Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:59, 15 January 2007

Archives

/Archive 1

Archives

/Me-Mystar conflict

Anyone want to discuss my edits? Do so on my discussion page. I'll justify why I do what I do.

WLU 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk

I mostly edit for clarity, grammar and good referencing, I'm a new wikipedian, so I'm still learning.

WLU 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

SBI/SLE/SUV?

Sounds like a bad television show. Seriously, I have had enough - I tried months ago and should have quit while I was ahead.

What I have ascertained from the studies I've read (and yes there are some that show an increase in connective tissue disease), is that none of the studies consider the long term effects of silicone gel in the body. It has been documented in peer-reviewed studies that silicone does migrate when implants are ruptured. There are no studies documenting the rate of rupture after 10 years, in newer implants (what Oliver calls 3rd and 4th generation), and none on older implants. There are none on the older implants because those implants are not sold anymore, and the manufacturers fund the studies, and funded them for the purpose of obtaining FDA approval on the newer implants. I will note one thing I caught in the article on implants. A statement was made that the rupture rate was 5-8% at 10 years. The authors (of the cited study cited) actually concluded "the rate of rupture increases significantly with age" and "a minimum of 15% rupture can be expected between 3 and 10 years." Another study showed a lower rupture rate (8%) but that excluded implants that had been removed for any reason (including rupture) and that study admitted that its results therefore likely underestimated the rate of rupture. None of the studies showing higher rupture rates were included because they were deemed flawed by the Wiki editor writing this.

As to SLE -- I would never take cats claw or the like for SLE, because I have seen no studies that suggest it is effective, and the risks of not mediating my illness are too great to chance it. Unfortunately, there are scant peer-reviewed studies on any of these alternative drugs that I know of. The problem with pharmaceutical research is that manufacturers have no financial interest in funding studies on remedies or potential remedies they cannot patent. To complicate matters, increasingly the "peers" who review the studies also have a financial interest in the results. This is true of all medical research, and it is an admitted problem. For decades, for example, the only available "research" on cigarettes was published by the Tobacco Research Institute, funded and controlled by cigarette companies. For a fascinating history of this issue, see Cornered: Big Tobacco at the Bar of Justice. It took 50 years or more to finally expose tobacco "research" as bogus, and it was finally exposed by those dreaded tort lawyers. I will not deny that dedicated doctors did not have a part in exposing this, as well. Not many doctors had a financial interest in tobacco - unlike say, many pharmaceuticals, medical implants and even clinics (which was another exposed conflict-of-interest).

In the US, anyway, the threat of liability is one deterrent to publishing bogus (or incomplete) studies. Just yesterday, a cholesteral drug was pulled by the manufacturer before it came out of clinical trials and was approved by the FDA. That mfg only had to look at Merck and the recent lawsuits on Vioxx (which was FDA approved) for its motivation to pull the drug. However, there is some precedent now in the US that once drugs are approved by the FDA, an injured consumer is barred from suing. The theory is that the manufacturer relied to its possible detriment on the FDA approval. That also becomes a problem when the FDA does not demand adequate assurance, as it arguably has not done in a number of cases. (The FDA has, in fact, come under highly publicized attack for this.) Unfortunately, research is expensive. The only alternative is government/taxpayer funded research, and that is not likely to happen. Therefore, we are stuck with what is available. But some research is better than no research. That does not negate the problem.

Going back to implants... for years and years there was no published research. Implants were not regulated by any agency, and when the FDA finally began "regulating" medical devices, it grandfathered in these implants. Additionally, plastic surgeons continued to change the design, for various reasons ..to make them more 'natural' in appearance (thus making the shell thinner and rupture more likely), to reduce capsular contracture (using polyurethane or double lumen) etc. For that reason, even when implant manufacturers were required to "study" them, there was no consistent follow-up.

Women now have had implants for 20, 30, 40 years and the likelihood that they are ruptured is very high. These women often do not have the resources to have reoperations, insurance usually does not cover it, and there are plastic surgeons who refuse to remove implants unless the woman agrees to reimplant (yes, it is true). These women who do become ill are told that their illness cannot possibly be caused by implants - that was true even in the adjunct studies, when surgeons were required by the FDA to report such complaints. These women are considered "anecdotes" or are dismissed as crazy, "conspiracy theorists" and the like. Now that the US FDA has approved implants for women 22 years old and older, and plastic surgeons claim that they are the most "studied device in the world" the manufacturers are faced with virutally zero threat of liability.

As you probably know, lupus is only a shorthand for any one of several types of lupus such as SLE, discoid lupus, etc. Contrary to what one "doctor" implied on the Clin-Med website, this was not a vague "oh i feel bad it must be an immune problem" by the "uneducated", for whom he admitted such antipathy. I have been diagnosed with SLE (systemic) on the basis of many clinical symptoms, and consistently abnormal lab tests which included ANA as well as specific antibodies for lupus, urine tests (testing for possible kidney involvement) etc. I also was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis based on clinical symptoms such as ataxia, numbness, vertigo and also objective tests (all of which were abnormal) such as MRI of the brain, MRI of the cervical spine and a spinal tap.

So you can see that I was one of those anecdotes. I was not called "crazy" or a "conspiracy theorist" when I became sick. My internist had known me for 10 years, and I never bothered to tell her I had 20 year old implants. I never registered for the class action, or thought about the implants because I was swayed by the reports that the women who sued were probably greedy, hysterical or worse. Besides, I was in graduate school then and my internist had a hard enough time getting me to go see her, let alone a specialist. That changed when I became so sick I could no longer function. Within 6 months, I was diagnosed with mulitple autoimmune diseases - including multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, autoimmune thyroid disease.

It was a friend (an MD) who suggested finally I have a breast MRI (which showed rupture). By the time I had my implants removed, I carried an epipen because I had woke up with hives and went into anaphylactic shock. Putting the pieces together after-the-fact, I realize that the implants propably ruptured with a mammogram five years before. The FDA states that mammograms can cause rupture, and I had only had one mammogram. Additionally, my first symptoms (itchy rashes which no dermatologist could figure out) began almost immediately thereafter. I learned to live with those rashes, after spraying Raid everywhere to kill what I thought may be small insects stinging me, and trying every cream and prescription known to man (that probably is an exaggeration, but I tried many). Those rashes that I had for 5 years went away after I had my implants (and the scar tissue around them) removed. Completely. Could it be psychogenic? Sure. Anything can be labeled as pschogenic if you take it to the extreme - and this would be taking it to an extreme, especially since i never befor had considered the implants might be a problem.

Since surgery, my blood tests returned to normal, and have remained normal. I discontinued interferon for MS, because for me the risks outweighed the benefit. However, my rheumatologist insists that I will need to take immune-mediating drugs for the rest of my life. I do wonder if some women may be more susceptible to an environmental trigger like migrating silicone. And if that is the case, would the lupus be reversible as is drug-induced lupus? I do not know. The problem is that we will never know, because nobody cares enough to research it, and there is no money in it.

BACK to the SLE article---- I don't care if the SLE stays as it is. The statement is true, as far as it goes. I care more about the breast implant article, but have given up on it, since one plastic surgeon has argued for omitting relevant information. A few of the examples include the following:

1. Omission of the FDA recommendation that women with silicone implants have MRIs 3 years after imlantation, and every 2 years thereafter to screen for rupture (which is asymptomatic). He argues that it is not a worldwide standard. It is true that MRIs are expensive (~ $1500 a pop), and probably will not be covered by insurance. MRIs are the most accurate tool (86%) we have to detect rupture. Additionally, mammograms can and do cause rupture. However, most plastic surgeons still tell women to continue having mammograms, regardless of the age of their implants. Of course, the older the implants, the more likely they will rupture. This is the case, despite the fact that there are no long term studies of the effects of rupture, for any style of implant. And it is obvious from this surgeons comments, that most surgeons will not tell women to get MRIs as the FDA recommends.

2. Inclusion of one specific study to quote a low rupture rate at 10 years -- this despite the fact that the authors of that study admitted the rate is likely an underestimate, because women who removed their implants (for whatever reason) were excluded from the study. And the author's statement is deemed too much 'detil' to include. Every other peer-reviewed study suggests a much higher rupture rate. The next study with the lowest rupture rate states "a minimum of 15% at 10 years." But in the article, it is now stated as 8-15% at 10 years. Thankfully, the surgeon did change it to 8-15% after I pointed out that the 5-8% he originally wrote was simply a misquote of the study he cited.

3. The omission of the FDA condition that women be 22 years old or older to have augmentation with silicone implants (reconstruction is approved). That isn't necessary in the article because surgeons can choose to ignore it, as an "off label" use.

So, this is what is happening. Since a medical doctor is considered more credible than an epidemiologist (who has argued for changes), an internist, another plastic surgeon, or a mere woman who had implants, the BI article will remain as it is, and is even locked this way. Anyone who has disagrees is called "political", a "single purpose editor" (with the implication of deceit) , "uneducated" or worse. Not one doctor who "reviewed" the BI article caught the actual misquotes. And the slanting of the article by omissions or selective choices is accepted since it is not obvious without further investigation, and generally supports established wisdom.

When I was younger, I trusted doctors because they were doctors. As I grew older, I learned how foolish that was, and so I "trusted but verified". After what I have seen in the last couple of years and most recently on Misplaced Pages, I no longer trust at all. I have seen the very worst of combinations -- arrogance and a closed mind. It is chilling.Jance 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same. One more thing about all this. In fact, there are many doctors who are concerned about the long-term effects of rupture, especially the rheumatologists. Why? They have seen many women who have had ruptures, have also seen their health improve after removal, and know there are no long-term studies on rupture or its effects. However, they would be ridiculed if they stated so publicly. Why? Because of the lawsuits in the 90s, and because there is a grain of truth about both the lawsuits and the complaint that some (many) women complain that their general aches and pains are immune problems without a shred of evidence to document it (to quote JFW). There are women who assume any health problem they have is implant-related. And in fact, one category of the "disease settlement" that awards the lowest amount supports this - realistically, any woman over 50 who complains about aches and pains could qualify. It is astonishing, but that was the settlement that the manufacturers and lawyers agreed to. There are hundreds of thousands of women in the settlement, and so there are also many who don't have immune dysfunction. And many who claim that their osteoarthritis, skin cancer, headaches, general muscle aches, irritable bowel etc etc are implant-related. It's really hurt. Jance 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I will get you some links, after my dentist's app't. I suspect you should not include them, or you will incur the wrath of Oliver. There is not a breast implant he doesn't like. There is a long history there. The FDA recently approved silicone implants, which was unfortunate, given the lack of long-term studies. There is a huge body of short-term studies, on which they relied. Oliver admitted there are no studies on earlier styles/types of implants (he said it is difficult to make sense of them; truth is they don't exist)

I assume you are in grad school in math or some such related field. The unfotunate thing about the anti-medicine is the anti-statistical support of any of it. There are problems with medical research, as you know, but what is the alternative? We don't know much about what is helpful or harmful about the alternative remedies, most of which are based on 'anecdotal' reports (from thousands of years..lol). Anyway, I have to go - late. I"ll dig something up for you later. By the way, I like math, too - that was my undergrad (math & elec engineering). Jance 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. I will do so - I just got back from the dentist and have a swollen and sore mouth. So if I don't get to it today, I will get you something soon. Someone you might find interesting is Dr. diana zuckerman. You seem to have similar interests as she. She has been trying to help with the BI article, but it has been a struggle. She is also a delightful person.Jance 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) My undergrad is, as I said, math & EE. I had some grad work in EE, but then got a law degree. That was before I became so very sick. Now that my health has improved, I am working part time as an attorney.Jance 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This danged thing is case-sensitive. Try Diana Zuckerman. She is both an 'external' person and a Wiki editor. She has edited the BI article, but is new to using Misplaced Pages (as am I, for that matter). You can see her background in the article.

Negative behaviour

More wikistalking —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WLU (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Diana

I don't have any problems with what you edited. Diana did not first write the article on herself - in fact, she didn't want an article. The editor who did start it quoted almost verbatim what the plastic surgeon I so dislike here has said. It was insulting. Diana changed it, understandably. I surely welcome any improvements, and I can't imagine Diana would not as well. She is even newer than I am to Misplaced Pages, so be a little gentle. And thank you for the input. I will also get you some links tomorrow. I have a hearing to prepare for, but I will make some time. Jance 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Zatch Bell!

• For some reason, you reverted to a version of the page with mistakes, inappropriate fansites and deleted categories. Your revert has been reverted. Regards, Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

well welcomed

As for the EL deletions, oh drat. (RSI and Tendonitis) In time, I hope to understand how the other ELs on the pages stayed and my lovely, informative links dissolved, but till then, drat. (slow but steady learner here)

As for the welcome, oh joy! (sincere tone on that!) I feel thoroughly welcomed and instructed and amused (I *did* just read your User page, WLU :D ), and I wish I had a bunch of time. I turn to Misplaced Pages for so many things, and I've suffered on the brink of repetitive strain injury, and I have had to learn a few things that I ... must find the time to write up a bit on these pages. (Time, there's the rub.)

This is my thank you note. I am delighted to ... almost ... be contributing to Misplaced Pages.

--a.r.dobbs 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Muscle

Thanks for the sarcomere image for the Muscle contraction article. Any images and improvements are greatly appreciated! The article is really improving.GetAgrippa 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that is a great idea to compare shortening velocities of various muscle preps. If you have a table or some info that would be great.GetAgrippa 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Herpes simplex virus external links

I will grant you that some of these sites are OK as links. But the behavior of the editor is what led me to treat these contributions as spam. If you look at the speed of the edits, this is not a person reading our article, asking themselves "Will these links add to the information already there?", "Is there any content I can add to the article that will make adding this link unneccessary?". No, they're just spamming, the same conclusion that Kafziel came to looking at this editor's similar contributions on December 12.

Since you re-added them, let me ask you "What information is contained in these links that doesn't belong in the article itself? See WP:EL: "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first" and "Links should be kept to a minimum."

Incidentally, I enjoyed your Five stages of Misplaced Pages. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the landed gentry bit is fine; I must admit that I didn't check out the enema link. And probably more people read your user page than you think-- I actually had a guy request a photo that I had removed from my page months before-- he'd seen it and came back looking for it.

Anyway, feel free to do as you like with these links-- as I said, I can see that they're potentially decent links, though I feel pretty sure that you'll find some whose contents are already well covered in the articles or in pre-existing external links. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Original Barnstar
		for your tireless and excellent contribution to Resistance training, Weight training, and Strength training. Feel free to add this to your user page. --Maniwar (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! I always wondered how people got these! WLU 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Autism and Boys

I wanted to say "Thanks" for being so kind, about my first entry into the world of Misplaced Pages - and imformative. I hope you'll keep on keeping on, Lizziemac

Merger of Strength Training, Weight Training, Resistance Training

Thanks for clarifying to everyone that the work is done so that they stop voting! :) I went ahead and took it another step and archived all merger discussion from all three pages, so people will really have to go out of their way to screw it up. --Robb0995 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bone/Protuberance link

What's so wrong with the protuberance link on the 'Bone' article..? Electron9 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WLU's personal attacks redux

First off this interview? Its been posted many times. so... you don't like it ~shrugs~ so what... we personally love it. Secondly calling anyone a moron, let alone a world renown New York Times #1 best selling author is POV, and an attack meant to provoke a flame war and is unacceptable behavior. It violates Wiki policy {{ WP:NPA
WP:ATTACK}} Namely with regard to you calling anyone let alone Terry Goodkind a Moron. While I grin at your inability to be civil and post with honor, it just proves my point. You cannot act in a mature but have to attempt to slant peoples views not letting them think for themselves. No you must slander someone as a weak attempt to validate an opinion you formed while having no actual knowledge of the content of the series. You obviously feel that in order to make yourself feel good about your lack of abilities, you must lower yourself to personal attacks and name-calling. Rather than allowing people to either approve or disapprove on their own. Tells us a great deal about you. You dislike the series or Goodkind cool I've no problem with that at all. You calling Goodkind and his works bad after openly admitting that you have never even read them shows the problem. That is your opinion, HOWEVER you are not above Wiki-policy of No Personal attacks and committing Libel and slander on her user page or any other page. RegardsMystar 02:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said....lol... you show your ignorance more and more. You will note we do not use that chat as any means of verification of content. The inchoatus thing is just an opinion of a simple minded person (I feel sorry for his lack of abilities and perception). And as Runch has pointed out it has no merit. It is only a blog designed to attack Goodkind and his opinion. Which as I might add is against Wiki policy...but then you already know that :) As I've said in the past, you really have no idea about the books or what Goodkind is saying due to the fact that you haven't read them. What we do see is your personal opinion coloring your abilities. You think you dislike him and his works, so you will do anything you can to smear him. Most assuredly not NPOV are you.... Your history contribs attacking me and Goodkind speak for themselves. You just cannot be unbiased.

And as for the Webmaster being embarrassed...lmao hardly... It is a great interview full of insight, truth and pertinent content to societies Ills today. No we all love the chats, that one especially. It has gotten more good press than you'll ever know. AND it brings people into the site and discussion agreeing with his point of views. Again how sad for you my dear. Still unable to be honorableMystar 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do either of you guys want to end this invective-filled wrestling match you're in or do you think it serves some useful purpose to Misplaced Pages? Agree to (strongly) disagree or take it outside, I say. Thanks for all you've done to improve the wiki. Wishing you both well, Figma 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree Figma. I'm simply responding to her mindless attacks...again...

Also as you can see at the very top of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Also see {WP:CIV
WP:CIVIL}}

But also {{WP:EQ
WP:WQT}}

of interest...Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.

Most notably is {{WP:UP
WP:USER }} What can I not have on my user page? Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages

"libeling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea" 

- Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages founder and leader

"If user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption".

Personally, I do not care what your personal opinion of the man is. Your attempt at character assassination is however poor form and bad faith. It indeed crosses the line. If you have such a burr under your saddle, perhaps you need to take a step back, as it is clear you cannot be neutral or unbiased. Take a look inward to see where you are falling short. Stating that you dis-like someone is fine, saying that you abhor his or her work and philosophy is ok as well. But you cannot attack someone even on your user page. It really discredits you and your ability to effectively edit in any kind of NPOV. It taints your work. I'm simply asking that you change your wording and bring it in line with Good Faith Editing and Wiki standards. Mystar 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)