User talk:Colin/Archive 6

Thank ye

Just wanted to say thanks for when you started off answering my questions. :-) This got the others to come along and join in. It's probably a good idea not to start other threads at the same time though ^^;; . But thanks for being a steady influence nonetheless. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Example from real life

This happened to me several times in real life. A reviewer would rail at some conclusion or implication in my manuscript which was not there. I would blame myself for not writing clearly and not the reviewer for being stupid and inattentive. Where the reviewer misunderstood my manuscript, so would likely other readers. I would explain my point of view in the comments and re-write the questionable passage for clarity. Paul Gene (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC) I am giving this example just to explain my next question at WP:MEDRS and not to create noise there. Fell free to delete and tell me off your page if feel inappropriate.

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

per NOR and pseudoscience

continuing off of this: the placed where reasoning trips in this example is that it blurs the distinction between the opinions of scientists as scientists and the opinions of scientists as people. I know a good number of scientists, and if I were to ask them whether they thought (say) psychic phenomena exist, they would almost uniformly say 'no'. However, if I were to change the question a bit and ask them whether psychic phenomena could be studied scientifically, most of them would say 'sure, why not? more power to those who want to try...'. speaking as people, they think research projects like that are silly and unserious (heck, I think research projects like that are silly and unserious, who doesn't). However, most scientists hold a higher standard for opinions that impinge on their professional reputations. It's logically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so scientifically speaking all you can ever say about something like psychic phenomena is that it's a theory without any practical or functional use, and with no evidence to support it. they'd never go so far (professionally) as to criticize those who try to find evidence or practical uses - all they'd be willing to do would be to criticize the methodology such people used as flawed (and that, only if their methodology is flawed).

The wikipedia problem is that wikipedia editors have no real concerns about professional reputation, and because of that there is a tendency to present the kinds of things that scientists would say personally as though the scientist would be willing to stake his or her professional reputation on it. you see the synthesis issue? Imagine a medical doctor who says to a patient 'You have serious health issues; you need to stop smoking, stop drinking, and stop eating fatty foods, or the consequences will be dire', but says to his colleagues 'that fool of a patient ought to just put a gun to his head; it would be a quicker, cleaner death'. would we report his off-the-record opinion as serious medical advice? if we're going to report what professionals say, we ought to stick with what they say professionally. that's what they would do. --Ludwigs2 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC

Hello, the FLCon is currently running and unfortunately part of the problem with it is that most of our current regular reviewers are entrants. I would hate for people to lose in the contest solely because of a lack of reviewers, so could you please take a look at some of the following FLCs if you have time?

• List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford
• List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard
• List of universities in Nova Scotia
• List of Governors of Arizona
• List of St. Louis Rams head coaches
• List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations
• List of Soul Eater chapters

Thanks for your time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And again... (!) Bencherlite^Talk 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed your concerns on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard. Could you please look at it again? Thanks —Chris! _ct 20:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on WP:SYNTH

Since you have previously been involved in discussions about the policy WP:NOR, it appears that you have a depth of understanding about this policy. I would appreciate your comments concerning an application of this policy's section WP:SYNTH here. Thank you. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

Please do not attribute your own personal opinions to other sources. If your statement cannot be supported by the source you provide for the statement, it will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.126.204 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my own personal opinion but you are right that the source wasn't sufficient. This was an oversight as there are a few sources in the article that would supply the necessary support. I've updated the article and responded on the talk page. Colin°^Talk 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the IP, right now the paragraph is indeed adequately sourced. I will keep the list on my watchlist. To the IP, please discuss changes or problems on Talk:List of people with epilepsy instead of reverting without comment. Garion96 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Troublesome section

Hey Colin, I have replied here - I wasn't the one who added this bit, and have now read over it a few times, and am pondering whether it obfuscates more than it adds to the article, what do you reckon? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Colin, I have been tempted to scrap para one and replace with two sentences thus at Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Laboured_.28.3F.29__section. Given the huge breadth of the article. I was pondering moving the section to the Treatment of depression article and leaving this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the revert! delldot ∇. 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you take a quote personally?

I am at a loss why you would take a quotation I made from the last support for Major depressive disorder personally. I know you have defended "Cas", but this seems a little off base. Why don't you do another one of those comparisons on how much the article has changed since its nomination. Me, Snowradio and SandyGeorgia are now the fourth, fifth and sixth highest contributors to the article.[1] Paul Gene, the third highest, has not contributed since the FAC nomination. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, to keep things together. Colin°^Talk 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And again!

And again. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Tic spam

Per this upcoming event:

Hallmark Hall of Fame TV Movie about Tourette Syndrome True Story Based on Brad Cohen’s Life to Air on CBS, Sunday, December 7, 2008[2][3]

I'm anticipating some tic-related vandalism at Brad Cohen, Tourette syndrome and coprolalia when the show airs. (I don't know if you have any means of accessing CBS programming? Brad is an extraordinary fellow; no advance news on whether the story will stay accurate, but they usually don't. Most TS shows opt for sensationalism, but Brad's tics are so sensational anyway, it would be hard to exaggerate them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions

I recently created this list, and am now going through it with another excellent source (Fitzpartick's, see reference 7), and adding any missing diseases, while also creating missing article stubs and redirects in the process. However, I wanted to know if you had any feedback regarding the list itself (i.e. format, headers, etc)? How can I make it better? Would you be willing to help me? kilbad (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Pharmacologic categorization

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added an updated draft at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, would appreciate your feedback. kilbad (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PSTS

I just wanted to say thanks for your work on the interminable discussions at WT:NOR. There are clearly a couple of editors trying to twist the definitions of primary source and secondary source to suit their particular goals, and I admire your patience and persistence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about Versed Antidote: Flumazenil

Can you please tell me if there was a Versed antagonist that was removed from FDA approval prior to the use of Flumazenil? Thank you! William 70.225.80.236 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, and no idea why you are asking me. Colin°^Talk 12:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tuberous sclerosis

Thank you for your correction on those synonyms. I was mistaken to think they were still in use. kilbad (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical procedure

If you had a moment, I wanted to know if I could get your feedback concerning guidelines for articles about medical procedures? I posted a thread at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Guidelines_for_articles_relating_to_medical_procedures. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Phagocyte

Hi Colin, have you the time to take a critical look? I am working with some AP Biology high school students (see Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 and we are planning to submit this one to FAC next month. My best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I need a third opinion. Could you comment on Talk:Paleolithic diet#Diet origin. Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Meningitis

Howdy mate, thanks for those remarks on Talk:Meningitis. I've spent the whole morning implementing them. Hopefully you will be able to support the article's FA candidacy. JFW | T@lk 12:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised that there were going to be more comments! You certainly caught a nasty error in the section on pneumococcal vaccines; thanks for spotting that. Have fixed things now. JFW | T@lk 00:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for your support vote even though there were still some fixes to be made. JFW | T@lk 00:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FA cleanup

Hey! Osteochondritis dissecans passed FAC, but it's still pretty rough. See comments at User talk:Maralia#Osteochondritis dissecans and the work Maralia and I have done since it gained support at FAC (see edit summaries): maybe you can help with some of the prose and linking issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the (old and new) AfD history to Introduction to viruses

I conflicted with you while doing the same. Had the old nomination been listed I would have read it, and I would not have nominated it (again)... Xasodfuih (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A favor ?

Hey, Colin ! I'm going to be off Wiki for a day or so for some medical tests, and there's a mess on the FAC for Samuel Johnson's early life (see User talk:SandyGeorgia#Johnson's TS) that you may be able to sort in my absence. I'll understand if you don't want to wade in, as I didn't know this FAC was going up, and don't really have time to sort this now :) Steve is a very able reviewer and article writer (as well as an exemplary and collaborative Wikipedian). Maybe you or Eubulides can pitch in there? All my best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help

I started the dermatology task force and have been working on improving the dermatology-related content on wikipedia. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would help me with a list I have been working on? Particularly in proofreading some of the existing text. My goal is to get it to feature quality within the next year. kilbad (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A question

Hi Colin, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, as you may be aware, we have been discussing potential FL criteria changes and I think we have a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. I was wondering if you could take a look and comment on it. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Phagocytes and spermatozoa

Dear Colin,

Did you see The Great Sperm Race on TV tonight? I hope you did, and especially that (I suspect time-lapse) scene where the phagocytes gobble up all those frustrated spermatozoa. Please don't read too much into this, but I was thinking at the time, I hope Colin is watching this. :))

All the best. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed it. Is it worth downloading? Do they die first or are they eaten alive? You know why men produce millions of sperm? Because only one of them will have the sense to ask for directions. Old joke.

I will try not to read anything into the fact that when watching scenes of sexual disappointment on an epic scale, my friends thoughts turn to me :-)

I've not had a chance to read the rest of Phagocyte today and tomorrow is looking busy too. I will finish reading/reviewing it but don't wait for me for FAC if you think you are ready to go. Colin°^Talk 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

They eat them alive! It's worth watching if you have time, but I was disappointed with the narrator saying "leukocytes" and not "phagocytes". BTW our own phagocytes will eat our own sperm cells if we don't "use" them. But at least our phagocytes wait until they are dead. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my: the conversations I've missed while I've been busy and not paying attention !!! (Do you really think one actually asked directions, or did it just get lucky and take all the right turns?) Well, just dropped in to see what's up here because I've been so busy lately. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures

Hello, I've taken another pass at this article and if you are still interested I'd invite you to come take a look, rip it all apart, and put it back together again better than it was! Cheers, --PaulWicks (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if I were being bold I'd suggest merging NES and PNES, although which way round I don't know. I also have proposed merging in Hystero-epilepsy which doesn't appear to be adding much... WRT neurons n' stuff I probably know more than a highschool student but substantially less than a neuroscientist. I will focus my efforts on the clinical/medical level and hope someone more competent than me will tackle the wet lab stuff =) --PaulWicks (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't be so bold. PNES is a diagnosis. It typically affects a certain patient group and is treated psychologically. NES is a classification and although a doctor may (finally) say "they were non-epileptic seizures" the actual diagnosis would be something else. If you feel there isn't enough material, or it would help to merge the two, then I'd reluctantly vote for a merging into NES with the P bit as a section. But I think one can expand PNES sufficiently that it warrants its own article. Have a look at this article. The psychological cause comes a distant second to syncope, in children. When the general reader comes to WP to learn about what their doctor is considering as an alternative to epilepsy for these "seizures" their child is having, I don't think it helps to have it conflated with a psychosocial condition mainly affecting young women. Colin°^Talk 21:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good find, I particularly like the acronym: "fits, faints, and funny turns" (FFAFT). So some NES are PNES, PNES consist of NES, but not all NES are PNES. Gotcha. I'll beef up the PNES article with some more references than that one review and then we'll reassess. Right now the intro to NES seems to divert you off to PNES right from the get-go so I think a lot of folk will end of reading both and getting confused. --PaulWicks (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use

Thanks for the note; I am not at all bothered by your opinion, and in fact welcome it. The next change apparently, will be to remove Asperger's image entirely from Wikipedia, on separate grounds. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 6#Hans Aspergersmall.jpg. No notice of this has been made at Hans Asperger. The bottom line is that, regardless of what Wikipedia policy seems to say, non-free images should never be used. If I had known that ahead of time I could have saved myself the effort. Eubulides (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The best person to look at this is Elcobbola (talk · contribs); I'll ping him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Colin, see User_talk:Elcobbola#Asperger. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A huge thanks for work on Phagocyte

Dear Colin, Your help is greatly appreciated. When you first came along "Phagocyte" was too technical (to say the least), but with your comments and edits it was brought into the realm of readability. You deserve a lot of credit for Phagocyte's FA achievement (it would probably not have come close to passing without your help). Noah. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Creative commons

I was under the impression that creative commons were allowed? Am I mistaken? Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many CC licences, not all compatible with WP. See Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for some examples. The default licence on radiopaedia is CC-BY-NC-SA. Although WP is non-commercial, it requires the images are free of such restrictions. Colin°^Talk 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Colin

Thanks for making known what to do if autism-the subject of autism-does not have an issue that is being addressed. We've raised the issues regarding bias on its talk pages. We also raised question about connections with autism to intellectual disability on there. Please contact us students whenever you need.

12.227.185.235 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Colin, I'm back. I needed a break after the unpleasant paleodiet FAR and a number of lengthy unavailing policy discussions. I appreciate your kind message and the wise advice: "Trim your watchlist of all those time-sink discussion/policy pages, and enjoy writing articles again." I intend to do just that. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting

Colin my dear friend,

Did you see Embarrassing Bodies on the telly tonight? It was so interesting. A poor little girl had the most dreadful case of verrucas—a common viral infection of children caused by human papilloma virus, and to which our immunity, usually, rapidly and effectively responds. It turned out that this little girl is not making enough lymphocytes in her bone marrow and so cannot fight viral infections very well. It looks like she will get a bone marrow transplant at Great Ormond Street Hospital (an article that much deserves to be improved). No doubt we will be told more in next week's programme. In the end, her parents were grateful to the chronic verrucas, and logically the virus, without which, her condition would have gone unrecognised and would have lead to serious problems later in her life. Again, I was thinking, I hope Colin is watching this because he will be interested. The commentator called the lymphocytes —antibodies, which annoyed me a little, but I forgive her; this is Channel 4 after all. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a program I normally watch, but I caught it on 4oD. Why did she not succumb to a cold or diarrhoea? Is there something about HPV that those particular lymphocytes are needed for? Colin°^Talk 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

NFCC time to install?

Is it time to install the wording change to the NFCC criteria? Discussion seems to have died down, with a consensus for change. Eubulides (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FENews

Ah, I heard a review of that book on the radio ?last year. Sounds good indeed. Murdoch is now a US citizen, so we no longer have to burden ourselves with the association! Tony (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re

Colin, thank you for taking the time to comment over at my talk page. I have responded there. ---kilbad (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

comment at an afd

i don't always go back to past afds, especially when I do not think my view will prevail, but I did happen to see your comment about my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions. I've replied to it, [4]. As I mentioned there, I was the Princeton University Library specialist for over 30 years in just this sort of such material. Not arguing the afd, and I didn't think all that highly of the article in question, & I don't have time to redo it properly, just trying to defend my reputation. DGG (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

no problem. Feel free to delete this. DGG (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [5].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation FAC

In March you asked me to let me know when I plan to resubmit Water fluoridation as a featured article, so I'm dropping you this line that I just now resubmitted it. Eubulides (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation

I switched the template I used {{IIHFteams}} so that it only includes blue links, and doesn't link everything else. However, the best part that if someone created a new page right now, it would automatically be linked. What so you think? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick improvement to National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

I'm doing to a quick improvement to National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke over the next two weeks. If you have the time/inclination to pitch in, your expertise would be most appreciated! Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll see what I can do. Colin°^Talk 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

List of brain tumor patients

I have nominated List of brain tumor patients for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can work on this, as Durova (the other main contributor) has effectively given up on the page. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive links

Hello Colin. I noticed you've referred out to archive.org in one of your recent replacements. Just thought (in case you weren't aware), the {{cite web}} template has specific parameters for the use of archive URLs, which could be used instead of the url field. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is going to take me a while. Protracted. Like anything I do on WP these days. Colin°^Talk 21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, there was no way this would be fixed overnight. I'm pleased you're happy to help. As long as improvement continues, the FLRC will remain open so there's no chance of a premature delisting. I did add a couple more comments at the FLRC about the arbitrary sectioning and the presence of the stats table in the list and not the main brain tumor article. When you get a moment, I'd appreciate your thoughts on those too. Keep up the good work, all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Colin, I'm sorry I missed that AFD the first time through: it was immediately after my surgery. I'm still confused at why it was closed as no consensus, as the Keeps were so easily rebutted, but I guess that's why I'm dismal at Afd. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not alone. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 26. Colin°^Talk 22:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. What else did I miss in May and June? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Universal 'flu vaccine

Hi Colin, as promised here's a few thoughts on this. These Belgians have been working on this candidate vaccine for at least ten years (PMID: 10502819). Working mainly on mice, they have shown that the rodents can survive a lethal dose of influenza virus if vaccinated with it. I don't know if the poor mice still got the flu and felt unwell, which is what we expect a vaccine to prevent. The received wisdom is that antibodies prevent infections but cell-mediated immunity—mainly the lymphocytes in viral infections—help fight them. Candidate vaccines are mainly tested for two properties: their ability to induce specific antibody production by the vaccine recipient, and the ability of these antibodies prevent infections. For viruses, both of these can be measured in the laboratory. The antibodies that protect are called "neutralising antibodies" because they render the viruses non-infectious and this can be demonstrated in vitro by an established method called the "neutralisation test". In Virus you will have seen that beautiful electron-micrograph of a neutralised rotavirus with specific antibodies on the virus's surface projections. Incidently those projections are a haemagglutinin (HA), which many viruses have and not just influenza. Antibodies can be made against most if not all components of any virus particle, but only a few, and sometimes only one of these induce the production of neutralising antibodies. A person's immunity is tested in the laboratory by measuring the level of neutralising antibodies in blood. For examples this is done routinely for rubella, toxoplasma and parvovirus, (in pregnant women or those planning a family), for hepatitis B virus (mainly in healthcare workers exposed to blood), and for measles and mumps.

The problem with influenza vaccines and those for some other viruses, (HIV for example), is that although neutralising antibodies are easily induced and are produced to high levels, that part of the virus that is targeted by the antibodies constantly changes subtly by mutation and the antibodies cease to be effective. However, there are some components of viruses that the virus cannot survive being changed. These mutations also constantly occur, but the mutations are lethal and natural selection does the rest. These stable components are said to be "conserved" or "highly conserved" as is the matrix protein (M) of influenza. To all intents and purposes exactly the same protein is in all influenza A virus strains. So this protein is an obvious choice on which to base a vaccine.

But there are problems. The M protein is not very immunogenic—it is difficult to get it to induce antibody production, (in mice) and it is not known if these antibodies neutralise in the classical fashion and afford protection. To get over the problem of poor immunogenicity adjuvants—unrelated molecules that strongly stimulate the immune reponse—have been tried with some success. The purified M protein is bound to these adjuvants to make the vaccine. And several adjuvants have been tried with varying success. Mice have been used to test for protective immunity and it seems that, unlike traditional vaccines, the protection is cell-mediated (lymphocytes that kill) rather than from antibody attachment to the virus. This implies that the vaccine does not prevent infection but helps the body fight it and I refer you back to my point above about the mice feeling ill.

There are problems with vaccine delivery (how to give it to folk). Because it is a purified (and modified) viral protein with an adjuvant, it can't just be grown in fertile eggs and the white of the egg used as the vaccine, which it how it is traditionally done. One approach has been to use vaccinia. This live virus was used in the smallpox vaccine and it is relatively easy to modify this virus to produce M protein. However, vaccinia is not a harmless virus. I was vaccinated with it by Henry Bedson a few months before he died, because I as a student in his laboratory, and I was ill for a week with a weeping wound on my left arm. But the is a strain of this virus call MVA (Modified Vaccinia Ankara), which replicates poorly in primate (our) cells but still produces lots of viral protein, and can be modified to produce lots of M protein.

So, having said all this, (and probably too much I suspect), we will only know if the vaccine works by testing it for safety, immunogenicity and protection first in mice and ferrets and eventually humans in clinical trials. If it works, it won't be a cheap vaccine, quite the opposite I suspect, and by the time all of the necessary testing and trials have been completed, the 2009 swine flu pandemic will be history. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. Very interesting but also disappointing I suppose. I don't think I've ever had flu (bedridden and all that) and guess I'll be fairly low on the priority list for vaccination this year. Colin°^Talk 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of brain tumor patients

Just a quick note to thank you for your extensive efforts in assuring that this list retained its featured status. It underwent a substantial overhaul, and your efforts are much appreciated throughout the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnson and pending travel

I'm going to be traveling for three weeks, end of September, and will have limited, slow internet access. In the event that Raul runs Samuel Johnson's early life on the mainpage on September 18 (Johnson's 300th birthday), would you and Eubulides be able to keep an eye on it and Samuel Johnson? Tourette syndrome may get additional traffic that weekend as well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Have them watchlisted. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi Colin! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine

Hello, you reverted my edit on Benzodiazepine saying that it was an "unexplained blanking". The comment added to my edit was "double" meaning that the sentence is a "double", as it appears twice in the paragraph. Please pay attention to modifications before reverting other's edits.

Argos42 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is "duplicate", not "double". If you had used the correct word, or a sentence, in your edit summary, I might have understood. Colin°^Talk 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In typography, "a double" (or "a doublet", I think, in the US) means that a sentence or a word has been printed twice. Nevermind, reverting discourage users from participating, maybe you should read WP:RV. Argos42 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RV says "Revert vandalism on sight". I thought (wrongly, I accept) your edit was vandalism. Your username was a redlink. The edit summary said only "double". I am unable to find your interpretation of that word in any dictionary (I do find "doublet" has that meaning). Even if "double" is used for that meaning in some parts of the world, I'm puzzled why you are hassling me for not understanding a term that isn't in my dictionary. This was just an honest mistake; no lecture required. Colin°^Talk 21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just asking you to "pay attention", nothing else. Nevermind, ... Argos42 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

This article plethora looks like a dictionary entry what should we do about it? I think it looks horrible. - BennyK95 - Talk 00:00, October 14 2009 (UTC)

re: Copyedit request on Ketogenic diet

Hello, Colin. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 07:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: concerns raised at Obesity FAC affecting Ketogenic diet

I noticed the discussion on the Obesity FAC wrt product packaging. I've got Ketogenic diet going through peer review with an aim to go to FAC soon. I'm now concerned that File:Liquigen.jpg may fail the copyright test as the label isn't totally utilitarian. Am I right in thinking that File:Measuring Ketocal.jpg escapes the problem? If the liquigen photo has to go, what ways can I re-compose the image (other than one similar to the Ketocal one)? Thanks. Colin°^Talk 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Measuring Ketocal image would be fine because the bottle is not the main focus of the image. The Liquigen bottle is borderline; an image of the bottle with no label would certainly be usable and even the bottle as shown with the label probably doesn't meet the threshold of originality to attract copyright. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Madonna albums discography

Hi Colin. I saw your comments at the FLC review for George Michael discography. Well I have nominated the above article at FLC as I believe a veteran artist like her should deserve a proper article on her albums. Would you please check the article and leave your concerns? :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll have a look later today. Colin°^Talk 09:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well addressed your concern and removed the wp:overlinks from the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

I mentioned you here; sorry :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer-review of SENSOR-Pesticides

Hello, Colin. I saw that you had posted a peer-review request on the Medicine project message board, so I've gone in and made a few comments and minor changes. I was wondering if I could ask you for a reciprocal favor: I've recently expanded the SENSOR-Pesticides article and submitted it for peer review last week. Would you be willing to take a look at it and offer your comments? I'd like to eventually submit it for a Good Article nomination. Thank you! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But it is getting late here so perhaps tomorrow. Colin°^Talk 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Colin. I want to emphasize again how much I appreciate your help on this article! I've taken Casliber's and your suggestions and expanded the background section of the article, so if you could have a look at it and let me know what you think, that would be awesome. Thanks again! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 15:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Not sure if I'll have time tonight (Guy Fawkes Night). Colin°^Talk 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Colin, I just wanted to thank you again for your help with the peer review. Of all the comments I received, yours were some of the most helpful. When my supervisor comes back from his honeymoon, I'll have him look at it, and then I'll submit it for GA consideration (but I'll try to find different reviewers for that :-). Thanks very much for your advice - I definitely appreciate it! MMagdalene722^{talk to me} 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback :)

Replied to your query here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

When you nominate this for FAC, let me know. I'll want to support your fine work. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Did you get around to re-Wikifying the citations? I didn't comment further at the Peer review because I had no further concerns. I hope you didn't get the impression I'd forgotten! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GA class medicine articles

(cc'd to Colin, Fvasconcellos and Eubulides)

Per User talk:Geometry guy#GA class medicine articles, I've started User:SandyGeorgia/GA class medicine articles. The goal is not a complete GA reassessment, rather to give Geometry guy a list of the worst offenders per WP:MEDRS (and I'm also noting the GA date and other issues as I go). If you'd like to help, feel free to edit the page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)