Jump to content

Talk:Lupus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 56: Line 56:


Articles must also allocate space and text to represent primarily the mainstream opinion on a topic. In other words, the most appropriate focus for an article is the scientific consensus on a topic, which means most alternative treatments do not get much play as they are generally not scientifically evaluated or reported in peer-reviewed journals. There's a lot of theoretically useful treatments for conditions, but we should not report on them until it has been demonstrated and reported as actually being useful and ''used'' by a substantial number of patients and doctors to treat the condition. When the evidence suggests that UVA1 is no more used or attention given than other [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] treatments, placing a section in the article gives [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to a topic that is fundamentally not particularly noteworthy as a treatment. If, however, you can turn up a significant number of sources reviewing UVA1 treatment that demonstrates it is effective, or extensively used, then it becomes appropriate. The attention must be given in sources relevant to a medical topic - peer-reviewed journals and scholarly books by university and other presses noted for editorial oversight. [[User:WLU|WLU]] ([[User talk:WLU|talk]]) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles must also allocate space and text to represent primarily the mainstream opinion on a topic. In other words, the most appropriate focus for an article is the scientific consensus on a topic, which means most alternative treatments do not get much play as they are generally not scientifically evaluated or reported in peer-reviewed journals. There's a lot of theoretically useful treatments for conditions, but we should not report on them until it has been demonstrated and reported as actually being useful and ''used'' by a substantial number of patients and doctors to treat the condition. When the evidence suggests that UVA1 is no more used or attention given than other [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] treatments, placing a section in the article gives [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to a topic that is fundamentally not particularly noteworthy as a treatment. If, however, you can turn up a significant number of sources reviewing UVA1 treatment that demonstrates it is effective, or extensively used, then it becomes appropriate. The attention must be given in sources relevant to a medical topic - peer-reviewed journals and scholarly books by university and other presses noted for editorial oversight. [[User:WLU|WLU]] ([[User talk:WLU|talk]]) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

: you want you want peer reviewed studies? no problem...here's some of what's available on line for free (at least the abstracts):
"Ultraviolet-A1 phototherapy modulates Th1/Th2 and Tc1/Tc2 balance in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/7/925
"Efficacy of UVA-1 cold light as an adjuvant therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/11/1402
"Ultraviolet-A light prolongs survival and improves immune function in (New Zealand black x New Zealand white)F1 hybrid mice." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3593437?dopt=Abstract
"Review : Ultraviolet-A1 (340-400 nm) irradiation therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://lup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/269?ijkey=88b94ab398db0fc95edb6157fa3db060d659b50f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
"Longterm ultraviolet-A1 irradiation therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9195511?dopt=Abstract
"Evidence that Singlet Oxygen-induced Human T Helper Cell Apoptosis Is the Basic Mechanism of Ultraviolet-A Radiation Phototherapy" - http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/10/1763?ijkey=0f861943ea7399c498e8f08e9b22dc5a32d05d3c&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
"Ultraviolet-A1 phototherapy modulates Th1/Th2 and Tc1/Tc2 balance in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/7/925?ijkey=defa25748e4e3907b6fb2067302663bdf1a6ecfd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
"Elimination of anticardiolipin antibodies and cessation of cognitive decline in a UV-A1-irradiated systemic lupus erythematosus patient" - http://lup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/10/859?ijkey=28b9579c8b539046283c5998d9ed819b8b3cb116&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
::how many more do you need before you decide UVA1 deserves a mention?[[Special:Contributions/24.14.35.45|24.14.35.45]] ([[User talk:24.14.35.45|talk]]) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:37, 14 July 2008

WikiProject iconMedicine B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:MedportalDYK Template:MCOTWnom

UVA1 phototherapy

24.14.35.45 (talk · contribs), self-identified as the author of Anthony DeBartolo (2004). Lupus Underground: A Patient's Case for a Long-Ignored, Drug-Free, Non-Patentable, Counter-Intuitive Therapy That Actually Works - UVA1 Phototherapy. Hyde Park Media. ISBN 0-9763428-0-4. has left a note on my talkpage to ask why I have repeatedly removed mention of UVA-1 treatment. To clarify here: there is no evidence that this treatment is anywhere beyond early clinical trials, and is not yet in widespread clinical use. Failing corroboration on its popularity from independent sources, I don't think UVA-1 phototherapy should be mentioned. JFW | T@lk 16:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

correction - i've left more than a note on your talk page Jfdwolff...but if you wish to move our discussion to this page, no problem.
if nothing else, i think UVA1 needs to be included under "Treatment research" (even though it's used off-label today) since what many of the trial drugs are attempting to do, we already know UVA1 does.
i invite all to read the most important chapters of 'Lupus Underground' here: [1] (password = lupuslight) --- especially appendix b - research from 1987-2003...you'll find a few of the more recent studies on the book's website - http://www.lupusunderground.com
how about this entry under treatment research?: "UVA1 Phototherapy - a promisiing therapy that uses ultraviolet UVA1 radiation - long UVA wave lengths that do not promote sunburn and which are thought to block inflammatory immune factors by promoting apoptosis (cell death) in T cells. Several studies, both in the U.S. and Europe, have shown that UVA1 phototherapy lowers disease activity in SLE."
BTW -the "Clearance deficiency" section nicely explains the UVA1 action, but it is unproven....so why is this allowed? this is, however, the same action that makes UVA1 effective for morphea & scleroderma - simply put, it kills immune cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced for readability. As I've pointed out on your talk page, the question is also one of medically reliable sources (of which your book is not due to the publisher) and undue weight. If UVA1 is a regularly used treatment, then the sources must come from peer-reviewed journals and books published by university or medical press.
Clearance deficiency is referenced to the Journal of Autoimmunity, and there are other references on pubmed that discuss the term (i.e. PMID: 15893710; PMID: 16394661; PMID: 16724805 and a total of 79 searching for "clearance deficiency lupus erythematosus"). UVA1 lupus erythematosus produces 7 hits. This suggests WP:UNDUE; I would suggest working with the reliable sources to build a possible section (perhaps on a sub-page) and requesting a review. Note that "promising" is not neutral (and appears inaccurate as the latest article on pubmed was in 2006), and "several studies" is weasel-wordy. I would suggest citing, linking and summarizing the studies. WLU (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my book may not be a "medically reliable source" but it's filled with medically reliable sources....as i said: appendix b - research from 1987-2003 + my interviews with top experts in the field.

my point about 'Clearance deficiency' (which by the way Dr. Hugh McGrath Jr. pointed out to me when he read it) is not that no one has ever heard of it - Dr. McGrath's point was it has never been PROVEN to be the case in lupus...so please, stop with the straw man technique ....who cares how many "hits" you get for the term -- what do the citations say?

and what in the world does 2006 as being the last pubmed UVA1 hit have to do with anything?

as for use of the term "promising" - fine - change it to "proven" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.35.45 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i've posted it under a newly created hed = alt med ...any objections? if so, please explain them...thanks24.14.35.45 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please space your posts appropriately per talk page guidelines. You might also want to review undue weight again - we are not obligated to report every possible topic, only the notable ones. It would be particularly helpful if you actually read the policies and referred to them rather than attempting to convince purely through logic, which is considered original research and forbidden. (the three revert rule is also a concern, and I believe you're in danger of violating it).
Your book is not a reliable source, and can not be cited. You can, however, cite the sources it contains directly so long as no original analysis occurs (i.e. you don't cite the articles to re-state the conclusions in your book). Again, I point you to pubmed, where in combination with diberry you can produce perfect, error-free templates. Virtually everything found on pubmed can be considered reliable, and it's a pretty good index of the attention received by mainstream medicine since it's indexed by the national institutes of health, which is itself a reliable source. Little attention by a mainstream indexing entity suggests fringe topics; the NYT only suggests that it may one day be a treatment, not that it is.
Alternative medicine is itself a fringe topic and its status on wikipedia is tentative and contested. You should carefully review WP:UNDUE as that is the main objection to the section in my mind, and discuss how it is not undue weight to emphasize this topic with essentially its own section. That section is not really about alternative medicine, I would consider it a coatrack for UVA1 therapy; retitling a previously removed section does not change the arguments against including the original content.
Per our capitalization guidelines the section title is off (should be lower-case "m"); the citation should also be in the form of an inline citation and ideally using citation templates. Gregory House should also be removed from Systemic lupus erythematosus#See also as vandalism. WLU (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UVA1 is not "alternative medicine". It is an experimental treatment that does not answer to the general definition of "alternative". Could you now stop inserting it until we have arrived at consensus on this page? JFW | T@lk 22:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I support a discussion of UVA1 before unilaterally inserting it. I'd be reverting myself were it not for unusual circumstances. Anon, please make a better effort to convince other editors that there is merit to the section; a sub-page would be an ideal location to draft a section and solicit suggestions from more experienced editors. A civil discussion rather than an edit war will result in a better section that will be defended by other editors rather than removed. I would also suggest signing up for an account so it is easier to communicate (and a sub-page would be specifically yours). Thanks, WLU (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the feedback - and yes, i need to review the guidelines, etc around here, but my god they all seem rather complex at this point ... ..that said, my ignorance of the rules notwithstanding, i don't understand some of the comments -- how is UVA1 not an alt treatment when the accepted standard lupus treatment(s), is, has been & will always be drugs? (drugs treatments are considered standard in western medicine) ...put another way, UVA1 is not approved by the FDA (or any other regulatory body) to treat lupus, yet it is used as a treatment, regardless of the number that employ it --- that seems to qualify UVA1 as an 'alt treatment' by any standard....24.14.35.45 (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW -why is my book still being mentioned? i'm not posting it.24.14.35.45 (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you have a section called "Treatment" - the one line intro states: "There are several means of preventing and dealing with flares, including drugs, alternative medicine, and lifestyle changes." ... there are drug & lifestyle sub-heds, but not a word on alt med...your argument that alt med itself is a 'fringe' topic does nothing but help define what the nature of alt med is - treatments on the fringe - that means they are to be ignored? there are peer-reviewed studies that can be cited to back up the effectiveness of a few of these things so why not include them? (for example, even the FDA admits there's plenty of data that supports the effectiveness of glucosamine sulfate in reducing joint inflammation - it's a standard alt treatment for many lupus patients)-- maybe my questions will answered if i can find the time to study your operating procedures, but i've always thought an encyclopedia was supposed to be a comprehensive reference work ...as an outsider i must say your operating procedures really do seem to undermine your usefulness as a comprehensive reference - it's like you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.24.14.35.45 (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A treatment is "alternative medicine" if no attempts are being made to prove its efficacy scientifically. Clearly, one would prefer benefits from UVA1 to be confirmed in trials, rather than it being lumped with aromatherapy and meditation?

The book is being mentioned because you are its author. Despite the fact that it is not being mentioned, attempts to mention a treatment that you have devised could easily be interpreted as self-promotion. This alone would be a good reason for you to await consensus, and accept what other users have to say when this happens.

If glucosamine has an evidence base (which it has in osteoarthritis but not AFAIK in lupus) then it is not alternative medicine anymore. Generally, it is very hard to provide an encyclopedic account of which alternative medical treatments are used, because they are so diverse, so poorly regulated and insufficiently discussed in reliable sources. I have no problem with mentioning saw palmetto on the benign prostatic hypertrophy page, or echinacea on common cold, or St John's wort on major depressive disorder, because they are discussed extensively in sources regarded as reliable on medical topics. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, my book does not mention a treatment which i have 'devised' ... my book describes a treatment that Dr. Hugh McGrath Jr has devised - what i've done is replicate his work & written about it.
also for the record - because nothing treats the disease of lupus directly - only it's symptoms - you'll never find a supplement that has an evidence base for treating lupus --- just its symptoms, which lupus shares with other disorders....for example, look again at glucosamine -- the FDA states: "Preliminary research suggests that glucosamine affects cytokine-mediated pathways regulating inflammation and cartilage degradation and immune responses." http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/4045b1_04_Summary%20GCSOA%20FAC.htm --- while the form of arthritis lupus patients suffer from does not include "cartilage degradation," there are cytokine-mediated pathways regulating joint inflammation which glucosamine can positively effect....since there's apparently no evidence base that's it's helpful for lupus patients too, but they use it nonetheless, by your definition it's still alternative medicine, so why not include it? ... i understand 'it is very hard to provide an encyclopedic account of which alternative medical treatments are used,' but i don't see why the difficulty of the task would prevent a bunch of bright guys like you to attempt an overview for the sake of comprehension.
but to make sure i'm understanding your point, let me offer a made-up example --- if there were a large body of evidence that showed, say, hydrotherapy was an effective short-term therapy for the inflammation/pain associated with OA, but it was never tested on a population of lupus patients, are you saying hydrotherapy could never be mentioned in an article on lupus?
as for your question: "Clearly, one would prefer benefits from UVA1 to be confirmed in trials, rather than it being lumped with aromatherapy and meditation?" ...benefits have been documented in McGrath's successfully completed phase 1 trials, and in a few independent follow-up european studies...but further trials will not occur until someone figures out how to make money on this treatment which now exists in the public domain....so i think it has very much in common with aromatherapy and meditation...another point - if lupus did not effect more than (what's the cut off?) 4000 people, it would qualify as an 'orhpan,' for the same financial reasons, but it's not - there's a couple million of us here in the US alone.24.14.35.45 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(bing!)The problem is one of verifiability, not truth. In other words, UVA1 may be a miracle cure that solves all the problems of all lupus sufferers (i.e. it may be true that it is a valid, useful treatment), but until it is written up in a medically reliable source, we can not verify that it's true. Verifiability is the standard because without a source, we are essentially asserting that our opinion is correct. That would probably be original research, but the greater problem is what to do if two editors disagree over whose opinion is correct. The only reasonable solution on a project of wikipedia's scope is to insist on using only reliable sources to expand pages whenever there is a disagreement. In this case, as a medical condition the appropriate reliable sources are journal articles and peer-reviewed books.

Articles must also allocate space and text to represent primarily the mainstream opinion on a topic. In other words, the most appropriate focus for an article is the scientific consensus on a topic, which means most alternative treatments do not get much play as they are generally not scientifically evaluated or reported in peer-reviewed journals. There's a lot of theoretically useful treatments for conditions, but we should not report on them until it has been demonstrated and reported as actually being useful and used by a substantial number of patients and doctors to treat the condition. When the evidence suggests that UVA1 is no more used or attention given than other fringe treatments, placing a section in the article gives undue weight to a topic that is fundamentally not particularly noteworthy as a treatment. If, however, you can turn up a significant number of sources reviewing UVA1 treatment that demonstrates it is effective, or extensively used, then it becomes appropriate. The attention must be given in sources relevant to a medical topic - peer-reviewed journals and scholarly books by university and other presses noted for editorial oversight. WLU (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you want you want peer reviewed studies? no problem...here's some of what's available on line for free (at least the abstracts):

"Ultraviolet-A1 phototherapy modulates Th1/Th2 and Tc1/Tc2 balance in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/7/925 "Efficacy of UVA-1 cold light as an adjuvant therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/11/1402 "Ultraviolet-A light prolongs survival and improves immune function in (New Zealand black x New Zealand white)F1 hybrid mice." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3593437?dopt=Abstract "Review : Ultraviolet-A1 (340-400 nm) irradiation therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://lup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/269?ijkey=88b94ab398db0fc95edb6157fa3db060d659b50f&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha "Longterm ultraviolet-A1 irradiation therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9195511?dopt=Abstract "Evidence that Singlet Oxygen-induced Human T Helper Cell Apoptosis Is the Basic Mechanism of Ultraviolet-A Radiation Phototherapy" - http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/10/1763?ijkey=0f861943ea7399c498e8f08e9b22dc5a32d05d3c&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha "Ultraviolet-A1 phototherapy modulates Th1/Th2 and Tc1/Tc2 balance in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus" - http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/7/925?ijkey=defa25748e4e3907b6fb2067302663bdf1a6ecfd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha "Elimination of anticardiolipin antibodies and cessation of cognitive decline in a UV-A1-irradiated systemic lupus erythematosus patient" - http://lup.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/10/859?ijkey=28b9579c8b539046283c5998d9ed819b8b3cb116&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

how many more do you need before you decide UVA1 deserves a mention?24.14.35.45 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]