User talk:Doc James/Archive 85

Homeopathy and vaccines

Dear Doc James,

I'm writing you concerning my edition on homeopathy on vaccination. You say "Not a useful addition as non effective "vaccines" are indeed dangerous." Where are you speaking from? The pedestal of truth? Look, my argument is not even epistemological or scientifical: it's sociological. There is a considerable amount of people (the homeopathic community and it's adherents which, in case you don't know, it's huge) that would disagree with what's written:

"Homeopathic "vaccines" (nosodes) are ineffective..."

So, you are clearing taking sides here. And don't mention "oh, but I speak the truth because 'science'" or "we are protecting the community from misleading information and dangerous practices". People don't need to be patronized. They had enough information on both sides to make their own choices.

If one of the principles of wikipedia is neutrality, you are violating this principle.

I'm not advocating homeopathy. I even added some information on the "Stop Nosodes" action (which you very conveniently didn't withdraw). What you are doing has a name: from fear of the truth being question, you are incurring into censorship.

Please, consider my point of view. If we cannot solve this, I ask for a third person's opinion on this issue.

Respectfully, Ibuk27 (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Manuel[reply]

On Wikipedia "neutral" generally means "aligned with the respected mainstream" and in science and medicine that ain't homeopathy. Find out more from our excellent article on Homeopathy! Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that on Wikipedia "neutral" generally means "aligned with the respected mainstream". Quoting from the wikipedia entry on neutral point of view, "Due and undue weight": "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." So you consider homeopathy to be an extremely small minority, while I consider it to be a "significant minority". On the topic, the weight was obviously tending to the "mainstream side" i.e. modern medicine. But I give up, since I read parts of the wikipedia entry on Homeoapathy and the emphasis is "homeopathy is phony". Respectfully, Ibuk27 (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSCI is the policy you want, expanded on in the WP:FRINGE guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is...

Maybe this link is more helpful actually Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa/Wikipedia Primary School. I joined that project early October so am still trying to find my way around ;)

Willing to help us ? We are working on about 120 articles and some of them belong to the "medicine" field. Anthere (talk)

I have worked on a number of those articles :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised you have... medicine is your field of expertise... my list include several on that theme... and all 120 are considered essential topic in primary school program. Not surprisingly, all but 1, are associated to WikiProjects and most are mid to top level of importance.

so let me ask you a question... if you had to get 5-10 medical-related articles improved by wikipediens... how would you do that ? which strategy ? And in particular when those articles are fairly well developed already ? (such as C or B level in quality). Anthere (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been concentrating my efforts on just improving the leads of the medical articles in question. Are you working to improve the entire article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes and no... one of the goals of the research is to test and document several strategies so that articles in the 120 list are improved over the course of the project. So articles are submitted to different strategies over time to get there. For example, in the next month, 3 edit-a-thon are organised in SA to create new articles or improve stubs/start. Or some experts are contacted to work on some articles. It might also be having a call for help in the site notice. Or it might be to make an article the focus of attention in a wiki project. Some of the medical-related articles are already fairly advanced in quality, and I have been wondering if making a goal of getting a C to level B might be an option that would interest the members of the WikiP medicine. Anthere (talk)

We are also working to translate the articles into other languages per here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copypaste

Hi, Doc James.

Swiss labour law, created by Lagoset, is entirely a copy paste of [1] (introduction) and [2] (section Legal sources).

Regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BallenaBlanca The one ref says "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ups... sorry my mistake. I didn't see it. Regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Female genital mutilation

Dear Doc James:

I am a volunteer on WikiProject Medicine Translation and hope to translate article "Female genital mutilation" into Chinese. However I have some confusion on the term "pharaonic circumcision". Does it means that the act has been seen as the old tradition derive from the royalty of ancient Egypt?

Sincerely. ----Koala0090 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koala0090 "pharaonic circumcision" is "circumcision of the pharaoh type". Hope that helps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!

This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:SwisterTwister. Not sure which specific drama this pertains to but yes their is plenty of disagreement here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nintedanib

Thanks for working on the article! Did you remove the information about which brand name is for which indication on purpose? At least in Europe, Ofev = IPF and Vargatef = NSCLC. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is marketing not medicine. One could discuss it in the body of the article but I do not think it is needed in the lead. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. From our reader's viewpoint, I'd say the lead begs the question why there are two trade names, and we are not helping them there. There are several possibilities, not all of which exist for pure marketing reasons IMO: EU vs. US, co-developed by two companies but marketed separately, different indications, different dosage forms... Would you say that all such information should be removed (from leads)? And why do we mention trade names at all if "marketing not medicine" is an exclusion criterion? Best regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many meds have hundreds if not thousands of brand names. The generic names stuff is indicated for both uses. Pharma companies refuse to use generic names and try to get people to use their brand name. This is not the first PR firm requesting this. General good practice is to use generic names more or less exclusively.

I have no issue if someone wants to discuss the brand name issue in the society and culture section. It is a marketing this and not very important in the world of medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia (and scientists) should use nonproprietary names. Equally obvious, pharma companies must consistently use brand names when referring to their products or they risk loosing their registered trade marks. Profit is not automatically evil. Like it or not, many patients recognize the brand name but not generic names of drugs they are taking. Not mentioning commonly used brand name somewhere in the article makes it harder to find these articles and hence is a disservice to our readers. Boghog (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is stating we should not mention key brand names in the lead. This is a discussion regarding how much prominence they should get in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not a discussion about generic brand names. Both Ofev and Vargatef are names from the originator. Also, I'm not suggesting to use the brand names more than just once. Would the lead sentence "N is used under the brand name O for IPF and as V for NSCLC" really give more prominence to the brand names than "N is used under the brand names O and V for IPF and NSCLC"? Sorry, I don't see that. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a discussion about brand name, brand names. IMO those details belong in the section on society and culture not the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SIBIS

Hi, I added the section on the benefits of SIBIS back to the page. It cited two studies and there was no reason to delete them.

I also wanted to note that the experiment described was NOT a case study - it was a combination of two time-series replication designs, multiple baseline across settings designs and reversal designs, and had sound experimental control for all five participants. Iwata wasn't given the APA lifetime achievement award this year for using poor experimental designs like case studies ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolololol (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] is very much a case report. It says "This report describes the effective treatment of self-injurious behavior (SIB) using contingent electric shock in an adolescent" Please use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] very much is not. It is an extremely well-controlled design. I'd recommend reading actually it before removing my post again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolololol (talk • contribs) 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It begins "Five cases involving the treatment of longstanding, severe, and previously unmanageable self-injurious behavior are presented." and is labeled as a case report by pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case report. You need to look at the experimental procedures. It uses a single-case design to show the effects of SIBIS on five people with an uncommon behavior. You can't just do an RCT on everything, and a single-case design was the most appropriate design. They controlled for threats to internal very well and replicated effects multiple times within each subject. It's a free article. Take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolololol (talk • contribs) 04:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use secondary sources not primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true? That sounds like the opposite of what we should be doing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolololol (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the guidance at WP:MEDRS. Happy to ask for further input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy

Thanks for your help and for your welcome! Sorry if this message has grammatical errors, this is not my native language.

Your observations are correct. But not only CD, also NGCS is linked to epilepsy:

Neurologic and Psychiatric Manifestations of Celiac Disease and Gluten Sensitivity "Epilepsy is another documented neurological manifestation of GS or CD"

I think it's important to reflect that the epilepsy may be the prime and/or only manifestation of CD or SGNC, in absence of gastrointestinal symptoms, and thus is not recognized nor diagnosed. In other section, perhaps?

I let you information from another source. It may be useful to complete. Would you agree to add?

Neurological manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of celiac disease: A comprehensive review

The incidence of epilepsy (seizure disorder) in patients with celiac disease has been reported as high as 5.5%. Since many patients are asymptomatic, the valid prevalence of epilepsy associated with celiac disease could be higher. Screening studies have revealed the prevalence of celiac disease among patients with epilepsy to be 1 in 127 to 1 in 40 people.

Regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have added "gluten sensitivity" aswell as a possible association.

We already state "A 2012 review estimates that between 1% and 6% of people with epilepsy have CD" thus that encompases the Iranian review.

Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very thanks, Doc James.

One thing more. Due the high underdiagnosis of coeliac disease (caused by the numerous non-classical presentations, with mild or absent gastrointestinal symptoms) and non-celiac gluten sensitivity (little known entity), I think it is very important this observation: Since many patients are asymptomatic, the valid prevalence of epilepsy associated with celiac disease could be higher.

I propose to add some mention. I let you the decision.

Regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The upper limit was based on systematically testing a large group of people. It was not based on testing only those with symptoms so I am not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I understand your goals of simplification, succinctness and improving the encyclopedia. You generally are quite active in 'overseeing' the editing of many, if not most articles. I am having difficulty with some of your edits because they often result in the possible copyright violation of my sources. What I mean to say is that your edits sometimes result in the re-creation of direct quotes from the review journal article contents or create a problem with close paraphrasing. The purpose of my 'wordiness' is to avoid copyright and close paraphrasing of my sources. I am not sure how to work through this problem with you and I am sure you don't want to go back to the original sources and figure out how to reword the content for the purpose of copyright problems. I have had an entire article deleted due to the fact that I cut and pasted from another article whose content I wrote. So even when I use the same source in many articles to convey the exact same information, I am forced to reword the source content each and every time in each article. When you follow me up and edit the content that I have added, you (unknowingly) are bringing the wording of the content closer to exact wording from my source and the wording that I have used in another article creating the potential for additional copyright issues. Comments? The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC) aka Bfpage[reply]

None of those things ought to happen. It isn't a copyvio for you to reuse your own material; it isn't a copyvio for Doc James to copy-edit the material even if the result ends up looking more like the source, so long as he doesn't do it by working from the source. If that happens it's a strong indication that you are paraphrasing too closely, even if it doesn't feel like it. Perhaps the best approach would be to ask for input from other editors at WTMED the next time a problem arises. Looie496 (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on this topic, User:Looie496. You have created some pretty great content and I think the encyclopedia is better for your edits and created articles. I only mention this because it makes what you have to share in this comment more valid for me. Unfortunately, the things that I have mentioned have happened to me, but I have not pursued the correction of the article deletion based upon copyvio accusation because I don't believe in contentiousness based upon being 'right', besides it takes away from content creation, editing and removing vandalism. Asking for input for each edit that I perform isn't really practical and I have tried the route of posting on the talk page of Project Medicine with mixed results. I'm not sure I have a 'feeling' of close paraphrasing. There are no problems arising except the ones mentioned above. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Close paraphrasing -- really paraphrasing at all -- is usually a result of relying on a single source. It's much better, if possible, to read multiple sources, then put them away and write down the gist of what you have learned in your own words, then turn back to the sources to make sure what you wrote was correct. That's a lot of work, of course, but it leads to superior results. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice...again! You won't find anyone who would agree with you more than me. I don't even like to create an article unless I have three or four sources. I use Microsoft Word all the time, import content, check spelling and grammar. Simplify language, remove puffery, peacock words and any other non-encyclopedic content. As for writing and putting away my references, well I guess I would have to disagree on that since I reference contents quite specifically at the end of a statement or paragraph. You should 'do' medical editing training with what you know. Thank you again for helping me. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this User:Barbara (WVS). Which edit resulted in text that was to close to what source? Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are discussing this one [5]. You have added it to a number of articles. I guess the question is how should we summarize it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example here [6] I would not call email and text messaging "noval strategies" in that they are every day methods of communication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James, the latest edit to remove the word 'novel' was the right thing to do because after thinking about it, it sounds like 'puffery' or 'peacock' terminology, so thank you. The article that I used as a source applies to every article related to an sti and so the addition of the content has to fit into the content that already exists in those articles. So I am not sure how to 'summarize' the journal article since the information contained in the journal article is worth only a few sentences of content in each of the sti articles. Sorry about that last sentence, it comes out convoluted. Sometimes the new content about follow-up is in the "prevention' section or the "treatment" section and so I adapt the addition of the content accordingly. Oh, I do hope that I am making sense(!). Using text messaging and email as follow-up strategies for prevention of sti recurrence is not mentioned in sti articles. This information could be valuable to readers AND for those clinicians who may not be aware that this practice results in increased success in the prevention of recurrence. The Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay two things

1) You stated that my text somewhere was to close to the source. Can you please state which edit and what source text you are referring to? If your statement was an error please state that.
2) Text messaging and email was to improve follow up. I am not seeing evidence in that review that it prevents recurrence.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to Special:ActiveUsers article

Doc,

Please add this to the first sentence of the [[Special:ActiveUsers]] article:

The total number of active editors on the English Wikipedia is [[Special:ActiveUsers|{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}]].

Here is how it renders: The total number of active editors on the English Wikipedia is 122,331.

The page is locked, and there is no Talk page. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to edit that page either User:Checkingfax Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, do you know people that know people that can do this? Thanks. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are instructions here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable development goals

There is discussion on the talkpage about the logo and term "global goals". An editor recently removed these, however I had already discussed these issues on the talkpage so I reverted back - briefly the logo was used at the UN SDG conf, the DG of the UN referred to the SDGs as the Global Goals and I previously discussed in various fora about having "non-free" fair use logos on the page. I explained previously all this on the talkpage. It seems to me that even if the term and the logo are not UN official terms and images, they are clearly being used by the UN and others and should appear on the page. I dont think the UN officialness really matters. Appreciate another pair of eyes and thoughts. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested the advice of a copyright person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Serum-ascites albumin gradient

Hi James, I notice that there have been a number of edits to Serum-ascites albumin gradient diff of all. I don't have access to the source and don't know enough to make a judgment. If you have the time and feel up to it, would you please check for accuracy? Thank you! Jim1138 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim1138 there is this ref [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

News and notes: Wikimedia lawsuit against NSA dismissed; Affiliates mailing list launched

In the media: "Wikipedia's hostility to women"

Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus

Featured content: A more balanced week

Op-ed: Wikipedia is significantly amplifying the impact of Open Access publications

Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing

Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Coeliac disease

Dear Doc James:

The CD page, in my modest opinion, is a little obsolete and I estimate that would need to be updated and/or improved in some points. I have also seen that an agreement is required to edit it. Does the process passes all editions subject to revision in the discussion page?

Any guidance you can give to me, will be wellcome.

It is a great pleasure and honour to have your help and nice collaboration.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first step will involve finding some very high quality sources on the topic. Than updating based on those sources. User:Jfdwolff is an excellent editor and worked on it previously. He would be another good collaborator. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BallenaBlanca. I would be delighted to support an update to the article. In the main its content is still relevant because the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway of coeliac disease remains effectively the same, but the immunological understanding has progressed immensely. Being a Bear Of Very Little Brain, I have struggled to understand the immunology in particular and this has put me off keeping this section updated. Let me know if I can help in any way.

As Doc James says, the secret to every good article is a fabulous bunch of sources. There's no shortage of recent reviews on CD. JFW | T@lk 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank very much, Doc James and @Jfdwolff:! --BallenaBlanca (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frameless IUDs

Hi Doc James,

I would like to edit the section about "Frameless IUD's" in the article about "IUD with copper" but you reverted my edit because I should "Use recent secondary sources". Could you please clarify what is acceptable as a recent secondary source? Does the one I pasted here satisfy this requirement? Or did you mean that I should exclude old sources (how old is too old?). Should I start with a smaller edit to the article using fewer sources?

Example secondary source:

Wildemeersch D, Pett A, Jandi S, Hasskamp T, Rowe P, Vrijens M. Precision intrauterine contraception may significantly increase continuation of use: a review of long-term clinical experience with frameless copper-releasing intrauterine contraception devices. Int J Womens Health. 2013;5:215–225 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S42784).

Kind regards,

Fdemae (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the impact factor of the journal is so low [9] raises concerns. I guess it depends on what you want to use it to say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fdemae, the answer is always "it depends", but as a general rule of thumb, you want a review article, good textbook, practice guideline, or other secondary source that was published in the last five years (or maybe ten, if there isn't much published on the subject).

Impact factors are a disputed criterion. The IF for an important niche journal will be much lower than the IF for an unimportant general journal; similarly, a New Zealand journal like this one will have a lower IF than an otherwise identical American journal.

Your idea of starting small is often a good one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as WAID said it depends. But happy to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to pages for treatment information from the Society for Clinical Psychology (Division 12 of the American Psychological Association)

Hi, Doc James,

We have a list of pages describing psychotherapies with strong evidence bases for specific problems. The list was put together by the Society for Clinical Psychology, one of the divisions of the American Psychological Association. We are treating it as a "white list" of information about high quality information, intended for the general public, curated and vetted by a professional society with relevant expertise. Since we have a list, we also were experimenting with randomly assigning the dates of rollout for adding the links to the pages, to see if we could measure a change in traffic.

Two questions:

(a) is there a better way of adding the links? You reverted one of them (Substance abuse) noting that "there isn't really anything new" (which Division 12 would view differently, since they put a lot of time into developing the content and linking it to resources)

and

(b) is there a better way of trying to do scheduled rollouts?

In related efforts, we also are prioritizing adding citations to Cochrane Systematic Reviews (you noticed one that we added, on ketamine for treatment of bipolar -- the results were news to me!), and we are working with other professional societies to develop whitelists of pages with resources and general information to add.

Thanks, as always, for your guidance, and for all the time and effort you are putting into Wikipedia!

Best regards,

Eric Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eyoungstrom we are working to build a high quality encyclopedia here. We are not really a collection of external links to other sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

β-Lactamase inhibitor

Just started working on this. Would appreciate your input. 2601:643:8100:8AF4:F186:BAAA:C802:20EE (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is getting a little long. Likely would be good to split some of it off into sections in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help over there, you made some nice improvements. Since the somewhat promotional boronate material was added recently, I was going to wait to remove it, figuring it would be a fight. Glad you took it on.

This is kind of a tough article to write, especially for a lay audience, as communicating the key concepts requires some knowledge of the different kinds of beta lactam and different types of beta lactamases. What I'd like to cover is something like the following:

1) Role of aminopenicillin/BLI combos like Augmentin in community-acquired infection

Comparision of prevalence of susceptibility for aminopenicllin alone vs. combo (very hard to find data on this)

Relating this to spectrum of beta lactamases inhibited

2) Same as #1 for hospital infections, with an emphasis on why pipericillin/tazo is such a major drug

3) ESBLs, carbapenemases, and AmpC, and what if any use current//developmental beta lactam/BLi combos have on them (I really don't know). There are a couple of new ceph/BLIs combos out there and I know that some of them are quite broad spectrum, but I'm not familiar with how this relates to the spectrum of Beta lactamases inhibited.

Thoughts or references appreciated as always. 73.162.132.47 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

The problem was that the mobile app doesn't forward to the top of the article page but somewhere in the middle. At least for me it does. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 18:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:RiverStyx23 this pertains to which discussion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dementia on wikipedia

Hi, I'm not sure why you deleted my dementia edit concerning general anesthesia. I believe the citations were acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformedConsent (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were not -- I have explained why on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated what you have added with better refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on cirrhosis page

Thanks for the message. I didn't directly see the citation next to the sentence, which is why I added the tag but I'm fine with no "citation needed" tag there, since you have a citation.

I think it's good to mention that the 2-3 drinks per day over a long period of time is for *alcoholic* cirrhosis bc 30-40% of the causes of cirrhosis are not alcohol-induced. (PBC, Chronic Hep B/C, Hemochromatosis, NAFLD). I just think that helps clarify so that people don't think cirrhosis requires alcohol.

Also, nice to meet a fellow Canadian member of the profession! I'm going to UCSD medical school in San Diego right now, but was raised in the Okanagan valley for 9 years of my youth (1 in Kelowna, 1 in Summerland, 6 in Penticton and a while in New Westminster), and was at U of Calgary for part of my undergrad. Hope you're doing well! Davemcarlson (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davemcarlson sounds good. Yes I use a lot of hidden refs when multiple sentence in a row are supported by the same reference. Always happy to meet a fellow Canadian. I spent time in all those places during my residency training :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you

Well, maybe. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Congrats to all involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

From the editor: The Signpost's reorganization plan—we need your help

News and notes: English Wikipedia reaches five million articles

In the media: The world's Wikipedia gaps; Google and Wikipedia accused of tying Ben Carson to NAMBLA

Op-ed: It’s time to stop the bullying

Arbitration report: A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement

Traffic report: Canada, the most popular nation on Earth

Recent research: Student attitudes towards Wikipedia; Jesus, Napoleon and Obama top "Wikipedia social network"; featured article editing patterns in 12 languages

Featured content: Birds, turtles, and other things

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Community letter: Five million articles

Schizophrenia

Hi, Doc James.

Do I understand, then, that I can edit this version? I do not want any misunderstanding.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one hypothesis of many. The sources do not seem very confident in it. Also it is not typically mentioned in major overviews such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914490/. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About promoting the contribution to WikiProject Medicine

Dear Mr.,

As you already know, contribution to WikiProject Medicine from users from Maghreb is limited. As I am an organizer of the Maghrebi Session of Scientific Research Training for Ph.D. Students and Medical residents that would be surely held in Tunisia in March 2016, I thought of creating a section in the journal of the conference in which we explain how Wikipedia works and organizing a quality competition in which the participants develop a work.

I ask if such actions are eligible for grants by Wikimedia Foundation.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Csisc I am entirely a volunteer and not sure exactly the details on grants. meta:IEG might help.

We are looking for help with our translation project here. We have a group of medical students in Taipei who are doing great work translating medical content into Chinese.

What languages were you planning on working in? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will be working on the French Wikipedia. We will obtain a set of 120 works in 4 days. The grant is to fund the prize (300 USD) and to fund the papers explaining the competition that would be distributed during the working conference (200 USD). We have a list of four professors that would assess the papers and review them and we will be happy that any admin of WikiProject Medicine joins us in assessing the different works. --Csisc (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My French is not good enough to be of much help unfortunately. Are you planning on translating or writing articles from scratch? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have chosen French because it is more intelligible for the audience. The participant chooses a stub or unwritten work. He will develop it in two days. He is allowed to translate his work from English or write it using his own known references. --Csisc (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHFS

Hi Doc James,

In reference to your comment below: The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists[edit source] Why do you say here [1] that the AHFS is an "inaccurate reference"? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My classmates and I were unsure about this particular reference link because it takes you to a page on drugs.com with information on Vancocin, instead of clarithromycin. So we chose instead to reference the package insert.

Please give us any feedback with this issue! Thanks! Ehalon19 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So well a free version of the content is hosted by drugs.com the content was produced by the organization AHFS which is simply a large professional organization of pharmacists who practice in hospitals.

Ah yes I see that the wrong link was provided. It should have been http://www.drugs.com/monograph/clarithromycin.html Thanks for picking that up User:Ehalon19 and I have fixed that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I realize your busy (I think I might have brought this matter up before), Talk:Dyslexia/GA2 last response August 25, [10]....originally started July 30 [11]......you said yes usually these just run for a week or two [12]....what should I do? ... thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure posted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[13]...and Talk:Dyslexia thank you again for guiding me in this matter...ozzie --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simvastatin

There's a couple broken refs and between you and the IP's editathon, I'm not sure what to do. It's the refs right before and after the "Adverse effects" section header. Bgwhite (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Bgwhite I think I fixed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer-fighting protein discovered while trying to fight malaria in pregnant women

I don't want to put this on Portal:Current events as I don't know where to find reliable medical references. I thought you might be interested in this, although I don't know if an article already exists on it. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rubbish computer the Daily Mail is not a suitable source. This is not really notable. No human trials have been conducted. No drug even appears to exist to study. This is very very preclinical research which has a 99.99% chance of not panning out.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rubbish computer no worries happy to help. If this is notable it will be picked up further and than we can comment :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, have a nice evening. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some researchers are open to the possibility that consciousness/mind may not result from brain activity

Hi. There's a sourced statement in near-death experience that says that "some researchers ... are open to the possibility that consciousness/mind may not result from brain activity." This seems a bit open-ended; I'm sure you could find a few researchers who are open to any possibility. It sounds like the way one would word a statement if one were proposing a fringe POV. Also, the sources seem a bit iffy to me. As an example, our article on Nova Science Publishers, one of the sources cited, says that it is not peer reviewed. I don't understand the science behind this, so I was hoping maybe you could make a comment about whether I'm being too skeptical or not. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a fringe POV. It is held by a significant enough minority to deserve mentioning, but it is not the mainstream view. Looie496 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is a very minority opinion and should be attributed at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sofosbuvir

A Tunisian Study has proved that Sofosbuvir is not efficient for fighting Hepatitis C Virus because of the mutations of the virus due to its exposure to the drug. You can read the study here. The drug is only efficient in the first days when the NS5A inhibitors can fight HCV. After a few days, the mutation of HCV will happen and the drug is unfortunately not efficient. So, the situation of the patient will worsen when using Sofosbuvir and similar drugs. I ask if the study could be used as a reference to develop the work about Sofosbuvir in Wikipedia. Thank you. --Csisc (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my duty. --Csisc (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask about if the study can be used in the work about Sofosbuvir. --Csisc (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been picked up by any secondary sources yet? This study appears to be making very tentative conclusions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The study had been published online in 6 June 2015. So, it is quite new. It has not been picked by any secondary source because working on such studies require time and efforts and even if the conclusions of the Tunisian Study are important. However, it has been downloaded over 800 times now and has been tweeted by an advisor of Doctors of the World. It seems that it will be cited soon. Thank you. --Csisc (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask about your opinion about developing the work about Sofosbuvir and submitting it to Open Medicine Journal. We will begin developing the work and wait for the work of Larousse to be cited before including it. --Csisc (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great to develop this article for publication. Open Medicine is no longer functional from what I understand. Probably an open access pharmacy journal would be better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a conflict about the title of the journal and this is how the journal was closed. Open Medicine is actually the title of the former Central European Journal of Medicine. As for Sobosbuvir review, I will be the second or third author of the review and you would be the first author of the review as I am still a B.Sc. Student and still have to learn to master writing about advanced medical facts. --Csisc (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles for journals is a lot of work. Not sure if I am up for taking on another one right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will take our time in doing that. We will write the work in one year, wait for the latest researches about Sofosbuvir to appear, develop the work to GA and FA Status and then submit it to a medical journal. --Csisc (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Op-ed: You are invited to participate in the Community Wishlist Survey

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation finances; Superprotect is gone

In the media: Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: propaganda myth or history?

Traffic report: Death, the Dead, and Spectres are abroad

Featured content: Christianity, music, and cricket

Gallery: Princess of Asturias Awards 2015 ceremony

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Asthmatic request

Dear Doc James, I have left a task request for you on the Asthma talk page and would be grateful if you could implement it. Alternatively please de-protect the page and I will do it. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.23.232 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Doc James. Thank you for the asthma intervention. However, reading the article more closely, I am increasingly unhappy as concerns the Prevention aspects. Common-sense medical advice includes having a shower or bath and washing your hair before going to bed every evening but especially after working in the garden, putting mattresses out in the frosty air for a couple of hours in the winter to kill the mites (below zero degrees Celsius), and removing/preventing Alternaria growth on wet bathroom tiles using a simple window wiper. I was hoping to find such everyday advice in the cited references, but instead the NAEPP) (2007) reference in the lead falsely states that Alternaria is (only) an outdoor fungus, and complicated and imperfect washing procedures are recommended for bedclothes (how on earth do you wash a mattress?). I realise that I do not have suitable literature at hand, but I feel unwilling to put in the literature research work as long as the article is blocked and my suggestions may be ignored. Let me know how you advise we/I/you proceed. And no, registration is not an option for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.23.196 (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen that common sense advice in high quality medical sources on asthma. The way I write article is pull together the best available sources and summary them rather than come up with ideas and look for sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quick "legalistic" answer I feared. Well you cannot do Wiki single-handedly, so it would help to unblock the article. As a minimal solution, I have shifted this discussion paragraph to the Asthma talk page. Could you please do the same with your response, and then third parties can perhaps do the homework that you and I do not wish to do. Thanks anyway, and I am now signing off (you will not hear from me again on this matter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.23.196 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psoriasis edit

Hi there James, what do you make of this edit [14]? It got edit warred in which is a bit concerning but i can't do much to verify the validity of the claim. I have found that this diet is a real thing done by a physician named Walter Kempner in the mid-1900s but it was done primarily to address kidney disease not psoriasis. I can't find anything in the medical literature about a possible role either but I can't tell if the source being cited is valid or not though I'm dubious of it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a popular press book. Consistent case reports is not evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking too but I held off on removing it a second time so it didn't appear I was edit warring and since I couldn't verify. I appreciate your weighing in. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism vs. Editing The Stretta Procedure

Dear Doc James: I have grown weary of your deleting information out of this page and others having to restore it. I am one of the main authors of a great deal of the research in this procedure and technology. We are trying to portray the information factually and fairly. Your edits or should I say deletions of literature substantiated information amount to vandalism and make no contribution to anyone's knowledge, the purpose of Wiki to start with. In reviewing your other interactions with other Wiki authors and contributors I see a similar pattern. Since you have no experience in this field, as an ER doc, and have never conducted research in the field of gastroenterology as far as I can see, I must ask you directly your motivations in trying to obstruct the free flow of knowledge, and do you have connections to anyone that would share the same arbitrary negativity that you appear to display in your habitual edits? As physicians we need to maintain some decorum and maintain ethical boundries, so I would be very happy to speak to you directly off-line one day after or prior to your shift at the hospital....just let me know. Finally, as per the Wikipedia rules and regulations, I am using this message as an official warning about vandalizing the site. If it continues, I will notify the administrator and other ethical conduct boards. I thank you in advance for your understanding and consideration. Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnoar (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mnoar Thanks Mark. What is your connection with the company that manufactures the product in question? You would do well to read WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you appear to be a medical advisor for the manufacturer, Mederi Therapeutics. You would also do well to read WP:COI

As you are paid a fair bit of money from the manufacturer you are not to edit this article further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James: I am an educational advisor to the company. I am in private and academic practice, and perform these procedures weekly, as well as teach them at most major universities internationally. I do not receive a salary from this company nor do I own stock, so your supposition about making a lot of money from the company is off base and offensive. Since I get paid by insurance companies to do this procedure, then I suppose this is also a conflict? In any case, I will do as instructed by Fred, and submit anything regarding this posting to the board for approval to avoid any further charges of conflict of interest. Now please tell me what are your conflicts? Why have you decided to spend so much of the time you have so little of to remove non-conflicted information placed on the site by others? What is your motivation? Why would you deliberately try and harm a technology? These are my questions. Are you being paid by someone to do this, a competitor perhaps? One must ask the question. I will look forward to your answers. And please do not continue to vandalize the site. Mnoar (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation that you are paid by the company in question. Yes $100,000 is not that much. I do this for free because I believe people deserve access to neutral health care content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get it straight, I have never earned $100,000 from this or any other company. Insurance pays very little for this procedure, so I cannot even say I have made anywhere close to those kinds of professional fees as a physician. You are one very thin ice making accusations like this. I believe that people should also have the same access, but you are hypocritical, since your continued quoting of a flawed study to influence opinion negatively is anything but neutral. Ask yourself this my friend...How would the ethics panel at your University regard this type of baseless false accusation and supercilious behavior? I am betting that you have crossed a line here ethically. Want to find out?Mnoar (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]