Talk:Inclusion body myositis

message: My father has IBM and is not a good news, I'd like to share  info and experience about it.
pino --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.228.178 (talk • contribs) 5 May 2005 17:53‎
My Mom was just recently diagnosed with this disease.  We are going to put her on a nutritional detoxification program to see if it restores some of the lost neurological functionality that may be causing the inclusion bodies to be formed.  We'll see how she's doing in a few months.  -Brent --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.252.68 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2005 11:32‎
*I completed a big edit of this article, snipping away some spurious material and improving legibility. --Agamemnon2 08:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments

message: This Article needs a clean up badly to conform to Wiki standards. I am surprised the conservative Ghouls who prowl Wiki slapping Citation needed tags everywhere, have not found the site yet?
The referencing system needs stanardizing, use Diberri's template.click here
I have converted those references I can find, other tagged.
Too many blog sites used as references, they are not WP:RS.
This Article appears to be based on only four RS references! With 850 studies on the Pubmed list for the condition, a few more need to be referenced. There has been many more (about 100, since Nov. 2006). 
Added some more recent ref's but text needs update.
I will move the out of date piece to this page where it belongs, as discussion. When citing a study in the Article, one can only say what the authors say. A reveiw is needed to quote other conclusions, editors can not make their own conclusions in the Article but can discuss it on the Talk page. Jagra (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: Wikipedia's external links policy and the specific guidelines for medicine-related articles do not permit the inclusion of external links to non-encyclopedic material, particularly including internet chat boards and e-mail discussion groups. Because I realize that most normal editors haven't spent much time with these policies, please let me provide specific information from the guidelines:
* This page, which applies to all articles in the entire encyclopedia, says that links "to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists" are to be avoided.
* This page deprecates ""helpful" external links, such as forums, self-help groups and local charities."
* This medical-specific page reinforces the pan-Wiki rules, with a note that "All links must meet Wikipedia's external links guidelines, which in particular exclude discussion forums."
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it may occasionally be useful to patients or their families, it is not a web directory for support groups.  Please do not re-insert links that do not conform to the standard rules.  Any editor, BTW, is welcome to read all of the rules and perform an "audit" in the remaining links.  Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: There's a suggested order for the sections on pages like this at WP:MEDMOS.  The list there does not have to be followed precisely, but if it seems sensible and appropriate, or if it suggests ideas about more information you can include, then please consider the advantages of "standardizing" this article (but only to the extent that it is appropriate).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I have removed the following comment from the Article because it is unsourced. All material must be accompanied by WP:RS citations. A phone call from some (maybe disgruntled) researcher is really for this page not the Article. 
Comment: I was contacted by a senior researcher who made the following comment on this press release "The press release states outright that lithium can slow progression of inclusion body myositis. The study referred to did not administer lithium to any patients with IBM; the mistake reflects an exageration in which people claim that a manipulated animal has the disease when it in fact is only a model. In this case, the model is grossly inaccurate, but that is another story, and the press release grossly exagerating; it also claims that "mice genetically engineered to have IBM demonstrated markedly better motor function six months after receiving daily doses of lithium chloride, compared with non-treated mice." In fact, the actual results reported in the publication of this study showed no statistically significant difference in motor function in six-month treated mice."
A couple of other comments the citation is not a 'press release' but a scientific study published in a peer reveiwed journal. They cannot say just anything, and this is what it actually says in the full free text paper;
Suppression of GSK-3  activity using either a specific inhibitor or lithium chloride significantly reduced tau phosphorylation and partially rescued motor impairment. Evaluation of the motor performance suggests that prolonged treatment with LiCl may also benefit motor function because we found that mice maintained on the control diet showed a significant deterioration in performance over the 6-month test period. In contrast, all LiCl-treated mice showed a trend toward improved motor performance compared with the saline-treated control animals, although this did not reach statistical significance (see Fig 4C).
As only part of the result is included in the Article it would be more accurate and useful to include both findings. Jagra (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lithium study comments