Talk:Virginia Livingston
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Virginia Livingston article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Missing Sources, Weak Logic
[edit]• "several follow up studies conducted by independent investigators", " several other studies demonstrated that numerous bacteria in both cancer patients and healthy individuals also produced the substance." - where are sources, links to these studies? I believe this is missing here.
• Journalists, scientists and Wikipedia sometimes say "No study replicated it. No study confirmed it." Does it mean no one atttemped to replicate it? No studies tried to confirm/debunk? Well, in such a case, we can not say it does not work/exist etc. But if there are studies debunking something, like it seams is the case here, well, give the reader the source! And proper wording like fortunately we have here in this article.
•"found no differences in survival among patients whether treated conventionally, or via Livingston's treatment...Based on this trial, the ACS deemed Livingston's cancer therapy without efficacy" - it is all weird, if the survival was the same, it means the Livingston's treatment worked the same as the conventional way, right? Or it could mean that both conventional therapy and Livingston's treatment worked both poorly or not at all which is implied later in the text. There is some discussion but these 2 sentences does not create a good logic connection. 31.132.16.141 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)