Jump to content

User talk:Ambassador III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! A412 (Talk * C) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sumitkumarjha75 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Ambassador III, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

[edit]

Hello Ambassador III. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I would advise you to stick to the subject of the article and provide only an encyclopedic summary of XO Theory. Much of your article duplicates what already exists on Wikipedia. Full biographies of the cardiologists are not relevant either. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Homogenized Milk and Atherosclerosis with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dusty777 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Ambassador III, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sarah (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Ambassador III. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
Message added 14:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 :- ) DCS 14:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ambassador III, I'm sorry I have not have had time to work much on your article.  Let me suggest the Teahouse. Good luck with your article, sorry I could not help more.  :- ) DCS 15:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Homogenized Milk and Atherosclerosis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

tausif 08:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad someone figured out what to do with your article. It was too good to throw away, it was beyond be, and I was at a loss. Happy Editing.  :- ) DCS 04:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any current sources for the homogenized milk-XO-atherosclerosis theory

[edit]

I am very, very concerned about the content and slant of Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis. Right now, it appears to engage very heavily in inappropriate synthesis of isolated sources to push a particular fringe theory.

I've asked on the article's talk page for any relatively recent sources to support the idea that this theory is now (or really, ever was) supported by current research; see Talk:Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis#Looking for a good, reliable source from this century. WP:MEDRS can help you to determine what constitutes a 'reliable' source for medical articles on Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, right now the Wikipedia ariticle relies very heavily on very old primary studies that advance hypotheses, more recent primary studies that don't actually directly address the article topic, and what appear to be a number of self-published works by a small group of far-outside-the-scientific-mainstream authors. If no good sources are forthcoming, I will recommend that the article be deleted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador, I'm still looking for any moderately recent, reliable, secondary sources that present and endorse the so-called XO theory of atherosclerosis. If no such sources can be found, I will recommend that the article be deleted, probably sometime tomorrow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive comments and criticism. It seems that the issue is not so much one of quality science or the absence of current, credible sources but rather certain shortcomings in the presentation of the topic – inadequacies tied to a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia editing, policy requirements and the like. Due to obvious time restraints, it is not possible to edit the article by tomorrow. In order to add balance and objectivity to the article, it is necessary to obtain additional feedback from experts in the field. In light of such, it is kindly requested that we give it about three-four weeks during which the points that have been introduced by you and others will be addressed and the article will be rewritten. It’s anticipated that the final product will prove satisfactory to both proponents and opponents of the XO theory, remaining neutral and objective for Wikipedia readers.
Ambassador III (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Ambassador III[reply]
(As an aside, it isn't necessary to create entire new talk page sections for each reply that you post. Just indent each paragraph of your reply using one more colon than the message to which it responds; this makes it easy for every participant in or reader of a conversation to see who is responding to whom, and in what order. I've fixed this for you.)
The problem really is one of an "absence of current, credible sources", as you put it. I've looked for them both in the article as written, and independently in the scientific literature, and I just don't see them. If you are unaware of such sources after a year of working on this article, and you remain unable to locate any, then spending another three or four weeks massaging the article's contents isn't going to fix the problem.
I'll probably start the deletion discussion tomorrow if no reliable sources are forthcoming. Deletion discussions typically run for seven days, so you would have a week after the discussion starts to come up with credible sources.
Incidentally, as Jeff G. advised you last year, you should probably also review Wikipedia's guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to a lack of current evidence, what is rather remarkable about the XO-theory is the significant body of collaborating research that has come to light in the two-plus decades after XO theory pioneers, Oster, et al., left center stage (circa 1988, when Oster passed away).
With respect to the suggestion that the XO theory is dated and not backed by recent research, a simple search engine search reveals quite the opposite to be true. Inserting the key words “xanthine oxidase,” plus any one of several dozen, inflammatory illnesses (MS, Alzheimer’s disease, gout, psoriasis, arthritis, etc.) generates numerous pages of results for each condition. Prophecy fulfilled, Oster, et al., wrote, in the year 1973: “A multitude of apparently unrelated diseases may actually be only one many-faceted disease.”
The more prominent search results – original research – unfold reference lists with a plethora of additional references.
Nonetheless, consistent with your request, a sampling of relatively, recent evidence supporting the four tenets of the XO theory follows:
1. Tenet 1 of XO theory: Plasmalogen in cell membranes is oxidized (depleted) by the sequential action of phospholipase A2 (PLA2) and XO, producing the byproducts hydrogen peroxide, superoxide and peroxynitrite, which lead to cell necrosis. Plasmalogen depleted in the walls of arteries leads to atherosclerosis, in the myelin sheath of nerves leads to MS, and in brain white matter plasmalogen depletion leads to Alzheimer’s Disease.
A. “Plasmalogen-Derived Lysolipid Induces a Depolarizing Cation Current in Rabbit Ventricular Myocytes,” (1998)
http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/83/5/533.full
B. “Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite in Health and Disease” (2007)
http://physrev.physiology.org/content/87/1/315.full
C. “Plasmalogen deficiency in early Alzheimer's disease subjects and in animal models: molecular characterization using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry,” (2001)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11359882
2. Tenet 2 of XO theory: XO activity is heightened in diseased artery sections.
D. “Electron Spin Resonance Characterization of Vascular Xanthine and NAD(P)H Oxidase Activity in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: Related to Endothelium-Dependent Vasodilation,” (2003)
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/107/10/1383.full.pdf
3. Tenet 3 of XO theory: The inhibition of PLA2 and XO is therapeutic in diverse, chronic illnesses.
E. “The inhibition of oxidative stress by a xanthine oxidase inhibitor ameliorates EAE” (2012)
http://registration.akm.ch/einsicht.php?XNABSTRACT_ID=155567&XNSPRACHE_ID=2&XNKONGRESS_ID=171&XNMASKEN_ID=900
F. “Therapeutic Effects of Xanthine Oxidase Inhibitors: Renaissance Half a Century after the Discovery of Allopurinol,” (2006)
http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/58/1/87.full
G. “Phospholipase A2 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Atherosclerosis: a New Approach Moves Forward in the Clinic.” (2009)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19691442
H. “Xanthine Oxidase Inhibition and Heart Failure
Novel Therapeutic Strategy for Ventricular Dysfunction?” (2004)
http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/98/2/169.full
I. “The Potential for Xanthine Oxidase Inhibition in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease” (2009)
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/cpn/2009/282059/
4. Tenet 4 of XO theory: The main source of XO in inflammatory, chronic disease is homogenized bovine milk (exogenous source), rather than the human liver (endogenous source), except in patients with liver disease. Furthermore, XO is transported to sites of inflammation by activated leukocytes.
J. “Xanthine Oxidoreductase and Cardiovascular Disease: Molecular Mechanisms and Pathophysiological Implications,” (2004)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664875/
K. “Correlation between Milk and Dairy Product Consumption and Multiple Sclerosis Prevalence: A Worldwide Study,” (1992)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1291895
L. “Absorption of Enzymatically Active 125I-Labeled Bovine Milk Xanthine Oxidase Fed to Rabbits,” (1990)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf00095a015?cookieSet=1
M. “Xanthine Oxidase in Human Skeletal Muscle Following Eccentric Exercise: a Role in Inflammation,” (1997)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1159248/
Independent verification of original research findings is powerful testimony in the court of scientific opinion. Four tenets of the XO theory have been largely confirmed by independent sources during the last two decades. Relevant references, "from this century," that challenge aspects of the XO theory are forthcoming.Ambassador III (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Ambassador III[reply]
No one disputes that oxidative stress in general, and potentially xanthine oxidase activity specifically, may play a significant role in degenerative diseases and atherosclerosis. (Though whether XO itself directly initiates damage, or whether it is recruited as part of an inflammatory feedback mechanism or other processes, is not known.) Throwing more sources at that issue is beside the point—though I will note in passing that your 'Tenet 4', especially, is at best only tenuously supported by the sources you've listed.
The request I'm making isn't complicated. What recent publications do you know of that are peer-reviewed, secondary sources – or even primary sources – that posit a direct causal link between homogenized milk consumption, (bovine) xanthine oxidase absorption, and the development of atherosclerosis? None of the papers you've listed above, and none of the recent publications in the Wikipedia article, do so. The only recent works that actually explicitly make this connection are Sampsidis' books, which aren't sufficient by any stretch to form the basis or framework of a Wikipedia article. Until and unless that gap can be filled, the entire Wikipedia article is just a lengthy bit of original research (particularly, inappropriate synthesis of primary sources) to promote a rather obscure fringe theory...and incidentally to hype Nicholas Sampsidis' books. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Homogenized Milk and Atherosclerosis, diligently restates the XO theory as presented by Oster, et. al., over the span of nearly two decades. For anyone to claim the work is original research suggests a lack of familiarity with the material. With respect to information in the article that is based on contemporary sources, it either, (i.) dovetails with prognostications made by Oster, et. al, or (ii.) reinforces key aspects of the theory.
Take, for instance, XO-generated oxidative stress. At a time when colleagues were preoccupied with the Pritikin Diet, Oster, et al., introduced the thesis that XO’s action on cell membrane lipids generates superoxide and hydrogen peroxide, with a cascade of reactions leading to peroxynitrite cell damage (oxidative stress). It’s very much the predominant view, today.
Another example of “prophecy” fulfilled, Oster, et al., stated: “A multitude of apparently unrelated diseases may actually be only one many-faceted disease.” The Time magazine cover story (Feb 23, 2004) seems to say much the same. So do dozens of peer-reviewed, scientific journals. “Inappropriate synthesis” or introspective reporting?
Hyping books? Where is the logic? Don’t salespersons try to sell sizzle rather than the steak? And they certainly don’t give dinner away for free, as is the case with the present article.
Again, your criticism is useful, but the request for proof – for “a direct causal link between homogenized milk consumption, (bovine) xanthine oxidase absorption, and the development of atherosclerosis,” is a demand beyond the scope of the article. If such proof existed, “XO” would not be followed by the word, “theory.”
Is there a statute of limitations on scientific evidence? The brick and mortar evidence with which the XO theory is constructed has not been disproven despite unanswered questions remaining. Your preoccupation with recent evidence is wrong, in our opinion, although recent evidence can help in assessing the predominant view for Wikipedia writing guidelines. To this end, a partial list of articles that link homogenized milk, XO-milk proteins, and cardiovascular diseases follows (other diseases have been left out, for now).
1. “Health hazards of milk,” Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, D.L.J. Freed, Jan 2002, Vol. 12, No. 3, Pages 141-143.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1359084021000006795?prevSearch=authorsfield%253A%2528Freed%252C%2BDavid%2BL.%2BJ.%2529&searchHistoryKey=
2. “Does milk cause coronary heart disease?” Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, M. Moss, Jan 2002, Vol. 12, No. 3, Pages 207-216.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1359084021000006876
3. “Milk xanthine oxidase: Properties and physiological roles,” Int. Dairy Journal, R. Harrison, vol. 16, issue 6, June 2006 Pages 546-554. :::::NOTE: SEE SECTION 8. Milk XOR, anti-XOR antibodies and atherosclerosis AND 10. Conclusions
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095869460500258X
4. “Enzymes indigenous to milk: Xanthine Oxidoreductase,” Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences (Second Edition) R. Harrison, 2011, Pages 324-326, SEE SECTION: Milk XOR, anti-XOR Antibodies, and Heart Disease
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095869460500258X
5. ”Structure and function of xanthine oxidoreductase : where are we now?” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, R. Harrison, vol. 33:6, 15 September 2002, Pages 774–797 SEE SECTION: Pathological roles of XOR in the vasculature
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584902009565
6. Milk xanthine oxidase: Hazard or benefit? Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, R. Harrison, 2002, Vol. 12, No. 3 , Pages 231-238
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1359084021000006821
7. “Xanthine oxidoreductase-catalyzed reduction of nitrite to nitric oxide: Insights regarding where, when and how,” Nitric Oxide, 27 Feb 2013 (In press, uncorrected proof), N. Cantu-Medellin; E. Kelley; ARTICLE TIED MORE TO THERAPY THAN TO MILK.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089860313000955
8. “Xanthine Oxidoreductase and Aldehyde Oxidase,” Comprehensive Toxicology, C. Beedham, 2010, pages 185-205, vol. 4, SEE: ROLES IN TOXICITY AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE and GENERATION OF REACTIVE OXYGEN SPECIES and GENERATION OF REACTIVE NITROGEN SPECIES.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080468846004103
9. “Physiological roles of xanthine oxidoreductase,” Drug Metabolism Reviews, Roger Harrison, 2004, Vol. 36, No. 2 , Pages 363-375.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1081/DMR-120037569?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528bovine%2Bmilk%2Bxanthine%2Boxidase%2529&searchHistoryKey=
Below reference relevant considering Oster, et al., proposed the theory nearly 40 years ago.
10. “Oxidative stress in cardiovascular disease and chronic renal failure,” Free Radical Research,” Marzocco, et al., 2013; (doi:10.3109/10715762.2013.779373),
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10715762.2013.779373?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528xanthine%2Boxidase%2529&searchHistoryKey=
11. “Circulating immune complexes induced by food proteins implicated in precocious myocardial infarction,” Annals of Medicine, Mustafa, Hamsten, Holm, Lerfert, 2001, Vol. 33, No. 2 , Pages 103-112.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853890109002065?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528cow%2Bmilk%2Batherosclerosis%2529&searchHistoryKey=
12. “Bioactive compounds with effects on inflammation markers in humans,” Int. J. Food Sciences and Nutri., Rosa, Zulet, Marchini, Martinez, 2012, Vol. 63, No. 6 , Pages 749-765.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09637486.2011.649250?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528cow%2Bmilk%2529&searchHistoryKey=
Ambassador III (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Ambassador III[reply]

Nomination of Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ambassador_III&oldid=1139852033"