User talk:Doc James/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Resources ECig

Are you pulling my leg? Over 100 Papers concerning Ecig and you you still mean "poorly studied"?--Merlin 1971 (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you read the ref in question? The number of "papers" does not indicate how "well" something is studied. If you have a 1000 poor quality research articles it is still poorly studied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, can you please take a look at "Management of dehydration"?

Hi Doc James,

I made an edit to the article two days ago. From a 2005 WHO publication, not only can hypernatraemia cause seizures, but less commonly, hyponatraemia can as well.

Please remember, I am not a physician. All the same, this does remind me of the situation with Three Mile Island and the level of cooling fluid, where the operators thought it was one way, and it was actually the other. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

PS I included my WHO reference on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Management_of_dehydration

Thanks will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Olanzapine

Sorry, I didn't know it was a policy not to include dosages. I have now removed them (and learned something). I think a section about the dosage forms and the rationales for their existences is still desirable, though. I took all my information from here and an Australian "gold standard" pharmacy reference called the AMH; their website can be found here. I have the software and the book, since I am an ex-Pharmacist and have two degrees in the area. Nice to meet you, let's not edit war. sabine antelope 08:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes welcome. References are still required required however. I will see if I can help you with the refs when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

• Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case

• Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard

• News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech

• Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess

• Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013 talk

Hi, thank you for your message. Your talk was also very inspiring - I'll need time to think it all over. Definitely we have several meeting points. And I could also aid you with Czech language, or even suggest someone who is a Czech Wikipedian and holds a degree in medicine and might would like to help you too. I have put up my slides at commons:File:Wikimania_2013_-_Reproducing_a_featured_article_into_other_languages_by_coordinated_effort.pdf. Where could I find yours? Blahma (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Should be uploaded soon.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

You're re-reverting without discussion. Not cool. I'll play too if need be and we can lock up the article. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:51, 12 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Actually there was discussion. And the changes I made were compliant with policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously everyone is going to think their changes are compliant with policy. When there's disagreement it might make more sense to discuss things some more (even if there "was discussion") already. Dontcha' think? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:04, 12 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we will need to bring more people into the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing well supported but irrelevant content

The content I removed was well supported, but it doesn't belong in a section about health effects. It's just the opinion of a WHO spokesman and isn't backed up by any research. That section should be for facts or reasonable beliefs, not opinion by a hostile body.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting User:FergusM1970. How do you know the statement was only the opinion of one person at WHO? How do you know it wasn't backed up by any research? And how do you distinguish between beliefs you find reasonable, beliefs you don't, and cherry picking? Biosthmors (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No single person at WHO gets to say anything that is not supported by an entire committee within the organization. It is not just "some spokesperson" but the position of a major international health body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Society & Medicine Taskforce

Hi Jmh649, I'm pretty game on starting that Society & Medicine taskforce, I think it has the potential to be an active and engaged taskforce. Is normal procedure just to create the taskforce and work from there? I plan on posting on some key articles and also on wikipedia proposals to drum up some attention. On the other hand, I don't want to go making unwelcome changes willy nilly to wikimed.

Looking for some advice on how to proceed, LT90001 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What sort of topics would this contain? Who is all interested in being involved? Why is a new task fast needed and why not just keep it as a general part of Wikiproject Medicine? The reason I ask of course is that we have more than a dozen taskforces and nearly all are inactive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"You do not appear to be authorized to view this job."

Hi James,

We just met at Wikimania, and I would like to volunteer to be a lead integrator for medicine articles into the Chinese Wikipedia. Unfortunately, although many of the articles for Chinese are listed as "completed", I can only view the translations for articles 17 ("migraine") on down on the translators without borders website. When I try to view translations older than that on the TWB website, I get the error "You do not appear to be authorized to view this job.", so I can't integrate them. What should I do?--Danaman5 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, this is not an issue with logging in with the username and password on the instructions page.--Danaman5 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you let me look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay please use my account Jmh649 Password is wikipedia. I have updated the instructions. Do not worry I do not use that password for anything else :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! Also, Migraine is now live on the Chinese Wikipedia! Some of its links have problems (oddly, the translators did not translate them), but I figured that even with some red links it is a massive improvement over what was there before.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks excellent and hope that you are able to get the rest of the translations up and working :-) By the way did you thank the translators at the TWB website? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I met you during the Wikimania and I promised to integrate the translated articles to the Indonesian wikipedia. I have done some of it. However, there is currently an issue with the common cold article. I believe the translation in Indonesian is selesma, but the translators used the word pilek (which already has a page in the Indonesian wiki and the interwiki is connected to article the Rhinorrhea). Could you please ask the translators to contact me about this problem? Thank you very much in advance. Mimihitam (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. The name of the translator is listed on the TWB website. If you cannot figure it out, you can email me and than I will connect you two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

re: Editor survey

Some, certainly, but I haven't quantified it yet. Ping me in a month or so if you'd like to know the answer, I should have the data by then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

• News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches

• In the media: Chinese censorship

• Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities

• Special report: Jimmy Wales: media favors entertainment over raising public awareness

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS

• WikiProject report: For the love of stamps

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please get constructive: reverting Asperger syndrome page is vandalism

We are trying to ensure that both historical facts previously submitted remains correct and does not distract from wording - reverting text back so that it is not correct and suggests that an authour of a particular book was the first recorded use of the word created by the found of the Aspies movement in Ireland is not only misleading, it is downright unfair.

Please suggest am alternative method which records how and why Damon Matthew Wise developed the movement and the chronology - we have attempted to explain the development of the terminology used by the "Asperger subculture" (A term several of us find is insulting).

In the peer advocacy we are the culture - thus we use our own terms and acknowledging the work done by Damon over the last 20 years in ensuring that Aspies are represented by Aspies, and not misrepresented by outsiders prejudices and agendas.

Please ensure that the group noun is always capitalised Aspies - originally the idea of the community of Aspies cousins and Auties did not even consider the possibility of singular. Thus as a name of a class of society is capitalised.

If you do not want the detailed history, at least show the chronology of documented use of Aspies and related words by linking it into Aspies talk page, and get rid of a claim some 6 years after the first recorded use of the word - by the time the writer of that book used apies the whole dictionary of Aspies communication had been published and distributed around the world.

Who do you refer to by "we"? Anyway two things. 1) please use better references like published textbooks 2) please get consensus on the talk page first. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

reply

Hi James,

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks DJFryzy

Have replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Courtesy Notice: You are at 3RR on Transcendental Meditation.(olive (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC))

Thanks. Per BRD you were supposed to discuss but didn't. You have also made 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. The changes you are attempting to make are a little promotional in nature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not edit warring with my first three edits you listed on AN as you know, and, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.. I didn't make five reverts. I moved content that originally had been written as the lead paragraph in the section and which had been moved. My edit summary clearly stated what I was doing. I'm not sure why you consider the information about the research promotional or what about the information is not accurate. The research was and still is often the result of collaboration with other universities and that research did have a start date. If you want to remove the grant funding amount, I 'd agree to that. The research article has a historical overview and this article should be a summary of that article and what it contains (olive (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

If you wish to discuss content changes please do so on the talk page of the TM article. I consider efforts to emphasis the content that TM.org's emphasis to be promotional and that is what your edit did but trying to place it first. I did could groups of edits as 1 and it came out to 5 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you recount and if you begin a discussion on content you should expect others to respond in kind. I'm sorry you consider such a simple change to be promotional, but you've made your POV clear multiple time so I shouldn't be surprised. I've tried to work with you on this but clearly you are intractable and refuse collaboration. This has nothing to do with the TM.org, a red herring, it has to do with your personal POV. (olive (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

You're right. Looking again there are 5 reverts. Those reverts were of highly promotional content so your cmt that my editing was promotional seems unfair, but so be it.(olive (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

Have you reflected on what your own POV might be? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all your edits are promotional, just some of them (the last couple of reverts). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

James. My edits were not promotional, They were simply syntactical, as per my background and training. Because edits are not pejorative does not mean they are promotional. You have multiple times declared your POV on the TM articles and its research. You are intractable on research content that is so simple, so innocent. And do you really think the reader cares what is at the beginning or at the end of the section, that either place somehow carries more weight than the other? Further, I offered to remove content per your concerns, but you ignored that too. Clearly you want this section to reflect you. You're welcome to that. My simple effort to move content into a logical position has as usual been twisted into a nefarious deed.(olive (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

If you wish to continue to insult me please do so elsewhere. Yes my POV is that of reliable secondary sources. We simply see different ordering of text as logical. If you look at WP:MEDMOS you will note that historical issues (such as when research began on a subject) and social and cultural issues (such as who has done the research) goes last. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for any insult.

At no time did you discuss with me guidelines per MEDMOS. Your first action was a revert with a personal opinion, "better before" While I don't see anything that indicates a history goes last, but maybe I've missed it, still such a point could have led to valuable discussion. Accusations of promoting content is an attack and can't lead to anything. Further, the section is a summary of an article on general research rather than a medical article per se and should likely be written in a summary style. Once again this could have been discussed. I support RS. Per the verifiability and RS policies including MEDRs sources are not reliable for any reason except that they are appropriate per the content they reference and support. And I guess you are connecting the TM and TM research with a lack of secondary sources, an opinion. We shouldn't underestimate out readers. It won't take the reader and anyone who wants to really know what the situation is long to figure out the truth one way or the other. In the meantime ignoring POVs could lead to valuable discussion, insights, and perhaps even better articles. I'll leave this discussion now.(olive (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

You're welcome, Doc James.

I wanted to reply to your thank-you message for edits on Pneumonia, but I am not sure how and where to do so when the message is not part of the User Talk page. I apologize if this is not the appropriate place, and I take no offense to your deleting this edit, but I just wanted to state that I appreciate your having made the kind gesture. EtymAesthete (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly how it is done. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews

Cochrane reviews are some of the best evidence in medicine. Please do not remove them and their conclusions. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not bad that's true, but they are only meta analyses and they are certainly not devoid of all bias, they don't trump every other piece of research and information on clinical use. Please make sure they are in the right place, not stamped over the entire article.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)--Hontogaichiban (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A meta analysis is deemed to be the highest quality of evidence per WP:MEDRS. True they do not trump other high quality sources. Not sure why you removed one entirely though? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not remove them, I just moved them further down the document and gave a more honest title to them. Hang on I just noticed you said one was removed, let me check.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up that it was Zanamivir. On the Zanamivir issue, the way it is currently written is utter nonsense and dangerously misleading. The comment which the reference is attached to says (right in the middle of Medical use) "The evidence for a benefit in preventing influenza is weak with concerns of publication bias in the literature." Any lay person reading that (and Wikipedia is primarily for lay people) is going to come away thinking the drug has no effect. If you look at the reference used to support that, it admits "our analysis was limited by small sample sizes and an inability to pool data from different studies" it is also clear that the study is looking at use in children, and suggesting there is not enough evidence to justify use in children, what it doesn't point out (which needs pointing out when you take a medical paper and present it's conclusions to the public) is that studies are seldom carried out in children due to the difficulties and ethical concerns of doing so, use in children almost always has to start with adult studies and a degree of logic. This kind of carelessness on wikipedia may actually cost lives, as patients, their parents and even (let's face it) a lot of doctors are going to take this information on unquestioningly. I went through these neuraminidase inhibitor articles and they are riddled with anti-drug comments which go far beyond the evidence used to support them, comments carelessly inserted in inappropriate places throughout the articles.

As for the idea that meta data just automatically trumps all other data, this is clearly incorrect to anyone who really understands the way studies are done. I'm not saying meta analysis is worthless - ultimately that is what you have to do to make clinical decisions, but overinterpreting or over replying on their results is incredible foolhardy. The main bias of the Cochrane studies is caused by the select group of people that take part, many of whom have a vested interest in reducing the amount of medical intervention - basically they are looking for excuses to avoid action in order usually to save costs. In the case of these drugs they didn't even look at all the evidence (which admittedly is because the pharma companies have not made it all public), but they can't flat out deny it's existence. They also fail to acknowledge the frequently fatal effects of untreated influenza and suggest no better alternative to the treatments they undermine. All these issues should be presented alongside any mention of this data, and it should all be in context, not stamped over every section of every article.

I'm afraid I don't have time to fight for all this to be taken into account, but if it's not sorted out, the reliability of these kinds of wikipedia articles falls into very serious question and as I said it could very well have life threatening consequences. --Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You are indeed correct that the zanamivir article only deals with children and I have corrected. Yes influenza is bad. Now all we need is good evidence that medications improve mortality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not about "truth", our goal is simply to reflect the best avaliable evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The route forward - Simplification Damon Matthew Wise

We are mindful of problems finding details and taking out details not relevant:

For example: "minor roles of elected office and alternates", which includes officerships, for example - local community councils in England and membership of student, youth and candidate party groups in the UK in 1988-1990 and Policy committees, alternate to National Council and local branch positions in Ireland are not listed online and past members and committee do not show once replaced ... so removed election on elections and alternates.

We are streaming down from references in his published biographies (LinkedIn, International Who's Who listing and Facebook profile) looking for reference and links while keeping the issues toned to his works in Autism and Disabilities areas.

We have to be able to be fair balanced and independent, and that means cutting things down.

Yes Wikipedia requires verifiability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Spinal Manipulation Cassidy et al

Dear Jmh649,

I am hoping to contribute well to the Wikipedia community, however am unsure of the issue with the edit in the spinal manipulation page.

" Further population based and case controlled studies found the risk of stroke post chiropractic spinal manipulation to be identical to a visit to a primary care physician . The authors concluded they found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271108/

To my knowledge this is one of the most up to date and largest study of its kind looking at the prevalence of VBI post Spinal Manipulative Therapy by chiropractors.

Regards, DJFryzy (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes was going to leave some more advice on your talk page. Per WP:MEDRS we use secondary rather than primary sources typically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:MEDRS. In terms of secondary v primary sources.. I thought that this would have been ok.. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources and the sub heading "You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully" The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does DJFryzy (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello DJFryzy. The short answer is that this is a 2008 publication and there are more recent reviews that put this study in context (see the WP:MEDDATE section). So we defer to those sources. Do you need assistance with anything else? Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Biosthmors . I understand. Is there any room for the article as such? As it is well regarded as the largest population based study to date? Thank you for taking the time to reply DJFryzy (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome DJFryzy. (FYI, that did not send me a notification because it would have also required for you to resign the statement with ~~~~.) Web of Science says there are 13 review articles that have cited the paper you're interested in. Is there something you cannot find in those 13 sources you'd like to include? I understand you may not have access to all 13, or even the list of them, but that's how we approach situations like these. Biosthmors (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, DJFryzy, given the state of the paragraph, I have reinstated the material for now. We should transition the paragraph away from primary sources, so I'll tag the paragraph. Biosthmors (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I tagged the whole section. Biosthmors (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Biosthmors. I will endeavor to remember to sign off in the future.

I may have missed it, but will read through the section again. Although the reference is sited within other studies such as the 2012 systematic review quoted, the outcome is not mentioned individually which to this date is groundbreaking in terms of the body of research being built around VBI and cervical spine manipulation. That being the risk of stroke post chiropractic spinal manipulation to be identical to a visit to a primary care physiciani.e. the thought now lies in that the stroke is in progress and the patient seeks the care of their PCP or chiropractor for neck pain and headache..yet is actually having a stroke..i.e. both professions experience the same number of incidents. DJFryzy (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Garbage edit

I don't like reverting people and starting edit wars, so I'll leave the reversal of these junk edits at CP/CPPS to you. Thanks. MLPainless (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and done. Needs proper ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article: Amphetamine Withdrawal Psychosis

Hi JMH, I'm not really sure what should be done under these circumstances, so I'll explain the situation I have and then ask my questions. I figure you're the person to ask since you're in the medical field and have an extensive wiki track record.

So far as I can tell, the article Amphetamine Withdrawal Psychosis is really just amphetamine withdrawal/psychosis together (specifically, chronic amphetamine psychosis that persists through amphetamine withdrawal), but is incorrectly referred to as something distinct. I've never read any material that references such a disorder in medical literature on amph psychosis; moreover, the citations in that article that I've checked don't seem to mention the a disorder either.

That said, what kind of external sources exist for verifying the existence of rare neuropsychiatric or medical disorders (besides NORD - http://www.rarediseases.org/)? Even if it is a valid disorder, shouldn't this just be merged with stimulant (amphetamine) psychosis?

Thanks for your assistance! :)

Seppi333 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes do not see any good sources within the article. I looked at pubmed and google books and they do not come up with anything significant. This ref says "Psychosis While amphetamine use psychosis is a well established entity, controversy still surrounds the possibility of an amphetamine withdrawal psychosis." [2] Would support a merge. Propose on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for your help. Seppi333 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I created the discussion for the merge at Talk:Stimulant_psychosis#Merger_Proposal. Seppi333 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Article: Cardiovascular disease#Diet

Hi JMH, I see that you reintroduced the Taylor et al. Cochrane review on the effects of dietary salt. I was the one who removed it a few days ago.

This time around, I just added a summary of the criticism of that review that appeared in the Lancet (full text of that: here). I suppose this is only fair, since, for example, the Bochud et al. review in Public Health Reviews cites on equal footing both the Taylor et al. article and the comment in the Lancet.

In fact, in its present version (following my edit), the Wikipedia text does not quite give them equal weight, simply because I couldn't find any rebuttals of the criticism in the Lancet, which therefore by default ends up having the final word.

Just for my information (and perhaps I should note that I do not have a medical background): do you find the criticism in the Lancet unconvincing? Reuqr (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Article: Cardiovascular disease#Diet; the summary of the review in Public Health Reviews

It seems we were both editing this section at about the same time....

I changed the content of your summary somewhat, in two ways.

1. The review says that there is strong evidence that high salt intake increases the number of cardiovascular disease events, even independently of the increase in blood pressure. For example, it references the TOHP study, which says that

Besides its effects on blood pressure, an expanding body of evidence suggests that a high sodium intake has detrimental cardiovascular effects independent of blood pressure. High sodium intake increases extracellular sodium concentrations and may adversely affect vascular reactivity and growth and stimulate myocardial fibrosis. Additionally, several cross sectional studies and one small clinical study have documented a direct relation between sodium intake and left ventricular mass. The latter mechanisms may explain the sizeable reduction in cardiovascular disease, despite the relatively modest effects on blood pressure seen during the TOHP trials.

Also, in the Cochrane review, one found a (statistically non-significant) reduction for cardiovascular disease events even for normotensive participants (the lack of significance is ″most likely the result of a lack of statistical power,″ according to the comment in the Lancet).

I haven't checked the other studies, but this, I think, is enough to justify the modification I made.

2. I removed the sentence "It is unclear if a reduced salt intake decreases the risk of stroke or death.″ The reason is that it is (depending how you look at it) either redundant or slightly misleading, since the next sentence says that ″some evidence″ was found for an increase in overall mortality and strokes (the phrase ″some evidence″ is a bit stronger than ″it is unclear″). Reuqr (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay both agree that the evidence that the evidence for effect is poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good. By the way, I think I will start synchronizing what's written in this article and what's written in the salt article. I'll let you know when I've done something there, although I will try as best as I can to mirror what's in the cardiovascular disease article.

I'm thinking that in both places, a summary table listing various review articles and metastudies (like the one in the article on saturated fat) may be a good idea. Also, it would be good to explain what the major points of contention are, and why they are proving so resistant to resolving; hopefully, some review or another addresses that. Reuqr (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a big fan of those sorts of tables. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough... but, given a potentially large number of metastudies and review articles, can you perhaps think of some other way to supplement the narrative presentation? (The more visual, the better?) Reuqr (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

James, just a courtesy note to say I have mentioned you in an ANI discussion related to plastic surgery articles. Regards, Andreas JN466 05:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

James, so glad you signed up :). In addition to Cochrane you've mentioned some other resources that would benefit medical editors. I'd love it for you to manage the medical library part of what we're doing. I will handle all of the organizing, but I could use your advice about what direction to go in with sources and organizational partnerships. What do you think we should do next? And then next after that? Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Cerebral malaria

Hi Jmh649 Another used has changed my last language edit and it works for me, I believe it will work for you too.

I have just returned from Malawi (known for cerebral malaria) and came here to read about symptoms of that specific strain. However, there isn't a section on it, there are references here and there. Don't you feel the loose bits should be aggregated into a section on "cerebral malaria"?

Also, the word "severe" is used a number of times, then used in the same (last) paragraph under "signs and symptoms", followed by "falciparium malaria", followed by "cerebral malaria, but without it coming across that we are talking about the same thing. Then way further down, the last sentence under "classification" finally says that "severe malaria" is the same as "cerebral malaria. Which raise a secondary issue - if "severe" is a synonym for "cerebral", then the use of the term throughout the page creates uncertainty as to whether it is being used to mean "serious" or "cerebral". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Severe malaria and cerebral malaria are NOT the same thing. All cerebral malaria is severe malaria but not all severe malaria is cerebral malaria per http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270697/table/T1/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC270697/ This is more or less what our articles says as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have misread the word "defined" in "Cerebral malaria is defined as a severe P. falciparum-malaria". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole line is "defined as a severe P. falciparum-malaria presenting with neurological symptoms" One can also have severe malaria presenting without neurological symptoms which is then not cerebral malaria :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

• In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia'

• Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective

• WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks

• Traffic report: Reddit creep

• Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland

• News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments

• Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Dr. Busch and Dr. Grunebaum and Dr. Richard are good physicians. Douglas Eivind Hall (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Love baklava. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit

(originally posted to Jonesey95's talk page:) Not sure why this change [3]? The refs should have a consistent format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have been fixing errors on pages in Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. and did not notice this formatting difference. Most articles I have seen have a broad mix of citation formats; fixing this error with a cite doi template does not make those articles worse. I have replaced the cite doi template with a cite journal template that fixes the original problem while maintaining the format. If I made any minor errors, feel free to clean them up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Jonesey95 thanks for pointing out the error, I've gone ahead and reformatted the ref to use the expanded capabilities of the new Lua version of {{cite journal}} to avoid the et al error but maintain consistency with the article's existing ref style. Hope that works for everyone... Zad68 16:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:HPV_vaccine#Diane_Harper

Your opinion is appreciated. ComfyKem (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My RfA

I should have thanked you for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wish you better luck next time around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

== "If you are interested the article can be put on your talk page so that you can continue working on it."

If you are interested the article can be put on your talk page so that you can continue working on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Yes please had discussed temporary undelete for userfication of article Damon_Matthew_Wise and its talk talk:Damon_Matthew_Wise - which shows us what was researched and being done still, or sandbox - and any recommendations what it may need would be appreciated for the editors to work on ... and when and how to see re-review - seeing as it passed its last review under category Disability biography.

Will appreciate any help. Most appreciated ... AspieNo1 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• BIG HUG * :) Thanks - can you copy separate Talk page so can distil that down to show what research have and what is still being done from research obtained and available ... AspieNo1 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again - any chance you can help userfy, so I and others can slowly work on any previous content on Aspies, Talk:Aspies and 2 versions of ICAAN and its talk ... at the same time. Have just integrated article Damon Matthew Wise and its talk and my talk in Sandbox showing issues being worked on ... can do same for ASPIES and ICAAN pages, if you can help, so me and the other editors can work on these in parralel. Any idea how many articles can be sandboxed at one time and how? AspieNo1 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheilitis

Thanks for barnstar. I carried out the recent merges upon the suggestion of user:LT910001‎, who seems to be on a stub-merging crusade at the moment. I'm all in favor of it, see for example the improvements on lichen planus and glossitis. Much clearer imo. Lesion (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)