Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Middle 8 (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 26 October 2014 (ns: Awkward wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
I'm not sure what you're asking for or why you undid my edit to the atherosclerosis page. I provided direct references to two landmark studies that I think would be considered very important to the article.
Now it looks that the article is done enough after doing little more work on Friday night, so I plan on moving to main space on Saturday. ARE YOU READY?????? PlanetStar07:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Wed., Hi, Doc James. I was in a hurry on that poliomyelitis article (still am), but wanted to call into question the "improved sanitation theory." Sabin's own article surely qualifies as authoritative.
Fowl Footed (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, Doc James.
Fn used to go to a funny but non-authoritative (albeit .edu) cartoon about a 12-Steps-type meeting of Polio, Smallpox, Leprosy, Influenza, etc., where Polio has the floor and says improved sanitation gave him new hope (since it helped create the massive polio epidemics). Now, footnote 7 has been changed to go to the following site, which agrees with polio dissemination by poor hygiene, which is what I said, and which is what Sabin maintained in the face of “dogma.” I believe my edit pointing out that “the ‘improved sanitation theory’ is not at all proven” should have been allowed to stand. I didn’t take the unproven theory down. I just added the opposing view from people who’ve earned the right to speak.
Humans are the sole reservoir for poliovirus. Wild polioviruses are spread directly or indirectly from person to person. Virus dissemination is facilitated by poor sanitation. In all countries, children under two years of age create a microenvironment of less than optimal hygiene within the family and within daycare settings, readily facilitating fecal-oral and oral-oral (mouth-fingers-mouth) transmission. Feces can serve as a source of contamination of water, milk,or food, and houseflies can passively transfer poliovirus from feces to food (Gear 1952).
Hey User:Fowl Footed, the issue I had was not the content changes itself but the source used. This link was published by generic in 2010. We need a better reference that is all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Ovarian (Breast and Colorectal) Cancer Definition
Hi Doc James,
First of all, congratulations on your great contributions to Misplaced Pages!
Considering your reply, I have two comments:
1. Starting a definition with "is when" is said to be avoided by different editors(See "Additional Tips for Writing Definitions" at https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/), so my intention was just to polish the style of your definitions of ovarian cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer.
2. Regarding the references you include in the definitions, I think that the proper link should be the NCI webpage for each cancer type, instead of a specific NCI webpage. For example, the "Colon Cancer Treatment" webpage which you cite in the definition of colorectal cancer is not the primary source of the definition, which appears somewhere else on the NCI website. For this reason, I'd rather cite "Colon and Rectal Cancer" (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/colon-and-rectal), which does include a definition of this type of cancer.
Best,
Vichovi
We need to clearly separate metastasis from primary tumors. If a met occurs in the colon it is not colon cancer. Thus "is when" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Stating "Colon cancer is a malignant tumor in the colon" does not exclude mets which are spread. I have adjusted to take your advice into account :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi James, I have a quick question for you. I recently added a significant amount of material to the Ebola virus disease pathophysiology section and I considered adding additional detail, but I would like to ask your opinion prior to doing so. I do not want to cross the line of excessive detail (if such a line exists). I have been wondering whether I should add information that discusses the mechanism of how the Ebolavirus VP24 protein interferes with STAT1's entry into the nucleus and therefore prevents the expression of antiviral proteins. Basically, the paper says VP24 binds to importin alpha 5 (and similar proteins) and prevents the recognition of phosphorylated STAT1's nuclear localization signal thereby preventing its entry into the nucleus. At this point, the section basically just says it prevents entry into the nucleus, but you can see for yourself how the updated section looks. Let me know if you think clarifying exactly how VP24 prevents nuclear entry is necessary or if the current level of detail is sufficient. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That might be a good idea for the future when (hopefully) this outbreak ceases. For now, I think we can better serve the Misplaced Pages community by continuing to improve the already existing EVD article since it's getting a huge amount of attention right now and is constantly being changed or updated. I had a feeling you would recommend remaining on the simpler side, but I wanted to confirm that with you. I agree since it's imperative that readers really understand this article. I tried to make the content I added as jargon-free as possible, but I will look over it again later and see if I find any other areas that can be simplified. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The feeling is mutual my friend. And by no means am I saying that we shouldn't make the pathophys article. I do think that's a good idea for a future article. Separate question-given what these papers have been saying about interferon's ability to inhibit EBOV pathogenesis (but EBOV is quite adept at interfering with host interferon responses), do you know of any clinical experience in which pegylated interferon (or a similar medication) was used as a form of treatment for EBOV? I'm wondering from a theoretical perspective if it would make sense as an antiviral treatment to attempt for the disease. I certainly realize it is an unpleasant treatment given all of its influenza-like side effects (hence the move away from interferon-based regimens for Hepatitis C treatment with the advent of newer agents like Sofosbuvir), but I'm wondering if this medication or one like it has ever been used in EBOV treatment and, if so, if there is documentation of the results. I'm not looking for medical advice, but I'm just wondering if you know of anything like that in the literature or from your personal/professional experience. If so, please let me know. I would be interested to hear your opinion on whether it sounds like a potentially rational approach as a disease-modifying measure (obviously in addition to the necessary supportive measures). I look forward to your feedback! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
After a little more thought, I realize that artificial administration of interferon alpha would only address one component (EBOV's ability to interfere with interferon synthesis) and would not address VP24's ability to interfere with cellular responses to interferon. Even with artificial administration of interferon, the interferon would bind to the receptors on cells but the VP24 would again interfere with the response though whether high doses could overwhelm this...I don't know. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen that and much of it looks promising. I was just thinking about this because this is a medication that already has well-characterized side effects and is reasonably well understood with respect to its mechanism of action. It wouldn't need to undergo trials, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you know how these images or diagrams that are commonly found in medical articles are made? I feel another image for the pathophysiology section might be helpful for readers with the interferon mechanisms. Just a thought... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Female_genital_mutilation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Welcome to my talk page. I removed the copyright infringement you added to an article. Please do not do this again. Additionally I left a note here Sorry I forgot to tag your talk page with a warning template. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no copyright infringement. It is PD because facts are not copyrightable, and the presentation does not meet the Threshold of originality (see here and Feist_v._Rural and Sweat_of_the_brow#US_copyright_law) Yes, I see you left a note here . So at least you visited the article talk page. If you still think there is, EXPLAIN WHY you think ToO or Feist don't apply. Feel free to ask User:Moonriddengirl or open a DR on the image. I guess you're one of the admins who thinks the rules doesn't apply to them. --{{U|Elvey}} 15:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Better than nothing. Why do you refuse to EXPLAIN WHY you think ToO or Feist don't apply? And why can't you use a sig that matches your username?--{{U|Elvey}} 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I paraphrased (at least I think I did) the entries of the “Autologous tenocyte injection“ and “Nonbulbar dermal sheath cell“ sections.
I don’t know what to change with the “Allogenic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells“ section because that section was already from my own words, but it was still deleted.
Can I submit the proposed changes somewhere for a re-check?
Yes these were unfortunately copyright issues. You must put what you read in your own words. Best to never use the copy and past buttons. Also please use secondary sources such as review articles rather than primary research. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I will undo your deletion of my recent footnote on Charcot's naming of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis .
Who the Hell are you to delete that information? I've been providing references for the historical aspects of science and technology for years. Time and again I've found that secondary sources are riddled with errors, which is why I always refer to primary sources, which are the only reliable ones. Furthermore, more than once, people writing technical articles on a subject have wanted to know the history of the subject; they've wanted to know where some finding or name originally appeared, which is why so many Misplaced Pages articles include history sections. I provided the primary source in which ALS is named.
It appears to be an advocacy site from the USA. It is not about e-cigs but smoking generally. It does not add anything unique. It contains a petition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I wont replace it because of the other reasons you mentioned. It may link to other petitions but there is no petition on the site. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Knock yourself out
Your revert pointlessly stigmatizes HIV+ people with the appellation "HIV/AIDS". It is an unduly circumstantial piece of useless verbiage which harms patients. If you are a medical professional you should be ashamed of yourself for stigmatizing and harming millions of HIV+ people. WP is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and by opening the article with an entirely uneccessary application of the term to the broadest possible category you are mere stating the obvious from a pointlessly destruction POV which sheds no light on the topic. The talk page of the article is seeking a means to do the exact opposite. Shameful. Wikidgood (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Complain to UNAID. This is the terminology they use. Get them to change and so will we. Agree we need to clarify the term AIDS in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I did so. This is a spectrum disorder an that needed clarification. I got that idea from someone on the talk page and that is part of what is wrong with the way the article is structured. What, as a professional health care specialist you don't seem to be aware of is that the nomenclature used by UNAID and NIH conference attendees is all well and good but when that is injected into the mass vernacular it can have devastating effects. It is not just nomenclature it is policy that seems all fine and good when talking amongst Ph D'd professionals. As just one example, the brilliant idea of distributing condoms in the jail of a certain Caribean nation sounded like a good idea but resulted in riots that left many people dead. So you can cite UNAIDS and maybe with enough WikiLawyering maintain the misleading character of the article but someone on the streets of Nigeria or Botswana is going to be confused by your high falutin UNAID WP:RS justified written word and how many people will be stigmatized, alienated and exiled because of your fetish for imposing techspeak and jargon onto lay readers?Wikidgood (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That is not how Misplaced Pages works. UNAID usage does not establish a universal standard, it depends upon the universe of reliable sources and they must be cited. But you are missing the point entirely. Just because clinical practicioners use a certain term in print, and nobody actually walks around saing "HIVAIDS" they usually distinguish HIV+ from "full blown AIDS", in the vernacular, does not mean that particular term of art is the best title for a WP article. Nor does it mean that a confusing discussion of the term is good WP writing. But actually the problem was resolved by the edit which inserted the one word needed to clarify, and that word was suggested by your above argument. You introduced the term "spectrum" and that is the point which lay readers might not have gotten but for the use of the term in the article. So thank you. This discussion was productive after all. Because it is important that lay readers get it that we are talking about a spectrum. But I find it disturbing that after my impassioned plea for the safety of HIV + people you dismissed the concern with really a somewhat snarkyremark about waiting around for UN bureacrats. Shameful really. Are you in this to do good or just to win arguments. Well, maybe that is not a nice fair question so I will retract it. But it seems very unfriendly of you to be more concerned with extending world governement jargon despite its deleterious effect upon humans. I will check the references and if there is a justification for the rhetorical usage you like so much then I suppose it is a bit of a lost cause. But UNAID lingo does not meaqn for instance that the AIDS search on WP has to divert to HIVAIDS. THere could well be separate articles on HIV Infection and one on AIDS as well as HIVAIDS the latter dealing from a broader perspective. Does anyone care?Wikidgood (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you the article needed to be clearer in the first paragraph. We have adjusted it and I hope that it is better now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Immuno case studies
Hi James! Hope you're well. I'm procrastinating on studying for my immunology exam and therefore writing articles about weird immune system diseases. Would it be acceptable MEDRS to cite the review-y portion of a case study in a book of case studies? (for reference, it's Geha and Notarangelo's Case Studies in Immunology, pretty standard text as far as I can tell.) Thanks! Keilana| 02:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
From next time, may I simply ask you here about the citations, whether they should be used on a specific article or not? It can be frequent, because I have to write a lot on different medical subjects. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi James. Yes I'd be glad to help. But I haven't been editing the article so I'm not that aware of the approach the authors have taken. Let's begin with this: I'll look into the article and the text you just pasted in the Talk page and see how can we merge it so all information is kept.
Also, I'll try to bring back whatever I find on the ES article to be translated to other Wikis.
Seems the WHO and CDC have conflicting statements about Transmission. The article states: .."blood or body fluids of a person after symptoms have developed." Yet, CDC says: "The CDC confirmed that the second healthcare worker who tested positive for Ebola Oct. 14 had traveled by air Oct. 10 and again Oct. 13, the day before she reported symptoms...Passengers who may have traveled on should contact CDC..." Going back to the second paragraph of the CDC passenger notification: "Individuals who are determined to be at any potential risk..." (This conflict, seems to go beyond first/followed-by symptoms to severity of headaches to government quarantine (military) of a military member's family (mandatory truancy for a family's student)--Nodove (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
So the question is when does one turn from having no symptoms to having minor symptoms to having full symptoms? The CDC is being very cautious.
Additionally they do not say that the disease is transmissible before symptoms develop in the above. And in many places they say it is not transmittable before symptoms develop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I suppose my question is: What better explanation of symptoms does a public transportation crew have to deny a passenger public transportation? I haven't discovered anything from WHO or CDC that answers that. (A mild fever, headache, or sore throat--mentioned in the wiki article--doesn't seem to justify one way or the other whether a passenger has the flu or instead has EVD). Yesterday, I did pose a similar question to WHO (for the first time in my life), with no repsonse yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodove (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably best not to travel if you have a fever. From what I understand they can deny anyone transport if they have a communicable disease. This includes the common cold technically. They usually do not do this but may start now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi James,
Please have a look at these guys in Manhattan. They seem to mirror WP without attribution (even claiming their own copyright), but they also offer a lot of image content that (if legit) might be useful. There might be room to bargain if they were approached the right way. LeadSongDogcome howl!16:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes they have taken Misplaced Pages without attribution. If they are this ignorant of copyright likely all the rest of the content is borrowed from others Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
They do not range high on similarweb . They look like a well put together aggregator. Email them and see what they say... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh I would've thought to go in chronological order like most things seem to be done but I can see why putting the most recent guidelines first would make sense as well Cannolis (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Others clarified that to me later, so I triggered the rename before you responded; hope it didn't cause you any difficulties. It's done now, enjoy your new username :) — Yerpo05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I like your renaming; it matches your signature, and now I don't have to type "Jmh649 (Doc James)" (not that I had to type that before, LOL, but you know that I did just so that it was clear to everyone that Jmh649 and Doc James are one and the same). Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes agree. I did not realize that this was possible before. It will reduce confusion across the 100 or so languages of Misplaced Pages I edit. We really need global notifications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently, when one clicks on the contributions link in your signature, it's blank; but I see that's because your signature is currently using the old username (Jmh649). So your contributions got moved to the new name. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: unified login is one of the steps in the process of implementing global notifications and other nifty features. By the way, you might want to ask a bot operator to mass-fix your old signatures on talk pages so all the links will work. — Yerpo11:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I have redirect my old user name to this new one. Have also registered the old account and sent the email to me aswell. Would be happy to have a bot fix it too though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm reading through the Ebola virus disease page again and I noticed that the article switches back and forth between ebolavirus and ebola virus. Are they interchangeable or is one preferred over the other? I know it's a minor point, but I think we should try to be consistent if possible. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, is there a reason we aren't mentioning passive immunization under the treatment section using antibodies in the sera of EVD survivors? Or is it okay to add that in? New 2014 article mentions it briefly. I think it would be a good thing to add (it's kind of a sparse section as it is (understandably)). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now (about the passive immunization). I'll look through later and see if anything needs to be changed regarding the ebolavirus vs ebola virus issue. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I am happy with either I guess. People use the word "Ebola virus" to mean all five. But from what I understand technically this is incorrect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Re that book, Chapter 31 is said to be by G. Lloyd, who would seem to be Graham Lloyd, one of the authors of doi:10.1093/cid/cir132. If so it's extremely unlikely that he copied WP. Consider that he was an author of OCLC729401555 in 1983, PMID 4045253 in 1985, and OCLC355985466 in 1995. Also, he would likely be preoccupied with the currently active outbreak, so I wouldn't expect prompt feedback on non-urgent matters. LeadSongDogcome howl!19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks double checked. It was not from their. That paper did not carry this wording. Also the text they copied was added by more than one editor at different point in time. Second editor Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The version they appear to have copied from is here from May 30th at 23:25. Punctuation was just changed which is in the textbook. This version is much closer to the textbook than the original text from 2006.
We stated "March 12, 2009, an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. Since the peak period for an outbreak during the 21-day Ebola incubation period has passed as of April 2, 2009, she has been declared healthy and safe. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever actually infected with the virus"
They stated "in 12 March, 2009, when an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans.It remains unclear whether or not she was ever infected with the virus or if the experimental vaccine proved beneficial
Hi Doc, I hope you are well and not too tired given the rather vigorous debates I've observed over at electronic cigarette. So, quick question for you, in your opinion, what's keeping the EVD page from reaching top importance in its rating? I'm wondering about this after reading the Wikiproject Medicine page's definition of top importance: "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to medicine. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating." It seems a bit ill-defined to me honestly (the separation of high and top importance), but I think this may now be in the realm of top importance (or will be in the near future). What are your thoughts? Also, on a side note, finally fixed the annoying reference issue that was going on. Apparently it was because there was a link to something on the West Africa page and the reference there was not copied over to the main EVD page. The red at the bottom of the EVD page was irritating me like an itch I couldn't scratch. Also, what else do you think is needed for the article to reach GA? It looks fairly comprehensive as it currently stands and at this point we've mainly been tightening things up, rewording, fixing references, etc. It seems like there isn't much content being added (aside from statistical updates, new cases receiving media attention, etc.), so I'm curious what more would be needed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand why this makes sense on its face. It is in fact incorrect for reasons I mentioned on talk , and as explained at archived talk we did reached a broad consensus in July to use the more complicated wording (the wording you reverted from). However, I believe that summarizing the source (Ernst '11) correctly is ALWAYS going to be awkward because of it very nature -- it's is a review of reviews of efficacy from 2000-2009, and many of those reviews are based on old and flawed RCT's. Most of these reviews found for efficacy but with caveats, so Ernst cites some more recent RCT's with better designs and negative findings that he believes portend what reviews will show in the future. Supportive excerpts below.
To the extent this source is based on outdated reviews, and requires a nuanced summary that that fosters disagreements, we shouldn't rely on it, at least not summarily in the lede. Have proposed a solution at talk Talk:Acupuncture#Better_sources_for_efficacy_in_lede.3B_MEDDATE. That's the essential part; if you're wondering about the wording dispute it's below.
The majority of the early reviews arrived at negative conclusions, while the majority of the 57 recent reviews were positive. Yet there are many contradictions and doubts...
And at top of p. 762 he cites some newer RCT's:
This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis examining the effects of acupuncturists’ communication style . Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham. Moreover, a communication style generating high expectations in patients resulted in improved outcomes compared to a normal style, regardless of the type of acupuncture administered.
The phrase "real acupuncture was no better than sham" is referring to the particular RCT cited, Suarez-Almazor 2009. It is therefore not a correct reading to represent that statement as on overall finding of the review.
That's obvious to me and some others (e.g. ), but not all agree. For example, User:QuackGuru said: "Actually the high-quality randomized controlled trials did not find that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture. That would be a misinterpretation of the source and the conclusion of an editor. It was the 2011 source that came to that conclusion."
In this case QuackGuru's reading is simply mistaken. But if the source lends itself to misinterpretation, and is hard to summarize concisely, and is based on outdated studies (sometimes very much so), those are all good reasons to replace it with newer, clearer sources. Ernst '11 correctly predicted that future reviews would show a trend toward the null; it makes sense to use them now.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at