Talk:Mesothelioma

message: I do not believe that this link should be included in the article and invite other editors to weigh in with their opinion so we can establish a consensus one way or the other. TNXMan 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A preliminary discussion can be found here. TNXMan 16:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually I went to the link after Johnnygoat00 added it back in.  The home page isn't too useful but I think  is.  Perhaps we could link directly to that page? --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That page does look more useful. I would have no problem with a link there. TNXMan 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CureMeso 

message: I redirected malignant mesothelioma to this article, as in common usage mesothelioma implies a malignant neoplasm.  Wikipedia name conventions suggest common names by used - mesothelioma is the common term for the malignant neoplasm arising from mesothelium.  I understand that the term benign mesothelioma is occasionally used to refer to a solitary fibrous tumour but this usage is not common.  I am also aware that the -oma ending implies benign (e.g. tubular adenoma, enchondroma, chondroma) but this rule is violated by melanoma, which by usage refers to a malignant neoplasm. Nephron  T|C 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Malignant mesothelioma'' (redirect) 

message: The lede of the article states: "It is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos." However, while the article heavily details the epidemiology related to asbestos exposure, there isn't a word about any other causes or types of cases which haven't been traced to asbestos. I came to this article looking for such information because those class action ads frequently cite asbestos exposure as the "sole" cause of mesothelioma, a fact which I find unlikely. However, the Internet has provided no specific information for me about causes beyond asbestos exposure except that it can occur (mostly because searches for mesothelioma generally yield links to class-action suits and the like). If such information can be found, I'd be happy to add it myself if need be. I just think that in the interest of thoroughness and completeness that all causes be detailed rather than the most frequent. DKqwerty (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesothelioma causes 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Metastatic-mesothelioma.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I am deleting the following text from the article. It is based on a primary source (case report) and should not be in the article. I am inviting the editor to comment.
Agaricus subrufescens is a medicinal mushroom.  A 73-year-old Japanese man who had malignant pleural mesothelioma began regularly ingesting an extract of this mushroom.  His use of the mushroom extract was associated with a "long-term complete disappearance" of his tumor.Higashiyama M et al (2009). "Malignant pleural mesothelioma with long-term tumor disappearance of a local relapse after surgery: a case report". Journal of Medical Case Reports, 3:6800. .
Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:MEDRS gives detailed information about the distinction between primary and secondary sources. (For what it's worth, I actually treat desperately ill people with mesothelioma, and I do not believe that they should be informed of this "discovery".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Paul Stamets, a mycologist, spoke at "TEDMED 2011".  Beginning at 7 minutes and 50 seconds, he presents information about a NIH-funded clinical study that involved the use of a mushroom extract to treat breast cancer.  The data he presented show that using a mushroom extract can greatly increase "base immunity function".  See Paul Stamets at TEDMED 2011.  I am therefore inclined to believe that a mushroom extract could be an effective treatment for mesothelioma. SamanthaJF (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The 73-year-old man administered a mushroom extract to himself.  He later disclosed that use to Higashiyama et al, and then they wrote a report about his use of the mushroom extract and then they submitted their report to the Journal of Medical Case Reports.  Their report seems more like a secondary source than a primary source. SamanthaJF (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am going to assume that you read the information in WP:MEDRS. I shall invite WP:WikiProject Medicine contributors to comment here, so that we can reach a consensus. By the way, have you heard of evidence-based medicine? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (Coming from WPMED per above request) Are we sure this isn't a slow-moving April Fools' joke?  A single-patient, self-administered, self-witnessed, retrospective case report is about as far as we could possibly get from a wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Paul Stamets is a superb scientist. The NLM is a great institution. The paper by Higashiyama is a good paper. However, none of that is relevant to meeting Wikipedia guidelines for what is suitable to cite. The paper cited is a case study, which means that it is a primary source describing a single study. The Wikipedia community has repeatedly and unambiguously decided that when talking about general health issues, secondary sources are appropriate and primary sources are not. No one is disputing the validity of this source as a primary source. It is not appropriate for inclusion only because it is a primary source. Paul Stamets talking during TED is also not appropriate, but perhaps that talk could be cited along with the NIH study as a layman interpretation if that NIH study was a secondary source. The NIH study may or may not be that; I have not seen it.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree we need to use secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mushrooms 

message: Malcolm MacLaren (reinstated) was removed as well. Why was Steve McQueen left in? I've added an external link for MMc. But why is it needed? Isn't the link to the Wikipedia article enough?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fido frog (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Kraus is already mentioned in the article. You have repeatedly added a link to a website which promotes his book, which is not appropriate. See WP:REFSPAM. If the book is itself notable, please find an independent source which says so. Most of your posting above appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not considered a valid argument on Wikipedia.-gadfium 23:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: This article has several sections that need to be condensed to improve its readability, for example the one on symptoms, which states symptoms for MPM in different places and gives indue visibility to symptoms appearing very seldom: this extensive listing does not belong in a dictionnary entry, at least in this unstructured and unanalytical way, as it is very confusing for the neophite reader. 
The link between mesothelioma and asbestos exposure in the introduction needs to be asserted in a stronger way. As stated later, this cancer is - unlike lung cancer - a sentinel marker for exposure. 
There seems to be undue advertisement for certain techniques, individuals and institutions. While it is understandable that new techniques currently being investigated are mentioned, given the low response of mesothelioma to current treatments and the desire of affected people to be better informed about clinical trials, the structure of the article could be more lean (eg, heated chimio is chimio).
The notes 41-42, and possibly others, do not relate to the right articles, being advanced by one reference number.Maab77 (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying needed 

message: I'm surprised there is any need to put this.  But, it seems that discussions of this illness inevitably insert some unfounded assertion of survivability.  Hope this helps.Godofredo29 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mesothelioma Invariably Fatal

message: "A significant group of ship workers and navy personal were exposed to asbestos between WWII and Vietnam era – including Admiral Elmo Zumwalt."
Zumwalt is not in the ref? IMO that content belongs in the body of the article, not the lead.
With respect to exact range, IMO it belongs in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Text

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mesothelioma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to https://veritylane.blogspot.com/2021/08/mesothelioma-law.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: There are a half-dozen  tags near the information on the mechanisms of infection: check out this link if you want to add some citations: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/asbestos_2014/docs/asbestos.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calumapplepie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathology Citations 

message: In the legal issues section, it mentions that a bill regarding compensation died at the end of the 113th Congress but was revived for the 114th Congress. Would that bill not have died again at the conclusion of the 114th Congress (the article makes it sound like it's still alive), or is the article just out of date? I was about to edit the section to clarify that, but I'd rather have all the facts first--Macks2008 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  114th Congress. Wouldn't the bill be dead again? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mguy170 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology