Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 6

message: Let's make medical education inexpensive and readily available to everyone via wiki--with the highest respect for the laws and philosophies of each country and each person.  It is time to make a wiki-medical school for the world.
It respects people.
It encourages people to live and achieve their dreams.
It provides excellent information.  It creates methods for self assessment.
It prepares students to become physicians in their chosen country.
Its students are those who lack access to medical education through other means.
Its guiding principle is to help people live well.
Please email me if you would like to help create this.
--Tom,rona0009@umn.edu, --Kiteflyertom 06:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Wikimedschool Project''' 

message: I'm not sure if any physicians have taken a look at this article.  I've noticed that it has been accumulating external links of varying quality, but I've been hesitant to remove any, given the nature of the article.  Read  for a more balanced review; unfortunately, I couldn't find anything at Pubmed.  --Uthbrian (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd let it be.  Looks pretty silly.  The photomicrographs on the web page are clearly textile fibers.  I've got better things to get into edit wars about.  Kd4ttc 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I never heard of this, but will probably see one next week. It ought to be possible to put together a neutral article along the lines of the one you linked from Popular Mechanics. What is conspicuously missing from the article is a concise list of diagnostic criteria. alteripse 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a new phenomenon, an entirely patient created "disease". Probably impossible prior to the internet. Patients chat and diagnose themselves with this. Amazing.--JohnDO|Speak your mind  21:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked a suitably qualified editor to see if he can improve it.  Midgley 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Morgellons]] 

message: Anyone who has an opinion on whether or not medical resident work hours should be merged with residency (medicine), state it here.  Ombudsman will make a big fuss after I merge it (just like he did after I merged Medical residency with residency(medicine)), so I want a consensus here to refer to.  The consensus on Talk:Medical resident work hours was 4 merge v 2 don't merge, but I'd like some more opinions from those who didn't vote. --CDN99 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MERGE.  There is merit to both, though.  The work hour article is long enough, but perhaps would be shortened if put in the context of residency.  I think you could do a nice article on residency and merge them.  I would merge if you are committed to doing a nice edit job as a dedicated project.  It could put the work hour story into perspective. There are patient care issues that are worse with the time limits such as continuity of care that do not get measured in the error rate data.  Kd4ttc
I think I've already voted, but this article was created by Ombudsman to further his doctor-bashing agenda. A good stab at NPOV may be necessary. JFW | T@lk 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think good articles of each will be/should be (if they are comprehensive and thoughtfully written) too long to be merged. David Ruben  Talk  19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical resident work hours 

message: Coronary care unit - please comment and expand. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I've submitted a number of categories for merger. Please peruse them here.--JohnDO|Speak your mind  13:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories for Merger

message: I didn't really know where to put this notice.... John (Whaleto) is now adding a "different" link to all of his articles (ex. ).  The link is http://  www.vaccination.org.uk, which is quite obviously a copy of the whale.to site, or a transfer of the contents to a different location.  I seem to be on his radar now, so I'll go remove all the links I can find.    --CDN99 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For heaven's sake... JFW | T@lk 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find heaven, but here is [http: //www. vaccination.org.uk/vaccines/god.html God]--JohnDO|Speak your mind  22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If I were looking for God I wouldn't be looking on an anti-vaccination website :-). He has better places to hide Himself. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we have Wikipedia!  So if you are looking for God you even get a disambiguation page! God (disambiguation).Kd4ttc 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disguised Whale.to 

message: This article could use some NPOV.--JohnDO|Speak your mind  20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again soliciting volunteers to prevent the alternative med crowd from running off with the kitchen sink.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orthomolecular medicine]]

message: Is there any truth to the recent edit over there, or is this more anti-medicine propaganda?  --Uthbrian (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice study you posted about the SSRIs.  The only thing lacking was the power to discriminate clear effects in the younger age groups-- it would've been nice to resolve the supposed link between SSRI use in children/adolescents and suicide.  It seems that psychiatric interventions are usually targets for criticism.  --Uthbrian (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: These references include some interesting ones but look like they were copied wholesale from the reference sections of Anti-ECT websites. It seems unlikely to me that the editor has been reviewing 50+ year old out of print articles. They include some totally inappropriate ones such as court testimonies, an autobiography by a patient, and a videotaped deposition. These might be ok supporting historical detail but the editor is using them as documentation of ECT side-effects. N.B. The original article seems to be very poorly cited and we could use the assistance of editors with experience in the field to clean up the citations. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: While this is not germane to ECT directly, I've noticed that the anon user:85.195.123.29 contributing to the discussion has committed multiple acts of vandalism.  --Uthbrian (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Electroconvulsive therapy]] 

message: Can someone help locate a reference to the original publication for this interesting complex of congenital malformations?  --Rewster 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --WS 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Impossible syndrome]] 

message: I just wrote metolazone. I'd appreciate if editors would take a look at it, leaving suggestions for improvement or revising it as they see fit. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Metolazone]]: peer review/feedback requested 

message: I've added a new category for medical hygiene.  Not sure if I've populated it to its full extent. Also, I wouldn't know where to begin for the article Medical hygiene. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a doctor and neither are most people, so you might want to either change or paraphrase "prophylaxis of iatrogenic infections" to "prevention of infection during medical treatment" or some such. Mike Dillon 16:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. --Uthbrian (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Admittedly, I created the category after seeing Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery in :Category:Hygiene.  What do you think should be done with the cat? Is it worth salvaging or should  I recommend it for deletion?  --Uthbrian (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of topics is a good list. Leave it. Im a nitpicker about terminology sometimes. alteripse 03:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Medical hygiene]] 

message: Have you seen m:Cite/Cite.php? I think it's a great idea, and much easier to use and maintain than the other footnote systems I've seen. I've been testing it out on Metolazone and I think it's working pretty well. Well, hope it's able to help someone! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen it, but I don't like it. It makes the text very hard to read while editing. It is sad that there still isn't a better referenceing system. --WS 10:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it has its problems, but I still definitely prefer it over the old systems. The one system where you had to have the references in order and if someone rearranged the text all the references got mixed up was terrible. The other one where you can link text and footnotes isn't bad, but for someone like me who often uses the same source for multiple pieces of information, this new system is the best I've seen so far. And I'm sure it will be improved. Anyway, at least we have several options from which to choose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your first question. A footnote may contain multiple links; is that what you're asking? Metolazone#References has a couple. I haven't used Wouterstomp's bookmarklet (I don't user Internet Explorer), but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work—you can put basically any wiki markup in the footnote, as far as I can tell. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The solution is not to list all the references in an initial hidden section (using < !...>), which in the reference section will count as the 1st occasion of each citation, but rather include the  ...reference details...  details in the main article as each reference first occurs. Subsequent duplication of a reference is made by using just the reference name (i.e. ). See reworked example. Instructions in m:Cite/Cite.php are really not clear for a new user (being more about how the software implements), so unless people wish to discuss this new system further, I will in a few days add some simple instructions under WikiProject Clinical medicine#References David Ruben  Talk  13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on, just seen  discussion, so this issue is getting discussed all over wiki-land. David Ruben  Talk  13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Prostate cancer will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 29 January 2006! --WS 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostate cancer on the main page 

message: Boys,  has received admin powers. Good luck with the mop, Wouter! JFW | T@lk 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :-) --WS 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouterstomp admin! 

message: I'm starting to wonder if we actually have a page on this. I've checked for various spellings. In any case, I'm interested in writing that from scratch, using Prof J. Stam's April 2005 review in the NEJM as an outline. What title should I use? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Hypernatremic dehydration is also missing. Perhaps it could be a redirect to Hypernatremia. Mike Dillon 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Hypernatremia has a red link to Dural sinus thrombosis, which I would assume should redirect to the Cerebral sinus thrombosis (unless the "cerebral sinus" and "dural sinus" aren't the same sinus). For that matter, the sinuses are not even discussed in the "Composition" section of Telencephalon or in the Cerebral cortex article. Mike Dillon 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is why WikiProject Clinical medicine rules! You all are so methodical and efficient. Mike Dillon 15:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like sinus thrombosis, cerebral sinus thrombosis, dural sinus thrombosis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.  In practice, I have tended to use more specific terms, such as superior sagittal sinus thrombosis, transverse sinus thrombosis, thrombosis of the torcula herophili, and so on.  I'd suggest that all of the above (ok, maybe not T. of the T.H.) be redirected to whichever you pick.  :)  -- Ikkyu2 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cerebral sinus thrombosis 

message: I have looked and looked and looked but cannot find a guideline or any other statement in wikipedia that naming conventions of diseases should be written as their proper medical name, as opposed to the common term.  I am assuming there must be policy somewhere since heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction, but can anyone point me in the right direction?  If there such a statement, I would be able to write any future articles using that convention. Thanks. - Dozenist talk 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the project page to which this discussion page is attached: Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine#The naming issue. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok.  I saw it written there, but I expected it to be mentioned elsewhere, such as WP:NAME.  Is there any way for this naming convention to be mentioned on WP:NAME or one similar to it so that the naming of articles on diseases be under some wikipedia policy or guideline? And thanks for the quick response. - Dozenist talk 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, in the event that there is no other "official" page that this naming convention is written, I suggest that we bring the topic up in WP:NAME and submit it as a proposal.  Otherwise, we will eventually see continuing objections to the naming of disease-related articles. - Dozenist talk 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: I just happened to find Hypergymnasia, created a few days ago. Are there any references for this phenomenon? There are only 51 Google hits. Mike Dillon 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have used the term compulsive exercise, but if I were going to dress it in greek because excessive exercise is too intelligible, I would have picked a term that meant something different from "excessive nakedness". alteripse 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alteripase summarized this as "How con you be excessively naked".  I'm afraid to tread on the category of people who are excessively naked.  Kd4ttc 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, gymnotes means nakedness; gymnasia means "exercise" or "training while naked", not just "nakedness". (per Middle Liddell) Mike Dillon 01:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have the old unabridged Liddell ("my Liddell's bigger than your Liddell..."), but I have to confess it confirms that exercise is an alternative meaning, so I stand reluctantly corrected. alteripse 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I quote you on the "my Liddell's bigger than your Liddell..." quip? I got quite a kick out it. Thanks, and I'll try to quit bugging the doctors for a while. I'm sure there are excellent articles you all could be writing instead of reading this. Mike Dillon 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hypergymnasia]] 

message: I noticed that we have 2 pairs of similar articles: Thrombolysis & Fibrinolysis, as well as Thrombolytic drug & Fibrinolytic.  Should we merge these, and if so, which ones should be kept as the main articles? --Uthbrian (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do some merges and redirects. Thrombolysis != fibrinolysis. Thrombolysis is the pharmacological treatment of thrombotic disease with the help of agents that accellerate physiological fibrinolysis. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clearing that up, JFW!  --Uthbrian (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrombolysis, Fibrinolysis, etc. 

message: Please vote keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could drop in on the page as well, if you can stand it... There is a possible replacement version growing at Anti-vaccinationist/catholic herald whcih is based on the remarkably civilised collaborative product at anti-catholicism - a page that casts a distinct light on the proceedings around vaccination and immunisation. Midgley 17:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The vaccine bullies

message: I'm pretty sure I saw an article on Wikipedia about a movement of doctors who were refusing to accept gifts from pharmaceutical companies. Does anyone know the name of it? --Kerowyn 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pharmaceutical companies

message: Hi I am a life sciences student studying towards medical school, I am also a Red Cross First Responder. I may not be able to help do much, but I can help wikify, clean up, and help write articles. Mike (T C)  05:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly; please do! You don't need permission; just roll up your sleeves and get to work! Feel free to add your name to the list on the project page as well. You may also be interested in helping out at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I join? 

message: I hate to waste anyone's time on non-mainstream topics, but I would be much obliged to anyone with a bit of spare time interested in lending a hand to keep things neutral in Bates Method. One editor continually inserts his own interpretation of research into the article rather than accurately portraying what those studies actually state. I've pointed out three times that one study states exactly the opposite of what he thinks it states, but he won't allow it to be changed. Thanks! AED 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bates Method]]

message: On Talk:Gold salts there is now an RFC ongoing on the use of gold salts for autism and whether this information should be a prominent part of the article. Please give your views. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold salts 

message: I have had a go at writing Compliance (medicine) which is both about drug compliance and treatment more generally. In the UK, at least, this became very 'fashionable' to discuss some years ago and the Government (NHS) developed a term 'Concordance'. 'Concordance', aside from confusing most people, was meant to be an approach at engaging patients in their treatment care to jointly decide and agree upon options, and so (hopefully) reduce non-compliance.
I do think the two terms (Compliance and Concordance) so closely deal with the same issues that splitting them into 2 article will just end up duplicating most points.
This is (potentially) a large topic, so I would welcome any comments or contributions.David Ruben  Talk  16:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compliance & Concordance

message: Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date.  This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles.  It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc.  And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list!  --Cyde Weys 05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open tasks list

message: Anyone ever heard of Mesotherapy?  It sounds a bit fishy to me. --Uthbrian (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sound quite dubious.  Andrew73 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good catch. After I removed the copyright violations, there isn't much left of the article now. -AED 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackwatch: [[Mesotherapy]] 

message: A lot of shady epidemiological evidence is being thrown up on this topic by a single editor, an admitted anti-DU activist.  I have no qualms with activism, but wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, and my personal opinion is that this and related wiki articles currently present a bias not supported by the literature, or respected scientific bodies such as the World Health Organization.  
Anyone interested in joining this discussion can do so here:
 
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles
Dr U 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium]] 

message: Contact lens is currently at the top of Wikipedia's Article Improvement Drive list, and stands a good chance of being selected next with a few more votes. I would be appreciative if anyone would like to lend a hand or recommend additions or changes in the talk page. Mille grazie! -AED 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]]: [[Contact lens]]

message: I would like to move the content at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Template onto its own page (something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template for medical conditions). Are there any objections? --Arcadian 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split out the page as described above. I'll try to make sure that for the next month or so that changes there are also discussed here during the transition, but I'd recommend adding that page to your watchlist. Per Sandy's query above: one option might be to include watchful waiting as a potential "treatment" for Tourette syndrome. I also see the heading "Sociological and cultural aspects" there -- it might make sense to add this as an optional heading at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template for medical conditions. --Arcadian 20:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions, Arcadian.  The "sociological and cultural aspects" was a term for lumping together a lot of stuff that may not belong in a medical article.  I'm still fishing around for a better title to that section, and am not convinced of the place for that information in the article anyway, but it's "popular" informaton that is difficult to delete.  It's interesting that you like the title of that section.  When I have time to work on the article again, maybe I can find a way to make that section more workable.  Sandy 21:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving content to own page

message: Hi, the Coombs test (talk) needs some help/guidance/opinions on how the structure of the article should be and how the diagram in the article should look like. The discussion about the diagram also continues on my talk page.
Several points of the article are at discussion, like the general structure, the complexity of the article and how to make it suitable for the non-medical crowd, and how the diagram should look like in order to be comprehendable.
The general goal (IMO) would be to get other people's opinions on the article and make it correct and suitable for a wide audience (like every other Wikipedia article...).
Hope you can help! A. Rad 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I jumped on it and did some major re-ordering, with a medical student/general reader mindset (the lab technique and Coombs reagent bits were moved further down).  I don't think the article is perfect yet... but it's closer. Nephron 11:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Coombs test]] needs some help 

message: I've initiated a peer review on this article. I know it is not a 100% medical article, but it would be great to have some of your expert comments --Colin°Talk 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of people believed to have epilepsy 

message: Anyone wants to turn Boyd Haley into NPOV? JFW | T@lk 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury rising 

message: Might want to watch this with a skeptical eye. AED 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Health controversies]]

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: Hello - I was wondering if anyone associated with this WikiProject cared to take a look at Anti-psychiatry, which currently strikes me as a big pile of unsourced POV. It's not my area, though, so I feel limited in the amount of good I can do there. --Dcfleck 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar to autism epidemic:  hard to know where to start, but a lot of unsubstantiated POV.  I wish I could help, but also feel limited in tackling either of these.  Sandy 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anti-psychiatry]] 

message: Artificial_induction_of_immunity.  David Ruben kindly made a number of suggestions, which I've largely not implemented in order not to have a huge string of Midgley in the edit trail, and he has also kindly improved it considerably.  I'd be grateful for more views and more edits.  It is not intended to be a huge heavy duty artilc  on everything, more a quick (but encyclopedic) overview on one large aspect of preventing disease, and some context on it, leading to a set of existing articles that cover each part in encyclopedic detail.  Midgley 17:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review please 

message: I'm looking for a little reinforcement at relative risk-- something that is at the centre of a debate about passive smoking that's been brewing for a while.  Some guy in the UK (along with a few tobacco lobbyists) thinks we should ignore significant findings (P<0.05) where the RR<2.0 -- ("A relative risk of 1.5 is not acceptable as significant..." ).  Any EBM keeners out there that want to help debunk this? Nephron 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Passive smoking]] and [[relative risk]] 

message: I started a general surgery template (which is pretty messy at the moment/confused) because was based on the gastroenterology template.  In creating the template I realized that the gastroenterology one isn't really about gastroentrology-- it is about diseases, signs and symptoms (ie. nausea and vomiting are NOT diseases) of the GI tract.  Many of the diseases on the gastroenterology template are family medicine things... others are surgical things (e.g. appendicitis).  Where are we going to draw the line?  
I think the gastroenterology template -- in its current form would be better named "Signs, symptoms and disorders of the gastrointestinal tract".
The other question is-- are we going to make templates based on systems?  The gastroenterology template is a systems template... it isn't based on the speciality.  Is there a guideline about these sorts of templates?  
I think we should have two sets of templates-- one on the organ systems... another set for the specialities.  For the speciality templates-- we have to decide how to structure them.  The GS template is a mess at the moment 'cause I couldn't really decide between diseases and surgeries.  For the GS template... it probably makes more sense to have the surgeries listed--what a surgeon does and have in brackets what the surgeries are done for (i.e. large bowel resection (trauma, colon cancer, bowel infarct due to septic emboli, volvulus), appendectomy (appendicitis). 
Any thoughts on this?  
It looks like the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Template_for_medical_conditions will need some revision.  I mention it here-- 'cause the templates are stuck on the main page of the clinical medicine project-- and it doesn't neatly fit into the heading "Template_for_medical_conditions".
Nephron 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speciality templates 

message: There has been, until now, a general consensus on using the WHO International Nonproprietary Name for drugs. The article for cyclosporine probably therefore should be moved to its INN of Ciclosporin, but this is being disputed. David Ruben  Talk  15:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wheel warred about that a while ago. I am in favour of ciclosporin, just as much as I prescribe furosemide instead of frusemide for our basal crackles with puffy legs. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other editors agreed Cyclopsporin was USAN, so moved to INN. David Ruben  Talk  02:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice of drug names

message: Some orthomolecular trolling from . JFW | T@lk 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expect...

message: How can you tell a boy will grow up to be a pathologist?
When his mother asks him something, and he responds: "Ah dunno, ma". JFW | T@lk 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something totally different... 

message: Another anonymous editor in LASIK is pushing his POV by inserting unreferenced assertions and removing others that are referenced. I have a citation reporting that complications are "uncommon" (not rare - even though I have one of those, too), but it keeps getting removed to leave the impression that they are common. If anyone wants to lend a hand, it would be most appreciated. Thanks! -AED 01:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments: [[LASIK]]

message: I've put up an RFC inWikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics regarding Talk:Universal health care: "Dispute concerning what information should be included in the sections describing support for universal health care and opposition to universal health care. Which commonly cited reasons for and against universal health care should be listed?" Although this topic is not directly related to clinical medicine, people who monitor this page generally have an objective take on controversial issues that I thought would helpful to that article. Thanks again! -AED 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments: [[Universal health care]]/[[Talk:Universal health care]]

message: The ophthalmic disorder Keratoconus has been a featured article candidate for a while now, but so far has received comments only from a relatively small number of editors. If anyone, particularly from the wider medical community, has views on how the article can be improved, they would be very welcome at its candidature page. Thanks! --BillC 12:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to BillC's hard work, Keratoconus is a featured article! Please check it out and offer any insight.-AED 08:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments: Keratoconus 

message: I've made some modifications to Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions, and I would appreciate feedback and further modifications. (Once the page has stabilized, I'd like to get another round of feedback at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but I'd rather have the first pass come from this community.) --Arcadian 19:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the offending phrase (and also fixed the spelling error.) --Arcadian 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is incorrect. Although they may be used for billing, the ICD codes are used for what they say: International Classification of Disease. This is helpful if people in different parts of the world want to be sure that they are talking about the  same thing. It is also immensely useful for audit and epidemiology.Jellytussle 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your mileage may differ. They are codifications made for statistical work - and mostly used for billing - and "using the same code" for a thing is no substitute for actually talking about the same thing. - Nunh-huh 22:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (For the benefit of others monitoring the thread, more details are available at International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. I believe Jellytussle's position is more well supported than Nunh-huh's, but IANAD.) --Arcadian 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IYWAD, you'd have realized that ICD-9 codes have no particular impact on, and no discerible benefit for, clinical patient care. The codes are usually provided by coders who have never seen that patient and possess only a rudimentary understanding of clinical medicine. Their use even as statistical data is problematic, and tolerable only because it has so little effect on anything. - Nunh-huh 23:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for medical conditions

message: FYI: Autism epidemic is on AFD -AED 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Autism (incidence) is what is left if you take the unverified and POV out of Autism epidemic and then add a few minor bits, like a definition.  SO if epidemic goes away, or if the proactive merge is retroactively decided upon, no information will be lost.  You might find the rfa worth looking at though. Midgley 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autism epidemic

message: I have started a discussion about the more precise anatomical definition of a hymen, and it would be very nice to get input from people with more knowledge on this issue like med students or perhaps even doctors or experts in anatomy. The discussion can be found here.
Peter Isotalo 12:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hymen]] defintion 

message: Any objections if I add Medical Subject Headings as an optional field to Template:Infobox Disease? --Arcadian 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this field. --Arcadian 14:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical Subject Headings

message: Done a big rewrite.  Now too big!  Help! --Gak 18:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: [[Tuberculosis treatment]]

message: Hello, all. This is just Wikipedia Quackwatch Part Deux, really; but I'm instead plonking it here in a barefaced attempt to get it read by more of you. My knowledge of medicine is minimal but I think that (because I don't smoke?) my nose is fairly sensitive to the aroma of spam. And I sense this aroma a lot of the time in Carpal tunnel syndrome, Repetitive strain injury, Soft tissue therapy, etc. (No, I haven't dared look at anything related to weight reduction.) Commonly, a clinic or an MD is cited has having shown or achieved this or that; even if the claim is true, there are of course clinics and clinics, and MDs and MDs. Mainstream medical opinion may err at times but I trust it very much more than I trust some single glib self-described MD whose company website is set up to take credit card orders.
One cynical view is that the core of WP is really just a congeries of fancruft: it's a good place to find out about Star Wars minutiae, but no sane person would use it as any kind of medical reference. Cynical or otherwise, that seems not to be true: Carpal tunnel syndrome is linked from this Houston Chronicle page. Even though this Chronicle page right now doubles as an advert for McDonald's junk food, some people might take it seriously.
What we need is some good sense from experts. Thank you! -- Hoary 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carpal tunnel syndrome is real, but its relationship to "repetitive strain injury" is what is controversial. --Gak 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to think the revert wars have some use--i.e. you actually learn things along the way.  If you take BS some guy is trying to ram down your throat and out-smart 'em by explaining it better-- (so they understand) everybody wins.  Beyond that... I think peer-review will eventually come --see Wikipedia:Scientific_peer_review. Nephron  T|C 04:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Roger, what you can do to help is . . . well, what you're already doing to help. (Many thanks!) But right now there's just one of you, without commercial motivation, versus several users who do seem to have commercial motivation. I hope that you can get more support here (while realizing that other medically qualified contributors to WP may already have their hands full keeping snake-oil-sellers out of articles on diet, sex, and all those other mass obsessions that fill the incoming "Trash" folder of my email account). -- Hoary 07:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Carpal tunnel syndrome]], etc.

message: {I originally posted this elsewhere in the Project}
I noticed when adding in information for some articles (serous membrane) a reference to the embryological origin of these stuctures would be useful. Adding these in I noticed many of my Wikilinks went nowhere, terms like trilaminar embryo didn't exist on Wikipedia! I poddled along and created a stub for this particular entry (which I believe should be merged with a larger article) but I see a greater need for a general overview of human embryogenesis. Those interested should look over at the discussion page Talk:Human_embryogenesis -- Serephine / talk - 10:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embryology - What is to be done about it? 

message: User Mihai cartoaje added some text regarding the use of magnesium and vitamin B6 to the Epilepsy article. I removed it to the talk page as I regarded it as irrelavant to this article and also non-notable research. I also added a comment on Mihai's talk page. Mihai disagreed, requested another opinion, and after 24 hours with no response restored the text. I too would be grateful for other opinions. Please post your replies on the Talk:Epilepsy page. Regards, Colin°Talk 10:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I decided to leave a message on Mihai cartoaje's talk page. Nephron  T|C 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Epilepsy]] and the use of magnesium and vitamin B6 

message: When formatting the first line of an article, do you guys have a preference for any of the following:
#*Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*Dr. John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*Dr. John Smith is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*Dr. John Smith is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*John Smith, M.D. is a physician from Anytown, USA.
#*John Smith is a physician from Anytown, USA.
Other thoughts? Thanks! -AED 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of leaving out both the Dr. and the M.D.  Otherwise the article looks like something about a dubious product or practice that's trying to pad on the credentials.  Andrew73 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting question.  Let's see...Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles is pretty clear that "Dr." should not be used.  It's not as clear about the degree, but from the examples given I'd say it's leaning on the side of against.  (But then, there's also some fairly recent and inconclusive discussion on the corresponding talk page...)  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for leaving anything but the name out. If it's important that he/she is/was a doctor, then it should be mentioned in the text InvictaHOG 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. MD as a primary medical degree is a N. American thing. In other parts of the world, MD is a purely postgraduate qualification. In addition, in the UK, for eaxmple, surgeons are referred to as Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Ms, ie anything but Dr. Avoid confusion and leave out all but the name.Jellytussle 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The combination of Dr and M.D. is hyper-American and is also, as Andrew rightly says, indicative of advertising dubious stuff. I wouldn't object to "Dr John Smith is a physician from [...]; he obtained his M.D. in 1946 at Johns Hopkins [...]". In the public debate many people are known by their titles (but I would avoid boldfacing the title). JFW | T@lk 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dr." and professional degree

message: The article on Michael Woodruff, a pioneer in organ transplantation is undergoing a peer review.  To encourage participation, I've made requests on several talk pages for people to participate.  So, I'd like to encourage everyone here to participate at Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Woodruff/archive1.  Thanks very much! Cool3 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Michael Woodruff]]

message: I have optimistically launched Wikipedia:Wikiproject National Health Service - interested? - know anyone else who might be? - do please visit and comment/contribute if you wish  --Smerus 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NHS project

message: Can someone with a bit more time and energy than me have a critical look at Cancer immunotherapy. The page has great potential, but is rather off course with respect to the mode of action of current biologicals. See my comments in the discussion. Thanks. Jellytussle 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer immunotherapy 

message: Last week's MCOTW is currently on peer review. Head on over and let us know what you think! InvictaHOG 04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cystic fibrosis

message: I just wrote my first stub, Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome.  Don't worry, I'm not about to nominate this for MCOTW, but I was hoping a few people could look it over just so I get some feedback to keep in mind for next time.  Thanks!  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of my favourite eponyms!  I'll peek at it.  Thanks for making the article!  -- Samir  धर्म 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Impressive turnaround time, folks.  Half a day goes by, and I've gotten copy-editing, content addition, complete redo of reference format (I didn't even know you could do that!), and confidence-boosting comments.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome feedback request 

message: Hi, I posted some remarks here, because I would like some feedback before making major changes. Please comment.
--Steven Fruitsmaak 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories 

message: Would really appreciate some support on this. There are a lot of us about who edit these articles, and we could do with some clear organisation and focus. See User:John24601/Wikiprojectfirstaid for more details!!! Thanks --John24601 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wikiproject on First Aid 

message: Is there any consensus on what to do if there is an article regarding an instrument and an article detailing the use of that instrument? For example, Tonometer and Tonometry. Should both articles exist or should one redirect to the other? -AED 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with Proctoscopy and Proctoscope. --Steven Fruitsmaak 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My vote would also be to combine them. Does anyone have any preference for which direction the redirect takes place? For example, Endoscope redirects to Endoscopy, but Ophthalmoscopy redirects to Ophthalmoscope. I don't know if consistency in this really matters to anyone, but I thought I would check. -AED 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The tool is part of the science, but the science isn't part of the tool - so I'd vote for science as the main and tools as redirects. Leevanjackson 10:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might the tool article contain detail of the history - the early petrol-driven ophthalmoscopes for instance - whereas the science of using it would probably focus on the current use of the current devices? Midgley 11:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Petrol-driven ophthalmoscopes? Really? Now I am imagining the even more primitive wood-burning ones! alteripse 11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, one article with a redirect from the tool to the science. --Steven Fruitsmaak 12:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I throw the cat amongst the canaries and note that Tonometry (both applanation and indentation) is used to assess capsular fibrosis and capsular contracture of reconstructed breasts by both aesthetic surgeons and oncological surgeons/radiation oncologists? There is no mention of this in the article as it stands.Jellytussle 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Pringle. JFW | T@lk 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's that time of the month again

message: Hi. I´ve been contributing on a small scale for some time now, mainly on topic related to surgery. I'd love some feedback on colectomy. Just expanded from a stub, and I think there's still quite a bit of work to do. However, I fear it's getting too technical. Any input is appreciated.
I´d also like feedback on my other contributions (all of the pertaining to surgery) - please visit my user page. --Iglesias 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources & images please. JFW | T@lk 06:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent article idea.  Refs would be great -- Samir   धर्म 07:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback request: Colectomy 

message: May I direct the attention of anyone who is up to this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucoid_plaque Midgley 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  health scam editing - reversion  

message: As of 24th May the Quackery category has been nominated for deltion - I think it would be useful to keep as a sub-category of Pseudoscience. See 
Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24 David Ruben  Talk  03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quackery Category up for deletion

message: Is anyone interested in forming a project to work systematically on Public Health articles?  This category gets no love and it needs it--there is so much bad public health information on the web! Museumfreak 01:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Health Category: Request for Help

message: I nominated Portal:Medicine for featured portal, don't know if many of you use it, check it out, your opinion is welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Medicine 

message: I have asked for the malignant melanoma article to be renamed simply melanoma reflecting currnet usage and the absence of a benign melanoma.  A poll in underway.  Any votes for or against on the melanoma talk page please. ps any other Plastic Surgeons out there? Will TALK 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no plastic surgeons. They're too busy. We have a few surgeons, but they contribute intermittently. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move malignant melanoma

message: In the Crohn's disease article, I just noticed that a lot of text was copied from Mayoclinic.com.  The edits replacing original content with Mayoclinic's text can be seen at .  I'm not sure if it should just be reverted to avoid copyright violation.  --Uthbrian (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it does seem to be a blatant copyvio of the Mayo Clinic page. I think reversion with explanation seems justified. -Techelf 08:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with reversion.  I'll work on the article shortly... -- Samir   धर्म 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Crohn's disease]] got [[FUBAR]]'ed 

message: Should Seeing with your ears be merged with Human echolocation or Visual prosthetic or both? -AED 17:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments: [[Talk:Seeing with your ears]]

message: And you're invited to help out.  Please check out WikiProject Gastroenterology when you get a chance.  Cheers -- Samir   धर्म 08:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Endo Unit is now open!

message: There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Desoxyn about whether or not Desoxyn should be merged with methamphetamine.  I argue that they should be merged, following convention in Wikipedia where brand names redirect to the generic names.  Others (or mainly one editor) differs.  Thoughts out there?  Andrew73 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desoxyn 

message: Thought some of you might be interested in this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diet of Worms (Medicine). -AED 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for deletion

message: I would like to encourage other physcian wikipedians to review the swamp that the article on breast implants has become. It's devolved into the personal crusade by one editor jglaw to make the entry into a partisan treatise on why breast implants are evil & how the medical establishment can't be trusted to study the issue. For those unfamiliar with the systemic reviews of this see this summary for a starting point, . As web-based sources like wikipedia become more common as a tool for reference, we have a duty to take some editorial control over medical areas to strive for evidenced based medical information being presented. I don't like the tension that is developing with this other editor (who is both bright & energetic, but hostile to the mainstream views) & ideally more people familiar with interpreting the medical literature would contribute to diffuse this log-jam.Droliver 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot stop wondering if jglaw is a compensation lawyer attempting to maximise negative exposure of breast implants. To speak with my old friend Ombudsman: behind every POV debate is a conflict of interest. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Declared to be a lawyer - doctor of jurisprudence user box and other comments.  However the interest seems to be personal, in that she made the mistake of seeking and getting breast implants and now resents this happening.  I'll not link, but it was all on WP.  I do observe Ombudsman with some fascination, the two are not similar, Ombudsman applying his considerable energies to a wide variety of causes and articles.  I'm unsure if other areas than medicine observe that editors whose range only includes one single topic are not the most encyclopaedic contributors?  I feel there is scope for an essay somewhere in the WP space on the difference between being knowledgeable and writing of a topic, and bending WP to the serives of an all-consuming passion.   I suggest meanwhile that jglaw is due for an RFC, based on past and present behaviour, but I seem to be involved in enough RFcs and other aspects that I'm not the best person to initiate it, if indeed it is needed.  Midgley 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are pretty quick to judge something you know absolutely nothing about.  I haven't gone out with a blaze of fire and blocks, and I won't.  Good luck to you, though, if this is the way you collaborate - by talking about people behind their backs.  What a group of harpies here.,MollyBloom 05:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion took place almost a month ago. Contrary to yourself, I have worked extensively with single-issue editors who have felt the need to defend a viewpoint not particularily well accepted by many other editors. I'm pleased that you seem not to fit in that category. If you don't like people talking behind your back you might as well stop contributing to Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is unfortunate that there are those who devote an entire page to bashing other editors.  I am still farily new to Wikipedia, and I also work, so I edit when I can.  And no, I am not a single-issue editor, although I have dealt with one.  It is frustrating.jgwlaw 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's that page devoted to bashing other editors? I'd love to see it. JFW | T@lk 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen a lot of gossiping and bashing here.  In contrast, other project pages don't do this.  But as you said, this was almost a month old. jgwlaw 20:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Midgley is agreeing that Ombudsman contributes to a wide variety of of causes and articles and we'd all agree that he/she writes well and adds a lot of great content. I do worry about jglaw - her attachment to the AfD on Maxwell is pretty fierce. Just the act of my voting prompted multiple replies both on the AfD and on my talk page! InvictaHOG 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Invicta, you would be better served if you would worry less about me, and more about your own interests.MollyBloom 05:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ombudsman is indeed exceptional.  The effort he applies could be far more effective, and I suspect that the effort he soaks up could also be.  The ArbCom ruling may make a difference, but there is as yet no sign at all of him noticing it.  (Except as more persecution).  jglaw is branching out a little, which can be nothing but good - there is some expertise there that will be an asset to Asbestos/is.    Midgley 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Midgely, it was never an accurate statement to say I am a 'single-issue' editor.  I am still fairly new to Wikipedia.  THe BI article was what I began editing.  Of course I would have more edits on this.  I have only been editing Wikipedia for a couple of months.  I have since branched out to asbestos, asbestos and the law, politics, other legal issues, etc.  IT does take time to get one's feet wet.  The BI article was most interesting to me, because it initially read like an advertisement for BI.  I have read other articles by the same author that are equally poorly written and refernced.  If a doctor wants to be treated as a professional and expert, he needs to act and write like one.  The BI article is of interest, because there still is genuine scientific controversy about their safety, particularly with rupture.  The edits I added were referenced and properly written,  An epidemiologist and expert on breast implants also contributed, and was demonized by the same pro-implant doctor.  I am not going to belabor this, but suffice to say that MDs also have agendas that are not necessarily 'scientific'.
Also, if you read my bio, in addition to law, I have degrees in math and science.  I am hardly ignorant,  and I understand more than some would like to admit, it seems.MollyBloom 05:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breast implant article

message: ...I've noticed that User:MonheitLaw has been ambulance-chasing. It would be great if someone could check his creations of Biomedical tissue and Aprotinin to make sure that they meet Wiki's NPOV and verifiability policies. -AED 00:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I've made it a bit better (aprotinin, that is). JFW | T@lk 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks much better now. Good work! -AED 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a confusing sentence.  Perhaps, JFW, you could rewrite to be a bit more comprehensible?
" Anaphylaxis occurs at a rate of 1:200 in first-time use, but serology (antibodies against aprotinin) is not advocated to prevent anaphylaxis on reexposure due to metholodological problems[2]."
From this sentence, it appears that the writer means that serology is an antibody, and that it is not advocated to prevent anaphylaxis (although I don't think that is what you mean)... Wikipedia should be written for the general population, not medical professionals.   Even if the audience were medical professionals, the sentence is still awkward.jgwlaw 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about you put this on Talk:Aprotinin, where it belongs? JFW | T@lk 14:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was discussed here, it seems logical that it be added here.  In fact, that seems to be the norm on topics discussed here.  Not sure why this is different.  Also, since you evidently wrote this, it makes sense to place it where you will see it. But, since you asked, I did add it on the talk page.  Hopefully someone will rewrite it.  If not, it will remain as it is - which is badly written and not readable. jgwlaw 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...speaking of lawyers

message: Does :Category:Ophthalmologic inflammations warrant keeping per Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines? It seems a bit specific to me. Thoughts? -AED 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is silly. Just because it's an -itis and occurs in the eye does not make it useful category material. Dacryoadenitis and uveitis are utterly unrelated conditions and treated in an almost diametrically opposite way! JFW | T@lk 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Midgley 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category for deletion?

message: I'd appreciate comments -- particularly if anyone is experienced with foreign body removal using the foley catheter trick, which I didn't add to this article!  I've only done it once -- Samir   धर्म 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That trick is described on http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic379.htm along with other methods to remove ingested foreign bodies. I think it would be better to create a ingested foreign body article (like that emedicine page) that describes all the methods used to remove it, not only endoscopic. I think this is a little bit too specific to devote a whole article to it. --WS 12:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Endoscopic foreign body retrieval]]

message: Cystic fibrosis, previously a medicine collaboration of the week is now a featured article candidate! --WS 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cystic fibrosis FAC

message: If anyone is interested, it has been suggested that Diet and Heart Disease be merged with Coronary heart disease. (See Talk:Diet and Heart Disease). -AED 06:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: New User:Anon%21 added Milk fetishism to a number of articles on drugs or herbal products used to induce lactation for this fetishism. I initially revert the addition of this link on Metoclopramide as being nonsense, and this has be re-inserted. To be fair (WP:AGF) metoclopramide may well be so used, but it is clearly off-label use - which normally is a term used for drugs being prescribed by a doctor for other uses than that licensed, rather than illegally obtaining prescription drugs without a prescription for alternative uses. I am sure many drugs are off-label used by patients obtaining through on-line pharmacies without prescription/medical advice, but does this mean all such (mis-)uses need be included as significant 'See also' links in articles on wikipedia ?  Remember whilst significant minority viewpoints must be included under WP:NPOV, trivial minority views do not. 
Please also see the discussion added to Milk fetishism advising what doses of Metoclopramide to take (here) which I edited down to this.
I generally try and adhere to WP:1RR, so I should welcome some input from others on all of this at Talk:Metoclopramide. David Ruben  Talk  23:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metoclopramide & Milk fetishism

message: I've created a project to coordinate the edits of the nephrology articles.  With a million patients on dialysis worldwide --and the numbers increasing, but awareness among the public low the Wikipedia dialysis centre has its work cut-out.  
You're welcome to browse through the pages of the project (WikiProject Nephrology) and join, if you have an interest in the marvelous organs that (to shamelessly alter a quote from Isak Dinesen) turn, with infinite artfulness, red wine of Shiraz into urine. Nephron  T|C 05:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcing the Grand Opening of the Wikipedia Dialysis Centre... 

message: Hello, I have created the article Transfusion-associated graft versus host disease. My first language is not English, though, so I would appreciate if someone checked my spelling / grammar etc. as there might be some issues. Thx ackoz  15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a copyediting. It's a nice article, good job! It's always better, however, to cite the references for individual statements, such as several of the numeric assertions that are in the article. If you need help with the cite.php template, just let someone know! InvictaHOG 20:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work.  I made a few small changes, more along the lines of polishing than any actual spelling/grammar stuff.  I agree that more fine-grained citation would be useful.  (And if you're looking for a new project, the main GvHD article could use a little refocusing, I think.)  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Spelling/Grammar Check 

message: I just noticed that there are two separate articles, Transposition of the great arteries and Transposition of the great arteries, nearly identical but not a redirect.  Oh, and one of the talk pages redirects to the other...  I can't quite piece together what sequence of events led to the current state, and I am definitely not comfortable trying to resolve this myself.  Can someone with more Wikipedia experience take a stab at this?  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 01:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that you are talking about transposition of the great vessels and transposition of the great arteries because the two that you linked to are the same to my eye! I'll look at merging arteries with vessels - InvictaHOG 01:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, complete copy/paste error there.  Indeed, I meant the TGV and TGA articles.  And thanks!  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia guru help request 

message: Should Photoreceptor cell merge into Photoreceptor, should Photoreceptor merge into Photoreceptor cell, or neither? Comments welcome at Talk:Photoreceptor cell. Thanks! -AED 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on merge

message: Hi everybody, I just created Self-experimentation in medicine. I was hoping people here can provide some more examples and maybe someone can write a paragraph on the ethical aspects. --WS 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea for an article! -- Samir   धर्म 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm intrigued, but you already covered all of the examples I can think of off the top of my head.  (Incidentally, the article is a little jargon-y at the moment, you might try harder to aim at a general audience.)  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, there is still lots of room for improvement, I just made a start. --WS 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-experimentation in medicine

message: Any ENT specialists out there?  I think nasal irrigation needs an overhaul.  It looks like Jala neti, with an alternative medicine bent, dups a lot of the material. Any thoughts on a merge? Nephron  T|C 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jala neti]] and [[Nasal irrigation]] 

message: Could someone who is feeling energetic take a critical look at The following: William Coley, Coley's Toxins, C-Vax ?
The first two pertain to a historical 19th century cancer treatment. I am concerned however that this is alt.med getting in by the back door. This can be appreciated when one looks at the tone of the first two pieces. As history they are very badly written, as science even more so. They link to some very dubious sites. Coley is legitimately mentioned in the history section of Cancer and probably deserves his own biography page, but what is currently in place is inappropriate, POV, and of a low standard.
Please see my comments in the discussion section of William Coley.
Jellytussle 05:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William Coley]], [[Coley's Toxins]], [[C-Vax]] 

message: This article has been filled with orthomolecular crap recently. I am unable to trace and fix it alone. Someone should propose a policy that would prevent the minority pseudoscientific to be pushed into articles.
ackoz  08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the same for natural desiccated thyroid hormones. JFW | T@lk 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised. alteripse 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have listed a RfArb with those two editors for violating the WP:NPOV by making a minority view to be the mainstay of the articles. I don't think the ArbCom will accept it, though. Anybody knows about some sources that would demonstrate that CAM methods and Orthomolecular medicine in particular are a minority view among the experts?  ackoz  18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might we find accounts from the companies making and selling the remedies as an indication of their relative use?  Midgley 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Niacin]] 

message: Again, I am here to ask someone who could check my English spelling/grammar. I also used a Czech source this time, and switching between two languages is confusing, so I think my English will be even more distorted in this one. ackoz  18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abdominal_aortic_aneurysm]] 

message: I've watched this happen in Heterochromia, now I'm watching it happen in Eyebrow. Someone mentions a celebrity with such-and-such a condition, then a list of celebrities with the condition develops, then fictional characters with the condition are added! Soon, the sections regarding who-has-what are the largest parts of the article. Are there any policies or guidelines about this, or suggestions for what can (or should) be done? -AED 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some user "Added Hernias in Pop Culture section, which will surely become the apogee of Wikipedia knowledge". I personally think there is some truth to this... you can't find such information in a classic encyclopedia, but it might be interesting. I've had times when I was looking for famous patients of this or that disease. --Steven Fruitsmaak 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, that's impressive.  What if you Be Bold and move the lists onto a /Subpage?  That would perhaps satisfy everyone...  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Usually when there are a lot, I create a list page and just link it. InvictaHOG 10:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think that requiring references would be a viable way to slow this trend.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like JFW's idea of using this Project to devise a policy. I've tried the  tag in some places with little success. Perhaps we could devise a policy and make a new tag to go specifically at the top of those lists that would give contributors a certain amount of time to comply with providing a citation, etc. -AED 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think this should be broader than this project?  I have seen a number of non-medical articles that make claims and statements without any citation.  It would seem more appropriate to discuss a policy like this on a general Wiki forum.MollyBloom 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous people with...

message: After desperately looking for guidance about this subject and not finding any, except a little about sections, I created this page: Writing medical articles . I haven't linked it from anywhere, thought maybe it could find a place in WP:medicine, or elsewhere? I would appreciate comments on it, please expand with your own experience, and tell me what to do with it! --Steven Fruitsmaak 15:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is beautiful Steven. I like the level-headed advice on lists of cruft and disclaimers, things that have been bugging medical articles for the last 2 years at least. I think we should make that page live and use it as much as possible. Specifically, we should stick to the layout: (1) what symptoms characterise the condition, (2) how is it diagnosed, (3) what causes it and how does it develop, (4) how is it treated, (5) what are its epidemiological and prognostic characteristics, (6) what are its social, political etc consequences (7) references, links. I have tried to enforce this system on as many pages as possible. JFW | T@lk 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing medical articles 

message: I've created Template:WPCM member . Is it correct that it didn't exist yet? I didn't create a category for "wikipedians member of WPCM", if someone thinks it is necessary I will.
--Steven Fruitsmaak 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! JFW | T@lk 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:WPCM member 

message: I notice with extreme delight that John Whale's website is now spamblacklisted (vaccination. org. uk). JFW | T@lk 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: W00t! I took a look at that site-- it is filled with half-truths and distortions.  Only the ill-informed and misguided would use it as a reference. Nephron  T|C 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: au contraire, it is useful to the malign.  Midgley 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whaleto

message: Information about this recent pharmaceutical upstart has been spammed throughout a massive amount of drugs articles. I suspect this may not be justified. Could someone have a look? JFW | T@lk 08:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giaconda

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tobinick. JFW | T@lk 11:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one could really use some review by the physicians and medical students around here. Please take a peek. -AED 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Tobinick 

message: There's a complete mess of articles on abnormal lipids: Hyperlipoproteinemia, Dyslipidemia, Hyperlipidemia, Hypertriglyceridemia, Hypercholesterolemia... I'm thinking of merging the whole lot into one article on blood fats, with subarticles on specific subforms (broad beta disease, hyperchylomicronemia, familial hypertriglyceridemia). What is the preferred page title for the "general" lipid disorders article? I'm personally a proponent of hyperlipidemia as the main title, which catches all. JFW | T@lk 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I got your back. alteripse 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup. ackoz  21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyperlipidemia as a main title seems most appropriate.  Definitely agree with the need for restructuring -- Samir   धर्म 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dyslipidemia" is not necessarily hyperlipidemia. Hypocholesterolemia, hypobetalipoproteinemia, and abetalipoproteinemia are dyslipidemias but not hyperlipidemias. --Arcadian 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Here is a proposed hierarchy
*Disorders of lipid metabolism (better title than dyslipidemia, which can be mentioned in first line as medical term) brief overview, including Hyperlipidemia as a subset
**Hyperlipidemia, also an overview, but this can have most of the cardiovascular risk information, which overlaps so much for the individual disorders
***Each individual form of hyperlipidemia can have its own brief article with description of distinctive aspects
alteripse 10:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've split back out dyslipidaemia, per the above, but of course further review/edits are welcome. But should we really equate "dyslipidaemia" and "disorders of lipid metabolism"? In the short term, wouldn't diet affect the former but not the latter? I won't object if it is moved, though. --Arcadian 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat 

message: PetrosinoDiberri put together a little javascript program to automagically generated PubMed references (among other things-- DrugBank, Proteins etc.) in the desired form.
The script can be found here: 
:http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ 
I've activated it "manually".  It is a neat little script. Try it out.
Apparently,  there is another way to activate it...
:javascript:(function(){var url = location.href;var pmid = url.match(/list_uids\=(\d+)/);if( pmid ) w=open('http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/cite/?type=pmid&id=' + pmid[1],'add','width=800,height=300,scrollbars,resizable');})();
I haven't quite figured that one out... but may it will work for you. Nephron  T|C 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Details of how to make a bookmarklet that activates the javascript tool are given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions#References * David Ruben  Talk  14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the notes in bookmarklet--the sequence is different for different browsers. Looks like the refs section has to be up-dated to be made browser-nondiscriminatory... Nephron  T|C 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The directions indicate the provided method works in IE. I can also confirm it works in Firefox, after testing just now. --David Iberri (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PubMed]] citations - javascript 

message: Is there a rule about specialities and diseases?
I've noticed that Category:Neurology -- is very sparse... and most of the neurological diseases are in Category:Neurological disorders.  
This is unlike gastroenterology and nephrology-- where the diseases are listed in the categories -- Category:Gastroenterology for GI and Category:Nephrology for Nephro.
Any thoughts on this?  
I think the neurological disorders category should be merged into the neurology category and that the rule should be established that the diseases should bear the category of the speciality (e.g. Crohn's disease is in Category:Gastroenterology --NOT in a category called Category:GI disorders or Category:Gastrointestinal disorders). Nephron  T|C 04:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have personally always listed diseases under their specialty and not their organ system, but for neurology there have typically been separate categories. I suspect a merge may be in order. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A speciality ([[neurology]]) and its diseases 

message: Hi folks
I'm new here, and am still finding my way around.  At the top of the page, it says request for peer reviews should be placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine/Collaboration  which I have duly done; but looking at the history, edits appear to be made about once a month on that page and I've noticed several recent requests for reviews on this page.  Has the policy changed, is the collaboration page still functional, and where should I be putting review requests?
Cheers
Iain Joncomelately 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us watch all of the pages anyway, so put them wherever you feel most welcome! InvictaHOG 01:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct page? 

message: Please watch amygdala. It might not need to be peer reviewed now, but soon... 
Thank you. Koalabyte 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please watch

message: I came across the suggestion on metawiki for a Medical dictionary wiki. I suspect wikidictionary is adequate for any deifinition of terms and conditions best left as wikipedia articles. A "how-to-guide" of actually treating people seems inappropriate to me - its a fork of infomation, who has time to edit twice the number of articles, how are they to verify the credentials of editors, even some acredited doctors have non-mainstream views (who will act as judge). Hmmm highly problematic, let alone legal implications. David Ruben  Talk  17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering why medical doctors feel that medical articles can only be edited by their own profession?  Wikipedia is, by definition, open source.  Should we have only lawyers editing articles about law?  Or only mathematicians editing about math?  Or ...etc.  If that is going to be the case, then Wikiipedia will no longer be open source.  Maybe that is where Wikipedia will evolve. jgwlaw 03:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about, Jgwlaw? I am wondering how you arrived at this conclusion. Please don't make deliberately inflammatory statements. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jggwlaw - you misunderstand twice over - firstly I made/intended no suggestion that non-medics could not edit medical articles in wikipedia (indeed anyone may join in with this project, or sign themselves as a participant) - secondly the proposal in question is to create an entirely new body of work quite distinct & separate from wikitionary and wikipedia. It was the need for an additional block of information that I am unconvinced by (or at the very least a lower-level school/undergraduate work might be included in wikibooks). Also you will note (if you look at the discussion page for it) that it was the proposal itself that suggests that only medics could contribute to it. Suggestions/votes against the proposal should be posted to its project page (Medical dictionary wiki) not here in "friendly co-operative" wikipedia - I only added the item to this page to flag the possible new duplicating item of the Wikimedia  foundation :-) David Ruben  Talk  18:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical Dictionary Wiki proposal

message: I've discovered family trees.  They are sort of neat for working through compliated DDxs.
Here is one I created for neonatal jaundice:
I think we ought to make use of 'em more often.  If any one wants one crafted... let me know.  
An example is  here.  I created a bunch  here.  I think one for anemia would be a good thing... and it would be interesting to make a family tree that shows schematically the vascular branching.
Nephron  T|C 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's pretty cool! And it's a pretty ingenious way of making family trees in the first place. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Family tree]]s & breaking down a DDx 

message: I haven't been able to really edit Wikipedia in quite some time, but I'm going to try to make an effort to contribute more now. I just wrote Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies. If anyone has time, pop over to see if there's anything to correct or reword. Also, I tried to make sure laypeople could easily understand it, but if that can be improved, please feel free to change it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a great start. I categorized it (Immnology); but cant' fix the table. The right side border is not closed for me. NCurse work 11:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I thought it was pretty cool, too, which is why I wanted to write an article on it. There probably isn't really any more to be said, though. Guess I won't be nominating it for MCOTW then! (though I may submit it to DYK). — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't submit it, I've already done it. :) Talk:Nomenclature_of_monoclonal_antibodies and Portal:Medicine/Did_you_know... NCurse work 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input requested at [[Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies]] 

message: seems to think half the world must have porphyria. I've had to revert almost all these editor's contributions, as they were far-fetched and unsourced. Does everyone agree? There may some useful information that I've scrubbed accidentally. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rare condition with large range of symptoms - so yes I suspect many articles might contain information about porphyria, but that does not make this the primary condition to be considered (atrial myxoma is not the commonest cause of atrial fibrillation). Articles need balance, as well as good citations for information most doctors would struggle to be able to immediately verify. David Ruben  Talk  22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did well. And Davidruben +1... NCurse work 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porphyria