Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 9

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have died of Lyme disease - PROD was contested. Please give your views. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Is the information found on http://www.cancer.gov/ public domain? I couldn't find any copyright notice on the website. Could be very useful for some of the cancer related articles. --WS 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is public domain. The copyright notice for that website is here and it states, "Most of the information on the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Web site has been written by federal government employees. This material is in the public domain and is not subject to copyright restrictions. Therefore, no special permission is required to use it or reproduce it. However, any reproduced material should contain proper acknowledgement of NCI as the originator and the NCI Web site, www.cancer.gov, as the source." Also, accoring to Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works, "we can assume works produced by the U.S. government or its employees in the course of their duties to be copyright-free and in the public domain world-wide." Sarah 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer.gov copyright 

message: The suggestion has come up that Myocardial infarction is not only the incorrect term but a sprawling article.  I am bringing up the suggestion to move the article to Acute coronary syndrome.  Please keep the discussion on the myocardial infarction talk page.  I don't recall if there needs to be any official vote to move an article (which is funny, since I was definitely involved in the move from Heart attack to Myocardial infarction), but given that it was recently a collaboration of the week I figure we should take this slow to make sure we are doing this the right way.  For what it's worth, as a cardiologist, the term ACS really does make a lot more sense, since sometimes a detectable infarction (formation of new q waves or ST abnormalities) doesn't always occur in a "myocardial infarction". Ksheka 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move [[Myocardial infarction]] -> [[Acute coronary syndrome]]!

message: Please vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic. Background is on Talk:Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and User_talk:CaliforniaLyme. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some vanity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Moalem. JFW | T@lk 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100% Don't even get me started on dealing with agenda pushers in medicine in Wiki-ville.Droliver 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if Droliver would spend as much time discussing as he does making accusations, there would be a more cooperative environment.  Those who disagree are "POV pushing". I suggest WP:AGF and be respectful of those who disagree, rather than continuing to engage in a relentless campaign to discredit other editors  Jance 08:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dr Oliver's work in preserving the goals of encyclopedia writers and addressing the vandalism of our project has been tireless and valuable (it tired me out long ago) Will TALK 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ehrlichiosis Induced TTP Mimic]]

message: JDW is I think in part referring to Tick-borne meningoencephalitis which has had a huge amount of (mostly russian) links inserted, with claims that a single TBEV flavivirus is the sole cause and that in turn this is the cause of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. The additions assert that it is activated by many antibiotics but treatable by Phosphrenyl (?any ideas what this is), interferon, and phytotherapy. The cited studies are real enough, in as much as PubMed abstracts them, but it is unclear whether this is a group of different viruses causing a clinical picture (as ICD10 codings suggest) or a single virus (which article now seems to claim, but which I suspect is merely the Russian sources in fact discussing their one specific local type of Tick-borne meningoencephalitis). Some additional comments and opinions would be helpful (see article's history and talk page). David Ruben  Talk  02:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tick-borne meningoencephalitis

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ergadenylic acid - it's a disguised claim that adenosine monophosphate is a vitamin.  --Uthbrian (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: I marked this article for speedy deletion because most of it was taken directly from here (see the logs for the page). Because a few articles link to it, I've recreated it as a redirect to Diffuse parenchymal lung disease, with the reasoning that idiopathic just refers to a case of a disease where the cause is unknown. I have also made pulmonary fibrosis a redirect again because a lot of articles linked there. I've taken this here in case I made a mistake (I'm not a medical expert), or in case an article needs to be written in the place of the redirect. Graham87 11:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't like the term diffuse parenchymal lung disease. IPF needs its own article and we should have a large article on interstitial lung disease. I'd identified the need awhile ago but haven't had the time to start such a project. InvictaHOG 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken the liberty of redirecting it as interstitial lung disease.  Andrew73 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 

message: Whilst this article has previously had a long-running edit war which I appreciate can be off-putting to many editors, it is currently protected and civil discussion is currently considering which of 2 versions to use as a basis for further development. The article has suffered for lack of a resonable number of editors participating (vs just a few individuals arguing which tends to increase the heat). I would encourage those with an interest in medical topics to offer further opinions at Talk:Breast implant#Moving forward David Ruben  Talk  03:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breast implants

message: I may be opening up a Pandora's box, but input welcome at Talk:Epinephrine.  I prefer "epinephrine."  Andrew73
There is a divide between UK and N. America. Epinephrine in NA has until recently been officially called Adrenaline in the UK. Although I think the official nomenclature in the UK has recently changed, the medical profession and the public in the UK still talk about Adrenaline and Noradrenaline. Jellytussle 09:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epinephrine v. adrenaline 

message: Diobesity article recently created and seems imply a separate condition of type 2 diabetes with obesity. The term has zero hits on PubMed and seems a gimicky term, I've Wikipedia:Proposed deletion tagged the article, thoughts of other editors sought at Talk:Diobesity David Ruben  Talk  05:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Proposed deletion" tag was removed x2 (which I suppose counts as disputed) and therefore more formal WP:AfD set up - see therefore Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diobesity. David Ruben  Talk  01:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diobesity

message: Hello there CLINMED members. I have recently made some changes to the metformin article and intend to nominate it for Good Article status. I believe some members of this project, most notably  and , have contributed quite extensively to the article and, as such, may be interested in checking for any factual inaccuracies I may have introduced or alterations I may have done to their own edits. Thank you, Fvasconcellos 13:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metformin 

message: Users 151.205.100.212 and Dom_Kaos have added a substantial amount of text to several medical articles such as Phenylketonuria, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Cystic fibrosis and Down syndrome. These good-faith edits are not always encyclopaedic in style and are unsourced. Can project members please review them. Thanks. Colin°Talk 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to genetic disorders 

message: I've posted a proposal about open sources/open access content at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Proposal_for_policy_on_freely_available_sources_--_encouraging_open_content_.26_open_access.  I think it is very much relevant to this project and important to consider-- with the recent discussion about open content in Nature.  I'd like input from people here at that discussion. Thanks. Nephron  T|C 10:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Open access'' sources 

message: I'd propose (however I don't know how to properly tag them) that the article SIRS redirect to Sepsis. SIRS is not up to date with current literature and is essentially fully encompassed by the article on Sepsis. Secondarily, I tend to think that Septic Shock and Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome should be merged into Sepsis. Both Septic Shock and MODS are spectrums of Sepsis. All three articles cover much of the same material and it would stengthen the Sepsis article to include a bit more on the full spectrum of the disease process without making it significantly longer and would eliminate redundacy. Especially as Sepsis is a very hot topic in critical care right now, it will certainly be easier and more complete to keep 1 article current than to keep 3 (or 4) articles up to date. Bdolcourt 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text was copy-pasted to Talk:Systemic inflammatory response syndrome#Redirecting and merging articles into Sepsis.  Please post replies there. Dlodge 18:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting and merging articles into [[Sepsis]] 

message: User:Glenalpine (prior to signing up as User:67.123.250.229 ) has been adding information to several articles on phage therapy being alternative approaches to the treatment of infectious diseases (see Contributions/Glenalpine). A discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#67.123.250.229 promoting Phage therapy, but phage therapy was added back to several articles with considerable additions of research papers, in my view out of proportion to the fact that these therapies are not generally available nor accepted in Western Medicine (even in Eastern Europe their role has diminished) (see these changes to Antibiotic_resistance). Could other editors have a look at the articles being so edited and comment at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#67.123.250.229 promoting Phage therapy discussion please. David Ruben  Talk  01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR applies here. When did you last prescribe antistaphylococcal phage therapy for a furuncle? JFW | T@lk 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pushing of Phage therapy

message: Just to let people know, the Template:WhoNamedIt to link to Who Named It Database of syndromes and associated doctors previously generated a hyperlink on the database's entry number. Use of this template in External Links sections then required separate mark-up as to what/who was being linked. I've provided an optional additional parameter for the relevant doctor/syndrome name and a shortened template form (Template:WhoNamedIt2) for when several entries are to be listed. David Ruben  Talk  02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates to Template:WhoNamedIt

message: Because of the lack of interest, I would like to change Medicine Collaboration of the week to month. It has already been collaboration of the fortnight, but the promoted articles still have just a few edits. Maybe more time could lead to better results. Any comment? NCurse  work 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit shocked about the state of meningitis (the present MCOTW). I've brainstormed a bit on the talk page but we need to do this together. Where's Knowledge Seeker when you need him? And who told Encephalon he was free to leave? JFW | T@lk 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medicine Collaboration of the Week -> Month 

message: seems to be convinced that Cancer should make a mention of dichloroacetate (DCA). This has been hyped senseless by New Scientist and ABC News articles, and people are calling for clinical trials before it has even been tested in animal models! I have asked RoyBoy to leave it out of the article until consensus is achieved. Could you guys offer your opinion? JFW | T@lk 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gladly... I had a patient come in a few days ago requesting to be treated with DCA, and he handed me the Wikipedia page on DCA as a reference! That darn disclaimer is too small. Anyhoo, I'm happy to give my 2¢ at the article, which is that I hope it works, but lots of drugs kill cancer reliably in Petri dishes and in mice but turn out to be useless or disappointing in humans. It's impossible to know until clinical trials are done, which they will be, pharmanoia notwithstanding. MastCell 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCA 

message: has decided to edit several pages to reflect the views of Denis Burkitt, namely that squat toilets reduce the risk of many colorectal diseases. This is - in my view - not an established theory at all and I dispute the need to deal with it so extensively in appendicitis (where I haven't removed it yet). Please offer your views. I note that this editor has tried to push his case several times in the last few years. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any medical theory so crackpot, so unproven, so utterly unsound that no one bothers to try to cram it into as many Wikipedia articles as possible? I have yet to encounter one. MastCell 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of removing that "toilet theory". It is so fringe as to not merit inclusion. Unless someone shows me some contemporary surgical textbook promoting that it serves as a distractor. For that matter a great deal of that appendicitis entry is not really mainstream.Droliver 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that means you're a doctor, eh?--Dr.michael.benjamin 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed curious we still don't have any surgeons contributing big-time (apart from Rob, who is mainly into the reconstructive/esthetic business). We also desperately need a neurologist (e.g. for the beleaguered Parkinson's disease), a pulmonologist (Axl comes and goes), a nephrologist (although Nephron is doing a splendid job) etc etc. We've got a couple of people working on gastroenterology and haematology topics, and Arcadian seems to be continuously expanding large amounts of preclinical stuff. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, hopefully Samir will come back - he's a huge loss. I'm happy to tackle some of the pulmonary/renal topics, although it will involve some reading, but neurology is probably a little far afield for me. Of course, a surgeon would maintain that they're too busy operating and saving lives to sit around and B.S. on Wikipedia like an internist. (Or maybe just the surgeons I've known). MastCell 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See your email (just sent you one), and here. MastCell 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JFW, I'm actually board-certified in surgery (which I trained in prior to Plastic Surgery) and feel pretty fluent in most areas of general surgery (and it's subspecialties) to some degree.Droliver 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be sure, I'm not questioning your qualifications, Rob. Rather, the breast implant has given you rather a lot of work. If you think you could assume responsibility over some important surgical articles, that would be rather welcome. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. By the way, my comments above were meant in fun - I hope you didn't find them offensive. MastCell 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Squat toilets

message: I copied the WPCM userbox from  to  to comply with WP standards for user boxes, and because the Babel template can't handle any userbox which doesn't start with "User". Should we ask all WPCM members to migrate to the new (correct) userbox? --DrGaellon | Talk 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPCM Userbox

message: The following comment was added by an anon to the Down syndrome article:
Although amniocentesis is very accurate, there are a significant number of pregnancies where the test is impossible to perform because of the position of the placenta. Please would someone add some statistics here!!!
Would anyone be willing to help out with sources? I'm having trouble finding references to support this, meanwhile I've made the statement inline. Fvasconcellos 13:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's conflicting evidence as to whether going through the placenta increases the risk of fetal loss. Considering the malpractice rates most OB's face, in the US at least, they're understandably reluctant regardless of the evidence. However, if you wait a week or two, often the technical approach will be easier as the uterus/placenta change positions. I'll dig up refs for you. MastCell 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks—much appreciated. Down syndrome is an FA; I couldn't well leave the statement "floating around" like that, but if someone thinks the article could be more comprehensive, then we should do something about it :) Fvasconcellos 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amniocentesis 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipid hypothesis JFW | T@lk 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we seem to be heading toward a precedent where minoritarian, fringe, or fraudulent medical topics are deemed worthy of an article partially in order to counteract the disinformation on the Web (see the above, or here for recent examples). I think this is OK in theory, but as the number of such articles grows, I'm afraid it will exceed the capacity and energy of those of us who watch such things to keep them from turning back into POV vehicles. Such articles attract single-purpose editors who can quickly suck up a lot of time from more valuable projects.MastCell 21:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD time again 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism -- Colin°Talk 12:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequency of autism (aka Autism epidemic)

message: I did some major revisions on juvenile idiopathic arthritis.  Interesting is how things can deteriorate... and how a few well-intentioned edits can distort an article that was reasonably accurate but not so well written.  Any case, an article on childhood arthritis ought to be written at some point (that explains the transient stuff) to disambig things and clarify how JIA fits into the grande scheme of things. Any rheumatologists out there? Nephron  T|C 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juvenile idiopathic arthritis 

message: Coeliac disease is now a candidate for WP:FA. Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coeliac disease. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, what a good run! :) Let's work on them! NCurse  work 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't promise anything, but I'm going to try to find time for it tomorrow. NCurse  work 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles 

message: I went thru some of the Plastic Surgery personalities and made AFD's for some some marginal people listed. Keep in mind that I'm fairly proactive in added some of the more signifigant plastic surgeons, but there are a few that don't pass the sniff test to me.
Toby Meltzer is a renomination. He has a fairly vocal trans-gender fanclub, but in all fairness this is not a figure of any notability in contemporary plastic surgery.
Steve Sohn &  Pierre Foldès are two others which are very out of place in meriting inclusion IMO. Sorry I can't figure out how to link to the specific RFD segment! Droliver 07:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD's added

message: Hello - I've just finished a major update and expansion of the cholangiocarcinoma article from its prior stubby state. I'm going to ask for peer review with the goal of getting it into featured-article shape, and wanted to ask you folks to take a look at it and comment here or on the article talk page. I'd particularly like some decent images, either pathology or ERCP/biliary; Samir had some, I think, but he's not been around recently. MastCell 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cholangiocarcinoma]] 

message: Hello - after a lengthy expansion of cholangiocarcinoma, I felt good enough about it to nominate it for featured-article status. Please leave your feedback on the nomination page. Thanks - MastCell Talk 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article nomination: [[cholangiocarcinoma]] 

message: On Talk:Statin,  insists that Wikipedia should mention a non-standard diagnostic entity that according to his data occurs on exposure to common statins. I was wondering what people's thoughts are here. JFW | T@lk 14:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are all of the contrarians, cranks, etc attracted to the areas where Western medicine has actually been most successful (vaccination, the identification of HIV and development of effective treatment, lipid lowering agents, etc)? There are plenty of areas where Western medicine could do a much better job, but people always seem to focus on what are really the success stories. Just a philosophical question - please ignore it. MastCell Talk 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. There are not many diabetes cranks. Can you help out on Talk:Statin and explain to Mr Clemens that he is pushing WP:NOR? JFW | T@lk 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, given the length and formatting, I couldn't really make heads or tails of what he was proposing. I just asked him to briefly formulate what he would like to change about the article and provide references. MastCell Talk 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statin 

message: In recent years the Internet has become a huge marketing tool directed toward Internet savvy health consumers who research their diagnoses online.  Most medical information websites (even highly-regarded international clinics) are created by to increase patient referrals - patients view the website and self-refer or request referrals from their own physicians.  These websites contain a wealth of information, but most are biased to varying extents and often hype unproven therapies.  It is very difficult (especially for non-medical people) to evaluate medical information on the Internet, and similarly difficult to create a Wikipedia policy regarding appropriateness of medical external links.  It would be practically impossible for Wikipedians to critically appraise every medically orientated external link.<BR>
A link to heart-valve-surgery.com has been repeatedly added to (by various IP addresses) and removed from (by multiple authors) most pages in the cardiac surgery realm.  heart-valve-surgery.com contains a wealth of information on various cardiac surgery procedures, but it is linkspam - the website exists only to market a book explaining cardiac surgery.  Most externally linked medical sites are not as blatant in their sales pitch, and in consideration should be given to proposing banning addition of the links to heart-valve-surgery.com on any Wikipedia page.<BR>
Comments? Dlodge 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a minimalist about external links to begin with - often they don't add much to what would be in the Wikipedia article, assuming the article reaches featured quality - and the presence of a commerical bent makes me even more prone to remove them. It may be worth adding to the spam blacklist if the IP's are intolerably persistent and are acting against consensus. Regarding medical article external links, I like to link a few large, non-profit orgs (e.g. the American Cancer Society, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, NIH, CDC, etc - note the U.S.-centricity though), and stay away from just about anything with a .com suffix, for the reasons you spelled out above. MastCell Talk 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site is probably already blacklistable by existing policies, per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. You may want to consider requesting a blacklist at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_additions . Also, if you haven't seen this tool before, you can use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.heart-valve-surgery.com to see where it currently is linked. --Arcadian 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of external links / cardiac surgery linkspam 

message: I'm currently involved in a polite disagreement over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#DermAtlas, and I'd welcome feedback from this community. --Arcadian 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the issue has been resolved largely.  Any case, I did a complete re-write of the DermAtlas article 'cause it sounded a lot like an advert to me. Nephron  T|C 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DermAtlas

message: Someone has added a "Criticism" section on the antipsychotic article, but I don't have access to the articles that supposedly support the author's argument.  --Uthbrian (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added PUbMed ID's, but can't access the articles themselves without going to the library. The whole section smacks of POV-pushing and WP:SYN. Not that there isn't plenty of valid criticism of antipsychotic medications, but selectively quoting 30+ year-old studies and drawing conclusions from them which the authors apparently did not make to advance a viewpoint which, coincidentally, is shared by the Church of Scientology smells bad. I don't have time right now to go through, but the red flags are up. MastCell Talk 16:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antipsychotic#Criticism|Antipsychotic Criticism]] 

message: Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at and comment on cholangiocarcinoma in its peer review and featured-article nomination. It succeeded and is now promoted to featured-article status. MastCell Talk 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: The proposed guideline WP:MEDMOS has been declared "historical" due to lack of activity. Please can we push towards consensus and make it a formal guideline. If we think it is close, we can advertise on the Village pump. Discuss on the talk page. Colin°Talk 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) 

message: Anyone interested in collaborating on improving the non-Hodgkin lymphoma article? There's a lot of good stuff there, but it lacks referencing and polishing. It would be a nice article to get into GA or FA shape, and it's not like we'd be starting from scratch. Any takers? MastCell Talk 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in. Let me know when you want to start. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps as the next collaboration of the week?? --WS 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have CT's that I can add.  I probably get path images also. -- 74.12.72.155 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a 'CT'? Aarktica 17:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for replying! Cheers. Aarktica 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHL 

message: Hi.  I'm writing an article about the history of interventional cardiology (It's on my user page right now, I'll move it into the wikipedia when I'm ready).  I'm looking for some references to when drug-eluting stents first came out and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand.  Some lawyers were advertising that they would sue cardiologists that put in a bare metal stent.  I remember some billboards and newspaper advertisements about it when the drug eluting stents first came out.  I thought it would make a nice counterpoint to the fears of the general population with drug eluting stents now. Ksheka 12:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those refs may be hard to find, since most law firms have taken those ads down and replaced them, predictably, with ads suggesting they'll sue physicians for using drug eluting stents (e.g. , , , etc.) It would be interesting if the same firm had simultaneous cases going against physicians both for using bare metal stents, and for using drug-eluting stents. Don't worry though, if another study comes out suggesting drug-eluting stents are actually better, the law firms will take down their current ads and go back to suing the doctors who didn't use them again. MastCell Talk 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  Some actual cases would be interesting to add to the article.  I'll ask a lawyer friend of mine (not a trial lawyer, (un)fortunately) to see if he can dig something up.  I'll also post this request to the lawyers to see if they can help. Ksheka 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for a reference: Lawyers sueing for *not* using drug eluting stents 

message: Amaurosis fugax is on peer review right now but hasn't had any comments yet so maybe some people here can have a look... --WS 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amaurosis fugax on peer review

message: This is an essay and not to be treated too seriously :-)
Is there a correct clinical term for the doctor-patient interaction or consultation skills of a patient unwittingly quoting ones own writings/contributions back at one? I've seen another patient who started quoting information obtained "off the internet" that rapidly transpired not only being from wikipedia, but from an article I had both contributed heavily to and current am the last to have edited.  Of course this occurred prior to the internet, with patients looking up a paper and quoting the conclusions at their consultant, not having noted the author of the paper was one and the same specialist. The difference with wikipedia is that an article's authors are not emblazoned under the article header, but are hidden away in the history. 
Possible terms such as wikipediad, wikicounselled, wikiconsult, homowikicited or autowikicited come to mind :-)  Any suggestions for better terminology ? 
Finally what then for a patient's disbelief that one knows what one is talking about when one declines to read the whole article, so carefully printed out for one, with a "yes I know what it says". Likewise does demonstrating the article’s edit history and ones own awareness of the article help, or merely seem to belittle the hard efforts of the patient who tried to advance their own understanding and partnership in managing their health ? Instead should one be seen to studiously read the article (despite the waste of precious time), praise both the wisdom of the article’s authors and superb quality of the information, and finally congratulate the patient’s thoroughness, before carefully advising and treating as one would have done anyway ? David Ruben  Talk  18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had this exact thing happen with dichloroacetic acid, and the occasional herbal supplement - to which my tongue-in-cheek response was, "Yes, but you know what kind of people edit Wikipedia..." It really did convince me of the need to improve the accuracy and usefulness of medical articles though - no matter what the disclaimer says, this site is a major source of health information. And occasionally I come across some pretty scary misinformation in Wikipedia medical articles (statin is a favorite target, and I recently noticed that mammography made getting a mammogram sound as risky as taking a dip in the Chernobyl cooling tank). But I'm sure a physician and Wikipedian of your obvious talents handled the situation adeptly. MastCell Talk 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Received a wikinosis?  Not that I'm anywhere near having the qualifications to be in such a position - But if I were, I would use the opportunity to point them to more "safe" sources like www.pubmed.gov.  Digressing, I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be a friend's doctor.  She works as a Digital Materials specialist for a University Medical Library. . .  (John User:Jwy talk) 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a similar thing happen with me.  However, it was actually a physician I was training under, who google'd up some info from wikipedia and wanted me to read over with him.  I had written it a couple months earlier.  I responded with something like: "Well, you know you can't always believe what you read on the web...", and then broke it to him that I was the principle author.  As for pubmed, it's really not a great source unless you are looking for the answer to a very exact question.  Likely you'll find multiple different articles with varying opinions.  I like pointing to review articles, if they exist on a subject.  That's also what a lot of the medical articles here are turning into.Ksheka 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure they were relieved to see that the initials may be colloquially interpreted as "Death Is Coming"... MastCell Talk 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reciprocation of information

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months.  Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDMOS]] 

message: Here there is a discussion about deletion of the eponym categories. Nephron  T|C 04:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very useful set of categories. Please vote keep here, guys. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they really that useful JFW?  I sort of viewed them as superfluous.  74.12.80.240 07:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was three votes delete to four votes keep and the person closing the discussion decided the categories should be deleted???? Nephron  T|C 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I voiced my opinion on it here. Nephron  T|C 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we apply for review of these categories' deletion? There are the "List of..." articles - List of eponymous diseases and List of eponymous medical signs, but maintaining these requires much more work for any editor who creates a new article, and for any in this project who wish to view which new eponymously named article may have been created. This is a WikiProject, so do project members feel the categories were an integral part of teh project and ought to be reinstated ? David Ruben  Talk  02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the deletion of the categories was an error. --Arcadian 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: He can now put them all back. JFW | T@lk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So back to those awful lists again? JFW | T@lk 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponym categories... up for disucssion 

message: For those interested in the history of medicine or the controversies currently in interventional cardiology, I just created the above article. Ksheka 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the article made Did You Know on the front page today. :-) Ksheka 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of invasive and interventional cardiology]] 

message: Its been redirected to 'Indian rupee' instead of INR (disambiguation) or International normalized ratio. Is there any way of looking into wikipedia traffic data to find out what most people are searching for?--Countincr ( T@lk ) 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just change it back to disambiguation and put rupee in the diambig article. alteripse 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So done David Ruben  Talk  17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: INR

message: I don't wish to distract you from reviewing and commenting on WP:MEDMOS as potential guideline but ...
There's currently some discussion going on about whether the popular press (newspapers/magazines) can be regarded as a reliable source for medical articles. We're not talking about any social/historical/biography bits – just the medical facts themselves. WP:MEDRS has taken a generally negative POV wrt to such sources. The Newspapers section was recently rewritten and now one editor is criticising the "In science, avoid citing the popular press" section that we shamelessly nicked from WP:RS (prior to its rewrite since 1st December).
I encourage you to join the discussion and also to be bold in updating this pre-guideline. It is much further from readiness than MEDMOS and needs far more input from a variety of editors before it can be regarded as a consensus document. At this stage, I'd we need to expand it with contributions rather than refine it for officialdom. Thanks for your time, Colin°Talk 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDRS]] 

message: (Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pathology}
Hi all. I've proposed a new stub, , to mark the many proto-articles on topics related to Pathology - including various tools and techniques of pathologists, subspecialties of pathology, and microscopic entities which are part of disease processes and are used by pathologists in diagnosis. In assembling the items that would be appropriate for the stub, I found that some of them had been labeled as medical signs and marked with , under the broad definition that anything which is detectable and relates to a disease is a "medical sign". In my experience, named eponymous signs, and other medical entities specifically referred to as "signs" are concepts which refer primarily to a appearance or observation rather than to a physical entity which is part of the disease process itself. Thus, observations made on physical examination (e.g. strawberry tongue) or radiographic study (e.g. Kerley B lines) are "medical signs" but entities such as fibrosis, astrogliosis, and auer rods are not, and would be appropriate for my new stub & category. Whether you support or oppose my idea, I'd apprciate your joining the conversation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Thanks. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting input on stub proposal: Pathology-stub 

message: I have just put two articles up for review if you have any thoughts:
*Poliomyelitis is up for review here, I would especially appreciate any "medical insights" you might have in regards to this article.
*Antibody is also up for review here.
*Anabolic steroids was also just added for review here (by Wikidudeman)
Thanks so much, cheers!--DO11.10 03:22, 20 April 2007
The Timeline of tuberous sclerosis is also having a peer review. Thanks for any comments you may have. Colin°Talk 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four articles up for peer review 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antibiotic Resistance in Cancer Patients. JFW | T@lk 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More AFDs 

message: I've created Template:RareDiseases to simplify markup for this external link to the NIH's Office of Rare Diseases (ORD).
It takes as parameters the Disease ID Number and optionally also alternative text (i.e. the Disease's name) to display. As an example, see Arthrogryposis edits.David Ruben  Talk  13:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NIH's Office of Rare Diseases

message: Subjective medical conditions - a brilliant piece of unreferenced POV, but very good in its approach and style! JFW | T@lk 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now on AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subjective medical conditions. JFW | T@lk 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoa 

message: I've been in a slow edit dispute over addition of information about biofilms to Sinusitis (minority vs majority POV, undue space for minority POV, not making logical WP:NOR jumps from general research to specific disease management etc). Discussion started at Talk:Sinusitis#Sinusitis_Edits about these edits. It would be helpful to have others comment on what & how this should be included in the article.David Ruben  Talk  13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sinusitis