Talk:International Neuromodulation Society

Untitled

This is a new entry is based on the North American Neuromodulation Society entry. The International Neuromodulation Society is the foremost neuromodulation information site and educates those interested in learning about neuromodulation and its therapies. The International Neuromodulation Society is mentioned in the NANS entry and thought there needed to be more specific. The site can be expanded upon and like many other entries such as the American Lung Association or American Heart Association, it is a description of an informational, non-biased site. Neuromodulation (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles on WP must demonstrate the notability of the subject (per WP:N and WP:Notability (organizations and companies)) and those claims of notability must be supported by verifiable references (per WP:V and WP:RS). If the article does not measure up to these guidelines, itg risks deletion under the AfD procedure. Finally please sign your messages on talk pages by adding 4 tildes at the end (~). Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The [INS] is the foremost neuromodulation information site . Site? I thought it was an organization? I'd also like to see so,me evidence that this distinction is even meaningful. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an organization that wants to provide information about neuromodulation and its therapies to medical professionals and consumers.

71.141.65.137 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged with multiple issues 8 hours after article creation?

Eight hours after this article was created (September 2008) it was tagged as having multiple issues. I have already removed the technical tag (it simply isn't too technical), and I seriously question tagging an article as having too few articles linking to it when it isn't even a day old. It is tagged as needing additional references, but it has two references and nine external links. It is tagged as having original research or unverifiable claims, but there are no "Citation Needed" tags showing where. It is tagged as being non-notable, but there has been no followup attempts to nominate the article for deletion on that basis. The tag claims that it may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter, but there is nothing on the talk page showing who this might be or what evidence there is. Overall, it seems like it was tagged with everything including the kitchen sink.

Based upon the above, I am removing all of the tags. Feel free to re-tag the article based upon it's current state with detailed explanations on the talk page justifying the tagging. Guy Macon 19:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Preferable to move background on therapy development to Wikipedia pages on those topics

I recommend that information about early uses of spinal cord stimulation be incorporated in pages devoted to that subject, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_cord_stimulator. In particular, the closing line in the following material is an unattributed assertion which would not be appropriate in an objective entry:

"The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) originated with the seminal work of Melzack and Wall who proposed the gate theory of pain in 1965. Following this stimulation procedures were carried out on peripheral nerves and then the spinal cord via epidural electrodes. The first person to demonstrate improvement in neurological deficit in homo sapiens with SCS was Cook (Cook and Weinstein. New York State Journal of Medicine.1973.73.2868-72). He was carrying out this procedure on a young sufferer with multiple sclerosis when to his great surprise he saw a great improvement in spasticity with consequent improvement in ambulation. Cook took his observations first to the neurologists in his hospital and then to the neurological societies of New York. They refused to accept or even to investigate this. Subsequent studies in Southampton UK ( summarised in Spinal Cord Dysfunction volume III Functional Stimulation.ed L S ILLIS. Oxford University Press.1992) demonstrated recordable and reproducible neurophysiological changes at spinal and brain-stem levels. The speed of change suggested that this was almost certainly due to increase in inhibition. What Cook had observed was no more than that reported by Frohlich and Sherrington in 1902 (Journal of Physiology.1902.28.14-19): after decerebration in cat,dog and Macaque, stimulation of the lower thoracic and lumbar regions of the spinal cord showed "...an effect...constant and regular..evoked marked inhibition of the rigidity.." Cook deserves much greater recognition." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negarc (talk • contribs) 16:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)