User talk:Qudore

Welcome!

Hello, Qudore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Blood irradiation therapies, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! andy (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Blood irradiation therapies

The article Blood irradiation therapies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research - seems to be a term paper

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood irradiation therapy

Hi, Qudore!

Thanks for all the work you've done on this subject. This therapy seems to be well accepted outside the US, so it definitely deserves a good coverage in Wiki. One big problem with Wikipedia, it seems, is US-centrism. It's a form of ethnocentrism: 'everywhere else should be like US'. Well, in health services, US is the bottom of the pile, so there's no reason for this ethnocentrism. Americans should be ashamed of their health services, and should try to learn from the rest of the world.

Best wishes, --Dyuku (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get discouraged, Qudore. Our goal is to promote evidence-based medicine on Wikipedia. We have peer-reviewed publications on our side. Unfortunately, in certain areas, there are vested interests that are opposed to evidence-based medicine and scientific progress. They have double standards where it comes to evaluating therapies not based on drugs and/or invasive surgery. It's not easy to deal with these issues, so you'll need patience and persistence. But solid, peer-reviewed evidence and good science should win in the end.

My advice to you is go slow, and don't try to do too much all at once. If you feel strongly that you're right, you can appeal to the higher levels against unjust behaviour of certain editors. Sometimes these things work, sometimes they don't. But in general, persistence will pay in the long run. Best of luck to you! --Dyuku (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

making progress

A good way to make progress with this article is to try and incorporate some of the items in the 'Further reading' section (the one that keeps getting deleted by User:WLU) into the main body of the article. These are all valid and useful refs - some of those linked Abstracts can supply good material for the article. --Dyuku (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I stated on the talk page - they are inappropriate sources to make medical claims, per WP:MEDRS. They are preliminary studies, often of animals, making them irrelevant for humans and too early to even say something about animals. Conference abstracts are not reliable sources, and also should not be used. This is particularly important for fringe theories about blood irradiation therapy, where the benefit is assumed rather than tested, particularly in a very limited number of countries and when the modality has been considered fraudulent in the West for decades. What you are doing is not progress, it is lowering the bar of the page to make it less reliable. It is only progress if you see it as a good thing that blood irradiation is promoted without actually being properly tested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the objectivity and open-mindedness? I have personally participated in conducting the testing of an intranasal irradiation device, have witnessed results and have personally been cured of a couple of ailments. I assure you that I have no criminal record for fraud and I am certifiably sane. Please do not lump the intravenous and intranasal therapies with the questionable ultraviolet (UV) blood irradiation therapy - I assume your use of the word "fraud" is specific to the UV modality as I have not seen evidence of "fraud" in the others. I have examined many studies, interviewed other leading researchers, took pains to have works translated from Russian to English, and have working knowledge of the relevant low level laser and red LED devices software and hardware engineering configurations. I have taken pains to ensure that the recently inserted references were from "credible" sources and based on testing of HUMANS not animals, and certainly to adopt a neutral point of view. You wanted Pubmed indexed articles and I have provided one, and it still got taken out. Perhaps you might want to improve the language but surely not dismiss everything that did not originate from a country you are not familiar with, even though these "other" countries are more advanced than the US in some sciences. Some people may feel that this is "fringe theory" because it is not commonly encountered in the US for various reasons. In a number of countries it is mainstream. Qudore (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qudore. Perhaps you'd like to check out this discussion here (WikiProject_Medicine), it's relevant. --Dyuku (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qudore,

Your article, the way it was at this time (21:30, 23 July 2010) seems fine to me [1] . It's informative, well written, and well referenced. So I think it should be preserved for future reference. For example, why don't you put it up on your Wikipedia user space? Do you know how to do it (it's not so hard)? Also, there are other ways to preserve your work, such as in some other Wiki. I do think your work has been treated unfairly. --Dyuku (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, Dyuku. Now looking at the earlier article that you have linked to, one can see how much is being lost by it remaining out of sight to Wikipedia readers who have a deeper interest in the subject. I actually have more research papers translated into English (with details of research methodology and data) but trying to somehow present these will again subject me to being treated like a snake oil salesman. Some of the post-edit language is just plain misleading. For example, in experiments that I have participated in, blood irradiation with red light will overwhelmingly disperse aggregated red blood cells, statistically speaking. Hence the word "alter" for viscosity is just trying to disguise this fact. Furthermore the use of the word "useless" is quoted out of context from the article by Moshkovshka et al - read it in the last paragraph of their paper - they are really trying to say that in spite of what people's preconceived ideas are (calling it "useless"), more research should be done. As far as I know, more research on LLLT is actually done since 2005. The community of scientists participating in LLLT research globally is growing though not a lot of it get into Pubmed listing. People also forget that US universities never developed a decent base to research deeper into LLLT or the effect of light at cellular level. To conduct an independent randomized, double-blinded control study just for a meaningful indication costs at least $4 million (an actual quotation that I received from a clinical research organization (CRO)). Other than well-funded drug companies, how many parties can afford this?

I'll look into preserving that work when I catch my breath. Which Wiki can this be published? Perhaps I should develop a separate website for anyone who cares to learn more about this subject in the English language.

Qudore (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]