User talk:Doc James/Archive 73

World Cancer Report

Hey, when I'm referencing the World Cancer Report is it better to put section numbers or page numbers? I don't want ridiculous citation clutter but I do want what I'm citing to be clear. Thanks! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey I am a big fan of ridiculous citation clutter. The references section isn't really for reading and IMNBHO the more information you can provide about a source and the specific location being referenced the better. Just sayin. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)2: Here is how I did it. {{cite book |editor-last1= Stewart |editor-first1= Bernard W. |editor-last2= Wild |editor-first2= Christopher P. |title= World Cancer Report 2014 |year= 2014 |publisher= [[World Health Organization]] |isbn= 9789283204299 |chapter= Ch. 2: Cancer Etiology § 6: Diet, obesity and physical activity |pages= 124-33 |ref={{SfnRef|Stewart & Wild|2014}}}}

Which gives

Note the SfnRef template as a ref parameter allows for the use of the sfn template for citations to other chapters like say {{sfn|Stewart & Wild|2014|loc= Ch. 3: Cancer biology § 4: Epigenetics. pp. 214-21}}

Which gives:

- - MrBill3 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For your work on Diet and cancer! - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi doc! Am wikicology. I need your assistance. I want to give more attention to Genetics and Molecular biology. I reali want to work on genes. Much work has been done on human genes though yet to be completed. I want to complete it and more importantly work on viral, Bacteria and Ave (chicken) genes. But to my suprise the template { {PBB|geneid=gene I'd} } that links to the Genbank doesn't work for some sets of gene. Even for the human gene that has not been worked on. Am confused because I felts the template is supposed to be applicable to other genes provided they are in Geneban. Please I want you to put me through on this. Thanks Wikicology (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Aripiprazole

Thanks for your commentary and edits on Aripiprazole. I definitely made some errors and its always good to have a second pair of eyes on these things.

I hope my commentary on the issue of meta analysis articles containing both a mathematically-driven, "data" component and an editorial component made at least a little bit of sense to you. I have a great deal of respect for the folks at Cochrane, and my comments were only intended to make the point that they are human like the rest of us. I certainly see them as one of a small handful of top tier sources, and that may get lost in my arguments that on most subjects there are a few other groups whose views deserve equal prominence.

I appreciate and respect the work you do here, and the many kindnesses you have shown me over the last 2 years. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes in a way. I am of the opinion that their is room for both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be tendentious. Its just that the issue of reliability of sources comes up quite regularly and is pretty central to everything that goes on here. I suppose I may simply be recapping a lot of issues that were already hashed out before I started here.

There are of course different standards of evidence, in that the FDA approves drugs based on its perception that on a risk adjusted basis, approval is likely to be better for public health than non-approval. Cochrane is able demand a higher standard of proof. And they are pretty locked into RCTs as where this proof must come from, with which I mostly agree.

One practical question that comes up with respect to the Cochrane position on dropouts is that it seems to make it impossible for them to ever recognize the effectiveness of an antipsychotic drug for relapse prevention. The dropout rate is higher in the placebo arms than it is in the treatment arms, and you can of course never reduce placebo dropouts by improving the quality of your drug. And you can't hold patients against their will, at least not in relapse prevention trials. So the reviews seem a little pointless, as they seem to be demanding evidence that can never be obtained. I don't think anyone has ever done an outcomes-based trial of the effects of a completely vegetable free diet either, but somehow we all seem to be pretty convinced that its a bad idea.

Part of my concern with this (I fully acknowledge that like most people, I'm a grab bag of biases and preformed opinions) is that keeping schizophrenic people on therapy is a pretty difficult thing to do already, and the psychiatrists I've spoken (with the exception of David Healy, who will no longer speak to me in the aftermath of the removal of the post-SSRI sexual dysfunction article) to are overwhelmingly convinced that they are better off if they do. Having the efficacy section of this article start out with a ambiguous statement about whether these drugs are helpful likely does not help keep people on therapy, and while I have no first hand experience with the patients (or the drugs!), this worries me a little bit. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Per "never reduce placebo dropouts by improving the quality of your drug". It is called intention to treat analysis. You would need to carry this out in a country with a functional health care system that actually has the ability to follow up their patients (think Sweden).

It is hard yes but for the medication that has the largest sales in the world you think someone if they really wanted to could figure out whether or not they work. But of course if you can create a medication that has the greatest sales in the world without providing proper evidence why provide it? Things can only get worse for the company from here.

With respect to long term outcomes we have the WHO study which did not find benefits. Thus yes their is concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I enjoy this type of back and forth (I never learn anything new talking to people who agree with me), but if it becomes tiresome let me know and I will back off.

• I certainly agree with you that greed has made a mess out of our healthcare system. And though I see it throughout the entire system here in the U.S., with little signs of specific concentration in any one sector, I'd also agree with you that psychiatric drugs are pretty much the poster child for the problem.
• That being said, and being one who likes to split hairs, I don't think the problem with high dropout rates is entirely on of companies trying to do trials on the cheap. As I understand it, clinical investigators are paid on a per patient recruited basis. If your dropout rate is 50%, you are essentially paying for the trial twice. I would think they would be financially motivated to do as many trials as they could in countries that have lower dropout rates if such countries could be identified.
• The "functional healthcare system" comment really struck my interest, and I spent a couple of hours trying to identify schizophrenia trials from such countries. Its hard to do, and most of the ones I found were terminated for poor recruitment. I think its hard to convince people with good healthcare to join a trial of this type, the the trials get run in countries with crappy healthcare systems where it is easier to recruit patients. I eventually found one trial in Spain with a 6% dropout rate at 6 weeks and one in Germany with a 39% dropout rate at 8 weeks. So I don't know any more than I did before spending time on this. I'll keep an eye out for data bearing on this question in the future.
• One last comment that may be relevant is that its not just a question of tracking them down, you also have to get them to complete one or more pyschiatric exams that require their active participation and which must be performed by a trained interveiwer.
• Did not understand the remark about "things can only go downhill for them from here". Are you referring to BMS and some sort of liability issue? The stock itself is doing very well, in part because they've cut costs even faster than their revenue has dropped, and in part because they've done some very nice work lately the immunotherapy of cancer. They appear to have cured some people with metastatic melanoma, and based on early stage results there is a little bit of hope they will do the same in a couple of other metastatic cancer types, possibly including NSCLC. Its pretty neat stuff, and I wish the industry produced more stuff like this. They might be on the cusp of making a very large pile of money, and doing so legitimately by solving an important problem that others have repeatedly failed at over the last 60 years.
• Forgive my ignorance, I don't know which WHO study you are referring to. If you can be more specific I'll gladly take a look. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Will touch on one aspect and the rest latter. Per "companies trying to do trials on the cheap". It is not that they are trying it is that their are issues with health care in the United States were most trials are done and a good trial may not be possible their. Sweden has universal health care records for the entire country. Something that is illegal in many countries but allows high quality research. One can thus follow up everyone within a group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I recall Denmark does this too, and I've seen some fascinating studied come out of that database. Requires the public's trust that the government will ensure that their healthcare info will not be used against them. I'm not entirely sure that such trust would be justified in the States, as the balance of power between the individual and corporations is very different here. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Trouble with your editor

Sorry about the mess. I have no idea yet what the root cause is. I have started this discussion requesting help. Breedentials (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I switched browsers and cleaned up the mess. I'm not sure if the browser is the cause though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breedentials (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jmh649!

Nice to meet you. I understand that each time I make edits to Ken Getz's wikipage, they are quickly deleted because it looks as though I'm copying and pasting from another source. I am copying and pasting - but from my own word document, offline, which contains edits to the page as approved by Ken Getz himself (my manger!)

Is it possible to keep my edits present or do I need to write the words verbatim into the document from my current word document?

Thanks! Precipice711 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Precipice711

It sounds like you are a little to close to the topic at hand and thus should probably not work on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

sir can u paraphrase for me as i am new and could not do so please do the same so that i can learn calcutta national medical collegeS03042812 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)S03042812S03042812 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really interested in the topic. Just giving you a heads up about needing to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

THAT IS DAGBANI-FROM GHANA --TIMESPEAKSLIFE (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to better handle citations with a PMID and no url

I put in a suggestion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 10#Suggestion; if url="null" and PMID is valid then set URL to PMID-url to have the URL be returned as the Pubmed url if URL is not given in citation. Do you think this is a good idea? If so, please post at wp:med talk. ~Technophant (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If the pmid is present the url is not needed as it will automatically link to pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

msu chm

Everything was paraphrased except a portion of the overview part. Please go ahead and take another look. I've looked at the wiki pages of other medical schools and noticed that they've done the same. In fact most of them did not even cite the sources at all, I don't see the reason for having such outdated materials on our univ.'s page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msugogreengowhite (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because some did not get caught copy and pasting does not mean that others get to do so. Please paraphrase going forwards. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jmh,

I appreciate your interest in Otitis Media, however I do not see the problem with the 'more information' section I added. I added two sources of which one is for professional usage, and the other in lay terms, both nonprofits... How are they 'off topic'? Do I need to reference that I put them up?

Please elaborate on your decision to take down my post.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Bluestone, M.D. (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A few reasons. 1) we need independent sources to show notability 2) we do not link like from organizations names on Wikipedia to their website like you have done. If there are third party references we can add a section.

Take a look at epilepsy for an example of how it can be done. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine

Here's the message I've just sent you:

08-29-2014 Dear Dr. Heilman,

I hope my communication finds you well.

As I indicated in my previous (07-10-2014) communication with you (enclosed below), the changes you have made left the readers ignorant of essential information. And Wikipedia is thus, losing credibility.

Since you did not respond to my suggestions, I have now edited the information according to these suggestions. To my surprise, however, I found not only that I cannot edit the page, but that at the same time you keep editing the page, deleting large portions and further degrading the value of this entry.

I believe you have unjustly blocked my access to the WikiProject on Agmatine.

I have spent a lifetime on agmatine research and together with Varda Gilad have developed it into an effective treatment. And these efforts are still ongoing. I hate to see such a poor Wikipedia entry on Agmatine.

The right thing to do is to allow my current edition. It will bring the Agmatine entry back to standard for the benefit of Wikipedia readers.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response. Best regards, -GadGmgilad (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Gad M. Gilad, Ph.D. Research, Gilad&Gilad LLC 19020 Kittridge St., Unit 1, Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 1-818-708-8505; Cell: 1-323-599-0774 Email: gmg@GiladandGilad.com; www.ForNerveHealth.com

---

---

07-10-2014 Dear Dr. Heilman,

I have just become aware of the changes made to the WikiProject on Agmatine.

I recognize some of the concerns raised about my upgrading revision. Before this revision however, the article about agmatine has remained for years below any standard for any half respectful encyclopedia.

Nevertheless, the substantial deletions you have made are completely unjustified. They have left the article without most of the pertinent information about this important subject. As a result, readers are left ignorant of essential information. And Wikipedia is thus, losing credibility.

I would therefore, like to suggest the following: 1. Unless you find real misinformation or flaws in the article, please restore the article to its June 20, 2014, version. 2. I will then supply citation to original studies, rather than to reviews in order to satisfy Wikipedia "rules"; and will provide references for or modify, or delete, any statement that may suggest bias. 3. It is extremely important for those in the field of agmatine research that advances in the field will be adequately and accurately presented in an unbiased way!

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Best regards, -Gad

P.S. I am not an experienced contributor to Wikipedia and would appreciate any specific suggestions you may have.

Gad M. Gilad, Ph.D. Research, Gilad&Gilad LLC 19020 Kittridge St., Unit 1, Reseda, CA 91335 Tel: 1-818-708-8505; Cell: 1-323-599-0774 Email: gmg@GiladandGilad.com; www.ForNerveHealth.com

Please read WP:MEDRS. We use secondary sources rather than primary sources here for a number of reasons. If there is high quality secondary sources we can discuss restoring content supported by them. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

C diff

I notice you were inspired to overhaul C diff article at the same time I was. Did you see my talk regarding "C diff colitis"? Thoughts? Brian Gilcrease (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am happy to move it there if you feel it is important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! I believe that 'colitis' likely best incorporates the idea of a full clinical syndrome, with "CD diarrhea" more descriptive of symptomatology and also just more colloquial.Brian Gilcrease (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Programming

Not much anymore, but I'll have a look. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

K Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine

Dear James,

Thank you for your prompt response.

• As to the references used in my update: 1. I have rechecked this issue and all the entered citation were from high quality scientific journals. Citations are preferably to references which made the original discoveries, as credit is given where credit is due. 2. The main review I chose is the most recent general review of the field. It represents the consensus opinion of 16 independent leading investigators in the field from around the world. This is unique in scientific publishing. One cannot expect a more objective review than that. 3. These are the highest standards in scientific publishing that I know. Otherwise, I need your help in understanding what you mean by high quality secondary sources. • I noticed "opinion" statements in the update which are unfit for an encyclopedia and these should be deleted. • Few changes made to my update are inaccurate and should be revised.

Let me know how you decide to proceed.

Best… 108.185.129.48 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Gad

P.S. I realize that we are busy in our demanding daily activities and would, therefore, like this matter resolved soon.

You need to read WP:MEDRS and review article. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Drowning Chain of Survival

I do have the authorization to publish the content on wikipedia The text and figure is a ownership from the authors (which include my husband Dr David Szpilman and Jonathon Weber from New Zeland)that´s why text may seems similar. Thanks you for keep it this updated Alice

Hello We try to insert new and important information on DROWNING extracted from Szpilman D, Bierens JJLM, Handley AJ, Orlowski JP. Drowning: Current Concepts. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2102-10 We appreciate if you can revert to our contribution date 10 August Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceasz (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENT or email me and I can help you out. The owner of the copyright needs to email WP:OTRS but if you send it to me I can take care of it. My email is jmh649 at gmail dot com Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way likely you no longer own the content in question as it is likely now owned by the NEJM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about new Contributors Feature

Hi Jmh, I have a quick question for you about the contributors feature that's been discussed on the Wikiproject Medicine page. I've seen it on many medical pages now and I like it, but is it supposed to be on all Wikiproject Medicine associated pages? If so, I've seen some pages haven't been done yet, but I wanted to check with you to see if it's supposed to be on all of them in the first place. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tyler. It is just rolled out on all articles that have an Infobox disease. Currently just making sure it does not cause any problems.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, the article I was looking at does not have the info box so this is consistent. No worries then! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine

Obviously, I was not aware of the secondary sources intent. As indicated, I preferably chose references of the original discoveries. Now that I understand, it makes the job much easier as the main review I chose is the most recent general and comprehensive review of the field.

Would it be compliant if I will cite the aforementioned review plus 3 or 4 other reviews? And, should I leave the primary citations as is, or weed out most of them?

Let me know.

Best... 108.185.129.48 (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Gad

Would be best to propose changes on the talk page as you have a financial WP:COI Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. These are the secondary sources I will use: • Moretti1 M, Matheus FC, de Oliveira1 PA, Neis VB, Ben J, Walz R, Rodrigues ALS, Prediger RD (2014) Role of agmatine in neurodegenerative diseases and epilepsy. Frontiers in Bioscience E6, 341-359. • Molderings GJ, Haenisch B (2012) Agmatine (decarboxylated L-arginine): physiological role and therapeutic potential. Pharmacology and. Therapeutics 133, 351-365. • Piletz JE, Aricioglu F, Cheng J-T, Fairbanks CA, Gilad VH, Haenisch B, Halaris A, Hong S, Lee JE, Li J, Liu P, Molderings GJ, Rodrigues ALS, Satriano J, Seong GJ, Wilcox G, Wu N, Gilad GM (2013) Agmatine: clinical applications after 100 years in translation. Drug Discovery Today 18 (17-18):880-893. • Uzbay TI (2012) The pharmacological importance of agmatine in the brain. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 36, 502-519.

I am posting our correspondence on the talk page and signing my edits openly.

Thanks and best… 108.185.129.48 (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Gad

Inclusion of Senegal in List of Ebola outbreaks

In response to your reversion summary "If all one needs to do is have someone in their country with the disease than we need to add th US to the list.": we have; it's in a note that is linked beside Liberia. My understanding is that the US and Spain cases are classified as Liberian cases because their leaving Liberia was intentional, unlike the Senegal case and the first Nigerian cases, which are part of the natural spread, so to speak. If you still disagree, then you'll also need to change the main article, which lists Senegal as well. JamesDouch (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak page and do not see it mentioned. What does WHO say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been undone since then. The WHO has been notified of the confirmation, but apparently it won't be included in the article unless the next report actually supports it. We'll have to wait and see. JamesDouch (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

• In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Wikipedia news

• News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster

• Traffic report: Viral

• Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

'Hypothermia' edits

Hello, you removed my addition of information on "after-drop" of core temp. While I concede that current views may differ from the 1985 paper I ref'd, I think for that very reason "after-drop" should still be mentioned in context of current belief for clarification. Simply removing the edit does not do the topic much justice. RichG (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lets see if we can find something more recent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OKay clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok sounds good! Thanks, I appreciate the response. I tweaked the punctuation a little. RichG (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible Tokyo Meeting

I added the invitation onto ja:プロジェクト‐ノート:医学#WikiProject Medicine Translation へのお誘い. Not sure if anyone will join in... --Takot (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Agmatine

Below is my suggested version for your review. Thank you, Gmgilad (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Gad M. Gilad

I have moved this discussion to the talk page of the article in question and commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

When you move content around Wikipedia

Ok apologies will try to remember that in future. JCJC777

Thanks. You see you were picked up by the copy and paste detection bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your diligence in promoting reality-based medicine. It's a thankless task and the quackery believers are vastly more determined and motivated than most of the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

MEDMOS

Making the Anachrophobia page picture the most prominent feature on the page does not help the article. It has been stable with the pop culture picture in the pop culture section. The "little miss muffet" picture is not intrinsically important, or medically or stylistically necessary. Please follow BRD.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Placement in a highly relevant section, rather than in the introduction, is also likely to reduce the shock value to readers.

POV pushing: On occasion, disputes arise over the neutrality of image choices. For example, an editor may want to include a picture of a person urinating outdoors to tell the world that urinating outdoors is natural and appropriate. An editor who denies the existence of AIDS may oppose inclusion of an image of the HIV particle because they believe the virus does not exist. Other editors have promoted the inclusion of long-term survivors of normally deadly diseases to "give other patients hope". None of these are good reasons for choosing or deleting images. Images should be chosen and located because they illustrate specific concepts described in the text they are attached to.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating that you described the change as vandalism.[1] There is no shock value so this is not applicable.

Usually we have an image in the lead. A social and cultural one is fine and we do this for many articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This page suffered a lot of vandalism in the past. The picture you were giving more prominence to was actually added by a vandal User:Pendragonneo in the first place. If you're making the change in good faith, great, but it's not needed.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Metformin

Hi Doc,

I ran across this diff today where you reverted some changes in the metformin article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metformin&diff=617778935&oldid=617717702

I believe the goal here was to eliminate some copyvio by a third party. But in the process, a substantial body of text concluding that there was "limited" evidence of CV benefit associated with Metformin was eliminated and replaced with earlier text stating that the evidence was "unequivocal". The sources supporting the "limited" language included systematic reviews/treatment guidelines from 3 professional medical societies and several meta analyses, all of which appear to have been eliminated from the text. As near as I can tell, the main evidence supporting the "unequivocal" conclusion is a single trial, albeit a very large one. At one time I put quite a bit of time and effort into trying to understand the literature on this subject, and was reasonably confident that I had gotten it right.

I know you did quite a bit of work cleaning up copyvio on the date of this edit, and was wondering if this material might have been eliminated by accident. If not, could you provide some commentary on the Talk page explaining the edit? There is already a note there from me about this issue, but it was made a month before your edit, so it is not topical to this discussion. Please disregard it.

Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes eliminated by accident. We now have a copy and paste detection bot so hopefully editors like User:Trubreath will not be able to make 1000s of undetected copyright violations again.

Feel free to return the inappropriately removed content. Else I will get to it soon. Once again apologies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Just wanted to check in. ThanksFormerly 98 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I made some edits on the Cochrane Collaboration article and given their scope, was surprised not to see any revisions / tweaking of these by you. Knowing that we have had some differences of opinion here, would appreciate your input re: balance and reasonableness of the edits if you have not already checked in on these. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You changes look reasonable. I rarely edit articles about organizations so thank you for expanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

History of Drug Abuse

Hello. I don't think the "History" section should go at the end of the article. I don't imagine there many other articles where this is the case. What is your reason for the move? zzz (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS we usually put the history section near the end. See caffeine as an example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There is a huge difference, though. The article 'Caffeine' is named after the crystalline substance; "Coffee" leads off with a history section. Also, see "pig", scientifically orientated, and "pork", which leads off with history. The article has been treated as 'pig' up til now. I consider this an oversight, but it means that I didn't have to delete anything, so that helps. I definitely believe that the article's subject is pork. The scientific details of the human-drug interface cannot be of greater significance than the human details, however enlightening. zzz (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette revert

I'd appreciate some clarification on this revert, particularly its edit summary. I'd suggest that WP:MEDMOS#Drugs, medications and devices is intended for apparatus primarily used in a medical rather than recreational context. You're a healthcare professional, and so it's obvious that you deem this to be primarily a medical article, but that's not how a general audience would treat it. Right now the ordering seems quite plainly to be intended to frontload health issues so as to influence the reader. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You could try to develop consensus on the talk page. We use the same / similar for recreational drugs like caffeineDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Caffeine is not a "recreational drug"; it is an active ingredient in some, but has broader uses. The two aren't really comparable at all. I asked because you've repeatedly reverted to this order on this article and thus I expected that you had a firmer reason for it than "please seek consensus". As such, I'll be reverting based on the comment above; if you disagree, feel free to explain why (either here or on talk) and I'll reply. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Usually one needs consensus to make a change. The article has been in this order for a long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also used for the article on cocaine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated...

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, whom I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Also have filed at WT:MEDRS. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Will take a look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay the short version. You want to replace what text in the article with what new text? And which text from Ernst do you feel supports your new version? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it -- you have a busy talk page! The question is simply how to cite an Ernst paper, but now Guy is just going to email Ernst. regards --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 19:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 deleted sourced text from the lede and body but he claimed the source does not support the statement.[2]

Middle 8 tried to replace sourced text with text that was original research and did not summarise the body.

A systematic review of systematic reviews found real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture and concluded that their is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain. Sourced text in accordance with WP:V and WP:LEDE.

A systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture for pain concluded that there is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment, i.e. that real acupuncture may be no better than sham acupuncture. Original research?

The source does not say it "may be" no better. The other part was misleading and ambiguous. The source says "real acupuncture was no better than sham." and it says "In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain."[3] Yes, it was original research. Middle 8 claims it was not OR. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Overwritten edit

Re your post to me, User_talk:Middle_8#Explanation -- sorry, that was a complete accident, so complete that I didn't even realize at first, from the diff, that it had been an overwrite. Just apologized at Talk:Acu [4]. Mea culpa and thanks for letting me know (and to Jytdog for explaining it). --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 12:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. That was what I hoped. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 wrote above "thanks for letting me know" however the comment on the talk page suggests he was aware he deleted my comment at least after I made this comment and it seemed he was a bit upset after I restored my comment.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was an honest mistake. I didn't agree with your post but I certainly didn't overwrite it on purpose! I wish you would accept my apology and not try to imply ulterior motive, above and at Talk:Acupuncture. [6]

QG, what can we do to set aside this bad blood between us? My olive branch to you on your talk page was sincere [7] and I was sorry to see you delete that with no comment [8]. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

QG we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We all make mistakes / errors from time to time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Agmatine

Dear James, Please check the revision on the talk page of Agmatine (new section). Note: I had to delete my previous version from the talk page as it disturbed the citation numbers. I hope it is acceptable.

Thanks and best… Gmgilad (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Gad

It will take some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)