Talk:Self-experimentation in medicine

message: I am placing it in Self-experimentation.  Since the purpose of the experiment is not medical, does it really belong here also? DCDuring 14:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the Implant Technology Case Belong in This Article

message: I don't know what or how much should be in the main article.
From: Wall Street Journal, 3/19/87 "AIDS Scientist's Self-Inoculation Sparks Debate"
By Marilyn Chase, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
"A report that French scientist Daniel Zagury made himself the first human subject to receive an experimental AIDS vaccine has electrified the scientific community, but left it divided as to whether the action was heroism or folly. [...]"
The WSJ article also mentions that Jonas Salk injected himself twice (with experimental flu vaccine in 1942 and polio vaccine in the 1950s) before large scale testing began on others. AdderUser (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flu (Salk), Polio (Salk), HIV (Zagury) Vaccines

message: Quoted from: "Poly(hydroxyalkanoates): Biorefinery polymers with a whole range of applications. The work of Robert H. Marchessault" by William J. Orts, Geoffrey A.R. Nobes, Jumpei Kawada, Sophie Nguyen, Ga-er Yu, and François Ravenelle, Can. J. Chem. 2008, 86(6), 628-640.
page 630, column 2: "For example, in one verified story (36), Baptist wanted to convince the world that PHB could be applied as a bio-absorbable suture. He created a PHB fiber, slashed his own arm with a scalpel, and then sutured the cut with this fiber." AdderUser (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio-absorbable Sutures: Baptist (W. R. Grace and Co.)

message: "In 1921, Evan O'Neill Kane of Kane, Penn., wanted to prove that ether—the primary general anesthetic at the time—was being used far too often when less-dangerous local anesthetics could be substituted. As his test case, the good doctor used himself, removing his own appendix using only local anesthetic by propping himself up on the operating table with a mirror over his abdomen. With three other doctors in the operating room as backup, Kane made the large incision needed to remove the appendix and his assistants sutured him up. (This was before new techniques allowed doctors to make small 'Band-Aid'-size incisions for appendix removal). The doctor recovered nicely. Then, in 1932, at age 70, Dr. Kane performed an even more complicated surgery on himself to repair an inguinal hernia. Because of the close proximity to the femoral artery, it was a particularly delicate operation—Kane performed it in just under two hours. Reportedly, he was relaxed and joking even as he sutured within millimeters of the important blood vessels."  Quoted directly from: "Six Surgical Miracles: Some of the more amazing and unusual operations of modern times." By Susanna Schrobsdorff,  Newsweek Web Exclusive, Jun 16, 2008; Updated: 11:01 a.m. ET Jun 16, 2008, Link. AdderUser (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-surgery: [[Evan O'Neill Kane]]

message: In 605 BCE, Daniel and several other Jewish captives of Nebuchadnezzar were offered positions in the government and a diet of the king's own rich meats and wines.  Refusing to violate the Jewish dietary laws, they declined the food and asked for a diet of legumes and water instead.  The officials had a serious concern that such a limited diet might be unhealthy so Daniel offered to conduct a trial.  He conducted a diet study as a "self-experiment" (along with 3 others, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah).  After 10 days on the abstemious diet, the subjects appeared even healthier than the controls eating the king's food and were allowed to continue.  Details of the Bible stories can be found in Wikipedia and on the web.  There is an interesting evaluation in the context of clinical trials and program evaluations here: David E.K. Hunter, "Daniel and the Rhinoceros", Evaluation and Program Planning Volume 29, Issue 2, May 2006, Pages 180-185 (Program Capacity and Sustainability). Link - DOI AdderUser (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest Example?  Daniel, 605 BCE

message: I recall reading years ago that the use of a fibre-optic endoscopes for examining heart valves was first tested by self-experimentation, but I can't recall the reference or any of the details.  Does anyone have information on that?  --Tedd (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fibre-optic Endoscope? 

message: Giles Skey Brindley self-experimented by injecting vasoactive agents (papaverine, phentolamine, and others) into his own corpus cavernosum (penis) to induce an erection. His results were startlingly presented in a famous 1983 talk at the Urodynamics Society meeting in Las Vegas. See: 
Laurence Klotz. "How (Not) to Communicate New Scientific Information: A Memoir of the Famous Brindley Lecture." BJUI, 2005, 96(7), 956-957.  (BJUI ~ British Journal of Urology International.) AdderUser (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Giles Brindley]] and ED 

message: I added Steve Ludwin to snakevenom self-experimenters and changed the sections name to snakevenom because the experiments where done in controlled doses of snakevenom sometimes much lower than a normal dose in snakebite. My edit was reverted and I want to ask why? --Custoo (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snakebite 

message: Would like to further contribute to this medical article, but urge use of more sources in parenthetical sections and denser inline citations to specific claims, per MOS:MED.
Also, urge use of standard citation templates, with DOI when available, rather than unformatted free text references. Advantages are many for users of citation management software (e.g., Zotero, EndNote) and automated discovery (e.g., Wikidata) and reuse, and it is consensus view for medical articles.
:Most editors on biomedical topics prefer to use citation templates such as , , , , or . -- WP:CITEMED -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MOS and citation templates 

message: In reference to Nicholas Senn's little bit, there have been three edits towards this. Let's put it to a vote.
"inserted hydrogen in the other end."
or
"inserted hydrogen into his anus."
Anus. -Mr. Man (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In being bold, I did forget that. Thanks.-Mr. Man (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anus vs Other End 

message: I created the redirect self-experimentation with drugs for the subsection #Drugs of this article and now I'm wondering whether that section content fully fits into this article and whether there should be a whole new article at the page I named.  
* I might not fully fit into this article as self-experimentation with drugs isn't constrained to drugs as medicine (e.g. it's also about how drugs can be used to advance ourselves cognitively, creatively, spiritually, morally etc. - it's not just about preventing or countering diseases).
* Self-experimentation with drugs has a long history and there's much content on it so a stand-alone is probably warranted.
What do you say? Could you help with setting up that article?
--Fixuture (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-experimentation with drugs 

message: I'm saddened that you felt it necessary to add advert and essay tags to this article.  I'm especially baffled by the claim that this is written like an advertisement.  It's hard to fathom what it is supposed to be advertising.  When I came to this article it was a largely uncited rambling unstructured list.  The work I have done on it has added some proper discussion, all fully cited from reliable sources.  If it is an essay, it is not my essay.  It faithfully reflects what I found in sources and opinions are properly attributed (ie, not in Wikipedia's voice).  Doubtless, my work is less than perfect, but perhaps you could explain what specifically you find problematic. SpinningSpark 23:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert and essay 

message: I can understand removal of citations to Medical Hypotheses where it is being used to verify a fact, but in a discussion about a hypothesis it might be relevant, and self-experimentation is pretty much all about hypotheses by definition.  Is the journal considered unreliable in a more general sense? SpinningSpark 14:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The journal is on WP:CITEWATCH as something to cite in almost no circumstances. OTOH, I might have jumped the gun on this one! This particular usage is an article by a person who is already notable in Wikipedia specifically for self-experimentation - and that would count as a self-source from a person notable in the area ... I've reverted myself. Thank you :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ''Medical Hypotheses'' article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion