Talk:Rheumatology

message: Thanks, Nunh-huh, for adding all those yucky vasculitides. Frankly, I hadn't taken the time to properly expand on that list. I'm on the lookout for a good review article on Wegener's granulomatosis before I have a go at that disease... JFW | T@lk 09:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: "Rheumatology is a sub-specialty in internal medicine and pediatrics, devoted to diagnosis and therapy of rheumatic diseases"
If you don't know what rheumatic is, you can't understand this sentence. If you do know what rheumatic is, you don't need to read this sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.106.159.190 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction doesn't explain anything 

message: I suggest this article be merged with Rheumatism, because they cover the same subject basically. What do you think? Mikael Häggström 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Rheumatism]] 

message: A citation is needed for this, I think, inprecise and misleading statement.  Controlling a disease is not the same as curing it, and the new treatments will not help those in whom the disease is already well established.  These pages are often a first hit for newly diagnosed patients, so it's important to make them correct and verifiable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.97.249 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  70% 'cure' of rheumatoid arthritis? 

message: The article omits entirely to discuss the experiences of patients, or the clinical outcomes from treatment by Rheumatologists. 
While it may be true that some patients are helped, it is also true that many are not and some are severely harmed. The article is thus inaccurate and biassed.
Rheumatologists' habitual practice of deliberately causing patients extreme pain- by applying pressure onto inflamed, sore joints- is identical to common assault, and should be mentioned; if only to warn new patients of what they face.
Rheumatology cannot demonstrate its utility at all without reference to patients' experiences. Wiki should allow such perspectives space, instead of censoring them.
There are more patients than doctors, and the content of Wiki should reflect the interests of this majority.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snonsk (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patient outcomes 

message: Grammatical and spelling errors abound. Rambling and disjointed, often mentions anecdotal or unsubstantiated claims. Thought there would be a thread mentioning all of this, was surprised to not find one. 2603:7000:9507:B2BF:D4C3:7E1A:147D:BC01 (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone called Bgeditor4 has been vandalizing this page with incoherent rewrites with references to big buses, Cambridge University, and the TV series House. The text is so incoherent I suspect it's some kind of automated bot spam. I've reverted those changes. Slocombe (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs A Lot of Work 

message: Rheumatologist 2A02:C7C:5B35:2600:CD9C:143E:60CD:7F99 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  rheumatologist 

message: An actual, English-speaking Rheumatologist needs to write this article. It makes no sense. 45.46.132.242 (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete gibberish