User talk:Sciencewatcher/Archive 7

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Hi Sciencewather, I see you noted that the PNAS article was included lower in the XMRV page. Why wouldn't this merit referencing in the opening paragraph? Among the available studies, it was conducted by the most highly respected author (Harvey J. Alter) and published in the most highly respected journal (PNAS).

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgladden2 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be in the lede, and I see another editor has added it. I think it was just your wording that was off (and you didn't add the reference correctly). Don't worry about it - people are just picky about info being perfectly correct! --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCSVI

Would you be willing to clarify your comment to this question? [1] I am unable to find anywere in the source Sergie has used where a medical authority has recommended this treatment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied there. I thought it was obvious who my comment was intended towards, but I guess it's best not to use subtlety on the internet :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Leaky Gut Syndrome Edit

Hi, 

 Regarding your last edit on the above mentioned page, here is a link to the abstract: http://journals.lww.com/topicsinclinicalnutrition/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2006&issue=07000&article=00008&type=abstract

and here is the abstract: "Autism is the most common developmental disorder in the United States, with the number of diagnosed cases increasing secondary to more sensitive screening methods. Because autism has no known cause or accepted treatment approach, many parents and physicians have employed a number of dietary manipulations to alter the effects of the so-called leaky gut, which is believed by some to be the underlying cause of the regressive behaviors particular to autism. However, the link between autism and a gastrointestinal pathophysiology is not substantiated by research. The dietary approaches employed are cumbersome, not proven to be efficacious, and may further narrow the food choices of the child with autism."

Obviously, they are talking about the treatment of Autism and not treatment of Leaky Gut itself. I will say this is just amazing that you could be so bold as to put in your notes that your quick review showed it had to do with leaky gut.

Just FYI, I am part of an information gathering team that is doing a report/case study regarding Health on the Internet and will be submitted, if nothing else, in Blog form so you will be referenced as will everything you say and edit. Just FYI. Thanks and please be more careful in your editing :)76.168.8.59 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)John S[reply]

As you can see, the abstract clearly talks about leaky gut. Bear in mind that 'leaky gut syndrome' does not actually exist - it is a basically quackery, therefore you will not find a review looking at the 'treatment of leaky gut syndrome'! This study looks at treating 'the effects of the so-called leaky gut', which seems to be a good study to include in the article. If you disagree please discuss on the talk page of the article so others can participate. I'd also recommend getting a username. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What??!! Unless you are a qualified MD or researcher, that's a pretty bold statement. As you can't prove a negative quoting a study that confirms this is obviously useless. The abstract clearly states that leaky gut is so-called but does not say the treatment itself is a matter of treating the leaky gut. It clearly says that the treatment is for Autism and that Leaky gut, since it is so called, is only secondary. I am removing it and will continue to do so under the guidelines of Wikipedia. Saying Leaky Gut is quackery is a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.8.59 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health Concerns Canola Article

I noticed you helping on the HFCS article. I wonder if you might take a look at the Canola article? Someone has added a health concerns section and tagged the health benefits section as POV. I doubt this is the consensus of the scientific community. Most of the info in health concerns seems to be Canola contains X and X is unhealthy not studies have shown Canola to cause Y. It is going to take an editor with more knowledge of Wikipedia policies than I have to fix this. Weetoddid (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted it entirely because there was nothing there worth keeping. I'll keep an eye on the article and if there is any disagreement we can discuss the specifics on the talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly disagree. I don't think you can just delete my contribution without some discussion. I dispute that the health concerns section was original research, synthesizing, and violating POV.

I do not conclude that canola is unhealthy. I do cite studies where canola was fed to animals and caused harm, and I think that is relevant here. I cite studies about canola consumption in humans, and that is relevant here. Perhaps the title of the section can be changed from Health Concerns to something else, however the purpose of all these animal and human studies is to determine heath effects.

All the facts I state come directly from peer reviewed articles in widely recognized scientific journals. I do not make any conclusions independent of what is contained in the articles. If it seems that way, please point it out so that I can rewrite more clearly to make that apparent.

Since the all the statements are supported by references, and since they are relevant to the topic of health concerns about eating canola oil (which was the point of much of the research!) they belong in the article. If they are deleted, the article becomes not NPOV because it is suppressing research.

I think you need to really specifically point out where I am synthesizing or doing original research.

I don't think it makes sense to have an article on Canola oil that makes no reference to the large number of studies done feeding it to animals to determine if it is healthy for them, or the studies done on the effects of canola oil on humans, or that does not even mention the word erucic acid.

I do agree there are studies that can be referenced that show eating canola is safe in humans, and someone- perhaps me- should add them in to make this section more NPOV, but I do state that there is no that canola is harmful to humans. In that case, you should have added an NPOV warning to the section and then added research supporting the healthfulness of canola oil- of which both animal and human studies exist.

If there are some sections you object to, the proper course is to discuss it and I will fix them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMilk (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fibromyalgia

Dear Sciencewatcher 

  If the purpose of this article on Fibromyalgia is to help people then you should keep the Yoga anecdotal evidence links.

My wife actually met Manish and what he said on the web-site is not a lie. The name and an associated face will give more confidence to people suffering from this ailment to try out alternate therapies. The source is indeed verifiable according to the Wiki policy. Maybe it is against the Wiki policy to report "non-scientific" article, but you must realize the following inherent bias in the articles published in scientific journals:

1. A large part of the medical research is funded by Pharmaceutical companies who have profit motives. So the treatments that do not bring perpetual revenues to these companies are not researched.

2. The research funded by Government bodies suffer form a cultural bias. The decision makers in these bodies have never been exposed alternate paradigms. It is quite natural for them to discard any proposal that is radically different and does not conform to their line of thinking. At this state, there a bit of religious fanaticism in these people (towards the religion called "the modern science"). They are unable to keep an open, rational and unbiased mind -- the hallmarks of a true scientist.

3. For the young faculty members in the universities, it is too risky to try out something that is radically different. The established faculty are already in their comfort zone -- so they don't bother.

4. The Yoga teachers and the people who have benefited from Yoga are the only ones who might have some motivation to carry out scientific research. It is unreasonable to expect the ordinary people who have benefited from this to change their careers and become scientists to research publish the findings. They are better off sharing their experiences with other people. For Yoga teachers, spending time in healing more people is a better use of their time than trying to carry out scientific research and publish it.

5. Even if someone tries to publish scientific research on the subject, one suffers from the culture bias of the reviewers that I described above in (2) (thought it is a minor point for a serious researcher).

6. This mindset is changing with the works of Richard Davidson, Allan Wallace, John Kabat-Zinn etc. but it will take a long time. You can contribute your tiny bit to accelerate the process.

7. I am speaking from my own experience. I myself work for a prestigious biology research lab. I also practice Yoga and know about its potential from personal experience. The reason I edited the page was that we recently have had some discussion with a University big pharma company about new research in Fibromyalgia. I started reading more about it. I was surprised to learn that Yoga was not mentioned in Wiki. I do not see any motivation in the established institutions to carry out serious research on this. If I had my way, I would advocate for "a clinical trial on this breathing technique" -- who is going to pay for it?

8. If you don't trust my words, I encourage you to try this out on a group people with Fibromyalgia and see the results yourself.

9. There is a scientific article that does talk about benefits of the breathing technique and Fibromyalgia for your reference. Sudarshan Kriya Yogic Breathing in the Treatment of Stress, Anxiety, and Depression: Part II—Clinical Applications and Guidelines, RICHARD P. BROWN, M.D., and PATRICIA L. GERBARG, M.D., THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11, Number 4, 2005, pp. 711–717. www.reconnectwithfood.com/resources/documents/yogaandptsd.pdf

10. I think you should include Manish Tondon's link and the above article. I leave the final decision to you.

with best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.117.126 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your comments. I pretty much agree with everything you say, and I believe that yoga/meditation (and similar treatments such as massage) are probably the best treatments available for fibromyalgia. However in wikipedia we need to follow the guidelines such as WP:MEDRS and WP:EL which say that we should mainly use large clinical trials and reviews, and we should avoid anecdotal reports. As the article already mentions a trial of yoga, that is sufficient for the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wessely

Dear Sicence Watcher- I added a few references to this post and you reverted them even though they had citations. Also I have not been banned from wikipedia. Sorry if this is your favourite page but maybe the point of wikipedia is that others should edit as well :-)

spread some comment luv :-)

Catherine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.117.80 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're using the same ip range as a banned user who constantly comes on the CFS articles causing mischief, so unless you register a username there is no way of distinguishing you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have registered a username...but the comment on your user page doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

greenmedinfo.com

I'm confused by your comment here. While Sayerji (talk · contribs) obviously has a coi. Mark Marathon (talk · contribs) just seems to have a very strong desire to ensure the link is added as well. Am I missing something?

Coincidentally perhaps, Greensburger (talk · contribs) added the same link recently to Curcumin. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the user Sayerji. I wasn't suggesting Mark Marathon was pushing his own site. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Madeley

I may have been first to draw attention to the inclusion, in a spam e-mail from this man, of reference to the Wikipedia article about him. There is an case for leaving the article in, with comments about his spamming activities. However, I am a victim of countless spam e-mails, despite filters (and by the way am particularly infuriated by ones advertising spam e-mail generation services). I therefore want to thank you for achieving the deletion of the article about this nonentity. I feel better. Ragbin (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Today, he is still spamming so have referred him to the terms of The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Ragbin (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten anything from him this time. Spammers don't give a shit about the law - I have reported many of them to the ICO and they do nothing at all. Even if you take them to court, they will say you are a business so they are allowed to spam you (which they are, according to the stupid UK spam laws). The best thing to do is to report the spam to their ISP, and phone the ISP if you keep getting spammed. I have gotten many spammers kicked off their ISPs by using that technique. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dietcheese

Hi,

Just wondering why you reversed the edits here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-fructose_corn_syrup&diff=453388820&oldid=453374410

I'm new at this and perhaps not following the rules correctly -- if so, I'd like to understand why. Otherwise, it seems like a legitimate source.

Thanks, DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietcheese (talk • contribs) 03:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back in the edit history, you'll see this was already reverted by another user.
The main problem is that it is a single primary source...for medical articles we mainly rely on reviews - see WP:MEDRS. Although we do include this study in the HFCS health effects sub-article (along with criticism), it isn't appropriate to put it in the main HFCS article. If you disagree you're welcome to discuss it further in the HFCS talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health Concerns about HFCS

A study done by Princeton University showed that there is in fact a difference in how HFCS is metabolised, compared to table sugar. The evidence is clearly presented in the reference. How is this not relevant to the sub-topic "Health Concerns of HFCS"? How is this evidence any more irrelevant than the previous statement about HFCS not being different from table sugar, which you did not delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.173.3 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this in the HFCS talk page, which is where you should discuss this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After engaging my brain - thank you very much for the kind suggestion, Sciencewatcher - I still consider link 15 in the High-fructose corn syrup article to state the opposite of what it is cited to say, or in the very least not confirm it. Yes, High-fructose corn syrup is not the same as Fructose, the latter being only the main constituent of the former, and fructose has been implicated in increased lipogenesis and insuline-resistance (aka diabetes). To cite #15 and claim that it disputes links between HFCS and diabetes is thus a little bit misleading. --Gerhard (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gc-MAF therapy for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

WHy did you remove the edit regarding a treatment for CFS ? I cited a scientific publication there and posted a link to the report as a reference. THe treatments mentioned there are not curing anyone. Gc-MAF treatment is successful in 75-85% of all cases treated. It should be mentioned on that page. --Gcmafexpert (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my edit summary, it is not a reliable source. It is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is not placebo controlled. Please follow WP:MEDRS before adding any further references. Also, any further discussion should be on the article talk page rather than here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sciencewatcher, if i can find the article on Pubmed and link to that, would it then be a reliable source? I know it's published, just not exactly sure where to find it. Thank you. --Gcmafexpert (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, as it isn't controlled, but you should discuss it on the article talk page rather than here. Also please do read WP:MEDRS which explains all this in great detail. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why edits removed as spam

Dear Sciencewatcher I am new to wikipedia. Please explain in detail on a point by point basis the reasons for your removal of the edits made as spam. I believe I have in all cases quoted sources from the peer reviewed literature.

Thank you Sirchwik (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (apologies if I did not sign this correctly)[reply]

- you pasted the same large tract into multiple pages
- it fails many of the wikipedia policies such as WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:MEDRS.
- you are using many of the same references/websites from David Wiseman. If you yourself are David Wiseman or are posting on behalf of him, you should read WP:COI.
- I'd recommend reading thoroughly all the relevant policies before posting again.
Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for rapid response, please clarify and help to rewrite

[ removed whole bunch of info - sorry but this talk page is not the place for in-depth discussions of content ]

A - Thank you. Please go through these edits and suggest how they may be rewritten to conform to anything that I have misunderstood. Sirchwik (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should bring it up on one or more of the talk pages, so you get input from other experienced editors. The IBS page would be a good starting point (that is the only one on my watchlist). --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you said :Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. - where do I do that?

Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you said :Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. - where do I do that if not by "clicking send me a message"? If you removed my questions how can I ask them to you? is there a sort of WP email? Please help !!!!!!! Sirchwik (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't have the time to read a big long discourse on my talk page. If you have any succinct, short questions, feel free to ask them, but I'd still recommend posting on the IBS (or other) article talk pages. I'm just an editor like you - I'm not an admin or anything. I was in the same position you are when I started editing. All I can suggest is to read all the policies thoroughly (I've been here for years and I'm still learning). Then start off with minor edits, and discussions on the talk pages. Watch and learn. I'd also advise not adding any of your own research or websites - instead, discuss them on the talk page, and others can add them if they think they are suitable. Bear in mind that just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal does NOT automatically mean it can be added. As per WP:MEDRS we mainly rely on well-cited reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - will begin as you suggested

Thanks. I will begin as you suggested with minor edits. Perhaps some of the ones I pointed out in my earlier message that seem pretty minor and mainly stylish. Please let me know if I screw up, but please be specific as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirchwik (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds good. Sorry I just reverted your entire edits as I didn't have time to look through them all in detail, so feel free to put back any minor changes. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WAYN

I've moved the discussion to the WAYN talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you like to help out with adding to Post-concussion syndrome?

I’m writing to invite you to help me make the Post-concussion syndrome article more accurate and comprehensive. We can start with “Four current problems with our article (May 2012),” or any place else you’d care to start. In my judgment, the article needs some real help. As I stated on the discussion page, I have pretty much decided to request that this article no longer be listed as a good article, although I am willing to wait a couple of days. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/Sciencewatcher

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Endometriosis. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[2] regards --WSC ® 18:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Suggestion: See a shrink.

Please do not feed the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.167 (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm the one that needs to see a shrink. In fact I'm pretty sure I don't, but I'm not sure about you (whoever you are). --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapies ArbCom

I haven't named you as a party, but I think you might want to comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Psychotherapies given your moderate involvement a while back at Cognitive behavioral therapy. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic mold article

I would like to reference this properly, please advise. There have been many refereed journal articles on the impacts of mold-born mycotoxins on the central nervous system, not merely the more benign allergic and inflammation reactions presented in the article. There is indeed a concerted effort to suppress these findings, for the repercussions would be serious economically.

Thank you

Paul Lebow, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pslebow (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, nobody is trying to suppress anything. The problem is that there isn't any good science showing those findings. In wikipedia we mainly use high quality well-cited reviews, and that basically removes the problem of crappy science. See WP:MEDRS for details. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to Badoo edits

Hello, I have no intention of starting an edit war, regarding the Badoo.com entry. I simply want facts to be displayed on Wikipedia; and as it is obvious on the Talk page for the article, there are serious concerns, which are easily verifiable with a basic knowledge of computers.

The article references the commercial website itself - i.e. Badoo.com, which apparently is treated by yourself as a 'trusted resource'. However, you personally take the approach that the same website cannot be used as a reference for criticism, only positive references are allowed. I suggest you are not in a neutral position on this matter, and lack the basic technical knowledge to verify the amendments to the claims made in the article amendments, that you keep undoing.

You have also continually failed to address several important questions which were raised in the talk page, including one in which reference number 20 clearly points to a spam website including pornography, and another where you stated that you had 'tested the website', obviously without you having registered to verify correctly the statements that were made in the edit you reverted.


There is an 'OfficialBadoo' video on YouTube that uses a Gmail account to register and explore the site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ECcBV25wQE


I followed the same basic process, and the results can be seen here, signing in with a Gmail account, and the video includes the cookie details of the user preferences, including personal details, that you keep reverting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_5LDvQ0A0E


Thank you for your warnings, regarding Wikipedia regulations, but perhaps you might like to look to yourself, before continually reverting factually correct amendments to an article that are displayed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a website that should be used by companies to gain credibility by posting their own articles.


I feel strongly about this; if editors of articles are not sufficiently knowledgeable, or able, to verify an articles amendments, they should refrain for editing and reverting, and certain from warning users who are capable of the simple task of checking the veracity of an article, not to do so. I will post this in its entirety on the Talk page for the Badoo.com article.

In summary, please watch this simple verification of the amendments regarding lack of privacy cookies on Badoo - you can either try it yourself, or simply find an area where you the capability to give an informed opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perambulator3 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Food Intolerance - "umbrella" page

Hello Sciencewatcher, I'm currently working my way through the Food Intolerance talk page. I notice that you have a long term interest in the topic, and you have a pretty good grasp of the difference between the science and the quackery.

I really think this article needs to be made into an "umbrella" page, with much of the content going to separate pages for each type of food intolerance/sensitivity. The diagnosis, symptoms and treatments etc are so different for each type of food intolerance, that combining those streams is affecting the clarity of the article.

It is perhaps less of a break-up than you might think. The main categories of food intolerance I'm aware of are: 1 - FODMAP (fructose, lactose, etc) 2 - Salicylate, Amine, Glutimate (flavor enhancers), Additives (colourings, flavourings, preservatives) 3 - Gluten (non-coeliac intolerance)

I'd go with this type of grouping because each group has a distinctive diagnostic process. 1 - FODMAPs have a breath test, for two types of FODMAPs. However, for the other FODMAPs and for non-bowl symptoms, elimination diet is the only diagnostic process. 2 - Sensitivity to the food chemicals in this group is only diagnosable through elimination diet. 3 - People who suspect gluten intolerance should start by doing the coeliac gene test, and following the ordinary medical diagnostic process. Those with a negative on the gene test and endoscopy who still suspect gluten intolerance can diagnose it through elimination diet.

I'm still reading through the Food Intolerance talk page. It may take a while... --Another287person (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest discussing this at the food intolerance talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. Still finding my feet. --Another287person (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at Fibromyalgia

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Talk:Fibromyalgia regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Controversy in the lead section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease

Hi Sciencewatcher, thanks for jumping in and helping. The more the merrier. I've started a discussion on the Talk page "How often does the rash (when present) look like a bull's-eye, really?," which according to CDC 'may clear as it enlarges, resulting in a “bull's-eye” appearance.' I take that as meaning less than a 100%. Please take a look at this as you have the time. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAWS and Polish accidents

I noticed you did some work on the TAWS article. I am concerned about the lack of reference to tow major TAWS failure in Poland, reference to which were removed by MilborneOne. In short, the section outlined how the system failed. The Wikipedia page gives no hint of the actual track record of the system, and the Polish references seemed to help fill that gap - though ALL failures are worth mentioning in regard to a major air safety system.

I would also add that footnote 3 is inappropriate [it does not support the statement attached. I am a scholar of Polish studies, not aviation. This Wikipedia article is likely to be accessed by people looking into how a major part of the Polish govt. were killed. This was one of the greatest air catastrophes in political history (and a subject of great debate & many conspiracy theories). Perhaps I and wrong about the post and MilborneOne is correct, but I would like to hear an outside voice.

Thanks for whatever help you can give.

Tanessi (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glutamic Acid (flavor)

Hello,

I made an edit to the Glutamic Acid (flavor) page because the Wikipedia article incorrectly cited a source describing the NOAEL for glutamic acid. In the Wikipedia page, it is cited as 6 g/kg/day, but the journal paper claims at one point the NOAEL is 16.000 mg/kg/day and later 16 000 mg/kg/day. This could be interpreted as 16 g/kg/day or 16000 mg/kg/day, but definitely not 6 g/kg/day. Also, in a different section of the paper, it is stated that the lethal dose for 50% of the rats in a study was 15000-18000 mg/kg/day, which makes 16000 mg/kg/day unsafe. If they intended to say 16 mg/kg/day is the maximum safe dose, then glutamic acid should not be regarded as harmless, because the paper states that the average European eats about 0.1 g/kg/day, which is 100 mg/kg/day. Can you explain these contradictions and why the paper is a good source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.233.26 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16.000 means 16,000, i.e. 16000. In Europe the period is used to separate thousands. The article was corrected from 16000 to 6000mg, which is why we use that value in the article (see the abstract). This is better discussed on the article talk page rather than here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web conferencing software page

Dear Sciencewatcher,

Can you please explain why you keep deleting Drum form the Comparison of web conferencing software ‎page?

It is fitting to have Drum there as a credible Web Conferencing software and our software supports one of the largest conferencing providers in the world.

If we are going about this the wrong way please let us know.

Thanks

Laurence

Laurence Drum (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurence Drum (talk • contribs) 15:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't preventing you from adding Drum - it's just the way you were doing it. The first time you added an uncessary WebRTC column, and the second time you seemed to hijack another entry (perhaps unintentionally). I'd recommend just adding Drum as a new entry. If you have any problems, let me know. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK understand the point on WebRTC. RE the replace definitely an unintentional error. I will insert Drum as a new entry. Previously I have been copying a current entry and pasting it back in then replacing it with our own details. I will add in now. Also, do you know why Implix is listed out of alphabetical order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurence Drum (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably someone just added it at the wrong place. Feel free to fix. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cheers! Will get that sorted. Appreciate your feedback. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurence Drum (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

/* Doctor-patient relations */ etc.

The current form of this document is highly political. That is also not the purpose of an encyclopedia. I was in the process of editing in references when you altered it AGAIN. Desist this activity. I will not tolerate the current political biase in this document, it misreports large amounts of material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean "political". It was properly referenced, which is the main criteria. I think it's your opinion that it is "political". Anyway, I'd recommend you rethink your editing of wikipedia until you learn how it works. You can't just make changes because you don't like something. There's a lot of stuff in articles I don't like, but sometimes I edit AGAINST my own opinion, because I'm trying to make a good article rather than one that I personally like. Take a moment to think before editing again, otherwise you'll likely just be wasting your own time and other people's. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerotoxic Syndrome Vandalism

There is another IP editor, that has mentioned he was a airline pilot, who is removing the well-documented portions of this article [[3]] and replacing with OR and POV statements, without citations. He ignores all our explanations about WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and just keeps doing it. I think it is fair to call it vandalism now.

Also, on my latest revert, I started to explain my reasons again when that box appeared, but when I hit the first key on my computer that box disappeared and the rollback was saved. Not sure what happened, but I did try to explain it was rolled back on the same no OR or POV grounds. EditorASC (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECT Scans in CFS

I was attempting to fix the broken references when you deleted the section. Various patterns shown in wikipedia appear not to work on this page, for example:

<ref name="PMID 7496949">((Cite pmid|7496949))</ref>

Care to show me the pattern that does work. Second, dismissing "reviews" based on a SINGLE study involving TWO people is irrational. Many of the citations were NOT to reviews.


Brain Scans

Single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) scans are the most reliable for CFS [1]. 80% of CFS patients show abnormal scans [2][3]. SPECT abnormalities appeared to correlate with clinical status[3]. Defects were located predominantly in the frontal and temporal lobes. Midcerebral uptake index was found to be significantly lower[4]. Lower cortical/cerebellar rCBF ratios in CFS patients[2]. 80% of CFS patients had lower than average global cerebral blood flow [5]. CFS patients had diffuse regional cerebral blood flow[6]. Abnormal cerebral perfusion patterns are seen in CFS patients[7] [8]. CFS patients had reduced absolute cortical blood flow in rather broad areas of the brain [9]. CFS patients had reduced cortical blood flow in the distribution of both right and left middle cerebral arteries [9]. Blood flow in the left basal ganglia and thalamus was markedly higher in CFS patients[10]. Serum TGF-beta and cerebral blood flow abnormalities were accentuated after exercise in CFS patients[11].

Hi Ken, I repled to this at the CFS talk page, as that's a better place to discuss changes to the article. I also made a comment on your talk page (slightly at a tangent to the page changes). Feel free to chat here or on your talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop muck slinging

You assert that I am a CFS patient. I have a M.Sc.(Statistics and Operations Research), was part of a gifted child program and reading medical papers at 14. If you look at my linked profile ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/lassesen ), you will see that I have worked for Amazon, Microsoft and at present a Principal Software Engineer, high stress demanding jobs. By your statements, you also implied that I have psychological problems. I can only comment "It takes one, to know one.." and if you read the recommendations on my linked in -- you will find many senior executives are in major disagreement with you on my ability to apply logic and interpretation.


Lassesen (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are acutally asserting that Alzheimers' is a psychological condition until a post mortem is done

You wrote ": I think you are mistaken in assuming that an abnormal spect scan means a neurological rather than psychological cause. First, depression also results in abnormal spect scans. Second, psychology affects neurology, physiology and physical health."

Please provide Pubmed Review Articles supporting this (wild) speculation -- that is, articles showing that these conditions can occur from a psychological cause (and disappear after psychological treatment)

Defects were located predominantly in the frontal and temporal lobes. Midcerebral uptake index was found to be significantly lower[4]. Lower cortical/cerebellar rCBF ratios in CFS patients[2]. 80% of CFS patients had lower than average global cerebral blood flow [5]. CFS patients had diffuse regional cerebral blood flow[6]. Abnormal cerebral perfusion patterns are seen in CFS patients[7] [8]. CFS patients had reduced absolute cortical blood flow in rather broad areas of the brain [9]. CFS patients had reduced cortical blood flow in the distribution of both right and left middle cerebral arteries [9]. Blood flow in the left basal ganglia and thalamus was markedly higher in CFS patients[10]. Serum TGF-beta and cerebral blood flow abnormalities were accentuated after exercise in CFS patients[11].

I have taught 3rd and 4th year classes in Canada and the US -- and this smells of someone smoking some real good stuff..

What evidence do you have that exclude it being neurological -- I believe you are assuming the opposite without supplying any appropriate evidence -- again pubmed review article is the gold standard.

I wait for your providing documentation supporting your unusual stand that all SPECT results are psychological and not neurological. I know several certified neurologists that would strongly disagree. Lassesen (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I didn't say the SPECT results prove it is psychological. I just said that it COULD be psychological. The fact that depression has abnormal SPECT scans shows that this is the case. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory Statements.

Dear Sciencewatcher,

I posted a message on my talk page indicating that I would insist in civil interactions. I found the tone of a recent comment to be inflammatory and unlikely to cause consensus. As per my prior warning, I have removed it. Further I ask you to aquaint yourself with tags for indicating dubious references and disputed sections and use those rather than reverting the content of others. I have made this request to all editors of the page and will of course use this as my first resort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly was it inflammatory? Seems pretty reasonable to me. It was 'crap science' in two ways. First literally, as it was studying crap. Secondly there was no placebo arm, so the results are pretty much useless. Anyway, further discussion is pointless. Some people just aren't interested in science or facts, and resort to insults when the facts go against them. Unfortunately this is quite prevalent in CFS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and I see you've managed to get the CFS article protected. Congratulations - not only were you working against CFS patients by trying to strongarm bad science into the article, but now we can't even make improvements! Cest la vie I guess. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web conferencing software

Nice catch! totally my bad. Do you know what's up with the Unified communications terminology at the bottom of the page? I think the chart could use a column like this. Probably only the major 3 conferencing platforms supporting this which is a nice distinction...

Kr,

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallnut71 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It might be worth adding a message to the talk page to see if people think it's worth adding that column. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFS

Dear sciencewatcher, you removed an edit I made today to the page Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Treatment (Edit under the heading PACE trial, text: However, the alteration of criteria for recovery during the course of the trial may be responsible for inflated figures. In a comment published in Psychological Medicine the question was raised "... as to how it is possible to meet the entry criteria for the PACE trial with a short form-36 physical function subscale score of 65 yet leave the trial as recovered with a score as low as 60"). I cited from a verifiable source, and the information given by this source can be double-checked in the original paper by White et al 2011 "Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial". In other words: The edit states well known facts that everyone, including yourself, can check. Would you care to explain why you deleted this or make a suggestion how to improve the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it failed WP:MEDRS. A letter to the editor is not a suitable source for a medical claim. This is actually a good example of why letters to the editor are not suitable: basically it is wrong (or at least partly wrong). Patients cannot be termed 'recovered' simply by entering at 65 and leaving at 60. They must also not fit the criteria for CFS any more, and consider their health to have improved. Anyway, all that is irrelevant for wikipedia - I'm just explaining why that letter is misguided. Perhaps they shouldn't have done the study that way (or perhaps they had reasons for doing it - have you actually checked?) Either way, it's irrelevant for wikipedia. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POTS

Sorry I am very new to editing wikipidia, but as someone who suffers from POTS would like to keep the page as accurate and informative as possible. Here are some journals that mention the various symptoms presented with the syndrome:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/117/21/2814.full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1501099/

These page also have symptom lists with references: http://www.dysautonomiainternational.org/page.php?ID=30 http://www.dinet.org/index.php/information-resources/pots-place/pots-symptoms

I am trying to figure out how to cite these things but am having a lot of trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.3.149 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a discussion at the POTS page, rather than on my talk page, so that others can join in. Also, make sure your references follow WP:MEDRS. In general only well-cited reviews from peer-reviewed journals should be used. You can use google scholar or pubmed to search. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suffer from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and POTS Syndrome. DINET and other sources listed on the POTS page are very reliable sources. With all due respect, please stop incorrectly taking out symptoms on the POTS page that should still be there, including "Weight loss or gain". I noticed other symptoms were removed, including "Delayed Gastric Emptying" among many other symptoms that were there that were also removed. These are well documented POTS symptoms, especially "Delayed Gastric Emptying" (Grubb et al., 1997) that can lead to significant weight changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDSandPOTSY (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFS

I don't believe the letter is misguided, but perhaps you miss the point. The terms "criteria for recovery" and "recovery" are not introduced by the letter, but by the article the letter comments on. In fact this is the whole point. Your statement "Patients cannot be termed 'recovered' simply by entering at 65 and leaving at 60. They must also not fit the criteria for CFS any more, and consider their health to have improved." is of course correct. But any one of these criteria of course influences the end result. Now, for one of these "criteria for recovery" according to the article by White et al (2011) the threshhold was lowered at the end of the trial. This means that a specific range (between 60 and 65) that was considered outside the "normal" range at the start of the trial, was considered within the "normal" range after 52 weeks, thus inflating the total score for "recovery". I don't see why this is irrelevant? If they (White et al) had reasons for doing this they have kept it a secret because there is no mention of it in any of their papers, nor in their famous FAQ. Also, there is no medical claim in the letter. It is just a comment about researchers moving the goalposts during the match.

I'm not saying it's irrelevant. It's just a weight issue, and as I said a letter is not a reliable source. If you can find a better source, go for it. However you should discuss it at the CFS talk page first (not here). Also make sure you read WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT thoroughly. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shepherd stated "In addition, the question could be raised as to how it is possible to meet the entry criteria for the PACE trial with a Short Form-36 physical function subscale score of 65 yet leave the trial as recovered with a lower score of 60." A participant could certainly enter with a physical function score of 65, leave with a score of 60, and still be classified as recovered, as long as the other recovery criteria were met.
So the basic question raised by the letter in question appears to be valid.
In the recovery paper, the requirement of meeting Oxford criteria also included the entry thresholds for fatigue and physical function (bimodal fatigue score of 6 or more and physical function score of 65 or less), so a modest self-reported improvement which crossed over any one of these thresholds would also disqualify a participant from meeting Oxford criteria in the PACE trial. 10% of candidates were excluded for having a physical function score of over 65 points, which means patients can still meet Oxford criteria in the clinic but not meet Oxford criteria as it was applied in the PACE trial.
A participant could have entered the trial with a bimodal fatigue score of 6 which improved to 5, a physical function score of 60 which remained the same, reported feeling significantly better for any reason, and be classified as recovered. A similar example of how that may have occurred is explained in this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7J5ELjArU - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFS

Concerning "weight" and reliability: The Wikipedia article already contains unreliable opiniated sources. One of which is anonymous, expressing a private opinion which is quoted with a suggestive and unsubstantiated remark. The other is a column by a freelance journalist about issues that are not verifiable and are unrelated to the scientific content of this article. On the other hand, Professor Hooper's complaint to the Lancet is mentioned but has no source attached for verification. It can be read here, by the way: http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/COMPLAINT-to-Lancet-re-PACE.htm If Wikipedia pretends to have a neutral point of view there should be a link added to Hooper's complaint, which is a detailed comment on the science of the PACE trial, so everyone can read the details. And, following your reasoning, you might consider removing the anonymous quote. I'm referring to this part of the text: "The trial generated a furious response from patient groups and campaigners. Letters to the editor critiqued the definitions of secondary outcomes, questioned protocol changes, and expressed concern over generalisability of the results. Professor Malcolm Hooper branded the results "unethical and unscientific" and submitted a 442 page response to the Medical Research Council and a shorter 43-page complaint to the Lancet. The MRC and the Lancet have considered the submissions and rejected them. A Lancet editorial conjectured that the strong negative response might be due to the dismay over the debilitating illness, "but also from an active campaign to discredit the research."[35][36]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 04:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--- Sciencewatcher, You haven't addressed the issue raised in the text above here, yet you removed another two edits. One was just a link of the name Malcolm Hooper to the Wikipedia page for Malcolm Hooper. The other was a link to where the documents that are discussed in the text are posted for public reference. Do you prefer no link for Malcolm Hooper and no link to the documents that are central to the discussion? There is no other place on the net where they are available, that's why Hooper placed them in the public domain. As I pointed out, the remarks in the text of the Wikpedia article are suggestive, yet cite no source for the documents and no reliable source for the anonymous opinions expressed, which are based on hearsay and are disputed by Hooper. Are you using double standards here or is Sciencewatcher himself expressing an opinion by these actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFS

Okay, now I get it. I just took a look at the history of the article and noticed you are responsible for the PACE chapter I am trying to improve. So you just remove any edit, including a stupid link in a name, because you don't want any changes. You're just bullying. Well, if that kind of thing is your thrill, good luck with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being paranoid. If you knew anything about me (or even read my comments here) you'd know I don't think that CFS is very effective, or based on a sound etiology. However the whole point of being a good wikipedia editor is that you should edit AGAINST your own particular viewpoint when that is what is required to make a good article.
Anyway, I'd suggest you read WP:MEDRS and WP:RS and you'll see why your sources were invalid. Feel free to discuss it on the cfs talk page. I don't intend reverting you again, so if you want you can go ahead and insert those edits again (however I imagine someone else will revert them, as they aren't reliable sources). ALso you shouldn't really post this on my talk - all discussion about edits should be made on the talk page of the article in question, so that other editors can see the discussion.
I'm happy to help you out and give you advice here, as long as you remain civil and don't attack me or anyone else. My aim is to make the article as good as possible (i.e. following wikipedia policies and showing the most relevant research according to weight). --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point (again). You can't just claim violation of WP:MEDRS and WP:RS without looking at content or circumstances while the information in the Wikipedia article to which the edits are relevant is already based on invalid sources. Allow me to explain again: The Wikipedia article mentions a debate about the scientific validity of the PACE trial but fails to explain what is central to this debate. Instead it includes personal opinion(s) expressed in an anonymous editorial of a magazine that is not impartial in the debate (being accused of failing to implement the proper peer review process), and backs it up by referring to a suggestive news article in which the journalist presents information from hearsay. So, the Wikipedia article provides no real information about this issue but instead offers biased opinions from one side of the debate. In doing so Wikipedia takes sides itself, not only by providing a platform for one side of the debate but also by discrediting the other side. My edits were trying to balance this by pointing towards the existence of information and viewpoints that are now missing. I believe it is unfair and unethical to allow personal opinions expressed in an anonymous editorial and a low quality news article, while not allowing the counter opinions expressed in published comments by experts in the field, nor information included in an official complaint to the magazine that employs the individual(s) responsible for the anonymous editorial. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article states that the complaints were 'considered' before rejection, which is disputed by the complainant. There was however a correspondence by the authors of the PACE paper and the complainant that clarifies most of the issues raised in the debate. But referring to this key information will be rejected in the Wikipedia article for not meeting standards as the correspondence of authors and complainant are self-published (by the complainant). There is, ironically, a bias in the Wikipedia article that is impossible to correct if the directions for validity of sources are followed strictly. Considering all this I believe it is safe to assume that double standards are being used here. Besides, I don't think there is a point in entering further discussions with editors when even simple edits like the linking of a name mentioned in the Wikipedia article to the Wikipedia page about that person are being reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saflieni (talk • contribs) 07:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice

Not to disturb the talk page for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Treatments any further with non factual discussions, I'd like to offer some thoughts and a bit of friendly advice here. You can treat them as you please, I don't expect a reply.

In the continued discussion about how to best represent the different viewpoints in the controversy surrounding the results of the PACE trial, there seemed to be a bias when judging the 'weight' of different opinions published in The Lancet (editorial and columnist trump comments) or elsewhere, even though Wikipedia policy and guidelines make no such distinction as far as I can tell. As I see it The MEDRS guidelines link to 'Weight and Undue weight' in the NPOV page in relation to using primary articles as sources for medical claims, which, as I tried to explain, is not relevant in our case. My proposed edits result from a concern that the one-sided selection of information to describe the different viewpoints in the debate involves the risk of introducing straw man tactics, especially since the selected opinions were not attributed correctly.

I also sense an overconfidence regarding the quality of published research in high impact peer reviewed journals like The Lancet. Although I agree these journals are the best source of information, not everything they print is reliable. The Wikipedia page on peer review illustrates this by quoting chief editor Richard Horton of The Lancet concerning another controversy 14 years ago: "We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_review

To demonstrate the need for critical thinking when it comes to judging the reliability of scientific information I offer you a couple of links to (open access) research dealing with the prevalence of retractions and scientific misconduct, and mistakes in psychological studies due to (mainly) bad statistics. Many, if not most, primary studies contain mistakes which might explain why so many published results fail to be replicated. There may be many dodgy papers that go undetected and have not been retracted. That's one reason why journals offer space for comments by experts that may pin point mistakes in order to help the scientific debate forward. Key here is to judge the specific facts offered in the comments, not the experts who write them. Unfortunately, factual criticism is not always readily accepted (cognitive dissonance, clashing ego's), resulting in controversies like the one we discuss. I hope you see the irony when comparing Horton's remarks in 2000 with the stance in the Lancet editorial about the PACE trial. My advice to you is to read these two studies hoping they put things in perspective a little: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0068397 http://dare.uva.nl/record/472604 Saflieni (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a word of advice to you: if you're going to be rude to me (as you were on the talk page), I'm not going to respond.
You're still not understanding: NPOV is nothing to do with medical articles (as I have stated before). I would suggest you actually read the policies to see how they work. I can try to help you if you want, but not if you're going to be rude and ignore/misunderstand me when I try to explain.
I completely agree that peer-reviewed journals sometimes publish the most outrageous crap. However in general they are better at reviewing stuff than wikipedia editors, so we defer to their judgement. Also, that is why we use number of citations in determining weight for scientific articles. In general the crap drops to the bottom.
There is certainly a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in CFS, but it is mostly from the activist side. I could point out some fundamental errors in Hooper (and other) research, but I think I would be wasting my breath. In fact if you look at Hooper's single research article, you'll see that it doesn't get very many citations. Two of those citations are for psychosomatic research, one of which debunks Hooper's theory. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's about representing 'who said what' here. Weight has nothing to do with it. As for your 'thing' with activists: I imagine you are referring to those lunatics from One Click Group. As I pointed out before, they target everybody, including people like Shepherd and Goudsmit. That's also not the issue here. The first steps of critical thinking are assessing your assumptions and checking your assumptions. It's not that difficult. Saflieni (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper description of Aerotoxic Film

Curious as to why you apparently think the use of "propaganda film" is not proper, since it seems beyond debate that the film "Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines" is anything other than a propaganda film?

"Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." [[4]]? EditorASC (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My view on Aerotoxic syndrome is exactly the same as yours. However we need to keep the article neutral and follow wikipedia sourcing policies. The problem with using the word 'propaganda' is that it is WP:OR. If you disagree, it would be worth bringing the discussion up on the aerotoxic syndrome talk page, so that other editors can give their 2c. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting comments. The Wiki articles on propaganda and film propaganda seem to be well supported with citations from books on the subject, to which I do not have access. I am familiar with the WP:OR page, but read it again to make sure I haven't missed something.
You seem to be saying that using an inline link to another WP article, which explains the meaning of the phrase used, is not proper and constitutes OR, even if the other Wiki articles have the required external citations to support their statements.
I find that difficult to digest, not only because I cannot find such a prohibition in the WP:OR page, but also because there are a couple of zillion examples in Wiki articles, where specific words and phrases are inline linked to other Wiki articles, that discuss that very subject.
I am having great difficulty in understanding why all those inline links to other wiki articles are OK, but not in this case. Is there some precise policy statement somewhere which would help me to understand when such Wiki links are proper, to further explain the use of a word or phrase, and when they are not?
If the external citations used in the two Wiki articles on propaganda, are simply copied over to this statement in the Aerotoxic article, would that then make it acceptable? Or, does some editor actually have to find those books and read them to be sure what is OK for those two articles, is also OK for this one?
I have no objection to my putting the issue on the Aerotoxic Talk page, but quite frankly, I doubt it will generate any significant response from anyone other than those who are members of the advocacy groups that are infected with COI and continually trying to insert their POV and OR, without valid WP:MEDRS cites. What they might say is highly predictable. Don't keep "hiding behind Wiki rules," will probably be the extent of their thinking, as it has in the past.
Anyway, thanks for explaining your view, even though I really do not understand it. EditorASC (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the wikilink that's the issue. It's saying that it is propaganda. Unless you have a reliable source saying that that film is propoganda, you yourself CANNOT say it is, even if it looks like it probably is. That is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. If you want more unbiased editors, there are dispute resolution noticeboards that you can post to. You could also post on aviation message boards like airliners.net or pprune.org. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swift respectful contact.

SC I have added some comments addressed on your on the CFS talk page. Since there has been previous conflict I wish to both assure they were positively meant and to give you the opportunity to request change. Same username at yahoo is the fastest way to contact me. I will remove this comment in one day to avoid being 'trawled' by mailbots.--Leopardtail (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sure we can work together to improve the CFS article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFS & CBT

SC it looks to me like we have achieved NPOV & accord on the CBT treatment page, would you please cruise by and give us quick indication if you think we have 'gotten there'. I have requested we consider some material be moved to the top so we have a more solid intro however that is not a POV issues so should offend nobody whether it happens or not.

Also I noted in the 'intro' it discusses two 'models' of CBT (weak vs strong) when it's actually talking about efficaciousness and disease models. We have not however covered the causal model vs the energy sparing model. Since the former is highly controversial and causes most of the conflict, and the latter is less well known but more likely to receive warm response from adverse parties - I feel it would be useful for that aspect of 'mental health treatment' to receive some coverage in the hope that it will 'de-polarise' the debate if the community at large is not longer discussing a single form of CBT. I have seen at clsoe quarters marked improvements and few negatives with that other model (especially in severe affected patients). This (in my view) has the potentioal to both benefits patients and deflate some of the conflict - it is however sadly less common and would need lower weighting. Would you be willing to try and locate some sources? Leopardtail (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are other therapies such as acceptance and commitment therapy which might be beneficial, but the problem is there haven't been any studies of them (Chalder just mentioned that it might be worth studying ACT, I believe). The problem is that if there is no research on it, we can't mention it in the article. All you can do is write your own article for a peer-reviewed journal, or write to the charities and/or CFS researchers and suggest they look into other therapies like this.
If the reviews mention the energy sparing model then you could add it to the article. However you would have to say what relevance it has to CFS (basically repeat what the review says). You can look at the book that we currently use as a reference ("Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: An Integrative Approach to Evaluation and Treatment", which I added -the bit we reference used to be available free in google books, but doesn't seem to be available any more). I also found this review on the cognitive behavioural model (I just looked in it and found no mention of the energy sparing model). I just had a look on google scholar and didn't find any mention of the energy sparing model with regard to cfs and cbt. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POTS

A user deleted a list of symptoms so I found another list on the mayo clinic website. It's very annoying that you deleted them because now I will have to find the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatesre (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was me who deleted them in the first place, as they weren't referenced. Your edit didn't include any references either. I'll have a look at the mayo website. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sciencewatcher has continually vandalized the POTS article. Symptoms that were well referenced were removed from the article by Sciencewatcher. I have reported him to Wikipedia already. I think he is purposefully vandalizing or trolling. Please stop vandalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDSandPOTSY (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerotoxic Syndrome

In your recent undo edit your comment was "nope it's not recognised." You, like the previous editors of this page, have not qualified what you mean by not recognised, not recognised by whom and not recognised as what? If you are going to revert an edit then you should qualify that reversion with something more than "nope it's not recognised." If it is not recognised then why has the OHSA and the FAA brought in the legal requirement to protect aircrew and passengers from exposure to toxic fumes on aircraft because of the ill health effects they cause. If you read the current subject matter on the effects of breathing contaminated air on board jet aircraft you will see there is a considerable ammount of evidence and subject matter papers clearly demonstrating the adverse health effects.http://ashsd.afacwa.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID=1397 I do not consider the definition i put forward as claiming it to be medically recognised it is simply defining what the phrase Aerotoxic syndrome is referring to at no point does it claim medical recognition.I await your response Truthfider General — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.72.55.50 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably be better discussing this on the article talk page. However if the syndrome is not 'medically recognised' (as you admit) then you can't define it as a specific etiology. In order to say 'x causes y' you need a WP:MEDRS source and it has to be 'medically recognised'. It seems pretty likely that aerotoxic syndrome is really CFS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Management: Medications

You made an edit on my original addition to the medications that can be used in the treatment of IBS. First off thank you for your edit, I made some errors to begin with. However, with that being said I would like to mention I added the information in the same spot with other medications that effect 5ht-3 receptors and have other serotonergic properties from the excess serotonin theory that is displayed in this section. In addition the following sentence compliments the information, specifically "reduced abdominal cramps, and improved general well-being" so no need to expand the article more than the sentence I provided, I believe. I also included the reference with the study on atypical antipsychotics, which I thought was already referenced, yet I was mistaken it was not, so that was my fault as well. So thank you for the edit, I started from scratch rather than undoing the error, since it was an error on my part. But I thought I would share my reasoning why this is an important addition to this section in particular, and does not belong in another part of the page (Which I did look at the other section that includes pure 5-ht3 receptor antagonists, which AA's are not, so I do not believe it belongs there), and included the correct reference as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic1551 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. It was just the lack of a reference that I was worried about. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NCGS

Given your participation on the Talk page this summer, you might be interested in the discussion on the Talk page of "Gluten sensitivity" relating to an "umbrella" article for all gluten-related disorders and/or article on non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS). --Chris Howard (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Fructose Corn Syrup Renamed

(moved to the HFCS talk page).

Repeated vandalism by same IP editors

I am wondering if it would be a good idea to seek page protection from IP editors, for the Aerotoxic Syndrome article. The same ones keep vandalizing the article, over and over again, by deleting valid WP:MEDRS statements with cites and replacing them with the same old Non-WP:MEDRS statements, that clearly violate Wiki editing rules for Medical articles.

It has been explained to them numerous times on the Talk Page, why their changes are not valid. They refuse to enter into any kind of legitimate discussion on the talk page. They just keep removing the valid information, over and over again. I think they intend to keep this up forever, so protection from IP editors seems justified. EditorASC (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "NeuroSPECT Findings in Children with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Retrieved 2014-03-07.
  2. ^ a b c ((Cite pmid|1491843)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 1491843" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|8141020))
  4. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|8141022)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 8141022" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|21167506)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 21167506" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|12554824)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 12554824" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|10974961)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 10974961" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|8542261)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 8542261" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c d ((Cite pmid|16494597)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 16494597" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|10761837)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 10761837" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b ((Cite pmid|7496949)) Cite error: The named reference "PMID 7496949" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).