profit startups. Not many business accelerators are interested in supporting not-for-profit ventures unfortunately.

The goal with ISUM is to help others, not profit. When updating the site earlier today to add our newest member, I removed the incubator line as it no longer held true.

I stated in a reply to one of Doc James' earlier comments that we have no relationship with any companies. All payments are from my own pocket, but other university members have expressed interest in joining and contributing to ISUM (namely our current members, but a few others outside). To be fair, at the scale on which we are operating, our costs are a domain name and hosting, which are minimal.

As stated earlier as well, I understand the issue of reliability of ISUM down the line, and as such, have renewed the server for a year and the domain registration for 10. The latter is publicly verifiable via any whois record, I like DomainTools. The purchase of ISUM.com was, I believe, a step in the right direction, as InternationalSearchtoUnderstandMedicine.com isn't very user friendly, as I pointed out earlier. The costs are minimal, $13 monthly for a server and $10 annually for domain name registration. The goal of registering to become a non-profit is on our to-do list.

This way, ISUM will remain the way it is for at least a year (obviously that is not the goal. We are always trying to expand in terms of coverage and members.)

I suppose that if the site disappears years down the line, then we would have served users for those years, and you can rollback the changes to the old broken links instead of the ISUM ones. The efforts would be in vain and it'd be ironic if a site dedicated to providing replacements / rehosted versions of broken links became a hub for broken links itself. We'd be back at square one. :)

Re: talk page, I've updated it accordingly. I was under the impression that using those tags was the green light (again, citing teething problems) and why I made those edits that you reverted again. Misunderstanding -- still learning the ropes and appreciate your patience. Thanks. :) Alexander ISUM (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't fully ensconced myself in the situation here, but Jytdog being so outright hostile when someone is trying to do the right thing is WP:DISRUPTIVE. There may be some way to introduce these links as an alternative archive without removing either archive.org or the original link. However it is helpful to have some indication that the funding-model is viable in the long-term and that there is little to no commercial interest in hosting these links (such as starting to charge for the page after it has come into wide-spread use).

Alexander ISUM, do you have: a mission statement; a privacy policy; and bylaws, all which should be publically available? Without these I can not see this working. Also please use indentation on this talk-page, otherwise reading the discussion becomes extremely tedious. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Would you care to explain why you are registered on a .com-site rather than a .org-site, and why your main-page is blank? This could be useful in the future, but looking at the situation now Jytdog was right to remove the links, even if his tone was somewhat aggressive. I can attest that for the most part: the Wikipedia community will be open to joint ventures with other non-profits, providing the goal is spreading knowledge or information, and not to aggrandise the site itself. Registering as a non-profit is a good step in that direction, and I do think there may be a genuine opportunity for some collaboration here. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

CF, people who have a COI often edit aggressively and don't really hear people's concerns unless things are stated with clarity. The level of emphasis with which clarity is achieved varies situation by situation. In this one, my first comments here came after Alex proceeded for a second time to start adding isum links before consensus had been achieved, and as you can see even after my first statement here Alex wasn't hearing that he should wait until the context is clarified and there is an actual consensus that this makes sense. Adding isum links might be a great thing, might be a meh thing, or might be a bad thing. It is unclear at this point. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The diff that Jytdog links above was added at a point in time when only two editors had commented here. The first asked a few questions (which were promptly answered) and stated that he (generally) preferred the Internet Archive; the second told Alexander that he was happy with the project (in some circumstances) and how to do this correctly. I think that it's not unreasonable for a new editor to believe that this is an indication of support; we can't reasonably expect them to know that consensus is a mushy and ever-contested thing, or that some editors are more equal than others. For example, I've worked on the WP:External links guideline for years, so my opinion of what's blacklist-able is probably more relevant than anyone else who frequents this page. (Answer for the curious: No. Non-spammy sites that are added in a spammy fashion, by a single editor with no history of socking [that means creating extra accounts to work around the fact that your real one is blocked], normally result in blocking the editor, but not blacklisting. Blacklisting creates a burden on editors who innocently edit the affected articles.) I therefore want to object to that statement being characterized as a "misrepresentation", which suggests deliberate lying, as opposed to an honest attempt to describe the situation, for the benefit of other editors, as it appeared to a good-faith editor who hasn't already spent years on the drama boards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fair. In any case the discussion needs to continue here before there is any approximation of a green light or consensus. WAID what are your thoughts, or questions for Alex, about the issue here, namely links to isum getting added widely throughout WP, adjacent to or replacing others? Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF: at this point in time, the costs are $13 monthly for a dedicated server and $10 a year for domain registration. The current hosting infrastructure allows us to scale around 50x our current load. These costs are ones that I am capable of covering myself personally, and it is worth nothing that other club members and university members have offered to put up funds -- enough to keep ISUM running for years to come. The domain and hosting have been paid for their maximum terms, 10 years and 12 months respectively, and funds have been put aside for their continued renewal. The website was taken offline and filler text was put on right after I signed my last message on this talk page last weekend. The site at that point in time was not an accurate representation of ISUM due to an influx of new members that were not yet documented, new statistics for the number of files in our database, among other things. The page that Jytdog and others saw before deciding to rollback my edits has been put back up until the new site is ready, but it's worth noting that no edits were made with that page in the condition you saw it in. The goal was to update the website, and part of the update was to include the requested information (clearer mission statement, bylaws, and a privacy policy). The site that is currently available was put together quickly and will be updated in the near future to be more accurate and provide more insight into ISUM. The .org extension would have been ideal, but .com was the second best option. A quick look at isum.org will show a page with the option of inquiring about purchasing the domain. A closer look will reveal that the owner of that domain and many others is a company called Domain Name International Brands (DNIB). They purchase domains en masse with hopes of reselling even a small portion of them later at high profit margins. The price of the .org being outrageous led me to contacting the owner of the .com and a quick phone call later, I was able to pick the .com up for a much more attractive price. It's worth noting that the owner of the .com was also a domainer (his words, not mine), but was open to negotiation and liked the idea of what the domain would be used for. Currently we are neither a corporation or non-profit, but have had applying for the latter on our to-do list for quite some time. It's in the timeline, but I don't have a specific date for it at this time. That all being said, I am open to any questions you may have. Alexander ISUM (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Internet archives is willing to work with us and archive links we are using. I am not sure why this instead of IA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have already asked and I have already answered that question. It is the first question in this thread. Directly following my comment, RexxS added his comments that I believe are worth looking over. ISUM focuses on serving medical PDFs only. The internet archive provides whole websites at multiple different periods in time (more than 200 billion snapshots), books, movies, recordings, etc. and does not limit itself to a specific industry. ISUM can reliably serve PDFs (unlike the internet archive, citing speed tests, linked complaints, and RexxS' comments) as that's our only focus. ISUM also provides access to medical PDFs that the internet archive does not have archived (again, all of this is information already described in the first comment in this topic when you first posed this question) as our source of documents is different than that of the internet archive (we do not operate a crawler and do not need funding to support our small-scale infrastructure as the scope it covers is so narrow). The internet archive and ISUM are both valuable resources, but I don't think it does justice to compare the two as the two have different goals. Alexander ISUM (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't replace Internet Archive links if they are already there, but based on the information Alexander has provided up to this point I personally don't see adding archive links to this site as problematic. A privacy policy would probably be good though if we are going to send readers to this site. Sizeofint (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've been pondering this. From the point of view of WP, I don't see any advantage to having any links hosted by ISUM at all; they don't provide something that no one else provides. All I see is risk that ISUM will not exist in a few years and the community will have a ton of cleanup to do. Looking at it from ISUM's point of view, Alex has not explained why it is important to ISUM to have its links in WP. What is the benefit to them... why the original urgency? Is it to validate their platform so that they show that to investors or funders and can get additional resources to do other or more stuff? If so that really is a COI and is not of importance to us. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Some of my concerns:

• The .com domain
• non-clear org status
• archive.org's reliability questioned by OP, but I have trouble believing that OVH (the current hosting provider) would scale better for the scale of Wikipedia's possible future traffic redirected there
• lack of guarantees that links will remain available and direct in the future (i.e. without passing through registration, captchas, ads or scripts)
• the sudden urgency for Wikipedia to immediately start using it
• lack of clear privacy statement

Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 03:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: ISUM does provide content that others don't. This was one of the earlier objections that was met with an example listed above. The risk of ISUM not existing in a few years from now was also an initial issue that was addressed. ISUM.com has been renewed for 10 years and the hosting for the maximum term of 12. There is no importance to ISUM that it's Wikipedia or any other site. The goal of ISUM is to provide access to otherwise unavailable or unreliably hosted documents, some of which are exclusive to ISUM. WP is being used as a medium due to its size (there are lots of opportunities on Wikipedia versus, say PsychonautWiki, which is a site we are interested in helping, but it's a small scale project when compared to WP) of work that can be done. WP has a large audience reach and our work will benefit more individuals. It's worth noting that WP is not the sole focus of ISUM, and that we have already started an outreach program to webmasters who are linking to broken resources for which there is an identical, hosted copy on ISUM.

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks for your input. The .com domain issue was addressed above. Rationally speaking, while we wanted a better domain name than TheInternationalSearchtoUnderstandMedicine.com, we could not fork over the 5-figure sum this early in our work and had to go for the cheaper .com domain. The full spiel is above if you want to read, as this was a question asked and already addressed. The non-clear org status was also addressed, but something I agree with you on. It's a priority and we're working on it. I'm happy to not start work on Wiki until the org has been created just to show our legitimacy. It's important to note that there were several points brought up in terms of the internet archive's reliability, the main one being that they host more than 200 billion snapshots of websites alone, not including the audio, video, and other files that they preserve. They have an amazing project, but it's a narrow focus. ISUM's focus is on medicine PDFs. It's a small subsection of what the internet archive happens to cover, but with our complete focus on just medical PDFs, we can provide access to documents that the internet archive cannot, as well as ensure that are available around the clock 24/7. Our current server at OVH is able to take on more than 30-50x our current load and still operate fine. Infrastructure is something that we have set aside member-donated funds for, as well as personal funds from myself. Commercial intent was also answered above (short answer: there is none). Just in terms of their web.archive.org service (which is not the only service that they provide) archive.org provides access to 100 million times more documents than we do (286bn). Urgency is something that was also addressed above. Simply put, I was trigger happy and wanted to contribute. Only after receiving a message on my talk page did I create this discussion. The user WAID did a great job of describing my thought process when editing. A privacy policy is underway with the new website and I'm happy to pause all efforts until the new site is ready. The lack of guarantees was also addressed above, but in short, it's not rational to edit articles and spend time doing so when everything can be rolled back with the click of a button as I saw myself. The next best option would be to be linking to a broken link, so the second best option isn't so great either, but again, if ISUM happens to become a vehicle for nefarious means, it takes one minute to rollback every change made.

I think that there's been quite a lot of back and forth and a lot of the same questions have been asked and I am re-addressing them. I cannot blame the individuals who are asking them for doing so, as the other option is to read thousands of words of dialogue. But, I think it's safe to say that words can only say so much, so I would like to propose a scenario where I edit, say 5 or 10 articles attributing broken/dead links to ISUM-hosted ones for a specified period after creating a site with an updated privacy policy and all of the required documents above (already a work in progress). Contrary to what is believed by some, I'm in no rush and don't have anybody to prove myself to, so I am happy to wait 3 months (while irrational in my opinion, I am happy to comply) or any time frame and simply monitor the uptime and reliability of ISUM in the meantime. If all is well, then we can move forward in discussions. Then I can edit a few articles, and if all is well, then continue from there. And if any wrong doing is found, then you simply rollback like you have done twice.

How does that sound? Alexander ISUM (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

With regard to what ISUM provides that others don't, you have said several times now (diff, diff (twice in that one), etc) that you already answered this, and referred us with some impatience to your earlier answer again, all of this is information already described in the first comment in this topic when you first posed this question) which is this comment you made above. You provided examples to 2 documents produced by pharma companies. These are not only not "medical" per se, they also are available elsewhere. In this comment you refer to "medication guides" but those are available from the FDA, the eMC, the EMA, as well as sites like the NIH's daily med and others. And here you gave the handwavy answer: I think it's worth noting that proxy and financial statements make up only a small portion of the files we have (re)hosted.

The question of what you provide that others don't, remains unanswered.

fwiw, I work with entrepreneurs in the real world, including ones in the healthIT space, and including people who are social entrepreneurs of various kinds. A venture like yours cannot succeed longterm without finding partners of many kinds -- partners whom you need but who won't necessarily need you -- and to get partners you need to build trust through good communication. Hard selling, which is what you have been doing, is the opposite of good communication.

Telling potential partners who are trying to get answers "With all due respect, you have already asked and I have already answered that question is actually disrespect. You assume that we are stupid or lazy. We are neither. We have unaddressed concerns that are based on our understanding of how we operate and what our risks are, which you do not appear to understand nor really care about (I don't think you are aware how trust-destroying comments like this are: I suppose that if the site disappears years down the line, then we would have served users for those years, and you can rollback the changes to the old broken links instead of the ISUM ones. You do not understand and apparently have no concern for how precious volunteer resources are here.)

You have not explained what isum has that others don't, and you have blown off the concern with the risk that there will be a boatload of dead links in a few years that somebody will have to spend time to fix. The risk/benefit to WP is entirely unclear at this point and looks mostly like all risk. In addition, your behavior here has also now made it clear that there is a high risk that isum will fail due to poor execution by its founders - this means the risk is even higher. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

And here is some advice about business development and partnering.

1. Take some time to understand the target organization as much as you can. What drives it, how it functions, what its needs are, what its risks are. Be aware that there will be stuff you don't know about the organization and always talk and react with awareness of that in mind. (The "unknown unknown" is often what kills deals)
2. Figure out how who you need to talk with, to drive a partnership. Be aware that it may be a process where you have to pass through several people or "functions" within the organization. You need to find who has the power to make a deal or kill a deal. Remember that each person at the organization is going to be talking to the next one - you will be building a reputation for yourself and for your organization as you go.
3. Have a concise "elevator pitch" that lays out what ISUM is doing, what exactly you want to do with the other organization, and why (you think) it will be valuable to the organization.
4. If people have questions, answer them carefully and concisely, and ask (and really ask) when you are done, "Does that answer your question?" Have data prepared to show so that you can give concrete answers. (One of the hardest things to learn, is at what point to show how much data about your venture and its plans. Nobody wants a full data dump in the first discussion but in later stages it will be essential to support the high level statements you made earlier.) And this is really important - if you don't know the answer to a question, don't just ignore the question and don't try to fake it. Either thing will be obvious to the people who asked the question (they asked it because it mattered to them). Say something like: "I heard you ask X -- I will get back to you on that in our next conversation." and then be sure you get back to it in the next conversation.
5. If you don't understand something the other people say or why they asked a question, it is essential that you a) are aware that you don't understand, and b) that you come to understand it. How do you be self-aware? Well that is a deep question that I won't get into here. But people repeating a question is a good sign that you didn't actually hear the question the first time and that your answer didn't address the concern that was under the question. How do you come to understand it? You can do that by listening harder, or going and doing research about that, or simply asking. Something like: "Can you help me understand why that is a concern for you"? This is absolutely essential - you need to understand the other organization's needs and risks and if you don't understand why they are saying or asking something, this is a sign of an "unknown unknown" and you need to home in on that and make it a "known" - these things often change the entire discussion from your side - these kinds of things have led me to nicely end the discussion as the now-known information made it clear that the organization was actually not a good fit for me, and sometimes learning things has led me to pivot my entire effort.) You need to be aware, that if you don't understand what they are saying or asking, this will be obvious to them. If you are consistently unresponsive to their concerns, this will be obvious to them and they will not want to work with you. This is what I meant by unknown unknowns killing a deal.
6. You are looking to "close" the deal, of course, so always be working toward a "yes" or "no" but be careful not to push too hard as that will almost always lead to "no".

Wikipedia is a weird place but if you had followed that process, even here, you would have arrived at a different place and this discussion would have unfolded very differently. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

[3]...basically, yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WMF board

For those who are unaware, the community has selected Doc James as a representative to the WMF Board again. Results are here.

Congrats! Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Well deserved. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! JenOttawa (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

well done!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As it should be! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all :-) Just got back to civilization following a 5 day hike of the West Coast Trail. I do not officially take on the role until after an appointment at Wikimania by the currently sitting board members. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Congrats! Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

link discussion as suggested by editor Graham87

Rafael.vidal (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Hi, My name is Rafa, I am spanish, and I have 20 years of experience in the design of medical/orthopaedic products with a strong background in biotechnology.

as discussed with Graham87, I suggested a link on the page "crutch", in the section "materials-->carbon fiber", the link points to an article that the describes the process of making a carbon fiber frame of a crutch, obviously the article is made by a company that produces carbon fiber crutches, but I think the information is valuable as explains the production process and suits exactly the section.

here the link: https://www.indesmed.com/blog/crafting-carbon-crutches/carbon-crutches-a-piece-of-art.php

thanks.

I'm fairly ambivalent about making use of that source, but I suppose it's true that we have no citation to show that crutches may be made from Carbon fiber reinforced polymer. I'll add it as a reference and see if it sticks. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have some background in composite material design and manufacture, and the linked blog is not a good technical description of the process as usually used. It is however reasonable evidence that some crutches are made from carbon fibre. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Rafael.vidal (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Hi RexxS, I don't think the new citation by Jtydog makes sense related to a crutch made of carbon fiber material. The citation talks generally about crutches. This citation may be ok in another section, here would be better to delete it and find another one.

This edit looks like an improvement.[4] Ref is less spammy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks adequate evidence for the existence and availability of carbon fibre crutches, which should not be a particularly controversial matter anyway. Carbon fibre is an obvious material for light weight and stiffness if the cost is not an issue. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Deployment of devices sharing offline Wikipedia

I wanted to share an update on a story which is complicated for me to tell. Some of the branches in this are complicated but I think many people here at WikiProject Medicine can get the idea.

• Offline Innovation: Bridging the Digital Divide in Latin America

First WikiProject Medicine here on English Wikipedia develops medical articles. Next through various channels including the Translation Task Force those English language articles get converted to other languages. Every month meta:Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline scoops up all language versions of Wikipedia and creates an updated version for that month, so that if anyone wants the latest version of offline Wikipedia, it is available. Kiwix can be hard to install and difficult to convince people to use, but meta:Internet-in-a-Box puts Kiwix on its physical devices then anyone within wifi range of the device can either browse Wikipedia offline or download Kiwix. These devices are of no use without deployment and have been waiting for test cases. I at WP:Consumer Reports have done medical school outreach in New York City with Wikimedia NYC and eventually found a class and professor which matched this opportunity, so I gave them wiki training in editing and introduced them around the wiki community. In Wikipedia:Wiki loves the Dominican Republic some administration students partnered with some physicians at Mount Sinai hospital to deploy some devices to some clinics and medical schools in the Dominican Republic while looking at other places in Central and South America as well. WP:AfroCROWD, a project to present Wikipedia to people of African descent, has been helpful for some support in developing Haitian language content and promoting the concept around the Wiki NYC community.

Every step of this process has a story and I am not sure where this all will end, but I wanted to share this much here and now. Several of the people involved in this will be at Wikimania in Montreal this August to share more. Thanks everyone here for your ongoing support. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Lane :-) Yes an amazing example of both the power of open and what we can achieve when we work together. They are distributing the apps listed here in part

Also browser add-ons have just been added. Here for chrome which solve a number of issues.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

I have a question about a source for our Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. My field is electronics engineering, so I am asking for advice from those with more medical knowledge than I have.

On the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page I previously made the following comment:

I challenge anyone who claims to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity to, in a proper double-blind test, tell the difference between the presence and absence of a non-ionizing electromagnetic field. Can you do that? No. You can not. Nobody can. Instead you find references like [ http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ ], which says " A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions. The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure." or [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601 ], which says "There was no evidence that EHS individuals could detect presence or absence of RF-EMF better than other persons ... This review showed that the large majority of individuals who claims to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions. If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." --Posted by Guy Macon 18:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I just got the following response:

Guy Macon: International Journal of Neuroscience, double blind :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784 "The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs ". I just found this by accident, but again, I was not arguing for this. They also mention, which may be the case with most, or all EHS, that the patient had no conscious knowledge of the field, but felt pain and twitches etc. which indicated to the patient that the field is present, and began after 100 seconds. So it is likely that any EHS person would tell the presence of any field they are affected by, based on having pain/symptoms or not, and in some cases the symptoms could be delayed by minutes or hours. In this case 100 seconds is very short, so it can be easily studied. -- posted by Otter22 14:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The new source appears to contradict the sources I gave. Is this a reliable WP:MEDRS-compliant source, does it say what I think it says, and should the article be changed to reflect this new source? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Also see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why we use secondary sources rather than primary sources. One needs to look at the totality of the evidence. If something is not reproducible it is likely simply a spurious or false positive result. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source pmid:21793784 is a single case study and is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. We simply don't use the results of primary sources to dispute the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, such as the top-quality background paper from the WHO and the systematic review in the Environmental Research journal – see WP:MEDPRI. No, it has no place in the article. If, at some point in the future, its conclusions are reported on by good quality secondary sources, then our article may be amended to reflect those secondary sources. But as far as I can see, pmid:21793784 has been around for over five years, and it hasn't made its way into the secondary literature. I'd advise not holding your breath while waiting for that to happen. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Scholar manifests 42 articles citing the above, including for example Tuengler & von Klitzing 2013, "Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic hypersensitivity"; a replication of a 2010 study on phones; and others like Hypersensitivity Responses in Humans to Electromagnetic Fields [Health Effects] which are paywalled. The first source suggests that EMH might result from long-term exposure, which isn't tested by the provocation studies. Also of interest "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity – an increasing challenge to the medical profession", which turned up as citing Turner & von Kilizing, and has a good bundle of references on its own. One could go on and on, if one was so inclined. Regards, groupuscule (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The first source states out with "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is an ill-defined term to describe the fact that people who experience health symptoms in the vicinity of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) regard them as causal for their complaints. Up to now most scientists assume a psychological cause for the suffering of electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals." The next question is what should this sources be used to say? And how do we balance them against the rest of the literature? Some of them are not pubmed indexed or review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

On the question of whether it's "real": If the condition exists but is seen in only a tiny fraction of the people that claim to have it, then the existing studies may be too under-powered (or with the wrong inclusion criteria) to identify it. That is one circumstance under which we see a majority of studies that find nothing, but a few studies that find something more than chance. (There are many other such circumstances, such as poor blinding.) I would think that the definitive proof for the condition's existence would be any single person who consistently, perhaps through dozens or hundreds of well-blinded trials over the space of months, maybe in more than one lab, reports symptoms upon exposure but not otherwise. Whether multiple people have it is kind of irrelevant (unless you're a pharmaceutical company). Ultra-rare diseases are not impossible. We even have an article on at least one that is accepted by mainstream scientists despite only a single patient ever being diagnosed with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That's the sort of thinking that leads folks to believe that spoons can be bent just by rubbing them. Ultra-rare diseases are indeed not impossible, but it does not automatically follow that every effect that is only reproducible in ultra-rare circumstances is an instance of an ultra-rare disease. There will be a lot of more likely confounding factors to be excluded before anyone can reach that sort of conclusion. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For my part, though, I don't think that they've managed to prove a single positive yet. And in practical terms, you have to prove one case (i.e., that it is truly triggered by the claimed source) before you can prove multiple.

It's a truism that you can't prove a negative, but I think that even if we scrupulously abide by that standard, it's fair to say from the current literature that most people who claim this cause for their (real) symptoms should be blaming some other cause. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Idiopathic environmental intolerance is another good example of this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Let me note that even beyond the MEDRS criteria, the International Journal of Neuroscience has historically been a weak source. I haven't systematically examined it for a number of years, but during the period when I paid close attention to these things I thought of it as the International Journal of Pseudoscience. Looie496 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Better collaboration with Commons

How do we improve collaboration with Commons?

For example they deleted the lead image of one of our FA's.[5]

But we are not notified of this and a bot just comes around after the fact.[6]

Would be nice if all images used in medical articles triggered a notice on EN WP.

Image did exist here for a while[7]

No evidence it is not under an open license so restored on EN WP.

Started discussion here on Commons Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in collaborating with Wikimedia Commons. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hosting all medical images locally however does not benefit other languages of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've talked to some Commons admins about what would make their lives easier, and a tool that let them quickly and easily transwiki files (importing all the revisions, so that the original uploader, rather than the Commons admin, would get any questions about fair-use paperwork, etc.) was high on the list. This is more relevant for album artwork, but it might be useful in this situation, too.

I wonder whether Article Alert bot could follow deletion requests within a category tree at Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Have posted here to try to get something build. Not sure if there are better places to post. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mauricio De Maio

Is this plastic surgeon notable? The draft is fairly poor, but wasting time trying to fix it if he's not notable would be a waste of time and effort. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular case, but for some reason "plastic surgery" makes some alarm bells ring. I think SandyGeorgia has concerns that Wikipedia is overly promotional about them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We have had issues with both plastic surgeons promoting plastic surgery generally and promoting themselves specifically :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Generalities are all very nice, but they don't help at all to review this draft. I need specific evaluation of this guy's notability please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, this specific draft seems like it lacks an explanation of why it is notable, to me. Most of the sources appear to be unreliable, not independent or drive-by mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

should be declined...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• i commented on the talk page. not OK as it stands Jytdog (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

Has made it to the main page today. Thanks to all who worked on it and the 414 articles it includes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

excellent Featured list[8]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hematochezia vs PR bleeding

I'd awlways call it the latter name and never the former. Please discuss the article name at Talk:Hematochezia#Should_this_be_called_PR_bleeding.3F Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

PR bleeding refers to both hematochezia and melena. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Er, not in the UK, James. Here, red blood (either bright or dark) is called PR bleeding. Melaena is black, tarry altered blood (not red). The term "h[a]ematochezia" is rarely used. (Disclosure: my opinion might be considered original research.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You would not call melena PR bleeding? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This ref says "GI bleeding presents with bleeding per rectum (melena or hematochezia)"[9] Hematochezia would be fresh PR bleed. The terms appear to be used differently in different parts of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is that in severe upper GI haemorrhage, there may actually be fairly fresh-looking rectal bleeding. Conversely, bleeding in the proximal colon can still present as melaena. The 2015 NCEPOD report[10] makes this point.

Whether melaena is bleeding is a matter of semantics. My view would be that it should be mentioned separately, because variation in transit time means that melaena can occur hours to days after the actual bleeding has taken place. My favourite cause of melaena is epistaxis two days earlier. JFW | T@lk 09:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nod to the WM app and the translation project in Maher talk

Katherine Maher gave a talk in Melbourne back on May 3 that I just listened to. It seems that the translation project and the app are part of the WMF talking points now. See here, which is about 30:10 into the video. She mentions User:Netha Hussain by name. Kudos to Netha and to those of you working on that stuff! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog for mentioning, now I know that Katherine has mentioned me in her speech. I feel so proud right now. I do write medicine related articles, but I am not involved in the creation of the app, although some of the content I created is very likely to have been used within the app. Netha (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

Members of this project may remember this article, which was deleted over a year ago, but appears to have been recreated. Doesn't appear to cite many sources detailing the foundation in detail, but appears to be a coatrack. Deletion nom again? Yobol (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've submitted it for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G4. It may be contested, so worth keeping an eye on, especially if more sources emerge showing notability. We can always have a discussion at AfD if needed. --RexxS (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like the speedy was declined so I have nominated for AfD again here. Yobol (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

iQOS tobacco heating device

Possible MEDRS violations. See iQOS#Health effects. QuackGuru (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup trimmed poor sources that are making health claims. At least User:SimonDes discloses that they work for the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I got a notification that I was mentioned here so I hope I can chime in. I don't know what MEDRS stands for, but thank you for having made corrections. I'm learning on the fly here and trying to copy from what I saw in other articles, so obviously a lot still totally evades me. I just have two questions:

• How do we remove the banner (a major contributor appears etc. etc.) on top of the article? I quickly looked around and it looks like it appears only when there is suspicion of non-declaration of COI (we did put what we thought was the appropriate banner on the talk page): other articles that were edited by companies with the appropriate declaration do not seem to have this. Also people have made substantial edits so considering how short the article is the cleanup request seems a bit moot, lest the whole thing gets deleted. To be honest, the wording of the text feels a bit demeaning (or at least isn't very clear about the right thing to do for a connected contributor).
• the other thing, and I really don't know how to present it, relates to Heat Not Burn article: there was a Heat-not-burn (or something with a slight spelling variant) article that got deleted about a month ago because apparently the editor had not declared he was commissioned to write it (and apparently had a long history of this; I can't find the discussion so maybe it got deleted after the case was closed). But this new article is almost word-for-word identical to the one that was deleted! (I can email you the text: there was, when we first saw it, much internal discussion trying to figure out who wrote it). Is there anyway you can check? I wanted to create a HnB article anyway (it is an important topic in the field right now and there's already a couple of related items on Wikipedia), so I made a draft here. Thanks for letting me know if I can post it without having the demeaning Connection banner and if it is okay to rewrite the whole thing (much of it is plain wrong).

Sorry for the long post, thank you for your time, and have a nice day, SimonDes (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The COI tag can be removed by an editor who does not have a COI.

User:SimonDes, iQOS is the correct wording for the article. It is a lower case i not I.

The Heat Not Burn article is a mess. If there is anything worth saving I recommend you merge it with your draft right away before it gets deleted. We follow WP:MEDRS. That means we usually use reviews for medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply QuackGuru! What would you need to feel comfortable removing the COI tag then?

IQOS is all upper case, and it is written like this all over the website and packaging, but I'd be hard-pressed finding a source saying there is no lower-case "i" (generally speaking, proving a negative is a difficult thing). I also suspect a lot of people will make the mistake, and at some point some newspaper is bound to make the confusion as well: I have no solution for that. Should I add a note saying it's not a typo and link to the website or to the trademark registration (for lack of a better option)?

We have normal peer-reviewed publications relating to toxicant levels. I thought general press was more appropriate for a general encyclopedia article, but I can give a few proper references, if only to explain why the company applied for MRTP status.

You can delete the Heat Not Burn article if that's the procedure, it's apples and oranges and even the images they used are horribly bad. Thank you, SimonDes (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The iQOS is lower case for the i according to the packaging and per this. If the company recently changed it to all upper case I want proof.

Peer-reviewed publications is very different than reviews per WP:MEDASSESS.

The Heat Not Burn article was recently edited and cleaned up. There are some mistakes in the article such as the content about Ploom. QuackGuru (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just spent a miserable two hours+ trying to clean up Heat not burn. Can I suggest to SimonDes that he takes a look at what I cut out and (reading my edit summaries) why. He really ought to read WP:MEDRS as understanding the quality of references needed to support bio-medical claims is essential for him if he's going to be editing in this area. Would an uninvolved editor please take a look at the article and decide whether I've made sufficient changes for the {{advert}} banner to be removed now, please? I'll go and take a look at IQOS. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: The IQOS article looks reasonable to me: it's no more promotional, IMHO, that any other article about a product (somebody remind me again why we have such articles?). Doc James has surgically removed the bad sources and unsubstantiated claims, so I don't see any point in having the {{COI}} banner in place: it's not going to attract more editors to do any more cleanup, so I've removed it. Please feel free to replace it should the state of the article deteriorate again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, and sorry you had to spend so much time on this. I would certainly not open up the Heat not burn article with "Philip Morris wants" - the product category is older and it is a broad industry trend. I'll take this specific discussion to the talk page if that's okay with you.

I will also look more closely at the renaming issue - it might be fairly recent and/or market specific. I know they're dropping the Marlboro peg as well, but the Japanese picture still shows it as prominent. SimonDes (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I moved the Philip Morris content to the body to make room for a new lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to the generic term per usual practice Heat-not-burn smoking device Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No smoke or vapor is generated. Recommend change to "Heat-not-burn aerosolizing device" or "Heat-not-burn tobacco device" or "Heat-not-burn tobacco product". QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks good point User:QuackGuru. Moved to "Heat-not-burn tobacco products" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning, User:SimonDes. The article was renamed because it was not notable for a stand alone article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning user:QuackGuru, and thank you for your quick response. The article had plenty of topic-centered sources and references, and in large publications. More can be found across several countries and languages (not to mention specialized publications): I will be happy to add them if you think this can add to the argument, just let me know what "notable" entails, or what the threshold of notability is (it could very well be that the product has to be nationally available in an English-speaking country; or maybe it can not be deemed notable because the article is created by someone with a vested interest in the subject matter; at least that would explain why the other guy was hiding).

I fully appreciate the irony of discussing the presence of an article on a tobacco product on Wikipedia with members of the local medical community (a rather large elephant in this room! but I think it is actually the right -if hardest- way to get the best outcome), and I appreciate even more that you are willing to engage with me and answer my questions as quickly as you did (I browsed the page and it looks like you have plenty to deal with already). But considering that the new "generic" article is now more inaccurate than the previous iteration, what would be the best way forward? Should I make a list of mistakes and corrections on the various talk pages? SimonDes (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your claim that it is "more inaccurate" is simply false. It is now better referenced and more accurate. We are not an advertising platform for Phillip Morris International Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It probably would of been deleted if it were nominated for deletion since a COI editor created it. The previous article was also very short. I have worked on drafts for over a year. I have massive content and they are still not ready for our readers. I think there is very little chance for an independent iQOS article at this time. Maybe years from now after the article expands a separate article may be fine. See WP:NOTE for an explanation on notability.

More editors are watching this page. You can summarize your list of inaccurate content here. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been a little while since I followed AFD closely, but the last time I checked, "delete this article because a COI editor created it" was still not considered a valid rationale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The community disagrees. A notable article is about to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat Yoga. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your conclusion there. Goat Yoga is likely to be converted to a redirect despite apparently passing GNG because there's little possibility of creating a viable stand-alone article. It will almost certainly be merged. That's nothing to do with the COI of the major contributor. --RexxS (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The article will be deleted without any merge. There is no consensus for a merge. Editors could of created a new page and merge the different articles regarding yoga with animals. But editors were in a hurry to delete goat yoga. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Deleted" means "an admin pushed a particular button". It does not mean "the contents were replaced by #REDIRECT[something]". No admins are pushing the delete button on that page; therefore, the article is not being deleted. (I also question your assertion that it's notable, as it doesn't pass the third requirement for notability, namely, editorial judgement that the subject is best presented on a separate page. (The first requirement is meeting either GNG or a SNG, and the second is not violating WP:NOT.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have thoughts on the utility of the infobox on that page? There is a discussion at Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#Image description. Sizeofint (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• A very similar image is in the body. The infobox and image was deleted. Article was cleaned up. This thread can be archived. QuackGuru (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Meningitis

Meninges

Hello, I am performing some Cochrane updates and came across an update that I would appreciate some assistance on. I am still happy to help but would feel more comfortable having an expert in this area take a look before changes are made to the Meningitis article.

Here is the update that is flagged in the article:

• Article Meningitis (edit) old review PMID:24793545 new review PMID:27813057 - 04:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Kind regards, JenOttawa (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The conclusion is basically that we do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at thisUser:Doc James. Is the present version of the wiki article that cites this review accurate? "In severe forms of meningitis, monitoring of blood electrolytes may be important; for example, hyponatremia is common in bacterial meningitis, due to a combination of factors, including dehydration, the inappropriate secretion of the antidiuretic hormone (SIADH), or overly aggressive intravenous fluid administration.[3][42][needs update]".JenOttawa (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JenOttawa updated as seen here[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Meningitis#Management/tuberculous meningitis could use[12]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Search template

I can edit templates but this one is too hard for me to change besides it is so widely used I don't want to mess it up.
Can this template: {{Reliable sources for medical articles}}

be modified to include Google books and Cochrane?

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have copied it at User:PaleoNeonate/tsandbox (and its documentation at User:PaleoNeonate/tsandbox/doc) where it can be worked on without affecting the existing transclusions. I can't immediately work on it as I'm leaving, but feel free to edit and test (can be transcluded elsewhere using {{User:PaleoNeonate/tsandbox}} for testing). I may be able to work on it later on, but would like to know exactly which links are generally agreed to add. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

According to me, there is no hurry. I am also seeking comments from other editors regarding the addition of these links. I use this template almost all the time - it is very useful. Meanwhile, I will try to make the template work. That is kind of you to allow me to edit in your sandbox, but I will just cut and paste it to one of mine. I've been the recipient of stern warnings regarding editing someone else's sandbox. I would like to improve my template editing skills. Can you suggest resources?

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Help:Template (and Help:Template#Noinclude.2C_includeonly.2C_and_onlyinclude, Help:Magic_words#Parser_functions, Help:Template#Parameters) are probably a good starting point; Good night, —PaleoNeonate - 23:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please do not modify that to include google books and cochrane. Cochrane is already indexed in pubmed and google books contain a world of garbage. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If we could figure out how to link to just google quality sources at Google books I would be happy to sider this. But agree books are more variable in quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • When I use Google Books, I enter the most technical description of the topic that I can come up with. Like epitaxis vs. nosebleed. Your returns tend to include MEDRS sources when non-layman's terms are used.
      • Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm back, but am also not doing any change to the template yet without a clear consensus. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 03:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Use Google Scholar rather than Google Books, it filters out most junk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The template is for finding MEDRS sources; google scholar is full of primary sources and other junk. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If you use the word 'review' in your Google Scholar search, you will only get review articles.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather have Google Books than Google Scholar, but the choice depends mostly on what you're trying to write about. You'll probably have good success with a book if you're looking for information about anatomy, symptoms, descriptions of pathogens, history, etc. You're probably going to be happier with review articles for things like treatment efficacy and epidemiology.

It's also important to remember that our scope exceeds diseases. This template is currently on articles such as Nose-picking, Broccoli, Freckle, Immunoassay (which is more MCB that WPMED anyway), Tampon, Earwax, Autopsy, Snoring, Bad breath, Birthmark, Sleepwalking (which currently contains only two sentences on its use in literature, and nothing about its use in comedy), Sanitary napkin. I think that most editors would consider a book to be an appropriate source for parts of all of these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Google Books might have systemic bias issues. You get a much more international distribution in Google Scholar, although filtering out the woo is a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Anything that's available in English has systemic bias issues, including TRIP and PubMed. Some are worse than others, but perfection is not available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Google Books might have systemic bias issues.

The same goes for Google scholar. Frankly we should not use them at all – proprietary search is a major issue in medicine that leads to bias. There are other ways to improve this template, I may spend some time looking over improvements if anyone is interested — and then I can post a proposal here if you like Barbara (WVS). Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What I like about the current template (though I agree with Barbara about adding Cochrane) is that pretty much anything in the default results list is acceptable for use, even if an editor's background isn't in medicine. This would not be the case if Google Books or Google Scholar was added. I would only support an automated Cochrane search to be added to this template (as I proposed a while ago, on this talk page), not Google Books and not Google Scholar, which are used in many other 'find sources' templates. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone. I didn't think that I would end up using up so much time of others. Feel free to disregard this post.

In my experience, Google books has been very useful because this search engine contains many medical textbooks that are good MEDRS references - I use them all the time. I've not had anyone question the inclusion of such content and reference so far - but of course, what I use meets the guidelines for medical referencing. Google books has been very useful for anatomical, microbiological, pharmacological and veterinary topics. It is especially useful for finding information regarding the history of medical topics.

Google Scholar is useful because in some instances where a journal article is listed through pubmed, a link to the full article is not available. I have used Google Scholar to find the complete and freely accessible version of the same journal article.

Even searching Cochrane requires some skill in discerning what are sources are appropriate. Each return must be analyzed to see if it meets the medical sourcing guidelines.

I didn't anticipate having a discussion on the merits of the search engines because I thought this all had been taken care of in the MEDRS guidelines. Hopefully, I have explained how I use these search engines to find appropriate content. If this discussion bogs down or becomes too protracted, ignore my request. If there are other editors who would be willing to make me my own search template with the added features I would like, you are very, very welcome to continue the discussion on my talk page.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Using Gscholar in that way is good as it doesn't risk introducing bias. I can write a longer more detailed post about why it shouldn't be used for other purposes. As for Google books, the problem is that there are few alternatives to suggest instead — but so far I would avoid recommending either or including them in suggestions or in templates. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added the CRD database of systematic reviews and HTAs. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!...^{what about Cochrane?} Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I see Cochrane search is part of the HTA search...excellent. Excuse my enthusiasm, but this really speeds things up for me. Accept my gratitude. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that most editors who know enough about what is required by MEDRS will already know how to find things at Google Books and Scholar – and probably the pitfalls associated. Other editors unfamiliar with MEDRS ought to be pointed towards PubMed and Trip as good starting points. I think that the second group quite possibly won't know how best to make use of G-Books/Scholar, so my advice would be to leave those out of any template intended to help find the best MEDRS sources. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that this template is designed to help editors without a background in medicine start to find MEDRS-compliant medical sources for articles, when they might be inclined to cite 'studies say'-level research, or the news. I don't exactly turn my brain off when I use this template, I use the work by WP:Academic Journals to inform my choices a bit, but I do trust the pubmed and TRIP searches to come back with acceptable, current, sources more than I do Google Scholar or Google Books. Later, when I'm after broader citations, I've dipped into books more, but the template has helped me drag some articles into the current decade and become more confident with what's needed. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The new link to the HTA search doesn't pre-populate with the subject of the article - could this please be added? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD Notice

An articles for deletion discussion that may interest some project members can be found here. Page in question is Chronic cellular dehydration. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

What a strange old article. Thank you for posting the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction‎

Serotonin

Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction was redirected to Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Sexual_dysfunction as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. In the last couple of days, the article has been recreated twice. Since I don't see anywhere that there is a consensus to reverse the AFD decision, I have restored the redirect. I just wanted to let members of this project know, in case I'm missing something, or to give editors the opportunity to discuss whether the article should be recreated or not. Deli nk (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth asking for page protection? The first was a logged-out editor, and the second editor won't be autoconfirmed for another two days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

there could be discussion whether the article should be recreated[13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected for a month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone give an opinion? JenOttawa (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@JenOttawa: Yes, but please also explain why you are supporting or opposing with your vote. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Stem cell secretome

new article, needs review... Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

could probably use less of[14](company)...and more[15]reviews...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC 2

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should we keep the Other views and solutions section which allows contrary views?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This was boldly closed less than one day after it opened, on the grounds that nobody had expressed interest in doing this, and Quack is known to oppose it. There is a link below to another RFC, which Quack started about three hours after this one was closed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC 3

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should we expand the Other views and solutions section to allow more contrary views?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. QuackGuru (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

If there is no mirror essay called "Wikipedia:Citation underkill" then the alternative is to add a few contrary views to the existing essay. The purpose of the RfC is to get ideas on how to best proceed. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Or start your own essay, which would have the advantage of letting you spend as much space on it as you want, with just as many arguments for fact-tagging and then citing the number of fingers on the human hand as you can muster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Paraproteinemia

above article could use some help(edits), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citation underkill. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Although this is at Miscellany for "deletion", it appears that nobody has ever suggested deleting Quack's new essay, so it's a little weird that Quack nominated it for deletion himself (and then opposed his own nomination).

The original question (see Wikipedia talk:Citation underkill) seems to be whether it should be improved to differentiate between the minimum requirements of actual policy vs Quack's strong personal preference that absolutely every fact get an inline citation, or if it should be moved to Quack's userspace and left promoting his person view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You proposed that I start a new essay, but now you are suggesting userification? QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No. I said that I "would go along with that" option. I do not object to that option; I have not expressed any recommendation (beyond recommending that you stop nominating your own essays for deletion if you don't want them deleted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You would go along with that option which included userification (without providing a specific reason). It was best to nominate my own essay for deletion in order to prevent it from being deleted. I have experience in these matters. I was not about to allow another editor write "Move to userspace" along with other nonsense without letting others read my comment before they vote. I gained the advantage by nominating it first. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pattern.org External Link on Rare Cancer Indications

Hi WikiProject Medicine,

My name is Adam; I'm a software engineer with the small team at the non-profit Rare Cancer Research Foundation (RCRF). I'm very new to Wikipedia and was referred here by the venerable Doc James after I added nine external links to rare cancer pages. The links have been removed pending this discussion.

RCRF polled rare cancer researchers back in January 2017 about their biggest barriers to research. 67% of respondents cited lack of models as their top impediment. Based on available human cancer model data from Cellosaurus, 80% of rare cancer models have less than five models to study—40% have zero models.

We built Pattern.org to enable rare cancer patients, who are already having removal procedures or biopsies, to directly donate their tumor tissue to researchers through an online consent process. Due to low incidence rates and wide geographical distribution of these rarer cancers, patients likely don't receive care in a location where they have the expertise to make maximum use of their tumor tissues. After consent, we work with the patient's oncologists, surgeons, and pathologists to get their fresh tumor tissue to the Broad Institute for model creation. We're onboarding more core lab facilities in the U.S. soon.

I added external links to the indications we cover, with the following (example indication) text: "Pattern.org enables chordoma patients to donate their tumor tissue to research." The link takes users to a specific page for their indication.

We'd like to open a conversation here about the merit of including this link to enable patient-supported direct-to-research tissue donation. Our reasons for inclusion are:

1. WP:ELNO #4: Our link is not mainly for promotion. We are providing a resource for patients to actively manage what is done with their tissue. We primarily promote ourselves by creating partnerships with indication foundations who refer patients to us because they are in the best position act as patient navigators, especially immediately post-diagnosis. Those partner foundations are often included in the external links themselves, because they provide patient resources. Let me be clear: we find their external links important as well...we are not making a "other stuff exists" argument.
2. WP:ELNO #5: We do not sell anything and our site does not contain advertising. We are a non-profit. All of the successful models and PHI donated by patients through the website in question are made openly available to cancer researchers. Our motivation is purely the advancement of rare cancer research.
3. In future iterations, we would like to add sections to rare cancer indications which includes summaries of patient treatment/research/learning opportunities. Pattern.org and other research opportunities would be present there. With our limited small-team bandwidth, the external links were the highest quality content we could currently provide in this round of additions.

Thanks for any consideration and discussion. We’d love to help maintain some of these pages in the future and believe in the spirit of open collaboration. Adamjaffeback (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC) for RCRF

per[16] I would tend to agree w/ Doc James[17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Adamjaffeback, I appreciate your honesty, and wish we could help with such a worthwhile cause, but doing so contradicts the purpose of Wikipedia.

What you're asking is for Wikipedia to allow links to your site to drive business to it. Being a non-profit isn't relevant, nor whether or not anything is being sold. These aren't just ELNO problems, but WP:NOT problems, especially WP:SOAP.

Since it hasn't been brought up: You shouldn't be adding or restoring the links to any article, given your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You might like to request that an article be written about the Rare Cancer Research Foundation by posting a red link and a bibliography of independent sources about the RCRF at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Medicine#Associations. Iff it meets the applicable notability guidelines (WP:GNG being the main one), someone who is not affiliated with the RCRF may turn the red link into an article at some point in the future. I think this would be considered appropriate. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The links are not suitable as external links, even on a generous reading of our external links policy. As this is an encyclopedia, we are solely concerned with providing readers with information that has been reported in reliable sources about the subject of the article. This means that if the information pointed to by the proposed external links were to be reported by independent third parties (scholarly journals, mainstream press, etc.), then a case could be made for writing about that information in the relevant articles, using both the third party and pattern.org as sources. Unfortunately, I can't find any independent coverage on Google, news, books, or Google Scholar. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia isn't more of a help to such worthy causes, but its mission does not include raising the profile of such causes, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your feedback. While we're (RCRF) clearly disappointed with the outcome, we understand how the group reached consensus. Our next steps will be to gather citations and request articles for RCRF and Pattern.org, per @122.108.141.214's suggestion. We look forward to working together with this group in the future to make contributions to rare cancer pages as part of our mission to increase the amount of high quality information to patients. In the meantime, if any of you docs are interested in learning more about RCRF or our project at Pattern.org, don't hesitate to reach out. AdamTWildcat (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Further to the comment by RexxS above, the press piece at http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-me-rare-cancers-20170118-story.html might be helpful, but it is never a good idea to base a WP article on a single source, particularly one of modest reliability, such as that. If you can identify a few other independently published sources it will be much more likely that someone can create a survivable article. It might be that an article focused on the research methods is more productive than one on the foundation. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Pointless template?

Am I alone in failing to see the point of Template:Medicinal herbs used as laxatives? A problem with all templates of this kind is that they don't (and can't) include sourcing. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, It is a navbox. It is not intended or expected to include sourcing. The articles linked by the navbox contain the information and the sourcing. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

But why have a navbox in this case? I'm particularly unhappy with the word "medicinal" in the title. The clear implication is that the use as laxatives is supported in each and every case by WP:MEDRS compliant sources, whereas in reality a description of a folk or traditional medical use is more usual. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the template enshrines a POV problem, and should be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Would simply removing the word "medicinal" from the title solve the problem? As a navbox it does not need to prove anything nor comply with any RS rule. The only criterion for the existence of a navbox is whether it is useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought that the template is fairly useful, but agree that the word "medicinal" is inappropriate, given the requirements of MEDRS. It's only in use on 8 pages (for some reason it's not transcluded on Senna). I'll just eliminate the word "medicinal" and see if that solves the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think our biases are showing here. "Medicinal" doesn't mean either "regulated drug" or "substance that is actually effective for treating a condition". If you go look at the word medicinal in a dictionary, I'm pretty sure you'll find that the definition includes stuff that's "used as" a treatment, without requiring that it actually work. Or even without requiring that the person "using it" actually be sick. The focus is on something that's intended to improve things. Think "laughter is the best medicine" rather than "the FDA has approved this drug as safe and effective for a specific condition".

In particular, the term medicinal herb differentiates a plant eaten because of a perceived medical issue from culinary herb, which is a plant (sometimes the same plant) eaten because of its pleasing flavor and texture. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the standard terminology for this. Without specifying the medicinal intent, one could reasonably add all of the leafy greens to this list of "herbal laxatives". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my bias is showing. The term medicinal means "(of a substance or plant) having healing properties" – if you don't believe me, do a Google search for "medicinal herb" and let me know if that's not the first thing you get. If you don't like Google, try the Oxford English Dictionary (for the same result). If it doesn't have healing properties, it's not medicinal, period. If people are eating leafy greens for their laxative properties, then I can't for the life of me see why they shouldn't be in the template that is designed to aid navigation between similar articles – in this case, herbs that are used as laxatives. Go ahead, add them. What would be the problem with that? --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with WAID – medicinal has come to indicate use in "medicine", i.e. medicine that is known to work. This is the standard definition of the word — and does not cover all definitions, such as those in traditional medicine. However, when we create navigation templates I'd like to think we should stick to standard terminology. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC) 

"Herbs used as laxatives" avoids the issue of whether they are medicinal and by what definition. It would appear to be legitimate option for the name that cannot reasonably be construed to conflict with MEDMOS, while not losing any utility. The only question left would be whether they actually work as laxatives. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"Herbs used as laxatives" is a bigger list than "medicinal herbs used as laxatives". All leafy greens (and stems) are technically herbs (by at least some definitions), but they're not all medicinal herbs.

As for definitions, I see 1) "tending or used to cure disease or relieve pain" and 2) "salutary"; "(of a substance or plant) having healing properties"; "Medicinal substances are used to cure illnesses".

I think that you ought to also consider the example uses: "Medicinal herbs", "I keep a bottle of brandy purely for medicinal purposes", and "It is said that the spring water has medicinal properties". This doesn't give me any reason to think that this word has much relationship evidence-based medicine or efficacy.

To check this theory, I went to https://books.google.com and searched for "medicinal" (in quotes). Only 10% of the first 50 books listed were mainstream science (and all of them were about medicinal chemistry). The other 90% were about the alt med field of medicinal plants.

I don't think that this word gets used much among non-professionals in modern English, and when it does, the only use I actually remember hearing is someone describing Pine-Sol cleaner as having a medicinal smell.

Based on this, I wonder how CFCF has concluded that "medicinal has come to indicate use in "medicine", i.e. medicine that is known to work" (never mind here that some mainstream drugs don't actually work). It seems to me that "medicinal" is an increasingly archaic word that has very little to do with anything modern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

We apply it as it is used in the modern vernacular. That it has meant something else or is occasionally used to signify other things than what is generally accepted — does not matter. I do not at all share your interpretation that the common use is for pseudomedicine and other nonsense. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What's your evidence that in "the modern vernacular", anybody at all thinks that "medicinal herbs" are drugs with proven scientific efficacy? I've just given you some evidence that 90% (ninety percent!) of books using the word medicinal are using it to describe herbalism. You seem to have given me an unsubstantiated personal opinion in return. Can you give me some sources that say medicinal herbs implies scientific efficacy, or that when people use the word – "the modern vernacular", you've specified, which means that you're focusing on casual uses by non-scientists – of medicinal are usually about real science? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The WHO has a bit to say about herbal medicine at http://who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/definitions/en/ though they don't seem to define medicinal herbs. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

CFCF, you refer to the "standard definition". I have not been able to find anything claiming to be the standard definition, so I would appreciate if you could direct me to the source of this standard definition. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/medicinal – The OED's definition is usually quite authoritative. It certainly coincides with my understanding of the word. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. If we'd started by actually looking in a dictionary rather than guessing what was in a dictionary, quite a bit of time could have been saved. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The OED gives "medicinal herbs" as their primary example of how to use that word. It gives about 20 example sentences, and all of them are about what CFCF calls "pseudomedicine and other nonsense". Are we therefore agreed that "medicinal herbs" is the authoritative, OED-approved way to refer to this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we don't forget that the actual definition given by OED is "(of a substance or plant) having healing properties". No healing properties → not medicinal, right?

Tangentially, is it possible that cullinary herbs may also be used for their laxative properties? If so, wouldn't it make sense to have the navigational template include them as well? I assume that readers making use of it wouldn't care whether the herb was classified as 'medicinal' or 'cullinary', as long as it was used for its laxative properties. Or am I projecting my own bias again? --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Something can have "healing properties" and still be pseudoscientific. Or even non-scientific. "Healing crystals" probably are effective treatments for anxiety in a small fraction of people, but that doesn't mean that the effect is anything other than placebo. If they make you feel better, then they have "healing properties". If you say that the healing properties are due to supersonic vibration of quark particles, then they have healing properties, and you have a pseudoscience problem. If you say that their healing properties are because they are the physical manifestation of a supernatural being, then they have healing properties, and you have religion. And if you say that their healing properties are because they are so beautiful, then they still have healing properties, and you are an aesthete. In all of those cases, you're still getting better (by what you and I recognize as the placebo effect).

IMO your effort to define "healing properties" in terms of evidence-based medicine is undercut by the way the OED uses it. Every single one of those 20 examples is non-evidence-based. Either we say that the OED knows what it's talking about, and the definition includes the non-evidence-based "medicinal herbs" (the word herbs is mentioned 12 times in that section), or the OED doesn't know what it's talking about, and we should ignore it completely. What we can't reasonably do is look at the OED, notice that their long list of examples exclusively talks about medicinal plants, and then say that their definition doesn't encompass medicinal plants.

On your other question, it's not unreasonable to have a template on "edible plants that work as laxatives" (however one might choose to name it). However, that would constitute a significant change in the subject of the template, and so should presumably be discussed on its talk page. From the user's POV (rather than a reader's POV), the difference between a "culinary" and a "medicinal" herb being used as a laxative is the dose involved. Cabbage is probably effective for many cases of constipation, but you need more than a couple of little pills. Think of the subjects as "Pills the SCAM industry will try to sell you as laxatives" vs "Plant-based attempts to treat constipation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, that makes some sense, except for the qualification around "edible plants that work as laxatives", as I'm having a bit of a problem trying to visualise how someone might use an inedible plant as a laxative. Perhaps your imagination is better than mine? --RexxS (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm imagining that there are probably some poisonous plants that cause, um, extra motility in the digestive tract, and they would presumably not be included in the template no matter how certain we were that they would be effective as a laxative. Perhaps if your implicit bias is efficacy, then my implicit bias is safety. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

In medicine it is generally accepted that when something is found to be "no better than placebo" — that it does not work. The effect in these cases has nothing to do with any "healing properties" of the treatment/practice — but rather the "healing effects" of placebo. I'm frankly stunned that you would write something that argues differently. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

1. You mean "in modern evidence-based medicine", rather than "in medicine". Your notion of medicine presumably does not include any of the apparently mainstream licensed physicians who frequently recommend cough syrup, chiropractic, acupuncture, or arthroscopic knee surgery.
2. That same dictionary defines healing as "The process of making or becoming sound or healthy again". I believe that it's pretty widely accepted that a placebo can be part of a process of making someone become "sound or healthy again" (in some situations). It doesn't really matter whether the placebo is a large yellow pill for treating procrastination in an open-label placebo trial or cough syrup for sleeping better or "balancing your chakras" (which a friend's oncologist recommended to her as a way to manage her anxiety) – or a few pills of whatever's listed in this template, for constipation. All of those can be part of the process of making someone "sound or healthy again". Therefore, they are "healing" even if the mechanism is unrelated to anything that can be measured by physics and chemistry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Varicocele

Trans varicocele

This needs eyes. New editor is removing sourced content, adding content that is SYN or not supported by sources, like this. This is not a neutral notice, I know. Men and their penises - again. argh. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

will watch--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Person has been blocked for edit warring and there are more eyes now. thx all. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Jolt has been a single person account on that article for nearly three years... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A website called chronoleaks that seems not to be about ineffective methods of waterproofing timepieces

• chronoleaks.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User:Jesuslord4ever is a newly registered account whose contributions thus far all seem to be adding links to www.chronoleaks.com to various medical articles, always in references to replace URLs that have previously been marked as dead. This looks rather questionable to me, please could someone take a look. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Even to one non-medical article... This appears to be a type of linkspam. I have reverted the current edits and have warned the user, but it may be a good idea to also verify if other links to that site exist, possibly made through other users... —PaleoNeonate - 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

After dinner I checked, but failed to see any more links using the advanced search. Thanks for spotting this, MPS1992. —PaleoNeonate - 23:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See this search. It looks like there are none left in mainspace. You can keep that url to check in the future if you suspect the link-spammer might return. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both! Normally I would have been ploughing right ahead either welcoming or warning the new editor straight away -- or asking them what they were doing -- but checking whether the website really had any relevance left me in a state of confusion. Fake news for medical topics? I suppose it is nothing new. I have kept a copy of the link and will check on it occasionally. It will also come in useful for other similar things too. Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like garden-variety spam. He even replaced an official website to a pharma company with a link to his website. User:Beetstra, would you please consider this for the spam blacklist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@MPS1992, PaleoNeonate, RexxS, and WhatamIdoing: Nothing really to do with WP:MED, plain WP:REFSPAM. You see that more, people looking for dead links, and replacing them with their references which at best are related to the subjects that they replace, sometimes plainly with complete spam. As there was a second editor doing the same, I have blacklisted this site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a practice openly promoted by shady marketing people looking to exploit Wikipedia for profit, eg. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —PaleoNeonate - 06:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

To me this seems extremely harsh considering how damn difficult it was to unblock archive.is. Unless there is evidence that the users continue to post links even after being asked not to — we really shouldn't block it. And even then the first step is not to block the site, but to block them. Ping: WhatamIdoing, Beetstra Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Strike that, I thought this was an archive — but it seems just to be spam. You were right to block it, sorry about that... Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to note: the first editor that spammed this got a final warning a bit after his last edit, and a second editor then picked up about an hour after the warning. That is for me enough to see that blocking the editors is not going to help a lot (they obviously will just make a third account). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirk. I knew I could trust you to sort it out with greater fairness and thoroughness than I would have done. I really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment in all-caps from -- User:Jesuslord4ever

IT IS OT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO SOMETHING THAT U MUST DO IT. I THINK YOU ARE RACIST. BECAUSE A A MERE MISTAKE YOU DECIDE TO BLOCK A SITE WITHOUT A PRIO WARNING. IT RESEMBLES DONALD TRUMP. I DONT HAVE AN AFFILIATTION WITHAT THAT SITE JUST WANTED TO REPLACE A BROCKEN LINK WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR. THE PERSON WHO WHO WROTE THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER HAS NOTHING TO DO IN COMMON, I BELIEF HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND NOTHING ABOUT HEALTH SCIENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuslord4ever (talk • contribs) 14:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

We blacklist websites when multiple accounts add them incorrectly (for example, replacing an external link that is marked as the official website of a business with a news site, but still leaving it tagged as being the official website for the business). If enough accounts make mistakes with the same site, then we blacklist the site to prevent further innocent mistakes. It doesn't matter whether anyone has an affiliation with the site. (I am not at all surprised to hear you say that you are unaffiliated with it. Most professional spammers and SEO consultants know that Google Search and other search engines deliberately ignore all links on Wikipedia when calculating their page rankings, so they wouldn't bother trying to add links to strange places on Wikipedia.)

The blacklist is not absolute; if a link to a blacklisted site is needed in some article, then anyone can request whitelisting for that particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point of humouring or enabling vandals whose only contribution to this encyclopedia is deliberately damaging it by replacing real sources with spammed links to an irrelevant site, and then whining about the response. Of course spammers will try to insert their links into our articles because it might drive a little traffic to their site directly, even if it has no effect on SEO or Google rating. Why is this account still able to edit when all they are doing is wasting editors' time? --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see its so easy to click block right ? Being registered on wiki for a long while does not make it belongs to some one. I agree i faulted, but you too. You say you acted according to the rules i notice the gateway your created on wiki. blocking a site can be fun for you but it isnt for others , you get it ? Being admin dont give every right. Working at the NSA does give some one the right to delete the every putin email registed. Or making his mails public to your get what i mean ?. You think you acted right ? Noo your didnt, your acted uporn emotion, and an elite admin does not act on emoting. PaleoMeanate you Pseudo yourself right, remember online your never know with who you are dealing, so be kind to everybody because you dont know if its a test or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuslord4ever (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia information must be supported by reliable sources (WP:RS). This is especially true for medicine related articles (WP:MEDRS). One of your "medical" links was even inserted in a non-medical article of an artist which happened to have a medicine-related name. Most websites are not considered reliable sources. Because all links you inserted were to the same site, this suggests a strong conflict of interest (WP:COI). It was later discovered that another account also did the same, implying that without blacklisting the site, the spamming would only resume under yet other accounts. I did not make any decisions related to that, by the way, I have only warned you and have reverted your changes. Wikipedia is a project which (like previously mentioned by another editor), has policies. It is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information and links. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. --RexxS (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

— The entire debacle seems to be based off the idea that one can replace dead links with your own shitty links to drive views. Are you aware of this Beetstra?

• https://www.shivarweb.com/3632/how-to-use-wikipedia-for-seo/

That blog also goes into detail about the NOFOLLOW principle and why "it's still worth using Wikipedia for SEO". (A point to WhatamIdoing) This seems like something we'd need to look at and henceforth be more aggressive against those who try to game dead-links. This probably merits discussion at the WP:VP. I will post there soon unless any of you get there first. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• • There are companies that teach people how to "dead link spam". I see it a lot and generally block any account involved in the practice indefinably. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 drug reports

The EMCDDA and UNODC released their 2017 drug reports recently. We use their statistics in some articles.

• http://www.unodc.org/wdr2017/
• http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/

Sizeofint (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Great sources for updating our articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Excessive negation in Alternative medicine fields

I do not know if this is done by pharma business or some like minded English medicine friends , all the alternative medicine are in shaby one side shape, just the lead itself contains only information on what is wrong with it and why not to use it, without being a neutral encyclopedic material !. and is put on sides with Magic! . I do not know whats wrong with WIKI medicine articles. Some logics I have observed

• Lead Contains excessive information on being Pseudo, Magic, Danger of death (not in a single sentences but in bunch of para's)
• The claims does point to references but never mention them in actual article on who said what, but a rather general claim on truth of things!
• It seems if a company or a person made bad drugs (e.g homeopathy, Ayurveda....) , the whole medicine way has become a laughing stock ? seems like logics from middle ages for me.
• Every sentences ends with its own negation!, e.g The disease was treated with dilution... but scientifically it was proved other wise...

it's just madening to read this articl! Or

May be I am wrong these was a general consenses by all wiki medicine article contributors ? Then I will keep away Shrikanthv (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

We use high quality sources which base their arguments on hard evidence. This is enshrined in the guideline: WP:MEDRS. There is general consensus that this guideline should be applied.

I cannot give a more precise answer unless you present clear examples, but in general I find many top-importance articles in that field, including Ayurveda, apply WP:MEDRS correctly, even if it is sometimes enforced a little too laxly. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. See WP:MEDRS regarding references. Yes we are science / evidence based. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It can be overdone, though. I have seen articles where so much emphasis is placed on the fact that X is pseudoscience that the article never actually gets around to telling the reader what X is. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

True. Would need to see the example of the concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are some editors who are strongly against alt med. This is generally a positive thing since the situation without them would be worse, but it is not ideal. MEDRS often is applied with double standards. It is strictly enforced on some sources and others such as Quackwatch are considered reliable sources because they agree with the anti alt med narrative. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There is not a double standard nor is this casual - this is something the community has discussed a great deal over the years; use of refs like QW in these situations is discussed in WP:PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The question you are asking is "what do we do when the popular press is discussing something but no good sources exist?" IMO in this situation a source such as Quackwatch is better than simply saying nothing. It takes seconds to make up a bogus claim and a lot of work to refute it in a high quality secondary source. Thus many bogus claims do not have high quality sources refuting them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anyone talking about popular press here. But I do think that a high-quality popular press source could be better than QuackWatch. It's been my experience in recent years that the high-quality popular press is getting better at reporting science, and given a choice between citing, for the same statement, the QuackWatch website or an in-depth article by a professional science journalist at a reputable daily newspaper with proper editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, then I think we should generally cite the popular press. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This entire discussion is without examples; it would help if something concrete could be pointed-to. The OP was trying to get a POV tag on our Homeopathy article, which I actually think this is one of our better altmed article. The OP basically seems to want to WP:GEVAL, which is against core policy and isn't going to happen. @Looie496: Yes, it can be difficult describing the woo. I'm in favour of clear exposition of these nonsenses, but at Rolfing not not long ago ironically it was the enthusiasts who were up in arms when Rolf's own description of her ideas were added to the article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

3 awful articles

Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma

• Cutaneous T cell lymphoma (somewhat surprisingly bad)
• Neural engineering (unsurprisingly bad, futurist hype)
• Neurocybernetics (unsurprisingly bad, futurist hype)

So much work to do! Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. CTCL definitely needs a tremendous amount of work. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Amyloid beta too. Loaded with primary source bloat. It was, surprisingly, classed as Low-importance; I bumped that up.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

[18] will look CTCL--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

additionally Neurocybernetics hasn't been classified under this project [19], its companion article per[20], Talk:Medical_cybernetics isn't either...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis

• Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a disease that doesn't exist; but our article is leaning more to present it more as a mere "controversy" with the sources on one side leaning heavily on Jerry E Bouquot, the inventor of the condition and the person who built a business around it. More expert eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

[21]just 1 recent review(older than 5 years)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it seems to have been settled since then that this was a scam.[22] Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)