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.
::::::::Looks like ] (]) 19:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Looks like ] (]) 19:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Yah so were BSing about reporting to the WMF. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Yah so were BSing about reporting to the WMF. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Kingofaces43}} I'm making a mistake with respect to my own mental health by posting at WP, but I guess this is sort of related, and it's a question that's been in my mind. ArbCom may be starting a case at ], which is not what I'm asking about, but they have, as a named party, the editor who made this edit: . There's something familiar about the edit summary, that I can't put my finger on, that makes me think that this, too, is a sock. That's nowhere near enough for an SPI, but could you (or anyone else here) maybe think about whether you've seen another account make GMO reverts that look just like that? Thanks. --] (]) 20:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
We are actually already a bit further (I have read through the RfC and contacted the other closer), but it would still take some time for us to draft the text. Sorry for this delay.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth adding to the COVID-19 in the United States article, but as of yesterday (26 March 2020 - Forbes reference) GoodRx launched a telemedicine price comparison platform at https://www.goodrx.com/treatment that lists COVID-19 assessment+screening providers by state, including those that offer these services free of charge to patients: https://www.goodrx.com/treatment/coronavirus?paramsStateFilter=CA (NB: this tool is still under development, as it does not currently list all service providers and GoodRx has indicated that they are adding new providers on a day-to-day basis; e.g., https://www.pushhealth.com/ is a telemedical service provider in the US that is not currently listed). The telemedical service providers that are listed on their platform and currently offer COVID-19 assessments for free in the United States are:
Hey can you redo your edits? Im sorry i accidentally undone your edits because you edited when i was editing so i cant save my edits. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
it seems you have been working on connecting to the WHO for so long. I now trust our world in data as a WP:MEDRS compatible source more than the others. But amazingly they’re all commons... they use ECDC data but if the WHO are making errors that our world in data corrected leading to WHO errata, I trust the charity/oxford researchers to give a reliable replication of ECDC data in its entirety. Can you approach them, or are you already doing this - to integrate more? They’re already commons and we could do it with a lot of effort but I would love to see that happen more often in this pandemic. There’s heaps of wiki politics I’m sure but that seems exciting and I love their commitment to commons too. —Almaty (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
can we please go to mainly for that, typically is a very different word. Per the dictionaries. Thanks for considering. —Almaty (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
!!!! You just removed all breathing from transmission
If I have to do a RFC about that, I give up on Misplaced Pages, the amount of consensus here and elsewhere is ridiculous. Back to the wording before and then discuss individual sentences, Mark my words this has already been an edit war —Almaty (talk)
I am troubled by Almaty's constant threats to "go to the media". Allrighty then, but it feels almost like a legal threat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Boing, he has mentioned it repeatedly on this page, making me wonder if we need to add "threats to go the press" to "legal threats". It's not a collaborative way to edit. I understand that James talks to the press all the time, but not used as a threat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Almaty this appears to be the edit you are referring to.
Please note 1) that is not me 2) yes sometimes I sleep 3) I do not agree with that persons edits.
Editing a topic such as this requires a great deal of persistence and discussion as new editors are constantly joining who many not have read the prior discussions. Yes threats to go to the press to try to tarnish Misplaced Pages's reputation is definitely not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Having been through months of Venezuela being on the mainpage InTheNews for the Venezuelan presidential crisis, I hope some medical editors are now seeing why I objected to the Coronavirus banner on InTheNews. We now have a growing mess, where everyone and their brother has an opinion, medical editors are a minority, and reason cannot prevail anywhere. I have given up and unwatched most of these articles, as I find them to be hopelessly unhelpful, POV, and all too often breaching MEDRS and NOTNEWS. That is what you get when you are ITN, and that will continue as long as it is ITN. Even when Venezuela was finally removed from ITN, the articles were stuck with a proliferation of editors who had no idea of the history, the politics, the reliable sources, what was DUE or UNDUE, but they sure all had an opinion. There are not enough medical editors to prevail content-wise when ITN has brought in the entire Misplaced Pages. I had many problems days ago with that editor's edits. With the added complication of being under sanctions, I see no hope of keeping the coronavirus articles in any kind of readable shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
there is no way to keep Misplaced Pages in any kind of good shape on this disease at this stage and for the forseeable future, I tried my best but it isn’t for me, I am not yet built for repetitive disputes about what the words exhale and airborne mean in public during a pandemic. Thanks for the support. —Almaty (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Guys, calm down, there is no legal matter here whatsoever. Everyone is frightened about this virus, everyone just needs to be take things down a notch. I support Almaty's position as it is abundantly clear that Doc James has a long track record of repeatedly making a controversial changes without (or against) consensus. He clearly knows how to game the system and come out on top of edit wars. He is not held to the same standards of behaviour as other editors, particularly when it comes to edit warring, because other moderators blindly 'bootlick' him whenever such a matter occurs. The enormity of Doc James' overall positive contribution to Misplaced Pages is difficult to describe. He will leave an enduring legacy. However, given the extent of his poor behaviour - and how it has been left unchecked - any biography written about his leadership at Misplaced Pages will need to include a footnote outlining how he undermined his own leadership by being a disruptive editor. Vitreologytalk05:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Almaty and I reached a degree of consensus after a fair bit of discussion. The edit that removed breathe from the body of the text was made by someone else. I have restored it to the body of the text in fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
just to confirm that we did Over email. I might come back once the confusion off wiki is clarified. Please also refer to the WHOs tweet about this today, wiki is are reflecting the worlds confusion. they say cough sneeze and talk, with the word mainly, and confirm that according to them it is not airborne. They then state breathing but they de-emphasise it in their tweet. the word exhale and airborne are extremely difficult to convey to the public, the public remain confused. doc James and me are fine with the current wording and current consensus --49.195.72.73 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Sent you an email
Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TLDR; Would love to talk to you quickly. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
It would mean hundreds of discussions since there is inconsistency across multiple pages, category names, etc. We need a centralised discussion and even if we achieve a consensus (which should be as broad as possible in order to be definitive) any name change of existing pages I think would not be urgent as it probably would have to be done by a BOT. But at least we decide a standard for new pages. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
For the main article on the disease, we would need consensus at that article. For the rest we can use the abbreviation as we use COPD as an abbreviation IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hi Doc, I don't know how you manage to do so much here, and your regular job, and take care of yourself. ↠Pine(✉)05:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks you both. Just finished a stretch of shifts in the ER. Was supposed to go on holidays but obviously all those have been cancelled. So have a bit of extra time :-) Happy to do what I can to try to decrease the effects of this disease well making WP better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Hellman. I am a final semester nursing student in Bloomington, IL. I'd like to use your photo on Pulmonary Fibrosis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Pulmonary_fibrosis#/media/File:IPF_amiodarone.JPG ) in my Internship & Management case study project presentation. However, as one knows using Misplaced Pages (and by extension Commons) as a source is generally frowned upon. The way I figure it, if I ask you here on the talk page and you give me an affirmative that I can use it, I can then cite it as a personal correspondence instead of "from Misplaced Pages." (I suppose I should try some way to be really REALLY sure you're a licensed physician, but usage of it isn't a critical fact in the presentation. Just trying to demonstrate by side-by-side comparison how fibrosis could mask infiltrates by comparing your CXR to one of a pneumonia patient.)
So, is it OK if I use it?
Thanks! Darren Erickson, NS, EMT-B. 98.215.82.138 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No worries. Happy for you to use the phone. Please attribute as "James Heilman, MD, Misplaced Pages". Simple mention during your presentation that yes physicians do edit Misplaced Pages. It is fairly easy to verify me as a physician BTW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you much, I can do that, and very much appreciate your contributions not just for how they help me personally but that everyone can benefit from the knowledge. Best, Darren. 98.215.82.138 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
And if you have good clinical images that Misplaced Pages is missing, remember to give back in the future :-) Best of luck with your presentation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
1. What is the issue with chlortalidone-associated hypomagnesemia? I have provided citations to authoritative, high quality sources. You repeatedly remove these from the lead. A peer-reviewed summary of 4 clinical trials finding that 1 in 5 patients get this is more than enough to establish this adverse effect of chlortalidone. Rejecting this because the article is "old" doesn't seem to make sense to me. This is an adverse effect, not a therapeutic effect. Chlortalidone-associated hypomagnesemia is in the full prescribing information, it is abundantly documented in the literature, and it causes or contributes to many of the other adverse effects of the drug (low K+, low glucose, etc).
2. I've made hundreds of edits and have endeavored to use formatting that is consistent with that in each article I edit. Please explain what you believe I have done wrong with formatting of the link to the FPI for chlortalidone. I've seen this formatting used in wikipedia drug articles. How do you recommend this be formatted. You've been around long enough to know how to provide useful feedback, please do so.Sbelknap (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Lets look at your edit than
You switched it from using a cite template to a bar url. Cite templates are used throughout the article. Please see WP:MEDHOW. I have already told you this four times on your talk page.
One issue with that paper is 1) it is 20 years old 2) it is about a dose that is no longer used. Basically no one uses 50mg/day (almost always 12.5mg per day). I am happy with listing it as a side effect. Not sure we have sufficient evidence to list it as a common side effect. And that was not a review. They did not look for all data on the subject, just pulled data from 4 papers.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
1)Hypomagnesemia is a pharmacologic effect of exposure to chlortalidone, not an efficacy outcome. The age of the review article is irrelevant. These are high-quality observations of the magnesium-depleting effect of chlortalidone. Humans have not evolved much in the past 20 years. 2)Let us not confuse initial dosing of chlortalidone with maintenance dosing after dose titration. It is simply not the case that the 50 mg dose of chlortalidone is no longer used. Doses of 50 mg and 100 mg of chlortalidone are used in resistant hypertension and as part of triple nephron blocking therapy in heart failure. In these cases, the chlortalidone is combined with other diuretics, such as amiloride or eplerenone, or with ACE inhibitors or ARBs so as to mitigate against potassium depletion. Notably, magnesium depletion *does* occur at doses of 50 or 100 mg of chlortalidone, particularly in diabetics. For this reason, magnesium is routinely repleted in these patients. Sbelknap (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Some patients are on lower doses of chlortalidone. Others are on higher doses. That is what happens when one titrates dosing. There are many patients on 50 mg and some on 100 mg and the stat pearls article describes this. Sbelknap (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"Some experts recommend dosage of 12.5–25 mg once daily based on efficacy and tolerance demonstrated in clinical studies" That is a less common dose from 20 years ago. And it is still not a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"Dosing regimens vary depending on clinical indication. For the treatment of heart-failure, guidelines recommend dosing started at 12.5 mg or 25 mg daily and can be titrated up to 100 mg daily as necessary. For generalized edema, dosing begins with 50 to 100 mg daily and can be titrated up to a maximum of 200 mg daily." Sbelknap (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you looking at the article I am citing or the other article? I am citing the stat pearls article, which mentions the doses of chlorthalidone used for heart failure and edema. This is a review article. Sbelknap (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, your opinion is that high doses of chlorthalidone are no longer used and that for this reason, chlorthalidone-associated hypomagnesemia is not a common problem. There are authoritative sources that contradict your opinion that high doses of chlortalidone are not used. For example, In fact, doses of 50 mg and 100 mg are commonly used. Also, as I understand it, you are dismissing the Pak article because you claim that it is not a review article. Yet, Dr. Pak uses the word review in the title of his article and it clearly is a review of high-quality evidence from four published trials. Hypomagnesemia is not an efficacy outcome. This evidence about chlorthalidone-associated hypomagnesemia is certainly (in my view) adequate to establish that chlorthalidone causes hypomagnesemia. It seems to me that you formed an opinion and are now reluctant to change it. Should we defer to your opinion or go with authoritative sources? Sbelknap (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we do an eradication vs flatten the curve vs unknown strategy map?
Australia’s is unknown. New Zealand’s is eradication. We’re virtually identical countries, the prime ministers decide. Isn’t that just mental ? We have sustained transmission in Sydney now, 238 not in a cluster but I think we’re going the wrong way. —Almaty (talk)
Oxford have done a good study on the severity of governmental responses but I think people deserve to encyclopaedically know what decision their country has taken. —Almaty
ps am I allowed to use talk page when retired —Almaty (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course you are allowed to use talk pages :-) Do we have enough sources for such as map? Agree would be useful if it can be made. Would be great if OurWorldinData made one and than we just used it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello James,
recently you've removed info about Chingleput Trial regarding BCG vaccine with justification "we should use review articles" - what does it mean? The source of that info is publicly accessible and posted on reliable site - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10573656.
User:Matolch we have high quality secondary sources on the topic. This is an old primary source.
Pak CY (October 2000). "Correction of thiazide-induced hypomagnesemia by potassium-magnesium citrate from review of prior trials". Clin. Nephrol. 54 (4): 271–5. PMID11076102.
Please sort Epidemiology table by Deaths and not Cases
Hi James,
In the Epidemiology section (on the Covid-19 pandemic page), can you please request to re-arrange the columns
so that #Deaths is primary (and sorted on primary) and #Cases is secondary ?
The rationale is that Cases is not an equivalent metric across countries and there is a wide divergence, whilst
although #Deaths is also likely to not be 100% accurate, it is likely to be MUCH more accurate. A note
also explaining this would help, as many people (Doctors included) are coming to incorrect conclusions
about death rates (CFR) etc plus also using current Case data which is an earlier measure compared
to the #deaths.
No evidence that deaths are completely accurate either (death certificates are complicated). Plus cases go up before deaths (by about 8 days) and thus are an earlier indication of the badness to come for a country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for replying James. The problem with the Cases values is that they are VERY inaccurate and NOT comparable across countries. Yes, in normal circumstances they are a leading indicator of measuring a disease, but due to the way that countries have operated testing in different ways and with such variance of methods, and indeed lots of countries have been short on tests, the #Cases values CANNOT be relied upon. They should come with dare I say a health warning! I fully agree that Death values also have their vagaries, but #Deaths alas is solely the most accurate data points we have at this point in time during the pandemic. So for the sake of scientific accuracy (and I wish WHO would do likewise), the #Deaths values are de facto the most reflective (accurate) of what has happened in any given country at any point in time. Have a think about it ...
Yes, the No. of Death's column is sortable - but No. of Cases column is also sortable and will be if the table is edited so that Cases is a Secondary column and Deaths is the primary column. If you cant see the scientific merit in what I am suggesting as in Cases values are nearly as good as useless (as they are apples and oranges) and that Deaths values, despite inadequacies too, are all we have really got, then I will just have to give up my persuading! Stay healthy, and thanks for your continuing efforts and input on Misplaced Pages.
(talk page watcher) I'm just going to put in my 2 cents here before fading back into the aether. We have footnotes on some (if not most) COVID-19 article charts stating that they are only for reported confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries. It should always be assumed that there are more unreported cases and deaths out there; recoveries are generally reliable as it shows that countries are making progress. I don't think either total number of cases or deaths are wholly reliable, for example, with China's dubious numbers . --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tenryuu, yes, totally agree that figures cant be accurate but there are wholesale omissions being made on Cases so that it is the most unreliable of the 3 data sets being reported. Recoveries is also not classified the same way in all countries from what I understand. Alas, we are not dealing with lab conditions and data is in scientific terms incomplete. We do have to take at 'face value' what each health authority is reporting, but we can make a scientific judgement call that if we think Deaths is the most accurate, then that should be our key focus to measure virus impact. My 2 cents too, and I am back off into the ether as well. :-)
I am not sure which is most reliable. You need to be both diagnosed and to be confirmed dead to be diagnosed as having died from this condition obviously. For cases you just need the one to have occurred. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Dear Doc James,
I am fan of Misplaced Pages which is the site I always visit first when I need information on a topic.
For the first time 2 days ago I proposed a small modification to a Misplaced Pages text ("Epileptic seizure"). I expected someone to ask me to motivate the change, instead I see that it was immediately accepted. Yet I am sure that you or someone for you performs an excellent check on what is written, because the texts on Misplaced Pages have a high degree of reliability in my opinion.
So who checked the correctness of my modification? How is the procedure?
I also ask this because I hope to contribute to Misplaced Pages again.
Congratulations on your great and important and well-conducted work, for which as a user of Misplaced Pages I thank you very much and I apologize for stealing your time.
Warmest regards
Carlo Cianchetti
Former professor of Child and Adolescent Neuro-Psychiatry, University of Cagliari, Italy
Carlo.Cianchetti.MD
P.S. I see that most of the collaborators, including you, have a fancy name. I gave this as a username, not imagining that it would become my official ID. Is this a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo.Cianchetti.MD (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Carlo.Cianchetti.MD for a lot of pages anyone can directly contribute and those contributions go live immediately. They than often get reviewed over time. I noticed your edits and agree that they are an improvement so thankful :-) Let me know if you have any questions. A good overview of editing is at {{student}} Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Yep. The editing of anything remotely contentious should have stopped a long time ago, and the focus should have switched to discussing the concerns. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Everything within medicine is exceedingly contentious. That is why I have been moving from not just providing references for every sentence but references and the exact quote form the source.
They've been running pretty hot with comments like This page has thus been reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, in line with previous cases such as Alexander Waibel v Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation has confirmed it is is running a full investigation into this page. or This is part of the text on this page that Wikimedia Foundation has been made aware of with much more supportive evidence from the history of this page. Editors will be subject to financial and other conflicts of interest investigations. Kind of seems like legal threat territory, but it's an odd one.
I've alerted them to the GMO DS (especially for aspersions in GMO topics), but this one has left my head scratching. I was thinking of bringing it to an admin board at one point, but decided to just let it be up to today. I'm curious what you think. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't either and kind of expected that. I wouldn't worry about it too much right now since I think the topic is settled enough for now we can afford to watch and see what they do or say for a little bit. Just an interesting heads up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Doc James I have been alerted to guidelines by User:Kingofaces43 and will follow closely as a new editor. I am a conflicts of interest expert and am working to identify specific pages across the Misplaced Pages platform that may have been based on corporate PR campaigns with or without (as is true in most cases) the knowledge of the editors. The Wikimedia Foundation is aware of this and I am helping to make progress specifically on pages that could be defamatory and are based more or less exclusively on corporate PR campaigns. This is of course an important assignment for the future of Misplaced Pages and its neutral status. I hope this is not such an 'odd duck' for you now.BillyHatch2020 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: I'm making a mistake with respect to my own mental health by posting at WP, but I guess this is sort of related, and it's a question that's been in my mind. ArbCom may be starting a case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing, which is not what I'm asking about, but they have, as a named party, the editor who made this edit: . There's something familiar about the edit summary, that I can't put my finger on, that makes me think that this, too, is a sock. That's nowhere near enough for an SPI, but could you (or anyone else here) maybe think about whether you've seen another account make GMO reverts that look just like that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Best wishes, 
You currently appear to be engaged in an 