User talk:Doc James

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page.

Talk:Obesity

Please see my request at Talk:Obesity and leave a response there. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-11-15 16:58Z

You better stop feeding your face b/c you're a big boy! --Mark Lessig (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

I'm in the process of addressing the concerns you listed on OFC's talk page. However, you state,

It says "Bone x-rays can also be used to diagnose the disease, though results can be inconclusive." This is followed by "Radiographs distinctly show bone resorption". Here is what emedicine says: "In severe cases, plain films reveal the classic bone finding, osteitis fibrosa cystica. It consists of bone cysts with or without pathologic fractures. These cysts are also known as brown tumors."

While I agree that the notion that my Radiology section needs rewording and potentially fact-checking, the eMedicine article that you chose to cite specifically discusses Parathyroid carcinoma, which is only one potential cause of OFC, and hence, isn't directly related to my statement. Osteitis fibrosa can be detected on x-rays, though it can sometimes be confused with conditions such as osteoperosis. The eMedicine article you cited implies that though x-rays will detect brown tumors, indicitive of OFC, there will not be a differentiation between OFC caused by hyperparathyroidism and Parathyroid carcinoma. Strombollii (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the formatting of that comment, I can't seem to get rid of the box that seems to be encapsulating my comment, and I'm really not sure why it's there.

Also, do you have full access to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112701262/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 ? If possible, is there any way I could get a description of what the full text consists of, or possibly an edit from you to the FNA section of the article? I'd like to expand, but am having trouble Strombollii (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

science

Do you think we should stop giving crisps and chis to young children?

Can obesity effect our gens, can it corrup it?

Is it always a tren, that the more you eat the higher intake of calories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.204 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

early psychosis

have started a new entry on early intervention in psychosis. still in early stages - but your help appreciated, as this new branch of psychiatry is evidence that psychiatry is only just being to approach the concept of prevention

Larsen TK, Friis S, Haahr U, et al. (2001). Early detection and intervention in first-episode schizophrenia: a critical review. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 103, 323–334. Earlypsychosis (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you need to know the cause of psychosis before embarking on intervention to prevent psychosis. see the talk pageEarlypsychosis (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Benzo overdose

Hi Jmh, a merge proposal has be placed on the benzodiazepine overdose talk page. I see that you created the page so you may like to add your views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown-Sequard syndrome

Thanks for your help. I agree that Case studies of Brown Sequard, as a separate article is probably correct. Some of these editors on Wiki give me dyspepsia, a headache and chest pain! A E Francis (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome

I have nominated Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have one question to ask: If the article on Brown-Sequard is deleted, what is accomplished? If the editors of Wiki keep running off those who can write intelligently on subjects, who is left? A E Francis (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the credibility of Wikipedia is being destroyed by a bunch of egomaniacal morons, hiding behind pseudonyms, posing as editors. I am not saying this about you. I appreciate your help. But it begs the question: who is going to put in all the work it takes to write articles, only to have them deleted? A E Francis (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind and consoling words. I have written more than 20 articles for Wiki, and enjoy doing so. It seems that there is always the eventual storm with some editors. Maybe I am in the wrong place. I really don't know much about wiki books or wikiveristy. Maybe that is where I belong. You know, as Zollinger of Zollinger-Ellsion syndrome wrote, "There is only one reason to write, and that is to learn." I have generally found this to be true. If you write it down and publish somewhere, it helps with critical thinking. Anyway, I will investigate the other parts of Wiki. Thanks again. A E Francis (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Doc Jim: I want to thank you for trying to resolve the issues with Brown-Sequard syndrome. I can tell you are a real healer. However, I thought you might be interested in reading an e-mail I received from a psychiatrist in Utah concerning the editing of Brown Sequard syndrome: "I just took a look at the article history...what a mess! And what is that "bored admin" change?? You know, what I am seeing reinforces my concern about the whole system...well-informed, reliable information can be lost in the shuffle of personality/power trips, and BS can rise to the top. Maybe that is too simple and crass, but it makes it hard for me to trust the wiki system. Maybe there is some other forum out there that would better respect what you have to offer..."

I have received many similar e-mails concerning the recent deletion of the case material from Brown-Sequard. I am publishing this message on every relevant blog. This message isn't meant for you. But it is telling about that many have come to regard Wiki as either unreliable, written at a 10 year old comprehension level, or worse, just a joke. I have many e-mails telling me this. I care about Wiki, as I know you do. That is why I am posting this for you to read. A E Francis (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

:)

The tool you sent me for formatting references looks like more trouble than it's worth but thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snailgoop (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

APA Style References

When I reference an article, I use APA style. There are several different ways to reference a scholarly article. In my opinion, APA style is the most appropriate given the topic. Furthermore, while you might cringe at the use of personal pages as a reference on Wikipedia, I disagree that using a personal page of a top authority such as Barkley is insufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snailgoop (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

not sure what to do with this

this looks like WP:ADVERT on a talk page Talk:Preventive medicine Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

I sent you an email about this.

Before you came along we were already trying to resolve the NPOV debates about this article. I just don't like how you completely modified the article, removing cited statements, without discussing it on the talk page.

You can find all your sources at www.fqresearch.com, or you contact Dave at fqresearch.org, he is one of the article's main contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLockson (talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Please leave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidtfull a message. He is the expert in this field, and contributed most of the article. I am just here to edit and improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLockson (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, James. Thank you for your sensible and well-reasoned approach to "Fluoroquinolone toxicity". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To Jmh649, for ensuring Wikipedia's standard of quality and reliability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the fluoroquinolone page. You deserve a gold star from Bayer and Ortho-McNeal Bonnie32 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for your supporting message on my talk page. I'm glad you feel the same way. To be honest, I'm too frustrated with this article to be editing. They have just a lot more time than me and for the moment, I'm having some personal issues and too much work in real life to get involved as heavily as would be necessary. It's also very frustrating that they are using sockpuppets like Bonnie32 (talk · contribs) here. But once things settle down again I'll pick up editing and maybe we can support each other and there will be more balance. Personally, I feel it would be better for now if we let them make some useful contributions for a change and just leave the NPOV-tag, which basically makes their entire rambling useless. If you feel like fighting this, I would focus on quinolone and the articles on the different kinds, removing all NPOV there with an edit summary that it should be discussed in the main quackery article. This is an improvement that can be made in a relatively short time, I think. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think listing it for deletion now would be a good idea; we should first try to make more of an effort to try to reach a consensus, although it would take a lot more time. Many people will vote keep if they see that it is mainly a NPOV-problem, they will think we are only interested in winning an edit war. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome on my page. What side effects have you seen? Hope I am posting correctly. Bonnie32 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that will be happening soon. I've asked WT:PHARM to clean up individual articles; best direct all problems into a single article like this. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the message you left makes no sense. Bonnie32 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thee cases I have seen include: One case of tendinitis that resolved spontaneously and Two cases of a interaction with warfarin.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My husband was not on Warfarin. Coming up on 3 years I would not say this resolved spontaneously.

What area do you practice in?

Could you please send me any other studies you are reciting from. Or just those 3 you quoted.

Bonnie32 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way having a serious infection such as a ruptured appendix can cause ongoing problems. Encluding weakened tendons. Ruptured tendons are however know to occur more frequently in those with severe infections.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually ruptured tendons are more frequent in those who take fluoroquinolones. I do not want to argue with you. You are the one who came along and called the entire Wiki page GARBAGE.

You still not have told us what line of practice you are in.

You will not find me on the forums. I was trained to follow medical studies. I don’t jump on the forums. I do admit to peek now and then. I believe you need to keep an open mind. I am thankful that I am in New York working with trained medical staff that think out side of the box. You can actually walk into an office and be bombard with medical advertisements. Not a single pen, clipboard, stapler, clock, bed sheeting, etc.

I had looked forward to socialized medicine. If it takes away free thinking, NO THANK YOU. I’ll pay out of pocket.

Bonnie32 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To put in my 2c about the whole fluoroquinolone article thing, thank you so much for bringing some sense to the article. I tried to contribute, but each time I did, I realised my contributions made me look like some sort of hideous troll that should belong under a bridge and not on Wikipedia. I dread the day someone starts an Aminoglycoside toxicity syndrome page. Though to be fair, if any class of antibiotics deserves one of these pages, it's that one. Thanks, and on an aside, I have no idea how Bonnie32 equates social medicine with brainwashing? I would have thought, in a purely capitalist society, doctors are more likely to get into bed with big pharm? Anyway, totally off topic. Thanks very much for keeping wikipedia the number 1 dirty secret of all medical students. 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A peace pipe

Admittedly, not a great pic.

• Doc, I really appreciate your work, but you also have to see that someone that may have suffered a 1:100,000 severe adverse reaction will feel hurt by associating his experience with WP:FRINGE. Labels like that should be reserved for claims like "the world's healthiest diet". I prefer to use WP:WEIGHT to give the proper/lesser weight to case reports.

• Bonnie32, Doc James is not a shill for some Big Pharma. Please take some time to review his contributions here, which speak for themselves—and are really the only thing that matters on the wiki. He doesn't have to tell you where he's working etc. He's already more open about his identity than others here. People have been seriously harassed in real life from info disclosed on this wiki, so please stop asking for more than he's willing to disclose on his own.

Xasodfuih (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Medical procedure

If you had a moment, I wanted to know if I could get your feedback concerning guidelines for articles about medical procedures? I posted a thread at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Guidelines_for_articles_relating_to_medical_procedures. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NEJM paper about the paleo diet

"In 1985, Melvin Konner and S. Boyd Eaton, an associate clinical professor of radiology and an adjunct associate professor of anthropology at Emory University, published a key paper on Paleolithic nutrition in the New England Journal of Medicine,[PMID 2981409] which allowed the dietary concept to gain mainstream medical recognition." Although it was written by the proponents of the paleo diet, I'm guessing it is being oversold; the wide variation in the nature of the references citing it makes me think the paper was of a descriptive nature—there's practically no paper citing it which evaluates the "paleo diet" as an intervention. Sadly this NEJM paper is too old to be online; I'm not feeling motivated enough spend the time to read it off paper (I have access, but it's inconvenient time-wise). Given that no details from this paper are provided in the wiki article, I'm gessing User:Phenylalanine did not read it either. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That statement is sourced. "The idea gained medical recognition in 1985, when Drs. S. Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner published "Paleolithic Nutrition: A Consideration of Its Nature and Current Implications," in the New England Journal of Medicine."[1] -- User:Phenylalanine

That was not the main concern; the main issue is finding out what they said in the paper that got accepted by NEJM. Anyway, it's mostly moot since there's 1997 paper by the same authors which restates their position here (it's free I think, I can email it if needed). So there's not much need to read the electronically-unavailable NEJM '85 paper to find out what their assertions were. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this is a nice comment/advice: "If you look at people who lose weight and keep it off, they are physically active. ... If you really want to go Paleo, get rid of all the electronics. Paleo guy didn't have any wires coming out of his ears." Xasodfuih (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The affiliations of Eaton and Konner are quite interesting: Department of Anthropology and Department of Radiology for the former, and Anthropology plus Psychiatry for the latter. You'd think they could do some controlled experiments instead of just theorizing over this for two decades.

Also, looky, another group that usually publishes in this area just published a new observational study on Feb 11. This one was on healthy guys. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for finding that study. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Paleolithic diet#Recent changes

Hi Doc James, could you address the points I raised on the talk page. Thanks. Phenylalanine (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

TCA abuse, discontinuation

DocJames, can you please take a look at my talk page, where I have a discussion with Sceptical Chymist. Do you think the standpoint I am expressing there is tenable and does not contain gross misunderstandings and misrepresentations on my side? Thank you in advance. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! There is surprisingly little to be found about TCAs. The ones I found describe rebound against the anticholinergic and sedative/antiadrenergic action, and describe it as benign and self limiting. The newer short lived SSRIs would give additional effects. Just wanted to make sure that I am not talking complete bogus before editing the article. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Quinolone antibiotics

Why are there two articles by the same editor, Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones and Fluoroquinolone toxicity, basically pushing the same POV? He seems to be infecting all the articles in that class Category:Quinolone antibiotics. Should not, at the very least, those two articles be merged? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not it's not the same POV. See huge discussion on WT:PHARM and WT:MED. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you recreated Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones with the best of intentions, but actually having a content fork makes it more difficult to resolve issues with an article. The concensus emerging on the talk page of Fluoroquinolone toxicity appears to be that the articles should be merged. Inasmuch as there are issues that cannot be solved by harmonious editing, the best approach in this stage is a Request for comments on the article. SD (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

citecheck benzodiazepine overdose

In this article I put a citecheck tag before a section claiming an extraordinary role of temazepam in US death statistics. I pulled the statistics from the poison centers site and couldn't confirm. The direct sources cited in the article require subscription. Can you check? I suspect this is one of the many (mentally ill) misrepresentations from the old temazepam article, which we discovered and removed. Most relied on pure phantasy, but were mixed with real data and thereby disguised. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, no work required. I got blocked for perfectly good edits. 70.137.146.36 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluoridation map added

Thanks for your comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. To try to fix the map problem I created Image:Water-fluoridation-extent-world-equirectangular.svg and added it to Water fluoridation #Use around the world. Further comments welcome. Eubulides (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fad diets

The official word seem to be that diets don't have anything to do with science. Oh, well, we fought the good fight. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

World map was added to Water fluoridation

Unfortunatly becase it depicts both natural and artificial fluoridation to optimal levels using the same color, it appears to have confused one reviewer. Your take on this would be appreciated (see the comments at the very end of the FAC page. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to alleviate the problem by adding text about countries like Gabon, and added comments to this effect at the FAC page. I second the request for a take on this; another pair of eyes would be appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidoc

Your trust in Wikidoc honors you. But Wikidoc links/copies a version of Temazepam article, in which we have found a harrowing number of misrepresented sources and plain forgery. Look at WP Temazepam and archives of the related talk to see what I mean. I really mean harrowing. The article relied on plagiarism and free invention to a good part, and I am shocked that this version is being used as the golden standard at Wikidoc. (left the editor in chief a note) 70.137.184.193 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidoc is currently a copy and past from wikipedia. I do not trust it any more than what we have hear. Which unfortunately is very little.

I do however agree that most articles should only be edited by registered users. Unregistered user edits should be screened and those who vandalize should be immediately blocked. Warning are stupid and silly. Cheers

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is a copy of temazepam 1 year ago, and later proofreading turned out it is full of shit... 70.137.184.193 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This:[[2]]

Read it. We removed 50% of the article, as it was full of shit. 70.137.184.193 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)