User talk:Doc James/Archive 65
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merging Basket cell
Although there is an article named Basket cell and Basket cells redirect to it, there is a separate and better article at Basket Cells. I feel that the merge destination should be Basket Cells (already done as I have checked) which finally needs to be moved to Basket cell. Can you please delete Basket cell and move Basket Cells to this destination? DiptanshuTalk 17:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Fluoxetine and Violence
Hi Doc,
Your reversion raises an interesting question. Is inclusion of a proposed adverse event in one or more reviews sufficient to list it in the Adverse Events section of a Wikipedia article even if mainstream opinion does not support causality? I realize this is not a clearcut issue, but my immediate and first thought is that your position could be used to support including autism among the adverse events associated with vaccines.
Your thoughts? Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Controversy" sections are discouraged. It is well accepted that SSRIs can cause agitation / increase suicide risk.
- No one within medicine accepts that vaccines cause autism as there is good evidence against them doing so. I would not consider this a controversy. But would discuss it in the society and culture section of the vaccine article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that violence against others and suicidal tendencies are distinct traits. Knowing that someone had recently attempted suicide would not raise fears in my mind that they might assault my son or rape my daughter. Even the gender distribution of these behaviors differs.
In 2013 I count 2 reviews in pubmed indexed journals arguing a tie between vaccines and autism and none tying antidepressants to acts of violence against others. On this basis I would suggest that the proposed tie between antidepressants and violence is no more accepted than the silly autism myth. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I see the two cases as very similar. In each case the evidence base seems to be entirely case report based and the reviews supporting a connection all written by a dedicated but tiny minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have less of a problem with SSRIs and violence than I do vaccines and autism - as the former I can see a possible mechanism in a distressed and upset person being given SSRIs where the issue may be more social or interpersonal (not an uncommon problem), and the resulting agitation and insomnia tipping them into a state where some rash actions are performed - but ultimately I agree this needs good systemic reviews and evidence, not isolated case reports. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I searched the 700 page NICE guidance for the treatment of depression, the APA treatment guidelines, and the ACP paper reviewing the benefits and harms of second generation anti-depressants. The NICE guideline and that from the APA warn against violence as a possible effect of depression. All three warn against sucidiality as an effect of anti-depressant treatment. None of the three warn against violence against others as a side effect of anti-depressant treatment. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2014
- WikiProject report: Deutschland in English
- Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference
- Featured content: April Fools
- Traffic report: Regressing to the mean
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Request to move Alkali denaturation test to Apt–Downey test
Multiple articles from Apt test and Apt–Downey test merged at Alkali denaturation test. Now, would you please move Alkali denaturation test to Apt–Downey test. I have done the rest. DiptanshuTalk 13:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
From the ref:
Humans become infected with T. saginata when they consume beef which has not been adequately cooked. Taeniasis due to T. saginata usually has a minor impact on human health.
Infection also occurs in humans when they eat raw or undercooked pork (T.solium). Taenia solium tapeworm infection is of significant importance as it can cause cysticercosis – a serious disease.
...
Prevention measures involve strict meat inspection regimens, health education, thorough cooking of pork, sound hygiene, adequate water and sanitation (elimination of open defecation), and improved pig farming practice
...
Cysticercosis is acquired when proglottids or eggs are ingested. It is a natural infection of pigs and cattle, but, in the case of T. solium, it can also affect humans, usually when they swallow T. solium egg-contaminated soil, water or food (mainly vegetables).
So one sentence refers to acquiring taenia solium from something other than pork and you seriously think that means that most cases are from vegetables?
How about considering what the CDC says?
Taeniasis in humans is a parasitic infection caused by the tapeworm species Taenia saginata (beef tapeworm), Taenia solium (pork tapeworm), and Taenia asiatica (Asian tapeworm). Humans can become infected with these tapeworms by eating raw or undercooked beef (T. saginata) or pork (T. solium and T. asiatica). People with taeniasis may not know they have a tapeworm infection because symptoms are usually mild or nonexistent.
Taenia solium tapeworm infections can lead to cysticercosis, which is a disease that can cause seizures, so it is important seek treatment.
Hmmm. The CDC doesn't even mention vegetables as the source but instead lists raw or undercooked pork as does every other reference I have ever seen.
One sentence in one document and you really believe it is from vegetables?
65.68.190.60 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- The WHO ref says "Cysticercosis is acquired when proglottids or eggs are ingested. It is a natural infection of pigs and cattle, but, in the case of T. solium, it can also affect humans, usually when they swallow T. solium egg-contaminated soil, water or food (mainly vegetables)."
- It is a different disease which is cause by eating pork "Taeniasis is acquired by humans through the inadvertent ingestion of their cysticerci in undercooked pork or beef." [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
This disease is neither from vegetable nor from beef it if from eating the eggs of this tapeworm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- After doing some reading from a number of sources, I readily admit that you are correct and I was wrong. I had never realized that taeniasis and cysticercosis are essentially different stages in the life of the taenia solium. Thanks for putting me straight on this. 65.68.190.60 (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Caffeine is know to be mutagen. Why did you remove that from the article? Alex discussion ★ 19:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah you mean why did I remove this 1973 paper? [2] and the 1979 one? They were way too old. There is no good evidence that caffeine is a mutagen.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, James do you think I would be out of line to include the triclosan page as part of WP:PHARMMOS and to change the chembox to a drugbox as it is used topically as an antimicrobial and is also used in some toothpastes and mouthwashes? Fuse809 (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Ultramarathoner
Not sure if you've seen this article yet (Cliff Young (athlete)) but I thought you'd like it. Sleep deprivation and ultrasport!!Ian Furst (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that this IP is either User:NoomBot running once again or User:Cyberbot I editing under an IP. buffbills7701 11:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Simplification
Hi Doc James, I just happened to be reading the Yaws page, which I found interesting. I assume that is what you were writing me about. My edits were merely grammatical and to simplify a bit - the article was interesting. I have not set up my page yet, but I am an ecologist, American, living in Brazil and I teach statistics, ecology (in a variety of topics), research methods and scientific writing (not perfectly updated, but here is my web page - http://sites.google.com/site/jjroper/). Not to say I am a great writer, but I do a lot of translating as well, from Portuguese to English, all science related. I have a knack for noticing things and often find a way to simplify the wording and style. Jjroper (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2014
- News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Law
- Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz
- Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes
- Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Reference?
Please explain why a relevant issues related to ovarian cancer - based on a study from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, an Institute of the National Institutes of Health - presented at the annual meeting of the AACR (the oldest cancer research organization in the US) should not be considered as relevant?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofland (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Anne
hi Doc James - Im Anne. I joined up only to update some of the information on the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders page. I dont have any other expertise. I just read your messages and understand a little more about what i need to do - thanks for that. Some of the information on the page is a little out of date and Secondary disabilities were not included. However what i dont uderstand is why the reference to the rffada has been taken off. Its a valid organisation with a web page. What do i need to do to ensure that it is cited as a national health promotion charity in Australia?
Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rffadai (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Article on Pharmaceuticals and WP
Hi - You may have seen this already, but I wanted to call this article to your attention; It seemed like you would have some interest in it. KConWiki (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. My position is fairly different from that of the Wikipedians in the article. I have had issues with the healthcare industry here on Wikipedia. They tried to replace high quality evidence with low quality evidence that fit better with their bottom line. And they invited a few dozen people on their payroll to attack me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources in ace inhibitors efficacy
You continue to use some primary sources such as here [3]. Wondering why you do not use secondary sources as recommended at WP:MEDRS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't like to delete text from other authors; this part was not mine; i added 15 meta analyses and systematic reviews in the part efficacy of ace inhibitors; i left this primary source not added by me. So now it is deleted. --Truebreath (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Your views on how references are best presented
Hi, a while back you wrote on my talk page about how refs are best written and while I agree with you I would like to know whether or not this is written on any manual of styles for wiki articles cause I'm making changes in line with this view on the page Eugenol and hence I would like to have some solid evidence to back up my changes. Fuse809 (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Reply to your comment on my using Medscape/emedicine
How doesn't it work? Secondly, I usually only use this ref when there's no better ref I can find. I know, I would much rather have something written than nothing. Fuse809 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
PharmaTutor
- @Jmh649:Dear Doc James, you are right that it is not indexed in pubmed. But Pubmed indexing is possible only after 12 months of accessibility (minimum after total 12 issues release). And PharmaTutor has completed total 6 issues at this stage. But PharmaTutor is indexed in Google Scholar & CAS. It is double blind peered journal.
The PharmaTutor is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to the PharmaTutor for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors' contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. The authors acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. In the same manner, the PharmaTutor is committed to objective and fair double-blind peer-review of the submitted for publication works and to prevent any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. Any departures from the above-defined rules should be reported directly to the Editors, who is unequivocally committed to providing swift resolutions to any of such a type of problems.
- Yes so it is to early to use as a reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Jmh649: I do respect your experience on wikipedia and in field of medicine. But I want to ask that if any journal which is not indexed in pubmed (with a reason that it is short in no. of issues), means it is not reliable to use as reference. Is that so ?
PharmaTutor's editorial board includes high reputed professionals and researchers from India. You may reach them on: http://www.pharmatutor.org/magazines/editorial-board .. Your guidance needed.
- To avoid any future confusion and heartache, I offer this small aside. One criterion we typically consider is whether or not a journal is indexed by MEDLINE, not just whether or not it is indexed by PubMed. The formal review and evaluation process for MEDLINE indexing is stricter and more rigorous than the some other routes to the PubMed index; PubMed and MEDLINE are not synonymous terms. For example, a journal can also get into the PubMed index by making content available through PubMed Central (PMC) after undergoing a much-less-robust 'qualitative' review.
- Google Scholar has an even lower threshold for inclusion in its index. Works need not be peer reviewed; Google Scholar's coverage aims for breadth, rather than quality. There isn't anything wrong with appearing in GS (and I would be surprised if any current journal weren't indexed) but it also doesn't signal any particular reliability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Signing unsigned comments
Hi, James, I've noticed a case where somebody hasn't signed a comment on a talk page (I'm not telling you which one so you can tell me what to do instead of just showing me) and I'd like to know how I'm meant to go about signing it for them. This comment was written on the 17th of November 2011 so I doubt any bot is going to do this for me any time soon. Fuse809 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding Photos
Can you ad photos from other pages in wikipedia? --Truebreath (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Knee-jerk reaction?
My guess is that you did such a knee-jerk reaction with regards to the powerpoint material (discussed here). The ppt is actually the official publication in this particular case. --Kim D. Petersen 13:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Requesting Guidance
Hello. I'm new to the Wikipedia community and would like to reach out to more established editors to collaborate on several pages that could add contents relevant to synthetic biology. Please let me know if you'd be able to help out or know of any other contributors that could give me some pointers. If it's possible then I can follow up with a more details concerning the edits. Thanks a lot. Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
ANI report
I've added your name to an ANI complaint about tag teaming on Electronic cigarette. I don't believe you personally would game the rules like that but there were three editors who removed the same edit without a proper explanation and you were one of them, so I added your name for completeness. I'd appreciate your input in finding a solution to this nonsense.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Sertraline
I just noticed you went through Sertraline in January. It's been on my to-do list since October. Thank you. Do you think it's worth another look? My concern at the time was all the primary sources - and you seem to have addressed that - but also an apparent tendency to make it look better than other SSRIs and boost the safety and efficacy of SSRIs generally. Mainly I just wanted to thank you for your efforts there, but if you think it's reasonably neutral now, I'll go graze somewhere else. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just did a quick review and removed a bunch of primary sources as part of the FA review. It did not pass. We have many other articles with similar issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think the psychopharmaceuticals articles are particularly bad in this regard? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)
- I just did a quick review and removed a bunch of primary sources as part of the FA review. It did not pass. We have many other articles with similar issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification
Please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4. You are expected to, as arbcom has just put it The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors (emphasis mine). Repeating the same "powerpoint" tripe after it has been thoroughly debunked isn't that. NE Ent 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
SIDS do occur over one year.
Dear JMH: Perhaps you are not familiar with the SIDS literature and history, as you seem to believe the 'legal fiction' that SIDS only occurs under 1 year. I invite you to read Willinger MW, James LS, Catz C. 1991. Defining the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS): Deliberations of an Expert Panel Convened by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatric Pathology 11: 677-684.
On page 678 it paraphrased Bruce Beckwith as follows: "Today there is too much permisiveness in the language regarding age of subjects", and it goes on to say: "There was considerable discussion of whether two definitions should be drafted, one for for administrative purposes to be used by medical examiners or coroners, and one for research. The group agreed that two definitions would create confusion and that a simple definition of SIDS would be drafted, with accompanying statements provided to guide research scientists."
It reports on page 679 that Howard Hofffman (NICHD)reviewed the data from the NICHD collaborative SIDS study and noted "Only 2% of cases occurred in infants over one year of age."
On page 680 "The panel concluded that a revised definition should consider: One definition for both administrative and research purposes." On that basis (page 681) "it was agreed that the diagnosis of SIDS is appropriate for cases under one year of life."
Consequently they drafted the definition as "The sudden death of an infant under one year of age..."
Go to wonder.cdc.gov and look at compressed mortality for years 68-78 and you will see many SIDS over one year were reported. There are categories of SIDS < 1, SIDS = 1, and SIDS > 1 with separate 8ICD rubrics.
Therefore, I respectfully request that if you review this cited reference and agree with my interpretation thereof, that you go back in and reverse your deletion of my notation that SIDS are defined as under one year for research purposes, and indeed they occur over one year but are not as useful for research purposes because there are so few of them. While at Harvard I went into the Massachusetts Health Department death certificate archives in Boston and recorded the 205 cases of autopsied SIDS for 1978-1981 of which 4 were over one year which matches Hoffman's 2% cited above.
This misinformation of SIDS only being under one year is typical of how things work, where the history is lost and the error is carried on and on. Its hard enough trying to figure out what causes SIDS without these misconceptions confusing things.
Best regards,
Comment
Thank you for letting me know about the links, I have fixed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amylynner (talk • contribs) 03:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
References for Suicide
Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing in WP:MEDRS that says that review of the scientific research in a high-quality reliable secondary source such as the New York Times cannot be used in support of the research that shows that socio-economic factors are one of the contributing factors to suicide. Please note that WP:MEDRS does not say that all sources in a WP article must always be peer-reviewed articles written by M.D's or Ph.D's. Suicide is not only a medical issue, it is also a major social issue. The fact that socioeconomic factors contribute to suicide is common sense and the NYT source reviews suicide research that says that socioeconomic factors contribute to suicide in the US. The NYT source enhances and improves the suicide article - the article already says that socioeconomic factors contribute to suicide, but the evidence for this is based only on research in Denmark, and research in the US adds to that and enhances and strengthens that point. There is no good reason to remove the citation from the NYT article. IjonTichy (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- We already state that socio-economic factors are important with better refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Wiki organization/how question -- /wiki/Talk:Clostridium_difficile
I'm sure I just don't understand the wiki way of doing thing... But, I got a message saying
The Wikipedia page Talk:Clostridium difficile has been moved on 21 April 2014 by Jmh649, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clostridium_difficile for the current revision.
Editor's summary: better title
It looks like the page (both article and talk) is still where it was and still has the same title, so I'm confused. I also looked at the talk section, and the most recent thing about renaming it is "Organization" from 13:10, 19 March 2012.
Is wiki telling me that you want to move it, or that you have moved it?
As far as renaming it, I agree it is highly "infection" oriented, and a new title like "Clostridium_difficile (infection)" is appropriate. Go for it. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2014
- Special report: 2014 Wikimedia Conference—what is the impact?
- News and notes: Wikimedian passes away
- WikiProject_report: To the altar—Catholicism
- Wikimania: Winning bid announced for 2015
- Traffic report: Reflecting in Gethsemane
- Featured content: There was I, waiting at the church
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
OER inquiry
Hi Doc James, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Done for now on C-dif page
Sorry I spent so much time updating in small increments. I'm ready for my work to be checked.
The three references I added were all journaled papers. I don't have direct pubmed or medline access, so if the info didn't appear on my reprint I couldn't add it. Anyway, given that basic research should withstand the test of time and once confirmed, generally not republished, I'm not sure how handle your instructions to use recent secondary references. Or maybe I don't understand the difference between primary and secondary references in wiki???
Thanks for you help. HiTechHiTouch (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- No worries. A secondary source is a review article. Major textbooks are also good. You can limit pubmed searches to reviews in the left corner of the screen. Ping me if you need some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is a secondary source Tung, Jennifer M (Dec 2009). "Prevention of clostridium difficile infection with Saccharomyces boulardii: A systematic review". Can J Gastroentrtol. 23 (12): 817–821. PMID PMC2805518.
{{cite journal}}: Check|pmid=value (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
- This is a primary source McFar;and, LV (June 1994). "A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial of Saccharomyces boulardii in conbination with Standard Antibiotics of Clostridium difficile disease". The American journal of Medicine. 271 (24): 1913–1918. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.035104080037031.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Section
Thanks for that. Clearly I don't get it. Doing my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmciszak (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, could you be more specific? And, how do I add page numbers to the references?
Thanks!Lmciszak (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the systematic reviews because the previous person was using them to cite old data. There's now pretty ample evidence for the efficacy of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmciszak (talk • contribs) 22:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Pulses
I still haven't gotten access to the full text of that second journal reveiw (our last discussion) re methionine.
"Pulses contain a rich variety of compounds which, if consumed in sufficient quantities, may help to reduce tumour risk." In the text, I see your objection to claims of anticancer. I'll remove it.32cllou (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also have issues with the antioxidant bite supported by old refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- 2002 is old? I disagree. That pulses contain antioxidants was in a few of those Brit Journal of Nutrition reviews. And I'm calling it basic research, and saying human trials still needed.32cllou (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of us disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a review says pulses do not effect cancer death rates? Put differently, what new research makes the 2002 reviews "old"?
- Thanks for the changes in Giardia -sis. Boiling best, handwashing is the main problem, it's not found N Amer wilderness is relevant amounts. Zillions are wasted on backpacking filters instead of basic sanitation.32cllou (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of us disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- 2002 is old? I disagree. That pulses contain antioxidants was in a few of those Brit Journal of Nutrition reviews. And I'm calling it basic research, and saying human trials still needed.32cllou (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also have issues with the antioxidant bite supported by old refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you object to my using these two 2012 reviews? [[5]][[6]]? If not, do I have to make the text specific to chickpeas and peas?32cllou (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Needs to be specifically about chickpeas. And the conclusions are very vague. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) and even if usable, should probably be at Chickpea and not in the general pulses article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK. I be careful with the conclusions. Frankly, you both are being arbitrary saying 2002 is old without providing any new primary or review material (new facts) that make them "old". The British Journal of Nutrition is usable. They are detailed reviews. My text is conservative. Using those 2002 reviews would (w/o the cancer) enable the two 2012 reviews to be in Pulses.
- I've just read the [[7]] hypertension review. I don't see you need to eat lots (the researchers used less than one cup daily) as you write. Note the very low current level of consumption.32cllou (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) and even if usable, should probably be at Chickpea and not in the general pulses article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Needs to be specifically about chickpeas. And the conclusions are very vague. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)