Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 8

message: New article History of the present illness -- could use review, expansion, and international perspectives. --Arcadian 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left notes on the article's talk page. NCurse  work 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the present illness

message: This is not really about clinical medicine, but I thought some here might be interested. For those familiar with Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF, I received a message from another editor that there is a discussion to merge these articles together. -AED 04:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments regarding merge proposal

message: Hi all. I've been working on balanitis xerotica obliterans for some time, and would appreciate any help in improving the article. I'd like to get it to featured article standards, if possible. Thanks in advance. Jakew 20:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assistance

message: Tuberculosis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tuberculosis]]

message: I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants that I would like to merge the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Please comment there. -AED 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to merge the two lists?  Personally, I don't think it should be done.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine are two different projects. Nephron  T|C 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants

message: Suggestions for an explanatory header & footer in Diseases Infobox - see Template_talk:Infobox_Disease#Suggestion. Please comment there. Finavon 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox:Diseases 

message: Hi,
for those interested, NCurse is up for adminship, voice your opinion here.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy. Ge wordt bedankt, Steven. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFA 

message: Calling all WikiDocs with experience or knowlege of prescribing practice or guidelines for the treatment of epilepsy. Would you please make your way over to the friendly discussion at Talk:Phenobarbital where your opinions would be welcome. The sticking point is the sentence:
:"In more affluent countries, it is no longer recommended as a first or second-line choice anticonvulsant."
Remember to bring your textbooks with you. Thank-you, Colin°Talk 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Phenobarbital]] for epilepsy 

message: Hi all -  I am, very much, a non-specialist.  I have been doing research on the history of peptic ulcer disease and H. pylori for my dissertation.  In doing so, I wrote a timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, for myself, and also posted it here.  To be sure I'm not royally messing anything up, could someone take a look at it and suggest improvements where necessary.  Thank you very much! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice! -- Samir धर्म 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of PUD and H. pylori 

message: I received a message from a physician new to Wikipedia asking me to take a look at Shaken baby syndrome. He had some concerns that his attempt to correct what he considered biased information was reverted. Given that this subject is beyond my area of expertise, I explained that I would forward his concerns here. Thanks! -AED 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaken baby syndrome

message: There's a couple of stub types that related to this project that seem to have become somewhat intractably oversized:   and .  If anyone has any ideas what addition sub-types it would be useful to create, or is minded to do some sorting to the various existing more specific tags, that'd be very welcome.  Alai 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversized stub templates 

message: Invitation to an excellent beginning: Announcing the birth of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology!! Its up and running as part of the clinical medicine project! I hereby invite everybody interested in Vision and Eye care to contribute to the long awaited wikiproject on Ophthalmology. Many thanks to AED for getting this project page working and sorting out the details. For a start, we need a shortcut to point to this page. Here's a readymade  manual of style for starting Ophthalmology articles. For the past 4 months, I have been working to add articles, relevant info and clinical images to the current sections of Ophthalmology - am currently looking to get some more input and requests, so that we can get cracking - to get some really good articles, raise them to featured status and turn the project Ophthalmology into a resource which is one of the best in whole of Wikipedia! Cheers!!! EyeMD 05:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Look forward to more eye-related FA's -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortcut WP:Eye redirects to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology project. Phew! EyeMD 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is one to keep an eye on. ;-) Nephron  T|C 05:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology]] announcement 

message: I've done a fairly major rewrite in a "sandbox" on the entry on breast implants at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant/Revised which I would like some input into from the group. This is a pretty dry & evidence based presentation re. the history, use, & reviews of alleged links to systemic disease (with silicone implants). Breast implants is one of the medical topics that really bring the political activists out (like autism & vaccines, fibromyalgia, aesbestosis, etc..) and that has plagued this entry for months. In fact, the most prominent anti-implant activist in the world has been actively engaged in misrepresenting this wikipedia entry and continuing her political campaign thru it. There is a clear general consensus in the world medical literature on this and that is the where the discussion needs to start IMO. Droliver 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've history merged the revised version with the original version, as I view the new one to be a vast improvement -- Samir धर्म 22:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for peer review on breast implant rewrite 

message: As per AED's suggestion, Iridodialysis is nominated for DYK here.... EyeMD 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK nomination for [[Iridodialysis]] 

message: One of the owners of the Trip Database (lists 3rd party EBM sites on any given searched topic) started to add links to their site to multipe pages. This clear breaches spamming policy (adding site to multiple pages) and WP:External links policy (not adding links to website one is involved with).
However the system of collating EBM resources is intriging. Do other editors feel this is a useful external resource to use? If so, then should it be added to articles not as manual External link, but rather within Template:Infobox Disease. However this is not a site that directly gives information, but rather provides onward links, several of which (eg eMedicine) can already be directly linked to by the existing template.David Ruben  Talk  17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David Ruben! Did this explanation convince you? Why do you think a template is approrpiate? In a comparison, all other items in the current templates are web sites which offer information by themselves, or offer links to information that they cite; TRIP does none of them. It doesn't dirrectly cite information, it lists information cited by other web sites. It, however, applies a filter so you see portions of what they site.... If you are convinced, I will add the requried links inside the content of the articles in a week. huji—TALK 11:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - still feel more use to editors trying to source material to write wikipedia articles than source to be cited within an article (one would cite the primary source that Trip might present as a summary). For some specific interpretation of evidence, then NLH Q&A Service might be a source, but underlying TRIP database is not yet notable enough for use as a widely occuring external link David Ruben  Talk  23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. So it is not going to be a "widely occuring external link" but what if we have an article named TRIP explaining the TRIP web site and its services, and we have some internal links to that article in place? Does it fit in your point of view? I guess it does, so please confirm it. huji—TALK 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trip database links

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga for Thyroid Disease - please vote. JFW | T@lk 22:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Just a quick heads-up that this timeline has been nominated for Featured List status.  Please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. Thank you! --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a comment there. NCurse  work 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori|Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and ''Helicobacter pylori'']] 

message: Lowdose chemotherapy & Insulin potentiation therapy seem a bit questionable to me. The article on lowdose chemotherapy definitely seems non-NPOV.  WikiDocs familiar with chemotherapy may want to check these over.  --Uthbrian (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable chemotherapy articles 

message: The Original Barnstar
		To all CLINMED participants – today is Physician's Day down here, and, both in honor of this day and in recognition of your tireless work towards making (and keeping, IMHO) Wikipedia a reliable source of medical information for laypersons and professionals alike, I award each and every one of you these shiny (rather rusty, actually) Original Barnstars!!!Wear them with pride! (feel free to add one to your user page/talk page if you like. Go ahead, you know you earned it.) Fvasconcellos 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstars 

message: As of October 18, 2006, some of us have been fighting an editing war with some editors who think THC should be included in the Potential Treatments section. If you would like to add your comments to the discussion (and to review the article in general on our Peer Review page), we would welcome that.  --Chrispounds 03:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dopeheads are all over the place. I really do not understand it. Instead of just demented they'll be stoned and demented. Hardly an achievement. I strongly dispute the need to mention phase I-II studies unless the field near-universally aknowledges that this is promising. JFW | T@lk 11:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Unfortunately, it's difficult to inform people about being cautious when interpreting scientific studies, especially when they are either extremely enthusiastic or have an agenda.  Also, the news media definitely doesn't help, since press releases tend to have a major problem with overlooking key details.  --Uthbrian (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anything with cannabis immediately becomes news for its sheer urban legend potential. The only proven cannabinoid manipulation in clinical use is rimonabant. I'm happy for large phase III studies to be considered for inclusion, but anything less is misusing the general scope of Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alzheimer's disease]]

message: Please comment on this CFD. Medical categories are poorly maintained, and this one adds another layer of fudge. JFW | T@lk 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably put one of those "diffusion" tags on some of our main categories and start cleaning them out, probably starting with :Category:Medicine.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD 

message: :Template:Infobox_Hospital could use some parserfunctions and cleanup, I tried to use it in Townsville General Hospital but apart from displaying empty parameters, the content was pushed to the right... Maybe it could resemble our great :Template:Infobox Disease?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've applied the styling features of Template:Infobox NHS hospital which allowed for the hospital name in large and section headers. The UK template has a series of location parameters (locale and county), yet this one has just a Location - would not a country parameter be useful ?  I've added the necessary code to include the picture (see Cedars-Sinai Medical Center) and added width and caption options. Not sure what is supposed to be done with the Logo image. David Ruben  Talk  02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not yet sure how the articles have been set up to use teh template, but Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center (Seattle) set the logo parameter as  whereas I've coded the template to take just Childrens logo.gif (see edit change) David Ruben  Talk  02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks David I really appreciate it!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template fixing request 

message: I think Template:Infobox NHS hospital should be merged into Template:Infobox Hospital, we don't have specific templates for Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ, S.Africa etc etc and several UK hospitals already are under the somewhat US-Centric Template:Infobox Hospital. In essence I think Template:Infobox hospital just needs some additional parameters or optional alternatives (similar to citation templates allowing 'author' vs 'first' & 'last', or 'date' vs 'year & 'month') to allow it to be less US-centric. I can do the necessary coding and have some ideas of how this should all work. Whilst I was bold enough to add a country code parameter, the other options could benefit from comment before I dive in :-) Please see Template talk:Infobox Hospital. Thanks David Ruben  Talk  03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hospital infobox merger proposal

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our listing is up-to-date.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I think this article should be split into several other articles - it would be a good thing, I feel. Does anyone else agree
with this proposal?? SunStar Net 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's discuss this at: Talk:Public health.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public health 

message: I've had two different editors express concern about the Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis page. One has asked for a broader set of viewpoints at RFC. I've been reading through the material and will also be interested to hear what everyone thinks. InvictaHOG 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on [[Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis]] 

message: I discovered to my dismay that David Sackett and Donald S. Fredrickson still have no Wikipedia biography. For DSF there is a NAS memoir. JFW | T@lk 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started one on Sackett and it is unapologetically focused on his Canadian connection-- McMaster University-- where he did the work he is most famous for.  I haven't read his book... but I think the his article on stats/experimental design in the CMAJ is a must read for any one unfamiliar with the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio.  Nephron  T|C 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing biographies 

message: Could I have a hand in depopulating :Category:Medicine. Enormous amounts of cruft have been unnecessarily categorised here. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we start with the subcats or clean the main one? NCurse  work 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on it over the weekend. I've copied the most common proper re-categorizations onto my user page if anyone is interested in a quick link! InvictaHOG 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Medicine]] 

message: Could someone please comment on the external link added anonymously to Epilepsy during this diff. The site appears to be the work of one US doctor. The Internet Archive shows the site isn't very active, with no significant update for two years. Thanks, Colin°Talk 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link check 

message: Hi there. I posted a note about a proposed merge of Rickets and Osteomalacia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Please_review_merge_proposal_for_Rickets_and_Osteomalacia, but I meant to post it here. I would appreciate if the resident Wikipedia medical experts would review the comments I made on that page. Thanks. Mike Dillon
:I voiced my opinon on Talk:Rickets about this.  In any case, I think the endocrinology stuff (in general) could be organized a bunch.  Sorely missing, IMHO, is a series of templates that list all the hormones in their subclasses-- i.e. peptide hormones, steroid hormones-- and then a clear linking structure so that they are tied together.  Beyond that we need an article that explains the concepts of hypo- & hyper- function--i.e. hormone disregulation. Do we have an endocrinologist amongst us that would like to work on that?  Nephron  T|C 08:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/cleanup of [[Rickets]], [[Osteomalacia]] 

message: For those interested:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Kwitko -AED 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Various articles for deletion

message: A while ago I tried to consolidate the colon articles under colon.  I now see the parts of the colon are again out there.  There is no known physiologic role the specializes the parts of the colon aside from the resevoir function of the rectum.  If the colon is left in parts on wikipedia it is at risk for editing problems in the future.  Any idea how to tie the organ back together?  Steve Kd4ttc 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response at Talk:Colon_%28anatomy%29#Why_split_up_the_colon.3F. --Arcadian 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidation of the colon bits

message: Not many people would seem to watch the Template:Infobox Hospital or Template:Infobox NHS hospital. I have a proposal to upgrade Template:Infobox Hospital and then redirect Template:Infobox NHS Hospital to this. I would appreciate comment on choice of parameter names, e.g. 'HealthCare' vs. Funding, alternatives to 'Standards' (applies to developing countries with external accreditation certification), 'Region' vs Area (County in UK or US, but "County" as a term does not apply outside of UK & US). In the next day or so, I plan to implement the changes (see this demonstration), so any final comments welcomed :-) David Ruben  Talk  03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox Hospital has been upgraded, all hospitals listed in Ontario have had the template added to them and, I think, all other Canadian and non-US hospitals with articles using the old template upgraded. See below re issues of how best codify for the US. Next task will be switch over all Template:Infobox NHS hospital using articles - help would be appreciated, see Template talk:Infobox NHS hospital  :-) David Ruben  Talk  19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last call for comment Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade

message: Having updated the Template:Infobox Hospital, I'm having a little difficulty deciding how hospitals are classified as to their funding status in the US.
* For Canadian hospitals, they are either "Private", "Charity" or part of the "Public Medicare (Canada)" system.
* In the UK hospitals are (or at least until the Labour government started its love-affair with private hospitals) either purely "Private" or "Public NHS" (which may have a few private beds to help support the hospital).
* For the US, have a look at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've set the HealthCare parameter to "Medicare" in as much as it takes Medicare patients. I suspect though that this shows my lack of understanding.
* The US clearly has some "Charity hospitals" but would I be right in thinking that most hospitals would be considered "Private" with it then up to the individual patient to arrange to pay themselves, claim on their health insurance policy, or be eligible under Medicare (United States) -  or are there quite distinct hospitals which either only/never deal with Medicare cases ? 
* So do I need to get the template to show for setting "HealthCare=Medicare" the phrase "Private, accepts Medicare" - or some other generally agreed series of phrases ? David Ruben  Talk  19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Infobox Hospital US HealthCare funding classifications

message: If you do, then please help us with the breast implant article, and read what Dr. Zuckerman and I have to say.  All I ask is that anyone bother to read it.  If you do,  then you cannot disagree with the obvious.  There has been misrepresentation of the studies and of the FDA decision.   I know that in *real* life there are doctors who have some shred of intellectual honesty.Jance 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what an objective editor wrote (but someone will probably call him a SPU since it is an unpopular opinion in the "mess lounge" -------
The conduct of Droliver (talk • contribs) was reported at WP:ANI and taking a look at his contributions, I found a few very questionable diffs [4] [5] [6] and a strange blanking of his talk page archive. I'm all for assuming good faith but this user seems to be unwilling to uphold our neutrality policies. Note however that I have absolutely no competence to judge the current content dispute. Pascal.Tesson 07:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Samir does not need to "show a credible attempt at neutrality" and such accusation seems a clear breach of WP:AGF - may I suggest that an apology is warranted. The action was that of an admin intervening in a nasty edit war, with a ridiculous 250 edits to an article since 1st October. He states he selected the last obvious claim of a consensus-sought version (no admin is going to read through 250 edits to see whether that was true or not, nor which was a "neutral" version), and applied a pause in the war. Comments on how to proceed seems at last to being discussed on the talk page and when consensus is reached then the page can be unlocked and good, well-written, informative and of course NPOV adjustments can be made to bring the article hopefully closer to WP:Good article and eventually to WP:Featured article status that all involved I am sure seek. David Ruben  Talk  19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeatedly asked who 'reviewed' this article, to no avail.  I am not going to belabor Samir's actions or inactions.  It isn't worth it.  I hope that he will help mediate, and was disappointed when he wrote a section called "futility" criticizing new editors whom I do not know.  I would have hoped that someone who takes a position that an article has been 'reviewed' would at least respond when asked who reviewed it.  I was banging my  head against a wall trying to get any information.  So to continue this discussion is a waste of time -- assuming good faith goes only so far.  Thank you all for your input.  Jance 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is utterly ridiculous.  Should these attacks continue, please be advised that an RfC/RfAr is forthcoming against User:Jance -- Samir धर्म 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is ridiculous, Samir?  What in the paragraph above is insulting?  What is wrong with it?  I would like to know.  Is it impermissible to ask who reviewed it, when there was nothing anywhere that I could see?  And I said I was not going to belabor your actions or inactions.  How is that an attack?  (It isn't).    What is ridiculous is your threat.  Jance 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance -- Samir धर्म 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there any doctors who care at all about accuracy in a medical article?

message: Would appreciate your comments on whether the following text regarding silicone breast implant rupture is relevant to lupus erythematosus:
:However there are no long-term studies (longer than 10 years) on women whose implants break. Because ruptures are usually "silent" (without symptoms), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that women follow-up after the first three years of implantation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)s, and every two years thereafter.  Recommendations regarding breast implants In approving silicone implants, the FDA will require manufacturers to inform women that implants are not lifetime devices. FDA article on breast implants
In the context of the lack of association between breast implant rupture and lupus, I removed the text twice  , only to have it immediately reverted.  The relevant discussion is at Talk:Lupus erythematosus: , , ,  -- Samir धर्म 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oliver was the one that originally injected, for no reason, comments about breast implants in the lupus article - of course, suggesting that there is absolutely no link.  The reality is that the FDA, while recently approving silicone implants, has stated that there are no long term studies on rupture (there are  not) or its effects (there are not).  For that reason, and because rupture is usually silent (without symptoms), the FDA recommends women have MRIS to detect rupture 3 years after implantation, and every 2 years thereafter.  In the US, MRIS are about $1500 a pop, which insurance does not cover.  Oliver has deleted all discussion of this in the breast implant article and continually portrays me and others as 'fringe' or 'lunatics' or worse.  I would like anyone here to tell me that what the FDA has stated and recommends (which is all I have ever wanted to state) is "fringe" or "lunatics".  I know Oliver thinks it is, but I don't think he represents every docotr.Jance 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, to imply as Oliver has, that silicone implants are absolutely safe and there are long term studies indicating this, is flatly wrong.Jance 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I made a revert and left a note on the talk page. NCurse  work 18:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Samir, that was an appropriate intervention I'd submit. The text that was added there was agenda driven from other topics on wikipedia (see breast implant) and more of a bizarre free-association added into the middle of the SLE entry. Some who are convinced of this cause-effect relationship are going to dispute this despite a great deal of literature in agreement on the lack of said association. How to treat these political debates that spill over into medical areas (be it abortion, vaccines, homeopathy/osteopathy, chiropracty, breast implants, etc..) is one that threatens credibility of wikipedia as a reliable resource. This example does beg the question of how to treat minority or even occassional fringe views on these things that differ from widely held mainstream beliefs. I'm not always sure how to balance that.Droliver 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one way for balance: plenty of comments from the wiki medical community. You need feed-backs to find a solution. NCurse  work 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  And it would be helpful if all discussions on an article were on the talk page, including the feedback by medical doctors.  Other editors should have a chance to comment, as well, I would think, or is it only MDs who are allowed to comment?  Jance 19:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was glad to see the mention of breast implants removed from the lupus article.  It is peripheral at best.  However, the new "labeling" required by FDA for silicone gel breast implants (as of Nov 2006) specifies that safety and effectiveness has not been established for lupus and other autoimmune diseases ( see http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020056d.pdf on page 11). (By the way, the old labeling is almost identical on this issue, and this label is identical for all silicone implant manufacturers). The reason it is not established is that women with autoimmune diseases were intentionally excluded from the studies because there were concerns about safety. Drzuckerman 21:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lupus erythematosus]] 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Sorry if I am a little late on this, but what is this site? I didn't think much of it, but their article on myocardial infarction is somewhat interesting... Not exactly what we want in wikipedia, but definitely has some good references.  Ksheka 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiDoc ???

message: Is there a hematologist that can lend a hand in Myocardial infarction#Thrombolytic therapy?  The section needs a lot of work, and I can do most of it in the near future, including all the trial data.  I just need one thing answered:  Why do rtPA and related thrombolytic agents require adjuvant anticoagulation with heparinoids, while streptokinase and urokinase do not? There is an answer (I mis-remember hearing it in the past).  I just don't understand it. :-) Ksheka 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With tPA and related agents heparin is needed to maintain coronary patency. Because of the anticoagulant effect of fibrinogen depletion with streptokinase treatment, it is less necessary there. --WS 14:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The section is looking better with that.  I'll fill in references later if you don't have any on hand. Ksheka 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help of a hematologist in [[Myocardial infarction#Thrombolytic therapy]]

message: I've put in some proposal suggestions for merger of List of medical roots into Medical Prefixes, Suffixes, and Combining Forms, please go here to discuss further. David Ruben  Talk  12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical Lists

message: Many who participate in this WikiProject have been involved, so I thought I would advise you of this RfC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance -- Samir धर्म 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very odd that Samir is doing this, after I obviously stopped posting here, and have done nothing.  I am not going to participate in this.  If you do, then what are your motives?  As I said, Samir, your threat is ridiculous, and looks pretty vindicitive.  Jance 05:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your behaviour has been utterly disruptive, and this RfC is a request for you to comment on the same.  Clearly, you don't seem to understand that -- Samir धर्म 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jance]] RfC 

message: Is it just me or are the subsections of the breast cancer article on alcohol (with wierd tangents) & environmental causes beyond sloppy and peripheral. There is real odd 1st person voice that gets off into areas that are (at best) tertiary to a focused treatment of this topic. I would personally like to take a buzz-saw thru the bulk of many areas of it.Droliver 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the changes made to that section of the breast cancer article.  --Uthbrian (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a startDroliver 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[breast cancer]] 

message: I recently created the Ormeloxifene main article, but was unable to add much content due to a lack of knowledge.  Ormeloxifene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator or SERM; other SERMs include tamoxifen and raloxifene.  
Problems:  
* I don't really understand how to use the Expert-Subject template or what other ways there are to alert others of this article's existence.  Is adding the template enough or must I take further action?  Can you explain usage of the templates?  
* I can't determine which template category fits ormeloxifene; it seems it could go in Clinical Medicine or Pre-Clinical medicine.  Ormeloxifene is widely used in India as birth control and as a treatment for dysfunctional uterine bleeding (see Centchroman), hence 'Clinical', but as far as I know it is little-known elsewhere, hence 'Pre-Clinical'.  
Any input will be appreciated.  Thanks!  Joie de Vivre 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a little work on it. Is Ormeloxifene the International Nonproprietary Name of Centchroman ? If so then wikipolicy is to generally have just the one article under the INN name (other brand names redirect to it) and information is merged into the one article. David Ruben  Talk  02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your work, DavidRuben.  I am unable to answer your question about the INN of Centchroman; I don't know, and I don't know how to find out.  One source that may be helpful is the Medical Subject Heading of the NLM, in which Centchroman and Ormeloxifene each have their own entry; I am not certain whether they are exactly the same chemical.  I have seen the terms used interchangably.  Centchroman does not appear to be a brand name; brand names for Centchroman have included Centron, Saheli, Sevista.  I don't have much more information, but I would like to find people who do.  Joie de Vivre 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, centchroman == ormeloxifene (INN). I will merge the articles. --WS 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I don't believe you, but I am curious how you determined that these are exactly the same chemical.  How does one determine the INN of a chemical?  If they are the same chemical, why does the MeSH have two separate entries for ormeloxifene and centchroman?  Is there any difference?  If not, why do the two different names exist?  Thank you for your help.  Joie de Vivre 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may join the discussion, the article actually looks pretty good to me as is: how do you think it could be improved? I'll whip up a structural formula as soon as I can, and look for additional information (PK parameters, etc).As for the INN, PubChem will usually show the INN of any chemicals which are useful as drugs (only drugs have them, other compounds do not): the PubChem entry for ormeloxifene shows it is indeed the INN and a search for centchroman shows they have the same structure. In case of a "recent" compound, the World Health Organization provides lists of all recommended and proposed INNs, with IUPAC name and structure — they are quite unwieldy and difficult to search though. Fvasconcellos 15:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How I found the INN name was doing a pubmed search for centchroman in the title. The INN name is mentioned directly in the abstract of the first search result (). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wouterstomp (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was easy! Certainly clearer than my ranting "explanation"... :) Fvasconcellos 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assistance - Ormeloxifene main article