User talk:Nraden/WP re-write

Discussion of Article Re-write

Suggestions from SandyGeorgia

The Wiley Protocol is one of a number of controversial bioidentical hormone replacement therapies (BHRT).^{[citation needed]}

What is the source for this; i.e. what are the other controversial BHRTs?

Actually, your own page on Wikipedia https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bioidentical_hormone_replacement_therapy lists three sources that that clearly use the word controversial. Neil Raden (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)î.[reply]

:: have a look at Wikey's Senate testimony, especially STATEMENT OF LEONARD WARTOFSKY, PRESIDENT, THE ENDOCRINE 
                   SOCIETY, CHEVY CHASE, MD, Who is clearly opposed to BHRT. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg37150/h

The recreation of a pre-menopausal woman's monthly hormonal cycle is achieved by using rhythmic doses of hormones that replicate the rise and fall of hormones in a normal menstrual cycle.

Wiley says the recreation of a ...

The preparations are prescribed by physicians and are compounded by pharmacists selected by Wiley who agree to conform to strict rules of preparation and purity.^{[citation needed]}

Citation needed for "selected by Wiley" and "strict rules of preparation and purity". If the citation is Wiley herself, the sentence must be attributed as such.

"selected by" is not accurate. Wiley achieves standardization by contractually binding pharmacies to all use the same methods and materials. That is clearly spelled out in the journal article about standardization. And she does not receive any compensation from the suppliers of actives, inerts, creams, and equipment. The only revenue is from the sale of empty, branded packaging Citation in Senate testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg37150/html/CHRG-110shrg37150.htm Neil Raden (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiley Protocol uses biomimedic hormones ...Neil Raden (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

biomimedic ?? Link, definition? Also, that sentence isn't cited, and if the source is Wiley, it needs attribution. We need to know according to whom in many of these statements.

Again explained in the peer-reviewed journal article https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2049161421_Teresa_S_Wiley Neil Raden (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doses of the hormones vary throughout a 28-day cycle that is designed to mimic the hormone levels and changes of a young woman who experiences regular menstruation, with each hormone cycling and peaking at separate times throughout the period.[2]

Same, the source of this statement is Wiley, so it needs to be attributed accordingly. (According to Wiley, or Wiley says, or some form of attribution.) same article Neil Raden (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The protocol differs from conventional hormone replacement therapy in several ways:

Everything which follows here is sourced to Wiley; are there no independent, secondary reliable sources? Again, needs to say "According to Wiley" or somehow be attributed. Also, clean up the list formatting (no caps at the beginning of each bullet item, and punctuation at the end of the whole thing).Isn't peer-reviewed acceptable?

All BHRT has been criticized by members of the medical community for lacking proof and not being empirically verified as safe or effective,^{[citation needed]}

Uncited; the idea of this sentence is to put them all on equal footing, we need to hear that from an independent, reliable source.

Other than her book, Ageless, Somers has not acted as a spokesperson for the protocol and was not involved in the development of the Wiley Protocol or its ongoing development.^{[citation needed]}

Uncited, for all we know, original research. Why does Wiley Protocol say, "Somers is acting as a spokesperson for the protocol and was not involved in the development of the Wiley Protocol or its ongoing development."

Citation? That must be more than a dozen years. SS is off on her own thing. Neil Raden (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All in peer-reviewed papers https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2049161421_Teresa_S_Wiley Neil Raden (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go to work on it. Neil Raden (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UT

C)

I don't have much to add to this - since all of this is attributed to Wiley, and she's not publishing in peer-reviewed journals or receiving much attention from scholarly or medical sources, it's pretty much got to be attributed to her and can't be phrased as if it were true. Until there's a clinical trial published in a main-stream, peer-reviewed medical journal or the FDA comes up with an opinion, it's all stuff Wiley says. It's ever the conflict of interest - you don't believe the opinion of the person who makes money off of you buying it from them. It takes a third party to vett and critique it. Wiley's at a huge disadvantage because she's a private party who is doing medical research and not researching or publishing it in medical journals. Ergo, everything is 'Wiley says' or 'Wiley believes'. Once independent sources turn up, then the tone can shift. WLU (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong. She is publishing in medical journals. I've supplied the links on the Talk page but you refuse to include them. She also speaks regularly at medical conferences. As for making money, the doctors and pharmacies make money, Wiley only receives a very small portion of that, less than 15% Rx cost. you can find this information online. If you wanted to know the MSRP of a new vehicle, you would get that from the source, not a third partner. I see equivalence here. For here research, all you have to do is go to ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2049161421_Teresa_S_Wiley I believe there are eight peer-reviewed papers there.Neil Raden (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]