Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system hypothesis/Archive 1

message: I came across this page when looking for other articles to include as "see alsos" on the "Immunity during Pregnancy and Infancy" section of the Immune system article I have been working on. While I found the content of this article to be of interest, the layout was confusing and the wording a bit too technical for a typical reader. I then went about editing the article, only to discover (when checking to see what else liked here) that this article has been the subject of some discussion. I hope that my edits do not interfere with any attemps to manage this article. It was all in good faith. Cheers--DO11.10 04:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits

message: I'm intrigued to read about this line of investigation, but I have a few problems with how this article is written, and how related material has been added elsewhere. The editor User:Clarkgf is apparently one of the principal authors of the research in question, and I hope he will not take this as personal criticism; it mostly has to do with how an encyclopedia differs from a scientific journal.
Basically this article is a summary of three papers published in 1997 and 2001, which introduced the hypothesis, proposed a name for it, and suggested how it might apply to a particular disease. The article takes a while to get to the key points that distinguish the hypothesis from previous models (the function of specific glycoproteins, etc.) but that's a question of editing. And there are some critical unsourced claims that are, to my non-expert eye, far from self-evident - like the claim that "the profile of the major oligosaccharides linked to CA125 and the major surface glycoprotein of HIV-1 (gp120) almost perfectly overlap", and the statement that human gametes have no MHC/HLA (which, according to at least one review of literature , is far from certain) - and the discussion of alternate models is so brief and cryptic that it makes eu-FEDS sound like the only sane option; but those things can be addressed in editing too.
The real problem is that neither Google nor PubMed show any references to the hypothesis (under that name) other than those three papers themselves. Now I know that notability can be a gray area on Wikipedia, and peer-reviewed publication obviously lends some weight, but note that the WP guideline on fringe theories talks about the desirability of being discussed in a respected publication, not just published in one. If no one but the authors is talking about it (yet), I suggest that it is not notable. It may be entirely correct and still not belong here (yet).
I'm not starting a request for deletion yet because I'm not sure I understand the field well enough to be searching for the right things. If I'm wrong and the article is appropriate, then I'll try to take some action on the style and sourcing complaints above.
Regardless, I think the sections on how the hypothesis applies to AIDS and SIV are problematic. The article in footnote 7 is very interesting (full text is available - I added a PubMed link; please do that whenever you can) but over my head; unfortunately the summary here is not helpful - it seems to be just saying that HIV is an example of a pathogen that is not suppressed effectively by the immune system, and that therefore HIV might be using mechanisms suggested by this hypothesis, which out of context is just a wild guess. The material added to Simian immunodeficiency virus is even worse, taking a totally unremarkable principle (many viruses are well adapted to a particular host in which they do not cause disease) and claiming that it supports the eu-FEDS theory, based on an unsourced and unexplained "mirroring" of the maternal immune response, and an extremely counterintuitive if not incorrect claim (also unsourced) that massive CD4+ depletion does not count as an immunopathology. I'm deleting those statements for now. ←Hob 05:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style, notability, logic

message: Citations please. Hepatitis C is one other notable exception that comes to mind. ←Hob 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please supply a reference indicating that HepC induces the viremia like SIV in its natural hosts without pathological effects or shortening the life span of infected individuals. I would like to read that paper.
A week has gone by and you have made no edits to the article, you're just arguing about it on talk pages. Citations supporting the article need to be in the article. ←Hob 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have changed the eu-FEDS article now to include all the references I think are necessary. I also removed the comment about human sperm expressing the same carbohydrate sequences as Helicobacter pylori. That is only published now in abstract form, and it will take some time for it to become a part of the biomedical literature. But there is no doubt that very unusual carbohydrate sequences that are profusely expressed on human sperm also coat the surface of H. pylori. And unfortunately, these same carbohydrate sequences are also profusely expressed on the surface of 90% of all human cancers, but only as those cancers progress to the end stage where they are uniformly fatal. I will reference these observations in the eu-FEDS article when those data on the sperm profiling are published. Now I would appreciate it if you would reverse the changes that were made in those other articles. I think that there are now some very logical reasons to believe that these linkages are extremely important--Clarkgf 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the additional references; I look forward to following them up. I also added a response to your user talk page, on some points that don't have to do with this article directly. ←Hob 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to Other Points 

message: I am a physician, but not an expert in this subject.. I can see that this is definitely a complex topic.  I am still an infant when it comes to writing for this format, and this is not a trivial problem:  medical literature vs. Wikipeida.  I think after reviewing the above discussion there exists a problem of perspective that might be difficult for someone not familiar with medicine/basic sciences. 
We appear to be blessed by having the first author of the journal article willing to author a Wikipedia article on the subject.  Similarly we appear to be cursed by the same fact.  
I am still struggling with developing these skills here.  We know than an encyclopedic treatment of a subject is a poor medical literature review and vice-versa. I just quickly searched this subject using our university databases and included all available Medline databases (here are the databases we have available) Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1966 to November Week 2 2006 
  Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations November 15, 2006 
  Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) 1950 to 1965 
  Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1996 to November Week 2 2006 
  Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1996 to 2003 
  Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1986 to 1995 
  Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1966 to 1985 
  AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) 1985 to November 2006 
  AARP Ageline 1978 to October 2006 
  CINAHL - Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature 1982 to November Week 2 2006 
  All EBM Reviews - Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, and CCTR  
  EBM Reviews - ACP Journal Club 1991 to November/December 2006 
  EBM Reviews - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 4th Quarter 2006 
  EBM Reviews - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4th Quarter 2006 
  EBM Reviews - Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects 4th Quarter 2006 
  EBM Reviews Full Text - Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, and DARE  
  ERIC 1965 to October 2006 
  Health and Psychosocial Instruments 1985 to October 2006 
  International Pharmaceutical Abstracts 1970 to October 2006 
  PsycINFO 1806 to November Week 2 2006 
  SPORTDiscus 1830 to September 2006 
  Journals@Ovid Full Text November 16, 2006 
  Your Journals@Ovid  
  Books@Ovid November 16, 2006 
   Primal Pictures Complete Human Anatomy and IFA  
This search reveals a single reference to this theory, published by the author in 2001.  Seems to indicate that the evolution of this theory remains in its early infancy, and as such is by definition not a widely accepted theory on the subjet (yet).  
The only "assistant editors" I see here have noted wishing they had more experience in basic sciences, medicine, and using medical literature.  Finding full text articles from a medical library is sometimes not trivial for someone not employed at a tertiary care center.   I am still an amateur at writing in this format, but I am having fun learning and enjoy the challenge.  
If the involved parties are willing then I would be willing to volunteer to attempt to edit contents for form without substantially altering the content.  I will need a second layer of editing from someone with more experience in this style of writing as well.    
I certainly dont wish to step into the middle of a fist fight, but I do have access to less mainstream medical literature and have a decent background in molecular biology, evidence based medicine, judgement and decisionmaking theory, and I understand the basics of glycoprotein signaling (and how mistakes lead to illness) etc.. So, I am willing give it a try if Dr. Clark would agree to the  effort as well.
I will keep an eye out for a response.  I will be participating in an amateur radio contest this weekend and wont be able to spend any real time with this before then, and I have my own research that is being picked apart by our IRB at the moment so I will be doing "real work" that will probably interfere with the project a bit as well - but it looks as if this is not on any deadline.
Williamwells 05:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to ask permission! Everyone's contributions are welcome. Questions of style can be hashed out as needed - that's part of what this page is for. And stepping into the middle of a fistfight is often a good idea here; it's much harder for a fight to proceed when there are more than two points of view. ←Hob 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand the permission issue, but I also understand that by collaborating more progress can be made.  This process can be time consuming and if I were to publish original research, then take the time to try to explain it here, I would be diappointed to see edits without discussion that I perceived were not accurate.  I dont want Dr. Clark to perceive this as anything but an attempt to furter "translate" the concepts into an encyclopedic entry instead of a medical journal type format and I will need his help to accomplish this as I will not be sufficiently familiar with all the aspects of this research to do so. 
That said - I will attempt the initial outline and start posting issues I encounter here in discussion first.  If all goes well these will go to the article soon afterwards.Williamwells 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional $0.02 from a fellow user