Misplaced Pages

User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:22, 12 July 2015 editDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,283 edits →Thanks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,118 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
Note: Mostly over at ''''''
{{OpenTextbookOfMedicine}}
{{Userpage|border-c=#000000|background=#cedff2}}
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: white;">
'''''' ''']'''</div><br>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 75
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = User talk:Jmh649/Archive %(counter)d
}}
<inputbox>
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=User talk:Doc James
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search Talk Archives
</inputbox>
{| style="float: right"
| {{archive box|auto=yes}}
|-
|{{cent|float=right|width=25em}}
|}
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
__TOC__


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
== Cochrane Collaboration meeting in Vienna, October 1st ==


] from the past month (December 2024).
Hi Doc James,


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
I 've heard you might be able to visit the ] meeting in Vienna. Somebody (]?) reserved some time for a wikipedian pre-colloquium . We've skyped with FloNight about this recently, and several people would like to attend, but we need some details. Are you, or ia FloNight planning to give a speech, a workshop, or anything else? Do you want us to prepare something? What will be our objective? Please answer on our ], English is OK. - Or, if I'm completely wrong, please forward this to whom it may concern. Regards, --] (]) 08:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
::Thanks ] yes I will be there. FloNight is the one leading efforts. Will let her provide further details. ] (] · ] · ]) 18:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
:::I replied on the wikiproject's subpage. Sydney Poore/]] 18:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
== AOK on the further reading, after references==
:] ]
Will follow your advice/guidance on med articles, though in cases outside your bailiwick, I may still slip in alternate ordering—in particular when the appearing references are uniformly bad, and the Further reading is serving as a basis for properly formatted, well-chosen and well-formatted future article sources. As a ], an analogy (if you ]). Cheers. LeP. ] (]) 04:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== ADHD ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
Hi James, I left a reply for you on my talk page. I don't know if you see those automatically so I am noting it here. Thanks! ] (]) 23:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
== ] ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline

|]
Hello Doc James,
|]
I suffer from congenital adrenal hyperplasia and one of the main symptoms I have when my cortisol levels are too low is hypoglycemia. During an adrenal crisis one suffers from seriously low blood sugar and also eleoctrolyte imbalances (low sodium/high potassium). In this article you have mentioned very briefly that cortisol should be checked in patients presenting with hypoglycemia but you never state explicitly anywhere that one of the causes of hypoglycemia could be Addison's disease, or other types of adrenal insufficiency - I think this is a serious oversight that should really be corrected. It is such a problem that often, those of us with Adrenal insufficiency who go to the emergency room because we are having a crisis get brushed off, or accused of being on drugs or alcoholics because even medical professionals don't think that it could be low cortisol - even if we are wearing medical jewelry stating that we have adrenal insufficiency. A friend of mine changed hers to read "Give Solu-cortef or watch me die" because she was left vomiting on an ER floor for 3 hours having an adrenal crisis. Please do what you can to help people be aware of this serious condition by including it where relevant in your wikipedia entries!
|]
Thank you for your time,
|]
Lahoma J. Howard, M.A.
|]
PhD student/Instructor of Sociology - Colorado State University
}}
] (]) 12:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
:] ]
::It is listed here ] but agree the body of the article on hypglycemia is in need of improvement. Have updated it some. ] (] · ] · ]) 16:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

== Moving Text within Misplaced Pages ==

] how do I know where the content was moved from for this edit ? Is there a way to track that? The edit history simply says "moving." How is the original wiki attributed in this case (move versus copy) and does it need to be? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::It is all moved within the same article per the history Thus attribution is within the history of that article ] (] · ] · ]) 19:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 01 July 2015 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2015-07-01}}
</div><!--Volume 11, Issue 26-->
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
* ''']'''
* ]
* ]
* ] (]) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
</div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=669720748 -->

== July 2015 ==
] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you recently removed some content from ]&nbsp;without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate ]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> ] (]) 03:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks there was issues with some of the references. Some were spam such as here . Others were simply small low quality studies as removed in this edit ] (] · ] · ]) 03:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

== What is "MEDMOS"? ==

Just asking, what is "MEDMOS"? ] (]) 03:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
::It is ]. It is the manual of style for medical articles. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

== PubMed up for you? ==

Hey, just wondering, is Pubmed accessible? It seems to be down for me right now. Cheers doc. ] (]) 07:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
::Works for me. ] (] · ] · ]) 07:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
::Oh, they seem to have a misconfigured domain server - I was getting NXDOMAIN errors for a while but now it's resolving to a bad IP address. (130.14.29.110 rather than 130.14.29.109). They'll probably have it up in a bit. ] (]) 07:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

== German pilot study for Roscovitine's effects on Glioblastoma cell lines ==

Hello Sir,

I was wondering if you've seen the Roscotivine abstact published July 3 by Spadidos Publications. It's a European pilot study which appears to have seen some sucess. I can send you a link to the article if you'd like. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Please let me know if I can email or direct message (Twitter) the link to you.

Thanks for your time,

Gary Hudson
garyhudson4557@sbcglobal.net
Twitter @Gary Hudsn4557 <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:A pilot study on a cell line? Sounds like very early stage research.] (] · ] · ]) 23:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

==Copyright==
I believe you are in error. I did not add copyrighted material. My article that was published in the American Journal of Public Health is copyrighted, but the reference to the journal article is not copyrighted per se. The correction I made was to the entry for Impacted Wisdom Teeth. The reference No. 8 lists my last name and the title of the article but it does not list the name and issue of the journal, which is standard for such references. There was no copyright violation in my entry.

Reference no 8 should read: Friedman JW "The prophylactic extraction of third molars: a public health hazard." Am J Public Health 2007;97(9):1554-1559.
Jay W Friedman ] (]) 02:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::] I did not say you did. I just provided you some guidence on editing medical content on Misplaced Pages. ] (] · ] · ]) 02:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I think I understand what {{u|Jay W Friedman}} was trying to do now. He is the author of reference 8 on ]. This reference was present in the article already and incorrectly formatted. I have corrected this issue now. ] (]) 08:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

== Which specialty: RAS? ==

I recall this concern was raised when this paramater was in discussion.

Might be seen by dentist, General (family) practitioner, oral and maxillofacial surgeon, paediatric physician, dermatologist, ENT, etc.

Most commonly this problem would be dealt with in primary care by non specialists imo. ] (]) 08:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::Yes. Primary care and ER deal with all conditions. Which specialty studies / publishes most about it though. ] (] · ] · ]) 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I would say oral medicine or whatever it may be called in the country in question, but that is my perspective. Historically there was no oral medicine or oral and maxillofacial surgery so ENT did a lot besides. ] (]) 08:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Agree that specialties are getting more subdivided. ] (] · ] · ]) 08:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

You know, Doc - a BLP isn't a journal entry. It's a biography. Why do you want it to read like a science paper? It's one thing to create dry scientific articles about drugs and such, but this is a BLP. FA criteria clearly states: "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" That doesn't mean dry and scientific. Your addition of the template with an edit summary that reads, "this article has serious issues" isn't very helpful. Why don't you point out the issues instead of templating a GA article? Your the medical professional or is there a reason you are refraining from editing and trying to improve this BLP? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 17:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::I have removed some copyright issues. And explained the problems on the talk page. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

== Interesting Reseach ==

This research is actually quite promising for extrinsically motivated editors. I was under a bleaker impression of their quality and copyvio issues. --] (]) 18:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::Plagiarism is not the only issue. And problems are very dependent on the class / their instructor. ] (] · ] · ]) 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

== PBC ==

You made some recent edits reverting compromise changes I made to the use of "cholangitis" or "PBC" rather than "cirrhosis". I had previously reverted much more major changes and established a section on the ] page to discuss this renaming. The patient groups have won almost universal support for this change in name which have been referenced. As I understand it, there will soon be publications in the scientific literature supporting this and will cite these when it has occurred. Thanks for watching these pages and please feel free to contribute to the Talk page! ] (]) 14:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::Okay thanks for the heads up. Once the new name becomes established we can look at moving the article.] (] · ] · ]) 18:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
:::That seems very appropriate. Let's wait until there has been a change published in the wider literature and then consider further edits to the name. Thanks again.] (]) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::::I have now created an entry for the UK charity ] to help link to patient issues and the name change initiative. This overcomes the External Links issue. Please review it if you have time with all your other activities and let us know how it can be improved. Thanks. ] (]) 11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages Review ==

Dear Doc James, I've again reviewed the ] topic in
Misplaced Pages and found that the section still remains somewhat scant. The
first reference is to a popular press article about sales of vitamins in
general. The remainder seems to trivialize the 35 years or so of active
scientific research in this topic area. Rather than citing any original
articles, it relies on a single tendentious review. Since students use
Misplaced Pages to learn about the progression of scientific investigations as
well as the latest findings on a topic, I wondered if we might consider
rewriting this section together to reflect both the historical advancements
in the understanding of vitamin D and cancer, as well as results of the
latest laboratory, observational, and large cohort studies. I would like to
suggest that we set-up an editorial board of subject matter experts who
would then together revise this section. We would then submit a final draft
to you as the Misplaced Pages editor. I have several colleagues listed below that
I think would likely be very interested and willing to undertake this
project. If you are amendable to this suggestion, please respond to my
office email. We can then begin circulating revisions to this section. Many
thanks. Very respectfully, Ed

Edward Gorham, MPH, PhD
Adjunct Professor
Department of Family Medicine and Public Health
School of Medicine
University of California, San Diego
(619) 990-3848
Email: edward.d.gorham2.civ@mail.mil
] (]) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Proposed subject matter experts:
University of California Riverside
Anthony W. Norman, Ph.D.
University of California San Diego
Cedric F. Garland, Dr. P.H.
Boston University School of Medicine
Michael F. Holick, Ph.D., M.D.
Creighton University
Robert P. Heaney, M.D.
Joan M. Lappe, Ph.D., R.N.
Harvard School of Public Health
Edward Giovannucci, M.D., ScD.
Linus Pauling Institute
Adrian F. Gombart, Ph.D.
Medical University of Graz, Austria
Stefan Pilz, M.D.
Medical University of South Carolina
Bruce W. Hollis, Ph.D.
Carol L. Wagner, M.D.
Roswell Park Cancer Institute
Donald L. Trump, M.D.
University of Auckland
Robert Scragg, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Saskatchewan
Susan J. Whiting, Ph.D.
University of Toronto, Mt Sinai Hospital
Reinhold Vieth, Ph.D.
Vienna Medical University
Heidi S. Cross, Ph.D.
:::Are you referring to ]? It is supported by 5 review articles. We tend not to cite original articles but tend to use review articles such as meta analysis instead. ] (] · ] · ]) 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Agree these reviews are a reasonable standard, but there could be much more added reviewing associations between vitamin D and colorectal, prostate, breast and other cancers. Is there any support for a separate, more detailed entry on "Vitamin D and cancer"? ] (]) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
::::: The original message is in some ways wonderful. It would be great to get this kind of academic firepower behind articles. However, there is so much hype around nutrients and risk of getting cancer and the possibility of preventing cancer in the media and the literature, but in my view, in terms of actual medical knowledge there is almost nothing to say. The SELECT trial taught us all that the even the most solid-seeming hypotheses about nutrients and cancer turn out to be not only wrong, but 180 degrees wrong. I think the WEIGHT we give the topic of "Vitamin D and cancer" is perfect. Would be amazing if we could get this kind of effort around well-established topics like ] and especially all our psych articles. ] (]) 20:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog and Jrfw51, Site specific cancer studies would, in my view, be an important addition to this section. Many dietary and serum studies have been carried out for both colon (1) and breast cancer (2), and for cancers of other sites. Nested case-control serum studies have certain advantages over dietary studies of vitamin D since it doesn't matter whether the vitamin D is dietary or sun-derived. 25(OH)D is relatively stable and an optimal biomarker for vitamin D status. Results from large cohort studies should not be discounted, such as the prospective EPIC study of serum 25 (OH)D and colon cancer in countries across Europe (1). These are important primary sources, and deserve their own citation. In vitro cell studies of antineoplastic effects of 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)D in several tumor lines should at least be mentioned. These potent vitamin D metabolites act as hormones and influence tight junctions between cells, promote apoptosis, and down-regulate oncogenes. Vitamin D is not simply another nutrient when it comes to cancer. The review of supplement sales is overly broad, not particularly relevant to this section, and should be considered for deletion. The role of most nutrients in disease causation has been contentious since they were first identified (3). This should not discourage us from their study or fair reporting of results of these investigations. Very respectfully, Professor Gorham

1) Jenab M, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Ferrari P, van Duijnhoven FJ, Norat T, Pischon T, Jansen EH, et al. Association between pre-diagnostic circulating vitamin D concentration and risk of colorectal cancer in European populations: a nested case–control study. BMJ 340:b5500, 2011. PMID 20093284

2) Abbas S, Linseisen J, Slanger T, Kropp S, Mutschelknauss EJ, Flesch-Janys D, Chang-Claude J. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of post-menopausal breast cancer: results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2008;29:93–9 PMID 17974532

3) Heaney RP. . J Nutr. 2008 Sep;138(9):1591-5. PMID 18716155

] (]) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
:I added PMIDs to the 1st 2 refs and fleshed out the 3rd. Thanks for replying. I agree that the science is important (there are so, so many things that we still need to understand better in terms of human biology in health and disease). But it seems to me that the argument you are trying to make is that the two big studies you cite - that show correlation ''only'' - are somehow important for ''health.'' We can show studies like that all day, and ''in vitro'' studies showing mechanisms too, but nobody has ever been ever able to show that an intervention with supplemention does a darn thing, outside of the very clear nutritional deficiencies like scurvy, rickets, etc., folate in pregnancy (although that is being questioned now, apparently) and a few others. On the flipide, as I mentioned above, with these claims flying around all over the place, that we can somehow prevent cancer or other diseases by trying to micromanage our diets/nutrients/"chemical" exposure, the organic food, dietary supplement, and fad diet industries make piles of money and people walk around full of anxiety. The recent review on Vitamin D, PMID 26071820, nails it from my perspective - there is almost nothing to say, healthwise. But I'll stop soapboxing and let others respond. ] (]) 18:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again, Jytdog, for your thoughtful response. Controversy is an inevitable part of scientific progress. EV McCollum himself, who first isolated vitamin D, was widely derided for the idea that it might prevent rickets. The proof of vitamin D in rickets prevention was based on observational and animal studies. Dr. Taylor's commentary represents a certain point of view, but there are many others who would not be so quick to dismiss the importance of vitamin D in public health. I'm attaching a link to another commentary, just for interest. There is incidentally a randomized controlled trial by Lappe et al that meets this highest level of medical evidence which is unfortunately omitted in Dr. Taylor's commentary, but included below. The temporal sequence, consistency across study designs, strength of association, and the dose-response findings each help address the causality issues you question. These factors should be noted in Misplaced Pages. The important thing in my view is to establish a balanced panel of subject matter experts who could improve this section of Misplaced Pages, as I've suggested above. Very respectfully, Professor Gorham

] (]) 00:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 00:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::What would show benefit would be a placebo controlled RCT of supplementation. As cancer is common showing benefit should not be that hard if a meaningful benefit exists.
::The impact factor of the journal in which the article you link is published is 1.6 This is low.
::The impact factor of this journal is 9.1 . Other forms of research are just typically hypothesis generating. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I think we are confusing ''Health effects of supplementation'' with another topic: ''Associations of vitamin D with human disease''. We all recognize that the reviews of prospective supplementation studies show uncertain benefits. There is much more to this topic than whether supplements are effective or not. I do not find elsewhere on this page any clear review of the multiple and varying associations with different cancers or discussion of the controversies around causation, association and prevention. ] (]) 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes there are associations between vit D levels and health but the question is is that relationship causal and the only thing that can show that is RCTs. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for this message, Doc James. You may have an interest in the results of a seminal nested case-control study published in Lancet (impact rating?) indicating more than a 75% reduction in colon cancer risk in the third and fourth highest quintiles of serum 25(OH)D. This prospective nested case-control study conducted by myself and colleagues at Johns Hopkins led to numerous others, most with remarkably consistent results. These studies culminated in the EPIC cohort study referenced above.

Incidentally, a randomized controlled trail does exist (abstract also provided below) which found exactly the level of evidence you are seeking. In fact, these investigators observed a 60% reduction in incidence of cancers of all sites in the vitamin D and calcium treatment arm of this trial.

These and many similar results are overlooked in the review by Taylor, et al. This is a drawback of relying solely on reviews. Elevation of this section of Misplaced Pages to an external panel of experts, such as those suggested above, could, in my opinion, improve this section of Misplaced Pages substantially. By almost any objective measure, it is currently lacking, both scientifically and factually. If you will not approve, may I request that we elevate to a higher echelon in the Misplaced Pages review process. Sincerely yours, Prof. Gorham

Lancet. 1989 Nov 18;2(8673):1176-8.
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and colon cancer: eight-year prospective study.
Garland CF, Comstock GW, Garland FC, Helsing KJ, Shaw EK, Gorham ED.

Abstract
Blood samples taken in 1974 in Washington County, Maryland, from 25 620 volunteers were used to investigate the relation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) with subsequent risk of getting colon cancer. 34 cases of colon cancer diagnosed between August, 1975, and January, 1983, were matched to 67 controls by age, race, sex, and month blood was taken. Risk of colon cancer was reduced by 75% in the third quintile (27-32 ng/ml) and by 80% in the fourth quintile (33-41 ng/ml) of serum 25-OHD. Risk of getting colon cancer decreased three-fold in people with a serum 25-OHD concentration of 20 ng/ml or more. The results are consistent with a protective effect of serum 25-OHD on colon cancer.


Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.
Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.
Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP.

Abstract
Numerous observational studies have found supplemental calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are lacking.
The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing incident cancer risk of all types.
This was a 4-y, population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude 41.4 degrees N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/d (Ca + D), or placebo.
When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were 0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively. When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer risk.
Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.
] (]) 20:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::I have given the Cochrane review greater weight in the section in question. It found a small benefit. ] (] · ] · ]) 21:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane excludes all observational epidemiologic studies including prospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and of course, case-control studies, and ecological studies. I don't want to turn this into a discussion of Cochrane, but public health advances linking cigarettes to lung cancer, lack of sunlight and vitamin D to rickets, passive smoking to heart disease, and numerous other medical advances would never have occurred if held to Cochrane criteria. John Snow, to his undying credit, did not randomly allocate people to drink or not drink cholera-tainted water from London's Broad Street pump. We have an opportunity to improve this section of Misplaced Pages substantially by admitting much published, peer-reviewed evidence approved medical journal editors and excluded by Cochrane. Koch's postulates of causality don't depend on Cochrane. If Cochrane is the current Wiki standard, the result will be to arbitrarily exclude all the lines of epidemiologic evidence described above. I would respectfully request an appeal of that decision, and a repeal of that standard. To whom should I address this request? V/r, Prof. Gorham

] (]) 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::Toxicity is very different from treatment. One can study treatment in a blinded fashion. One cannot do the same with toxicity. RCTs are thus not appropriate for toxicity but are for treatment due to the issues of multiple confounders. We do not have the same precautionary principles when doing something like taking a pill that we have when not doing something like smoking or improving air quality.
::Additionally we do not just use Cochrane but they are a major position in medicine. We also use the IOM and other systematic reviews. By the way what content are you interested in adding? And are you willing to base the content on recent high quality secondary sources? ] (] · ] · ]) 22:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way here are the IOP's conclusions "For extraskeletal outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, the evidence was inconsistent, inconclusive as to causality, and insufficient to inform nutritional requirements." ] (] · ] · ]) 22:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::By the way this conversation should be taking place here ] and has already had a number of other editors comment. ] (] · ] · ])

Excellent! So observational epidemiologic studies including prospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and of course, case-control studies, and ecological studies are admissible. Our panel will review and submit these for inclusion. Thank you, Dr. James. We'll get started on this right away. I'm not sure I completely follow your statements regarding toxicity. It is rarely an issue in vitamin D until serum levels of 25(OH)D exceed at least 100 ng/ml. This would be the approximate equivalent of a daily oral intake of 10,000 IU per day for several weeks. 50,000 IU per week is the prescribed replenishment dose for treating deficiency, or approximately 7,000 IU per day. I hope this is helpful. V/r, Prof. Gorham

] (]) 22:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
*To make it clear reviews of RCTs are required to determine if treatment with vitamin D is useful
*RCTs are not required to determine if smoking is harmful.
*I did not say "So observational epidemiologic studies including prospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and of course, case-control studies, and ecological studies are admissible" nor has the others who have commented on the talk page. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I am not talking about vitamin D for treatment, although there is evidence that vitamin D is an effective adjuvant in cancer treatment. Vitamin D is a nutrient with important hormonal metabolites that have critical endocrine and autocrine functions. There is much epidemiological evidence suggesting that vitamin D (as a nutrient, not a treatment) is important in chronic disease prevention. Are you restricting this page to prevention trials? If so, this page in Misplaced Pages will not represent the current level of understanding of the role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. It will remain lacking both scientifically and factually. Is that your decision? If so, how may I appeal it? V/r, Prof Gorham

] (]) 23:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

::Please move this to the ] page where it surely belongs.
::This debate still has not addressed whether the scientific background and epidemiological associations of vitamin D and cancer need separate section. The current section is on supplementation (which I have clarified.) ] (]) 08:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

== an aggressive chroinc infection of the sweat glands ==

YDear doctor james
I would like to thank you for this amazing description of the disease(])my name yasmina ahmed and i My father suffers from the disease for about 15 years but now the case has spread widely and the lesions became aggressive under arm and in the region of the thigh. Now he can't tolerate the pain and this makes him suffering from depression. He has undergone several treatment modalities such as intra lesional steroids injection but this treatment has masked the manifestation of the disease for a while and then the case got worsen to end by abscess and has suppressed the immune system ..
My dad is also suffering from diabetes mellitus , hypertension and also he has undergone the surgery of cardiac catherization from 3 months ago and now he is taking anticoagulant therapyaand the doctors refused to do any surgery unless after 6 months to allow him to stop the anticoagulant therapy.. Also my dad has taken some medications such as several types of antibiotics and Netlook but now it is kinda don't give benefits.. I need for your help to rtell me the suitable treatment for my dad and can you also tell me the most suitable country in the treatment of this disease.. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I have only made a few edits to that article and am not its main author. Would be best to get further advice from a specialist. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

== Fistula in ano. Missing " perfact technique" ==

Hi doc James
Last week I just read about fistula in ano and I found the latest technique " perfact" by dr. Pankarg garg from India , however I read wiki again and now this technique did not show up on page , why ? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Replied. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

== Removal of ADA ==

Why? ] (]) 16:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::Per ] we are not a list of other resources. We are an encyclopedia right here. Nothing unique on that page. ] (] · ] · ]) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::: This ] policy seems perverse. There are links to their official websites on three high profile pages I just went to: ], ] and ]. You will have much more work to do if you wish to delete everything external to WP on the basis there is "nothing unique" there. They will have more detail than we will provide and give a different emphasis! ] (]) 17:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Just because every page is not perfect does not mean we do not improve things. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Doc, are you acting in your capacity as an admin at the Racz article? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::No I am warning you for edit warring. That page has serious issues. ] (] · ] · ]) 18:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
:::With all due respect, I think the most serious issue is potential bias of one doctor editing the BLP of another doctor. What you're calling spammy does not fit the description per ], what you're calling "peacock" does not fit the description of ]. You are picking on facts that are sourced. To summarize a doctor's notability as "known internationally" is not a peacock term, it is a fact. I don't get what your problem is with regards to stating facts about the man. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 18:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Sorry this article has serious issues.
::::1) puffery language
::::2) was full of copyright infringement
::::3) has content not supported by the references.
::::It is far from being a GA. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It's easy to list general statements that point to nothing. An accomplished reviewer and writer of numerous GAs and FAs disagreed with you twice and you refuse to drop the stick.
*The language is not puffery - it is factual and it is sourced.
*It was never copyright infringement - that claim is unwarranted. You are not acting in GF and this is a terrible reflection on you considering your status on WP.
*It does not have content that is unsupported by references. I have asked for the specifics and all I get are generalizations and POV from you.
I am really disappointed to see such behavior. What you're doing is trying to create instability and cause the article to be delisted. That is downright shameful. This is retaliatory, nothing more. A lot of editors are aware of it, too. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 19:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::Sure I am also a accomplished reviewer and writer of numerous GAs and FAs. Retaliatory for what I do not know. Good to have lots of people aware of this article though. The evidence wrt copyright issues are clearly explained on the talk page. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, you are and you are a brilliant physician and deserve respect in every sense. Read the edit summaries if you don't know why I believe it's retaliatory. Also, you're well versed in writing GAs and FAs so you already know that general comments like you keep making are not helpful . I've jumped through all the hoops and if you've been watching that article you know that it doesn't matter how many hoops I jump through, there's another waiting. That is retaliatory and not GF. The only reason a group of editors would propose delisting is if there was conflict and the stewards of the GA were not being cooperative. I'm not talking about bending over to fix unwarranted criticisms, or POVs - I went through and fixed the issues you pointed out. Even after I fixed them, they continued to be criticized and reverted. That will be easy to establish with diffs. I just demonstrated one example of DGG butchering the article by reverting the correction I made after you pointed it out to me, and then removing descriptive material. The evidence that there are no copyvios are also explained. The Duplication Detecter is a good tool to have and it says no copyvios exist. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 01:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
::::It is getting better but still issues. I have fixed some more.
::::There was a large number of copyright issues ] (] · ] · ]) 01:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::The duplication detector tool isn't working? Or are you talking about the credentials list? Doc, I don't want to get all mushy and everything, but you actually brought me to tears because I would have considered it an honor to collaborate on an article with you. It appeared to me that you believed all the nonsense about me being a pusher of quackery and all that other BS that laid on me when it wasn't true at all. And neither were the allegations or what happened to me at COIN. I'm here just trying to go some good, help other editors with copy editing, especially those editors who have trouble with English because it's not their 1st language. And the things you called puffery and what I call puffery are simply differences of opinion. When I used "pioneered" it was (1) because the source said so, and (2) it was innovative. He invented it. Perhaps in medicine it's called "developed". It's not that I'm a bad editor and that I'm trying to promote anything - it's simply a choice of terminology. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 02:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::One needs to substancially paraphrase sources. Basically one must put content in their own words. The concerns raised here ] and ] have been fixed.
:::::::In English their or boring words like "developed" and "designed" and promotional words like "pioneered" and "innovated". We should always be using the boring ones even if the sources use promotional language. It is mostly fixed aswell. ] (] · ] · ]) 02:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

== quackguru/question ==

hi,,,i was going to answer a question posted by an editor just '''yesterday''' on the main talk page but its not there any more?--] (]) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
::Main talkpage of were ]? ] (] · ] · ]) 18:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
:::wikiproject medicine main talk, I noticed few "one click archive"--] (]) 18:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
::::Okay so put back the question and answer it :-) ] (] · ] · ]) 18:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::ok--] (]) 18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::], the image I requested was uploaded and I added it to the article. ] (]) 18:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::::perfect, thanks--] (]) 18:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

== Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis! ==

Greetings!

]
I am happy to introduce you to the new '''WikiProject Cannabis'''! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Misplaced Pages editor interested in the subject of cannabis.
* ]
* ''']''' – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! ] (]) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Harej/MassMessage&oldid=670882450 -->
::Thanks. ] (] · ] · ]) 21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 08 July 2015 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2015-07-08}}
</div><!--Volume 11, Issue 27-->
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
* ''']'''
* ]
* ]
* ] (]) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
</div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=670523883 -->

== "Floater", as described in the media ==

Hi Doc James. I feel very tempted to remove , as it hardly ads any value, it is anecdotal and not collected from scientific environment. What is your feeling? Thanks, ] (]) 15:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
::I agree ] ] (] · ] · ]) 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks, DJ. ] (]) 16:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

== Abuse of COIN ==

{{Arbcom notice}} <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for the heads up ] ] (] · ] · ]) 07:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


</div>
== Copyvio ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Doc, even though I disagreed with you about the copyvio issue, (I just requested confirmation from the author), I went ahead and changed the entire paragraph where there is not even a question of a copyvio. I guess you overlooked it? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 09:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
::The issue is that there was copyright violations. And you appear to disagree that their were. That causes me concern ] (] · ] · ]) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
:::I disagreed because the material is public domain. I am growing weary of the accusations which are based on your misunderstanding of public domain, fair use, and copyright laws. FYI, I just received pre-confirmation of the public domain status of the material that raised your concerns and will have the formal notice hopefully by tomorrow. Permissions will receive the original notice and I asked to be copied on it. It's time to drop the stick. We have certain procedures we're expected to follow, and quite frankly you haven't been following them, so please stop trying to make me look like the bad guy. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 21:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
==Salman==
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
Thank you! The pleasure is all mine. I too hope to be an active member of the Misplaced Pages community. Thanks again <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Perfect. ] (] · ] · ]) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== Thanks ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
... for the GAN on ]. {{u|TylerDurden8823}} and now myself have gone through the recommendations and I hope it is now ready for GA status. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 10:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
::Yes looks good. ] (] · ] · ]) 21:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025

Note: Mostly over at MDWiki.org

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)