Talk:Saliva hormone testing

Possibly useful sources

Although most of the page was basically an advertisement for a process which is seen as medically virtually worthless, there are some sources here - they're mostly popular, but there might be something that can be used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

“ A saliva test can also uncover various biochemical imbalances that can be underlying chronic stress, fatigue, anxiety, obesity, depression, and many other chronic conditions. Currently, diagnostic tests for diseases and conditions as (HIV), hypogonadism, measles, hepatitis, certain cancers, stress and menopause are used with dependable accuracy. Scientists are close to developing a saliva test for monitoring Type 2 Diabetes. Scientists have found that human saliva carries markers of breast cancer. A saliva test might also help healthcare practitioners detect some forms of autism. All of these discoveries could potentially lead to early treatments for patients.

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have developed a "prototype camera-phone mounted with a microscope" that can "magnify and photograph blood or saliva samples" for diagnosing diseases. The prototype, called CellScope, would enable "disease screening and diagnosis in the field where specialized clinical microscopy laboratories aren't available, including in underdeveloped countries."
In the future, saliva may be used to predict the number of cavities in a person's teeth and even where in the mouth the cavities will develop. Research by the University of Southern California has determined that saliva can show how vulnerable a patient is to cavities. The test detects saliva proteins that have special sugars that bind to the surfaces of microbes. Various combinations seem to make people more or less prone to cavities.
Latest research suggests that biomarkers of various cardio-vascular complications and inflammation markers can also be detected using the saliva samples on nano-bio chips. For example, early diagnosis of a heart attack can be determined with a few drops of saliva and a new nano-bio-chip. The nano-bio-chip is the size of a credit card and can produce results in as little as 15 minutes. In the future, this nano-bio-chip assay could be used to analyze a patient's saliva on board an ambulance, at the dentist's office or at a neighborhood drugstore. Early detection could help save lives and prevent damage from cardiac disease.

”

Hello

I am responding to your reasoning for not posting the majority of the content for our proposed Wikipedia page on Saliva Hormone Testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva_hormone_testing). We were advised that the process is "medically virtually worthless," an opinion that we wish to dispute.

As our paper stated, there are many applications for this testing that are currently in use and are being considered for future applications. The purpose of our article was to merely inform about the process, to present these applications and the science behind it. By claiming it to be medically virtually worthless debases all of the resources that are supporting the process.

It also does not allow Wikipedia to be impartial in its presentation of information. Wikipedia should be presenting all sides of any issue instead of limiting the content to just one viewpoint. It is a great disservice to not present all angles to readers so that they are properly informed as to what sciences exist and allow them to make their own decisions. After all, that is the job of reference information, for which Wikipedia is just another vehicle.

Additionally we were told that our sources might have some useful value, which leads us to believe that the content should be just as useful because it is from these sources that we developed this content. How can the sources be useful but not its resulting content?

We can certainly understand not using the content for commercial purposes, but our mention of the product merely demonstrates one way that the process is being used. It can pave the way for other contributors to add different ways the process is being applied in the medical world of diagnostic testing. We would be doing a tremendous disservice by not presenting the advances that science is making in this arena, and the applications that are utilizing these discoveries.

We took the liberty of reviewing the content on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioidentical_hormone_replacement_therapy). This content is relevant in just one aspect of saliva hormone testing, but does not present the entire picture of the process. By not providing this information, we are not properly educating our readers on everything that is out there in the medical world. This is our job to present this information without prejudice or persuasion, which we are trying to do. It would behoove you to allow this to be consumed by your readers for the purpose of awareness and education. Therefore, I would kindly suggest that you reconsider posting this content in its original format. We look forward to your unbiased response shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtaitus (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is about a medical topic. As such, it should use medically reliable sources. Journalism generally isn't useful because it's medically unreliable, overstates successes, ignores problems, and is a totally different type of vehicle than the peer-reviewed sources that are expected to underpin articles on medical topics. If these tests are used, find the uses on pubmed and cite them. The page was essentially based on either pages attempting to sell or promote in particular bioidentical products (and bioidentical hormones are essentially a nonsense marketing idea, not science - saliva or even blood testing is not valuable for bioidenticals, as stated in this source; blood-bound hormones do not necessarily determine biological activity at the cellular level as stated in this source; this source is, in addition to a blatant sales site, incorrect in stating that saliva testing is reliable in any way), unsourced (and could be removed per WP:PROVEIT) or based on journalism (such as this source which isn't about hormones, this source is dead; this source discusses a non-FDA approved test; this doesn't even appear to discuss a published paper; this is about a prototype and doesn't mention hormones at all and neither does this one - even science journalism is of dubious use). If saliva-based hormone testing has a real scientific background and merit, cite the peer-reviewed articles as your main sources and don't build it from either sales sites or popular press. This is particularly problematic when actual peer-reviewed secondary sources are actively critical of the claims. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)