User talk:Doc James/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Fast

"Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine and requested permission to consume nothing but vegetables (pulse) and water for 10 days. Later in the same book (Daniel 10:2-3 NIV), Daniel again followed a 21 day period of fasting, during which time he ate no choice food (meat or wine). Based on these two passages, a modern day Daniel Fast involves ad libitum intake of specific foods, but the food choices are restricted to fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, and oil. ...refined foods, white flour, preservatives, additives, sweeteners, flavorings, caffeine, and alcohol are each forbidden."

"It is most commonly partaken for 21 days, although fasts of 10 and 40 days have been observed. Our initial investigation of the Daniel Fast noted favorable effects on several health-related outcomes, including: blood pressure, blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and biomarkers of oxidative stress. This review summarizes the health-specific effects of these fasts and provides suggestions for future research."[[1]]

Here's the research [[2]][[3]]

I'd like to edit into the Book of Daniel to include the word meat, not just "royal food" and expand on "vegetables" to add the word pulses because other recognized translations use those two words. Note there are only two primary studies testing the DF, same researchers. Maybe a third, counting Ornish. Any comments hoping to not waste efforts?32cllou (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit about books. Best to ask someone else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Food and depression

I find many studies linking eating certain food and mood. See below. But no reviews. My personal conclusion is that increased consumption of complex carbs (esp in the morning) over proteins, increased plant neurotransmitters (esp berries and greens), and decreased chicken and eggs (primary arachidonic acid exposure) may improve symptoms of depression. Is there anything here can be edited into wiki?

G. Korte, A. Dreiseitel, P. Schreier, A. Oehme, S. Locher, S. Geiger, J. Heilmann, and P. G. Sand. Tea catechins' affinity for human cannabinoid receptors. Phytomedicine, 17(1):19-22, 2010.

B. L. Beezhold, C. S. Johnston, and D. R. Daigle. Vegetarian diets are associated with healthy mood states: A cross-sectional study in seventh day adventist adults. Nutr J, 9:26, 2010.

Beezhold BL, Johnston CS, Daigle DR. Preliminary evidence that vegetarian diet improves mood. American Public Health Association annual conference, November 7-11, 2009. Philadelphia, PA.

A. C. Tsai, T.-L. Chang, S.-H. Chi. Frequent consumption of vegetables predicts lower risk of depression in older Taiwanese - results of a prospective population-based study. Public Health Nutr. 2011 15(6):1087-1092

S. E. D. Clarke, R. R. Ramsay. Dietary inhibitors of monoamine oxidase A. J Neural Transm 2011 118(7):1031 - 1041

M. C. Anderson, F. Hasan, J. M. McCrodden, K. F. Tipton. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors and the cheese effect. Neurochem. Res. 1993 18(11):1145 - 1149

J. van Amsterdam, R. Talhout, W. Vleeming, A. Opperhuizen. Contribution of monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibition to tobacco and alcohol addiction. Life Sci. 2006 79(21):1969 - 1973

D.B. Haytowitz, A.L. Eldridge, S. Bhagwat and others. Flavonoid Content of Vegetables. USDA.

J. H. Meyer, N. Ginovart, A. Boovariwala, S. Sagrati, D. Hussey, A. Garcia, T. Young, N. Praschak-Rieder, A. A. Wilson, S. Houle. Elevated monoamine oxidase a levels in the brain: An explanation for the monoamine imbalance of major depression. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2006 63(11):1209 - 1216

J. M. Harnly, R. F. Doherty, G. R. Beecher, J. M. Holden, D. B. Haytowitz, S. Bhagwat, S. Gebhardt. Flavonoid Content of U.S. Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts. J. Agric Food Chem. 2006 54:9966-9977.

J. C. De Villiers. Intracranial haemorrhage in patients treated with monoamineoxidase inhibitors. Br J Psychiatry 1966 112(483):109 - 118

B. L. Beezhold, C. S. Johnston. Restriction of meat, fish, and poultry in omnivores improves mood: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Nutr J 2012 11:9

S. Mulinari. Monoamine theories of depression: historical impact on biomedical research. J Hist Neurosci. 2012; 21(4):366-392.

F. López-Muñoz, C. Alamo. Monoaminergic neurotransmission: the history of the discovery of antidepressants from 1950s until today. Curr Pharm Des. 2009 15(14):1563-1586.

12) Zhao Q. Detrimental effects of the ketogenic diet on cognitive function in rats. Pediatr Res. 2004 Mar;55(3):498-506. Epub 2004 Jan 07.

13) Wurtman RJ. Brain serotonin, carbohydrate-craving, obesity and depression. Obes Res. 1995 Nov;3 Suppl 4:477S-480S.

14) Wurtman RJ. Effects of normal meals rich in carbohydrates or proteins on plasma tryptophan and tyrosine ratios. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):128-32.

15) Achten J. Higher dietary carbohydrate content during intensified running training results in better maintenance of performance and mood state. J Appl Physiol. 2004 Apr;96(4):1331-40. Epub 2003 Dec 05.

16) Phillips F. Isocaloric diet changes and electroencephalographic sleep. Lancet. 1975 Oct 18;2(7938):723-5.32cllou (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No we need to stick with high quality reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
That's sad. I've prepared daily meals for 17 skilled nursing patients so far, and see some very dramatic improvements in mood shifting from inst food to whole plant. It's almost certainly helped with hosp delirium too.32cllou (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
We do need high quality sources. Especially for a major topic like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

STOP LEAVING OUT THE GASKIN MANEUVER

I have added information on shoulder dystocia twice now only to see it vanish. The current page does not do enough justice to the Gaskin maneuver as an effective, risk-free "intervention" that is extremely effective. In the case of shoulder dystocia, the baby's life is at stake and the mother's body is at great risk for damage. Minimizing this easy and effective protocol is simply irresponsible. In the "ALARMER" acronym, the R- roll mom onto hands and knees-- is actually the least "radical"-- so please also stop removing that clarification. My edits were well-cited, both linking to who Ina May Gaskin is, what she has done and scientific articles supporting her findings. The Gaskin maneuver is in all the major obstetrical textbooks as well as all midwifery handbooks-- pick any print copy up if you don't believe me-- and there are dozens of references to it online. You do women a huge disservice by removing my edits-- life and health can be preserved by simply turning onto all fours, and that may well save a life among the millions of wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.29.153 (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

One liners

You claim we can't have single sentence as the content of a subsection. For example, SD is short. It looks like that section needs expanding. In general each of those specific "Other" treatments need expanding.

Aside, I read the main bigwig at Cochrane Collaboration editorial ~"we'd be better off if we hadn't discovered psych meds ... the old therapies worked better long term ... antidepressants may harm long term ... over diagnosis and over medication (esp depression related to bereavement) is rife.32cllou (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Best to keep discussion on the depression talk page so others can get involved aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The message you left me was: "Refs are not needed in the lead as long as they are in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)"

Yes, however, there is a completely separate problem. As someone else pointed out on the talk page of that article, 2 g is actually equal to 2,000 mg, not 5,000 mg!!! If we leave that sentence in, it is very confusing -- which is correct -- 2 g or 5 g ??? A big difference! Because the source was not cited I cannot check to see which one was actually in the original. Maybe you can check the source? Invertzoo (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

2000mg of sodium equals 5000 mgs of salt. One needs to take into account the chloride. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to your changes, Doc James, now it reads well and the meaning is clear. Good work. Invertzoo (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Justification

From the Major depressive disorder talk page just so you see: Please justify your relegation of specific other treatments to a jumbled 3 paragraphs. Some are evidently as important to outcomes as meds and psyc interventions. They therefore deserve equal billing (proper heading because they are each important).

We should not have one sentence paragraphs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Who says? Each has individual value often equal to clinical treatments. Not giving them separate headings and paragraphs improperly dilutes their value.32cllou (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your word "medical" applies to many psych interventions. "Clinical" does (both med and psych).32cllou (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay will change back Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll read the full text of Therapeutic use of sleep deprivation in depression before making those changes to depression.32cllou (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That review is old. We should be using newer sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The only study post review I found is positive. Do you want me to find that study? It's not old, based on current data. I've got to read the whole text before questioning your writing that ends up making the info look less important.32cllou (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I also looked at the full review. It was just a few small trials in the review thus yes the finding are not that impressive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You write a "few", which is commonly about 3. I find 4 studies in table 2, 10 studies in Table 3, and 7 in Table 4.
Important is the statement that "In several but not all studies on therapeutic SD a relationship between severity of depression and SD response has been noted: the more severe the symptoms, the more marked the SD response (reviewed in 14)".
Also important is the statement "The sparse clinical utilisation may change as a result of the new developments mentioned in sections 8 and 9: combinations of single or repeated SD's with pharmacotherapy, light therapy, and/or sleep phase advance. With some of these techniques a true reduction of episode length seems to be possible." (Wehr, Milano group used as references here)
I'll pull that reference 14 tomorrow. Unless you tell me it's a waste of time (1991 journal). I'm told that before antidepressants, SD, bright light, and exercise were the primary DR recommended strategies against depression. Would you accept psych textbook material from that time?
And please read these 3 reviews [[4]][[5]], and a blockbuster! [[6]]. "demonstrate good efficacy in the treatment of illness episodes. They include manipulations of the sleep-wake rhythm (such as partial and total sleep deprivation, and sleep phase advance) and of the exposure to the light-dark cycle (light therapy and dark therapy). In recent years, an increasing literature about the safety and efficacy of chronobiological treatments in everyday psychiatric settings has supported the inclusion of these techniques among the first-line antidepressant strategies for patients affected by mood disorders." I'll read the full texts tomorrow.32cllou (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Stuff more than 5-10 years old should not be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's fair (you judging I can't use an old college textbook), because it would be written past tense with the setting clear. But thanks, that saves me time. I'll take the rest to MDD talk.32cllou (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Use a recent medical textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Only less than 10 years old?

"Stuff more than 5-10 years old should not be used. Doc James" Is that something written in Wiki rules?32cllou (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It actually says 3-5 here WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a shame, and I'm glad you consider older reviews based on their worth. Note reviews can be easily effectively bought these days, so beware special interest reviews too (no matter how recent). The CBT reviews are new enough.32cllou (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Please help

I need to read one more review, and can draw some info from two others (one talking mostly about bipolar depression, but this one is most important to what might be written: [[7]]. Do you think it's good enough for Wiki?? I don't want to waste writing then deleted because of poor source.32cllou (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes looks good. Maybe add it to the management subarticle first and than we can add a brief summary to the main article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
OK good thank you.
More to read first, and I want to finish Daniel Fast DF. Prb with CBT (like with diet) it's basically impossible to get people to comply, for example get up every morning at 4:00, exercise, then watch the sun rise (or not eat any meat).
I hope mention DF may be good for health. You may have seen:

Trepanowski JF, Bloomer RJ. The impact of religious fasting on human health. Nutr J. 2010 Nov 22;9:57.

Bloomer RJ, Kabir MM, Canale RE, Trepanowski JF, Marshall KE, Farney TM, Hammond KG. Effect of a 21 day Daniel Fast on metabolic and cardiovascular disease risk factors in men and women. Lipids Health Dis. 2010 Sep 3;9:94.

Bloomer RJ, Kabir MM, Trepanowski JF, Canale RE, Farney TM. A 21 day Daniel Fast improves selected biomarkers of antioxidant status and oxidative stress in men and women. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2011 Mar 18;8:17.

All primary, but can I write "Bloomer and Trepanowski et al have attempted to replicate the Daniel fast in clinical studies, and report clinically significant improvements in biomarkers for health, including improved antioxidant status, reduced oxidative stress, reduced levels of C-Reactive protein," ect ect if I make the observations very conservatively stated?32cllou (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a major topic with lots of secondary sources. We should not be using any primary sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

edit viêm gan siêu viC(HepatitisC)

Hi Jmh649 I would like to know if I could send you the viêm gan siêu vi C file that I edited several words and a missing section because I would like to have it reintegrated. The file I uploaded in the project workspace had a missing section, which may be because I set a large font size when I was working on it and forgot returning it to a normal size. Duoc Ha Hoatimhocmai (TWB) Hoatimhocmai (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You are also more than welcome to add the changes right on Wikipedia :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So do I edit on Wikipedia or send you the file? Would you mind reintegrating the file? Could I attach the file in the job page in the the project workspace? Hoatimhocmai (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If you could edit right on Wikipedia that would be preferable. Let me know if you have any problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I edit image captions in the Edit source code (Sửa mã nguồn) page and edit words and other errors in the Edit page. Is it ok? Any suggestions? Hoatimhocmai (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes these changes look excellent [8]. Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have finished editing. I corrected errors in almost sections. Hoatimhocmai (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism

I note that you used rollback (or at least it looks that way) to revert a user changing instances of "with autism" to identity-first language ("autistic"), and your warning mentioned that "they're people first and have autism second". The person you reverted was likely aware of the reasoning behind person-first (they specifically mentioned in their summary that term and "autistic rights movement"), but more to the point, I feel the advisory/warning you left was lacking, as the "people first, disability second" stance tends to be opinionated and does have controversy surrounding it (for instance, I am an autistic person, and being autistic is no less a part of me than being white or a girl; I'm not a person with whiteness (when race is talked about) or a person who has femaleness). I do however understand that "has autism" seems to be the stylistic choice within the article (and as such, if I were to consider bringing about a change like that, I'd go to the talk page), and I think that is what should have been brought up to the user you reverted, not the line about what person-first implies, which is a stance not all agree with and not a factual bit about why the article itself is that way. This got kind of rambly, but hopefully my point comes through! - Purplewowies (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes controversial. Thus needs consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did not mean that you were wrong in the revert at all; I agree with it there. I just didn't think your warning/advisory on the user's talk page was necessarily useful is all; it didn't really bring up the real reasons why the revert needed to happen. (Also, sorry for not responding earlier. I had a busy week.) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Polish

In polish it would be:

The Cure Award
Znalazłeś się wśród 300 użytkowników najaktywniej edytujących artykuły o tematyce medycznej wszystkich wersji językowych Wikipedii w 2013. Dziękujemy za pomoc w dostarczaniu wolnej, kompletnej, dokładnej i aktulnej wiedzy medycznej. Naprawdę doceniamy Ciebie i Twój wielki wysiłek włożony w tą pracę!

Mpn (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) And congratulations for 10000 medical edits :-) Mpn (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Español (Spanish)

The Cure Award

I must admit to embarrassment. I am quite sure that if I had as many medical edits as listed, they were all vandalism reversions. I do write articles and make content contributions and edits, but I almost always do that in the field of history. So I should not have the Cure Award. I believe it would not be of any use to you under the circumstances for me to answer the survey. Sorry, but perhaps it is of some use for you to know that medical articles need to be watched for vandalism and at least a few of the editors are contributing through vandalism reversion rather than through writing substantive content. I also left this note for User:Ocaasi. Donner60 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion / keeping an eye on medical articles is exceedingly important. Still would like to have you fill out the survey... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. I will note the vandalism reversion in the comments. Donner60 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Osteoarthritis and gene therapy

Thank you for re-organizing this bit of information, from Treatment to Research.
I found the article on gene therapy and I wanted to link to it from the Osteoarthritis article, but I was never happy with where I put it. Your approach is much better; well done! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Gene therapy is being actively studied but not a main stream treatment yet (except for bone marrow transplants for some cancers) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Hoatimhocmai (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Snakebite article

Hi, just saw you moved much info from the snakebite article to a new subpage named Causes of snakebites. Don't you think this subpage should be called "most dangerous snakes" or "list of most dangerous snakes" or something like that ? this is basically what this page is listing. Thanks79.178.179.217 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Would be happy with "List of most dangerous snakes" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. sounds good "list of...". thanks (same ip editor)79.180.52.85 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I do so agree that List of dangerous snakes is a better name. Not all dangerous snakes "bite"; the python should be included. And the only "causes" are getting too close and provoking or scaring the animal, aren't they? The "cause of" name doesn't cut it, IMO. --Hordaland (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is problem with the link to the sub-page. the link (which is in red text) from the snakebite page leads to a "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." page 79.180.52.85 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Never mind Hordaland wrote the correct link in his post above. So i fixed the link myself in the article. 79.180.52.85 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, due to the change of the link to that part of the snakebite article, would you mind fixing a broken hyperlink to it (and another small fix) in the locked Inland taipan article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inland_taipan#Request_for_Two_fixes_in_the_article. I did the same hyperlink fix in the open Black mamba article. Thank you(same ip editor) 79.178.132.174 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

¡Gracias por ser uno de los principales médicos contribuidores de Wikipedia!

The Cure Award
En 2013 fue uno de los 300 principales editores médicos entre todos los lenguajes de Wikipedia. Muchas gracias por ayudarnos a ofrecer la información médica libre, completa, precisa y actualizada destinada al público. ¡Realmente le apreciamos a usted y al imprescindible trabajo que realiza!

Nos preguntamos acerca de la formación académica de nuestros principales editores médicos. Por favor ¿podría completar una sencilla encuesta en inglés de 5 preguntas? (por favor, sólo debe cumplimentarla si ha recibido el premio).

¡Muchas gracias!

Un cordial saludo:--Raimundo Pastor (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation project

Hi Doc James, I have introduced the translation project to the Dutch medical community. There are some questions about the article, mostly about quality and I have tried to answer them. Currently someone who usually merges articles is willing to help, but he wants to know whether all the sources have been checked. Please see nl:WP:MED. I know they are good articles, but I dont know more then that. It would be great if you could maybe say something on the quality and the checks of the articles in the translation project at the medical talkpage. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied here [9] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Estadísticas en español de Wikipedia

Hello Doc James:

Disculpa que te escriba en español. Veo que te resulta fácil realizar estadísticas sobre las páginas de Wikipedia en inglés. Me podrías indicar que herramientas usas para poder hacer también estadísticas sobre Wikipedia en español. Me interesa especialmente, obtener datos por año completos, para comparar la evolución de las páginas y hacer listados de las más vistas.

Thanks. --Raimundo Pastor (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Sorry I write in Spanish. I see you are easy to perform statistics on the pages of Wikipedia in English. I might suggest that using tools to also make statistics on Spanish Wikipedia. I am particularly interested, get full year data to compare the evolution of pages and make lists of the most viewed."
Sure email me and I will send you the list for Spanish for 2013. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Giardiasis

Hi DocJames,

I wonder if you would be so kind as to give me your opinion of my comment under "Prevention" on the Giardiasis page?

Thanks! PragmaticRealist (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have. Yes improvements may be needed. But we need to get the wording better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

UTI

Sorry for the primary ref. I saw Macgill talk at IDSA two years ago, and have been looking forward to that paper coming out. Its quite an overview of HA infections, and I lost track of the fact that it was primary simply from the sheer scope of the project.

I did a pretty aggressive search, and the causative organisms of infections at specific body sites don't seem to be a real hot issue for review articles. I found only a single qualifying article, which mentions the same pathogens mentioned in the Macgill paper but without any quantification. Which is probably fair, since the papers I've been looking at for this sort of thing vary so much from institution to institution and subpopulation to subpopulation (for example, elderly vs. ped CAP, hospitalized vs. outpatient treated CAP) that its probably better to express this sort of data as "about one to two thirds" rather than as "52%".

I realize that HA UTI is a tiny fraction of the total, but thought worth mentioning the distinct range of pathgens given that HA UTI accounts for the overwhelming majority of the deaths.

Here's my secondary ref. I'm down at the UCSD library today and can email it if you don't have access.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16374221

This one also mentions Enterococcus and not Enterobacter, but then I understand that you do this for a living and I don't :>).

Best, Formerly 98 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The other paper definately says enterobacter. More details on this may be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Were is the 52%? I have added snterococci based on this ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The "52%" was just an ad hoc example of overspecifying (too many significant figures). It did not refer to UTI in any way.

I've been working on a little report (no COI here, I can tell you more if you want to know) and it is really very difficult to get nationally or internationally representative semi-quantitative estimates of which bugs are important in which infections. Almost everything out there that is more detailed than a list of pathogens is a primary report, and usually specific to a single institution. I think the Macgill numbers are the best ones out there for nationally or internationally representative estimates, but the paper is too new to be referred to in any secondary sources.

Also, while I hate to set a bad precedent, the Macgill paper is really just a tabulation of facts collected by CDC (yeah, I know, the CDC angle again....). Since there are no opinions or conclusions being cited, you might want to consider whether it would be acceptable to make an exception here. Entirely up to you, you've been here a lot longer than I have... Formerly 98 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the edit [10] was that it made it sound like these infection only occur with "health care association". Which is not the case. They can sometime occur in none health care associations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Statins

Hi Doc,

I updated the primary prevention section on statins. Would appreciate it if you could take a look, as I know this is an important subject. I'm a little concerned that what I wrote might be to rosy, but the studies I was able to find seemed increasingly positive in the last 2-3 years. ThanksFormerly 98 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How would you feel about modifying the following text in some way:
Some[quantify] scientists believe the statins are overused. Their use has expanded into areas where they provide lesser benefit, and lesser evidence of benefit. The lower the risk of cardiovascular events, the lower the ratio is of benefits to costs. The US market for statins nearly tripled when the National Cholesterol Education Program revised its guidelines to recommend statins as primary prevention. Although the panel cited randomized trials to support statin therapy for primary prevention of occlusive cardiovascular disease, a report in Lancet notes, "not one of the studies provides such evidence." [23]
A group of scientists, The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, question the lipid hypothesis and argue that elevated cholesterol has not been adequately shown to cause heart disease. These organizations maintain that statins are not as beneficial or safe as suggested.[24] The beneficial effects of statins are suggested to be due to their working as vitamin D analogues.[25]
The first paragraph seems to rehash the debate discussed in the paragraph we just reworked, mainly supported by a meta analysis that is 3-5 years older than the ones we presented. This particular paper could just be cut from here and added to the primary prevention paragraph, but I suspect that there are other meta analyses that are were performed in the time period between this one and the ones discussed there, so they would need to be added too I suppose.
For the second paragraph, I think we all agree that there is some ambiguity about why statins work, but at least in secondary prevention, there seems broad agreement that they do and that they reduce mortality. Large meta analyses performed between 2007 and 2013 have not supported the potential harms hypothesized by this 2006 paper. Likewise, reference 25 seems to be pretty much the presentation of a hypothesis.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts. I don't want to go all cowboy on this, its a pretty important article. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Lets move it to "society and culture" at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to adjust further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Autism

A week ago you reverted edits made by me and posted this on my talk page: "We typically say person with autism rather than autistic person. This is because they are people first and autistic second." This is incorrect. Autistic people are autistic first; the vast majority of the autism community prefers identity-first language, not person-first, similar to the deaf and blind communities. To refer to autism as something attached to the person, rather than an integral part of their identity, is an erasure of the autism and therefore an erasure of the person. As such, person-first language is extremely disrespectful to the autism community, to the autism rights movement, and to autistic individuals. I would like to humbly request that you revert your own reversions of my edits. Muffinator (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please get consensus on the talk page. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: The autistics I know much prefer "autistic person". --Hordaland (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

James, you suggest consensus on the talk page. Might there be some other venue where such consensus might be sought? Consensus on "the talk page" would have to happen on the talk pages of (at least!) the following articles. That is insurmountable.

-- Hordaland (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest? It does need a RfC tag I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'd hoped you knew of an appropriate venue.  :( If not, perhaps an RFC could be started at Autism, with mentions of it at all the pages (talkpages) mentioned above and however many more. (It's hard to believe that sooo many autism articles are necessary.) I've never started an RFC before...) --Hordaland (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In-situ leach

Thanks for the edit comments - link fixed. Regards Lexeconicon (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_66&oldid=1203403501"