Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:10, 11 August 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Special:Notifications

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

please help translate this message into the local language

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

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

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

I will always be thankful for a helping hand

Hi Jytdog,

I read your user page and we couldn't have a more similar philosophy, but with different motivations and different approaches. I share my professional background as that is what most people would view as my COI, whereas that pales in comparison to the four generations of known mental illness in my family, including myself and my three adult children. That is my true COI.

While I have the interest and skill to edit wiki, I do not have the time nor the temperament. Something about suffering fools combined with bipolar I and ptsd. I've actually been at my best behavior, I'm usually a bull in the china shop ;/ Instead of disrupting the mood here, as posted elsewhere, I will simply pay or encourage someone else to do the editing. I am not frustrated at all, it is just that wiki is a small part of what I am trying to do and the wiki editing is time-consuming to do well.

To wit, I would share with you the following analysis of the ketamine page and its dynamics:

1. Ketamine is a generic drug competing with patented or in development drugs. One one side of the postings you have over $30 billion of patented pharmaceutical sales. I would not be surprised at all if they spend over $1 million per year for editing the ketamine page. There is no such resource on the other side.

2. While completely understanding the need for referenced sources, that creates a very uneven playing field in the case of a generic drug. Here are the barriers: • The FDA is largely funded directly by drug companies, not tax dollars, and has been since the 1990's. They are not a source of unbiased information when it is a generic vs. patented question. • The medical journal contributors and editors are largely funded by pharma. Great when it is two competing drug companies fighting out their positions, not so great when one of the drugs is generic. • The research conducted by the government on ketamine has been withheld from the public but shared with drug companies.

3. The facts on the ground are that ketamine treatment for emotional illnesses is taking off, no matter what happens at wiki or anywhere else other than in the patients' own minds. The real question for wiki is how that dynamic is going to unfold with regard to wiki. Is it going to be one where the best available, properly vetted information has helped people make informed decisions in a time of rapid change, or is it going to represent a vestige of the past that readers will recognize as propaganda.

Thanks as always. Geraldwgaines (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I hear you all around. btw, the way we think around here, your clinic could give you a financial interest if you make money from it, and we call that a COI; your family history and emotional interest in getting better psych drugs to market is what could drive you to be "advocate" - WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI are related in that each drives editors to be not-neutral (and neutrality is a policy) but their motivations are different. Responding to each point that you raise above:

1. there are examples of academics repurposing drugs (e.g. WP:EMSAM) but generally you need to partner with a company to really get the new purpose widely used... and it is notable that the NIH will often fund clinical trials of things like this.
2. Sorry, we just see this differently - I don't agree with pretty much anything here. I know that repurposing plays are very difficult to get funded (getting NCEs developed is very difficult too) but it is one thing to discuss intrinsic problems, and another to veer off into conspiracy theorizing. I just don't view the latter as productive. I am curious though - what is your evidence on the last point, that the FDA itself did research on ketamine that they haven't published?
3. I have said elsewhere you are new here and don't understand how things work here yet. This is written from a misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is, and how it functions. I am sorry you feel that way but it is based on a misunderstanding.

BTW, what do you think of this recent review on ketamine in depression, from the UK's NHS? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3952483/

Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there

I see that my name was unfortunately mentioned on Jimbo's page. Just wanted to let you know that I generally respect your editing and only wish that we held more similar points of view. Gandydancer (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Gandy it was very, very kind of you to take the time and effort to say this. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. I just now had time to very briefly read the thread. I'm not sure if I should make some sort of post to say that I have no problem with you (or whatever--what exactly would I say to such an odd accusation?) or just let it be rather than bring attention to it. What do you think? Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

extra double kind of you. i walked away.... with respect to me, i would say just let it lie rather than feed it. if it ever gets brought up, you could decide at that time what you would want to do. with respect to your name being deployed, of course do as you see fit! thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel I'm between a rock and a hard place... The edit does piss me off but like you I don't want to bring attention to it and risk expanding an off topic discussion. Hopefully most people will consider the source... Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

i hear you. i am sorry your name was used that way - just ugly. i am sorry. above you asked how you might respond... if it ends up getting under your skin and responding would relieve that, something like "I don't want to expand this off-topic discussion, but use of my name in this way has been bothering me. I just want to clarify that while jytdog and i often find ourselves on different sides of issues, (I generally haven't felt treated badly by him, especially not in any gender-based way) (he has generally treated me respectfully) (he generally doesn't edit in the "male aggressive" way that is the subject of concern in these discussions)." In my response I was tempted to expand the drama and point out the irony of V's remark but I decided not to go there... Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, killed three birds with one stone: I'm not a dope. You're not a jerk. Oh the irony of it all. I pray that he will just drop it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

ditto. that was elegantly done! and btw you are not a "difficult editor" in my mind. there are editors who storm in and are aggressive and are unable or unwilling to really talk, and who can get pretty mean/accusatory. Those are the ones I had in mind. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources you located

How did you track down the sources you listed on the talk page at SSRI discontinuation syndrome? Is a subscription to online service required? Alatari (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The NIH has a wonderful index of biomedical journal articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. On pubmed, you can also filter the results (see the column on the very left side of the page) ... so you can do a search for "antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and then click on Reviews in the column on the left, and you will get a bunch of articles that are very likely to be MEDRS-compliant. On pubmed, there is also a filter on the left for "free full text" so you can find just reviews that are publicly accessible. Happy! But many of the best and most current reviews will be behind a paywall and will fall out if you limit your search to "Free full text". I work for a university so I can get to them. If you check out WP:WikiProject Medicine you will find that some journals have offered free access to Misplaced Pages editors. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll check the WP:WikiProject Medicine for getting editor free access. It would have cut my work down from a frustrating 7 hours of searching last night. Congratulations on working for a university, I'm envious. Alatari (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

it is lucky indeed. i try whenever I can to use the "Free full text" of which there are more and more and more. makes things go much better when everybody can see the source. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the Credo account what you were referring to? Yes, I try to make sure every source I add links straight to the page number and exact passage so that readers and editors can verify the validity of our work. ^Alatari (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

that is one of them! A list of resources is here... this too!. I thought project med had this easier to find... you could ask there if there is anything else.. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

and Misplaced Pages:JSTOR this too! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

How much weekly editing time would be required before I can be considered a responsible account holder for these resources? It would be irresponsible for me to secure one and go inactive. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

i do not know. you should ask over there! (i haven't had to request access, although I might have to one of these days!) Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Monsanto

You reverted all my edits to Monsanto. Please clarify your positions. All my changes were cited to reliable sources and provide relevant and new information.

Amytecko (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amytecko I would be very happy to talk about this. As per WP:BRD, please discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page of the Monsanto and I will respond there. Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DuPont

Discussion opened on talk page. But in any event why did you blindly revert my edit, in the process removing links to a director who wasn't listed before?--ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "blindly" but I will be happy to discuss on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Atrazine

Regarding your reverting of "Kloas study published in the journal Toxicological Sciences in 2009 concluded that" to "The paper concluded", you explained that "we don't need to attribute in this way." Who is we? This article covers a very contentious subject from different and opposing points of view. It is an excellent debate. When reading it dates and authors of certain articles and reports should be in the main text, not just in the footnotes and references. Kloas' study was in 2009 in Toxicological Sciences, Hayes study was in the same journal in 2010. Names, dates, academic journals and page numbers do need to be attributed - in some cases just in the footnotes and references but in other cases in the text itself to provide chronology, etc - to make arguments robust.oceanflynn 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

replied on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the late reply

at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. -A1candidate (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

not at all. thanks for continuing the conversation. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Evil"

In this post are you talking about the "Acupuncture Today" article? That article talks about one doctor that does acupuncture in combination with surgery, then concludes that eastern medicine should be used together with modern medicine. Why do you view that as "evil"? I ask because you have been promoting a more balanced approach at project med, but then you give this highly slanted reading of one article that is in a newsletter meant to be read by practitioners (I bring that up because you say you "violently" disagree and that the article is meant for cancer patients). "Acupuncture Today" is basically a vehicle for supply companies to advertise to acupuncturists - it is not an academic journal and does not represent the profession to the public. Even if it did, the article does not recommend foregoing conventional medical care. Herbxue (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Let's see: "The time immediately after surgery is an important window of opportunity, according to Dr. Fuda, to intervene with acupuncture and 'jump-start' the immune system into antagonism toward any remaining cancerous cells." That is textbook quackery of the worst (yes, "evil") kind: preying on the vulnerable to make money by spouting BS. Here in the UK, anybody publicising that message would be committing a criminal offense and could find themselves in prison. Rightly, in my view. In all these conversation around acu*, it's those making money from it who seem blind to the quackery. Fancy that! Alexbrn 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am posted this because I really don't want you (Jytdog) to feel burned out and stop the work you have been doing to bring more NPOV to these articles. I cannot post at the article itself right now, and I think your approach is really valuable and important (even if we disagree about the value of TCM). I just read the article differently than you did, and you should know that acupuncturists in the west are trained specifically to not recommend foregoing conventional care. If you read the article to the end, you can see the recommendation is to use acupuncture and conventional care together. (Alexbrn, read the whole article. A quote from one doctor does not equal the opinion or approach of the article's author, much less whole profession.) Herbxue (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)