Talk:Maggot therapy

message: Issue: Article introduction states that sources say "... new literature has questioned that belief" (cites 2009 bmj study "responses" tab) and "non-selectivity of maggot action as wound surface increased over treatment" (cites 2011 archderm study.)
I examined these sources and did not find such statements. The 2009 study "response" mentioning this is not a scholarly article, just an "electronic letter" responding to the study. The letter, which does not seem to exist as a standalone publication, has 35+ citations but the living tissue cites are German or not applicable. My search for studies mentioning living tissue attacks by necrosis-eating maggots has been inconclusive. 
The 2011 study found that wound surface increased at one stage, but does not state what this increase implies, nor identify it as an attack on living tissue.
There may or may not be an issue of necrosis-eating maggots also attacking living tissue, but these citations do not specify this? (it's also mentioned in another wiki article, regarding the secondary screwfly C. macellaria, but with no citation.)
I cbf to search all the other references for this possibility. Leaving "as is" for now, but hopefully someone will either find a source or delete these statements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrpickaxe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated(?) claim of some attacking living tissue 

message: The debridement section makes little sense; the first line claims there is no medical benefit from debrideing a wound, with or without maggots. This is simply untrue, as debridement of wounds resulting from burns and some reactions to venom is an important and necessary treatment for these conditions. Excising a tumor or removing necrotic, gangrene tissue without amputation is also embridement, and is required to prevent metastization, death, or serious injury. Perhaps whoever created that section misunderstood the article they were referencing, but I cannot decode the meaning as the references are broken links. As I almost never edit Wikipedia, I'm not comfortable editing the article myself, I just felt I should point that out. 2601:9:5D80:962:C474:6039:6E66:A989 (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So I made the edit. It bothered me. "Debridement of wounds with maggots or other means has no medical benefit." Please. I would have liked to see the references but they were not able to be referenced. 2601:9:5D80:962:892D:C63F:F8E3:70FE (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So I looked into the history of this page. It would seem that someone seriously vandalized the page and no one noticed. Awful English, and seemed to have it out for maggot therapy. In fact, there is a lot of information he removed that I don't think has made it back in the article, but I don't care enough to deal with the broken English and work it back in. Not sure how to reference it, but the edit was at 14:25, on 11 March 2012‎ by Madendoktor. 2601:9:5D80:962:892D:C63F:F8E3:70FE (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debridement section 

message: This article needs to use high quality sources per WP:MEDRS. Have tried to update it using some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary sources

message: I've removed a copyright violation that's been in the article since 23 May 2006.  The material was copied from here (a link to a February 2006 archive of the bter foundation site).  While the material has changed slightly over time, most of it is still word-for-word. Kuru (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio removed 

message: The following is unsourced so I moved it here:
In February 2004, the British National Health Service (NHS) permitted its doctors to prescribe maggot therapy. In the European Union, Canada and Japan, maggots are classified as medicinal drugs, needing a full market licence. In the U.S., maggots for medicinal use are classified as a device.
-Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  regulation - unsourced 

message: A search of Google Books yielded the following:
https://books.google.com/books?id=WTW-oTQhdj0C&pg=PA105&dq=bataan+death+march+maggots&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxrc_nke_UAhWJXRQKHd5IAzwQ6AEIUDAH#v=onepage&q=bataan%20death%20march%20maggots&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=plQ9Nr76gUYC&pg=PA7908&dq=bataan+death+march+maggots&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid9en6ke_UAhVCyRQKHdN3CWk4ChDoAQghMAA#v=onepage&q=bataan%20death%20march%20maggots&f=false
Apparently, these document use by laymen, not medical personnel. McortNGHH (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: well, the congressional record ref records some rep saying that a doctor testified that he used maggot therapy. i will add something using these. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use during Bataan Death March Comment