Talk:Wiley protocol/Archive 1

message: This description of the Wiley Protocol is completely wrong on almost every point, describes nothing and serves only as a lead in to another of Debv's "Controvery" sections. Wouldn't it make sense to actually provide some information about it? I'm deleting errors, and I'll replace with corrections shortly.
Neil Raden 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did no such thing.  Please explore the history and contribs function.  And you've been asked repeatedly to read and abide by Talk page guidelines.  Please do so. Debv 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that you consider it misleading is not a justification for removing sourced content. Debv 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's misleading, then it should be rewritten so that it is no longer misleading.QuizzicalBee 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering that it's almost a direct quote from the report, there's nothing misleading about the wording.  Nraden seems to be disputing the report itself.  But the fact remains that these concerns were raised at the conference, the authors considered them worthy of inclusion, and the report was published in the referenced journal. Debv 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: I don't understand the need fopr a citation in this passage. The website clearly lists these doctors.  
I'M AM ROLLING BACK ALL OF HER RECENT CHANGES.
Neil Raden 18:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 150 Doctors

message: Wiley's testimony submitted to the Senate Special Committee on Aging is not a reliable source.  Contrary to claims that have been made, this testimony was not submitted under oath.  This has been confirmed by Brandi Kupchella, legal counsel at the committee.  Even if it had been, this would not serve to verify the claims that are made in the article about the safety and efficacy of the protocol.  Senate committees operate in the legal sphere and are not qualified to and do not themselves make judgments of medical science.  Reliable sources are needed. Debv 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see why published testimony of a Senate committee is not as reliable a source as the "trip report" of ACAM 2005, which debv promotes. Neil Raden 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations of clinical results

message: Can be found at http://www.freshpatents.com/Hormone-replacement-composition-and-method-dt20070301ptan20070049567.php?type=description Neil Raden 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiley Protocol Patent Application

message: I don't understand the need fopr a citation in this passage. The website clearly lists these doctors. If you mean, that it needs a reference to www.thewileyprotocol.com, then go ahead and add it. Otherwise, please explain. Neil Raden 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's exactly it.  It is inappropriate to link to a page that somewhere has the information and people must track it down.  The reference link must go directly to the page with the relevant information.  Provide the specific subpage on the WP external page, and I'll put it up and remove the citation tag.  WLU 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here you go - http://www.thewileyprotocol.com/list-doctors.htm  Neil Raden 05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the link itself, I'm not comfortable with putting it up.  If it were a statement saying 'I/We, the undersigned find the Wiley Protocol to be worth supporting' or something similar, then I'd put it up.  This is Wiley saying 'I've found doctors willing to prescribe my medication' and saying they support the protocol is original research in my mind.  The doctors are not endorsing the Wiley protocol, Wiley is endorsing the doctors.  Bring it up with another contributor perhaps, like User:Coelacan or User:Jehochman (who are familiar with the pages and your relationship to them), as I'm not 100% sure I'm justified in saying no.  But as is, I am not willing to put it on the page myself.  I am willing to see what other contributors say though, and I think they'll back me up.  WLU 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 150 Doctors

message: I think it's time to remove the templates from the article as they no longer apply. There is nothing controversial in it anymore and both Deb and I agreed not to edit the article directly.Neil Raden 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about that - the creator of the page still does have a COI, and I'm personally uncertain about the protocol for removing a COI template.  WLU 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I may have a COI, but I have agreed to only edit the discussion page. Neil Raden 22:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Debv is also in COI.  If you're arguing, argue from policy.  WLU 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that she agreed to this tooNeil Raden 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controvery and COI

message: I don't like the way this reads. How can a protocol promote itself? And the use of "promotes" is clearly prejorative: "the Wiley Protocol promotes itself as a means of restoring or preserving health, rather than just relieving the symptoms of menopause." A more accurate statement would be, "The premise behind the Wiley Protocol is to not merely relieve symptoms of menopause, but to restore a normal pre-menopausal balance and rhythm to the sex hormones, estrogen (estradiol) and progesterone. This is the attribute of the therapy that distinguishes it from the Standard of Care for BHRT. The theory is that the lack of these normal levels and rhythms lead to the diseases of aging, but it remains to be seen if that is the case." Notice the careful use of the words "premise" and "theory" as well as disclaimer at the end. 
Neil Raden 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm re-writing.  WLU 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have an exact weblink for the 150 doctors reference?  I can't find it on my casual check through the website. OOps, it's above.  Unless there's a better citation, I'm leaving it with a fact tag, and may remove it in the near future.  WLU 14:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotes Itself

message: Page has been moved to Wiley Protocol, and all relevant redirects corrected.  WLU 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I object to the insertion of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. There is a whole section entitled controversy, but almost nothing descriptive about the protocol itself. Besides, all forms of BHRT are controversial. In fact, all forms of HRT are controversial. This article is almost devoid of content. For starters, it simply fails to inform the reader about the subject, who would likely come away with the impression that it is some sort of BHRT and some people don't like it. It says nothing of the unique assumptions underlying the protocol and consequences of those assumptions. The Wiley Protocol (WP) has managed to standardize the product across compounding pharmacies, something unique in BHRT. The style in which the dosages are altered across a 28-day cycle, the fact that women begin to menstruate again, regardless of their age provided they have a uterus, the use of a lunar calendar for women who cannot menstruate - none of this is explained. The WP comes in packaging that is designed to enhance compliance and ease of use and minimize error, there is a packet insert, also unique in compounded products. We could include photos of some of these items as they are exhibits in the patent application. I've suggested that I write these edits, with annotations, and have another editor review them and make the changes. WLU has not invested any time in understanding this, as he stated above, and he has also stated that he finds the whole subject of BHRT to be nonsense, but his inactivity is equivalent to censorship since he is the only editor. Now another editor has come in to further muddy the picture. Neil Raden 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to write a description of the protocol, with citations, and upload images to both wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons so the images can be used across wikis in all languages.  Anyone with an account can upload images, as long as they are compatible with the image policy - best is to take some pictures yourself and upload them with 100% release.  You are correct, I have invested little time into understanding the article, and don't feel like reading popular books on a scientifically untested form of hormone therapy.  That makes me lazy at worst, not a censor.  I am not here to write articles for you, I volunteer my time on wikipedia to undertake tasks I enjoy doing.  Let me say it again - I AM NOT HERE TO WRITE ARTICLES FOR YOU.  This does not make me a censor.  Stop pretending this whole thing is somehow my fault.   Set up a sub page and draft your improvements to the article for comments from others, and quit trying to make me do it.  I'm not going to.  Finally, nonsense or not, I can still edit a page to be NPOV and in compliance with policy; if you've a problem with my edits, there have been many avenues pointed out to you that could be used to address them.  And don't forget to assume good faith on the part of new editors.  WLU 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is something like this acceptable? http://intlhormonesociety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=56  Neil Raden 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  OK, I will. I left a comment on the most recent editor's talk page Invertzoo I think, and asked why "controversial" needed to be there. My comment was promptly deleted from the page. That doesn't seem like the spirit of cooperation to me. What is your suggestion for citation, though? The WP is what it is and the description will be found in Wiley materials. What about a patent application? What about Somers' book? It's not exactly scientific, but it is not an original source. All I want is something on the page that actually describes what it is. Neil Raden 22:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that I've read through all the reliable sources, there is no doubt the word "controversial" belongs in the article.  Being the source of criticism in New York Times and several other articles certainly justifies that word.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "More Controversy"

message: Here is what I wrote on Invertzoo's talk page. It was deleted without comment.
*****Please see my comment on the discussion page for the Wiley Protocol. I wonder why you find it necessary to point out that the protocol is "controversial" but fail to demonstrate that you understand it. Hopefully you're not yet another "scientist" pulling the Velikovsky card and dismissing something, not on its merits, with which you are not acquainted, but because of your position. Forgive me if this does not describe you. I can't revert your edit because I'm COI, but I would if I could. Can someone please engage this person and find why he/she did this? Neil Raden 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my above post and let's see if we can solve this dispute. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invertzoo

message: The Hormone Wars: Small Business and Patients Duke it Out Against Big Pharma and Win
Possibly relevant. Debv 05:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a reliable source, not usable.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Press Release

message: Let's start with this. I tried to be as neutral as possible and present a clear description of what the Wiley Protocol is.  I have another section on the theory behind it, but I'll hold off as it's too much at once. I didn't include links, etc. as I'm sure there will be some editing. 
What Is It
----
The Wiley Protocol is a form of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) that was conceived by T.S. Wiley and first described in the book Sex, Lies and Menopause
. It employs a number of aspects that are not uncommon in BHRT, such the use of plant-derived hormones and the application of hormone creams to the skin that are compounded by pharmacies. The Wiley Protocol differs significantly from most other BHRT in the following ways:
- The creams are applied to vary over a 28-day cycle in a pattern that is meant to mimic the cyclic rhythms of hormones in a healthy, pre-menopausal woman.
- It uses only one type of Estrogen, Estradiol, but not its metabolites, Estriol or Estrace, which are often included in other protocols. 
- The actual dosage levels are higher than is typical because the goal is to approach targeted serum (blood) concentrations. 
- Unlike most other BHRT, the Wiley Protocol was conceived to restore the body to normal, pre-menopause levels, not to merely alleviate external symptoms of menopause.  . 
- Women on the protocol who have not had a hysterectomy resume or continue menstruating. Those who have had a hysterectomy follow a lunar calendar. 
The Wiley Protocol is prescribed by doctors and other qualified medical practitioners, who are trained in the management of the protocol, and the compounds are dispensed by compounding pharmacies who have contracted with Wiley Systems to adhere to strict conformance with the ingredients, methods and materials specified by Wiley. In this way, the protocol can be studied across individual pharmacies and time and the patients can have their prescription filled by any of the pharmacies without altering their program. The U.S. Senate Committee on Aging invited T.S. Wiley to testify about her program and its results at a hearing concerning the regulation of compounding pharmacy.
How Does It Work[ http://www.thewileyprotocol.com ]
The basic protocol starts with a base level of Estradiol for the first few days, climbing to a peak at day 12, then falling rapidly and continuing at a low level for the rest of the cycle. Progesterone begins at day 13 and climbs to a peak on day 21 and then falls rapidly. In the first three months, everyone receives the same program. After three months, modifications may be made to the protocol by the medical practitioners, who are aided by a clinical manual produced by Wiley that describes symptoms and recommends solutions based on observations from past experience. Modifications do not include cutting the doses by half or more across the board or modifying the shape of the curves in any way. Practitioners are free to do so, but must discontinue referring to the program as the “Wiley Protocol” and pharmacies may not fill these prescriptions with Wiley-marked materials. 
A fundamental concept behind the protocol is receptor anticipation. Dr. Greg Wolf [ http://www.centertm.com/default.asp?contentID=103 ] explains receptor anticipation] as, "Receptor anticipation stipulates that one hormone will signal the cells to begin to prepare to receive a second hormone. Receptor anticipation is seen in the relationship between estradiol and progesterone. When estradiol surges at day 12 of a typical 28 day cycle it signals cells throughout the body to begin to produce progesterone receptors so that the cells can recognize and properly respond to the impending progesterone surge, which reaches a maximum at day 21. This process requires peaking levels of estradiol to work properly. Peaking surges of estradiol naturally occur in a menstrual cycle and is mirrored as well in the Wiley Protocol."
;References
----
That's a start. I'm not trying to write a commercial, I just want to see this article contain some facts. I have not included the word "controversial," because, in fact, it is no longer any more controversial than other BHRT, except to a few vocal people. 
Neil Raden (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That needs reliable sources before it can be included.  WLU (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already given the Patent url above, which you chose to ignore last time and/or claimed not to have time to read, just like the book. Where is Wikidudeman? I thought we were going to be constructive here for a change. Neil Raden (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add links as in-line citations, using WP:FOOT and WP:CIT.  And neither Wikidudeman, nor I, are your wiki-bitches or servants.  You want it on the page, add citations.  If you want, add them as url links and I'll convert them to references.  WLU (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the links are alrerady in the article. Everything here can be found in the Senate testimony, the patent filing and the book. I didn't add them yet becuae I assumed that this material would go through some editing, as I said in the first sentence. And if I wanted a Wiki=bitch, I certainly wouldn't rely on you. 72.205.193.253 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, you'd be sorely disappointed.  Add the links as in-line citations, or even embed them in the above text - if it's changed, it should be changed based on, and reflect the evidence.  If I want to change the text, I want to be sure my change is justified by the citation.  You're making it easier for people to work with, and more useful to readers.  WLU (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Look up WP:FOOT - footnotes only show up if you use the  tags.  You can simplify the <ref name> template by not using quotations - they aren't necessary and I don't know why they always seem to show up.  It may be an artifact of the citation generators.  If you can't figure it out, leave a question or just point it out, fixing it is much quicker than research and I can do it between other tasks.  WLU 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an article that's about biochemistry and medicine, the level of evidence required to say that the WP is effective at what it claims to do (i.e. saying 'it does x' rather than saying 'according to Wiley, the protocol is designed to do x') may be higher and require peer-reviewed medical sources rather than the wiley website and a book by Suzanne Somers.  User:SandyGeorgia is a phenomenal resource in regard to medical articles, in addition to being (in my expeirence) incredibly nice, knowledgeable, patient, and very willing to negotiate an acceptable consensus.  I'm going to bring this page up with them and see what they say.  WLU 02:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know why I'm having such a hard time getting this point across - I'm not making any claims. I'm just describing it. If you feel I've made a claim, please point it out and we'll discuss it. Neil Raden 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Content: description of the WP

message: This entire section is based on self-publications, so will need to go unless there are independent sources (I shorted the section title to conform with WP:MSH, but I'm not happy with Support because there's no "support" there):
*Dr. Julie Taguchi, a member of the Wiley Protocol team since 1999 has reported anecdotal evidence of lower cancer recurrence rates for patients on the Wiley protocol for more than 2.5 years, as well as an attenuation of symptoms associated with menopause.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the WP:PEACOCKery and self-publication there.  Basically, all that paragraph says is that Wiley's staff makes certain claims, and there is no medical literature I could find that backs it up.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Now that I've been through everything I can find (which is basically nothing reliable), I'm not sure why we have this article; how does it meet WP:NN?  I suggest it needs to be redirected to T. S. Wiley.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike that; I'm finding the notable criticism now.  See above.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability