Talk:Clouding of consciousness

Section header

Hi. I've just joined this site to add information to this article "Brain fog" because I’ve been able to end my own brain fog. I've had brain fog due to Depersonalization. I just wanted to add that Clonazepam/Klonopin ended mine. So could we please update the treatment part of this article with this information please? I’ll be happy to help seek verification of this if it’s to be taken seriously.

Beg your pardon if I’ve made any errors in the guidelines of the talk page. I’ve tried to read the talk page guidelines although I’m dyslexic and I can only take so much in.

Quackstar84 (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Twri,

It's not really helpful to delete an apparently random selection of examples because there are no references in the article for any of them. People in treatment for major psychiatric conditions routinely report the symptoms described here. Go read Chemo brain, or search for that term at scholar.google.com and see if "general sensation of unusually poor mental function, associated with confusion, forgetfulness and detachment" is a reasonable description.

I'm not happy about the existence of this article, because it is not a true clinical entity, but the solution is to delete the whole thing, not just those things that you happen to dislike. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should mark this for deletion again.--Doc James (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic sources

We really can't use sources for the treatment section that do not even mention "brain fog". Not all forms of cognitive impairment are called brain fog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are you "WhatamIdoing"? you edit and delete almost right after i contribute every single time with your unhelpful, usless information. its as if your employeed to edit and re-write wiki are you? wiki is a usless source of info if thats the case.

this is a peoples encyclopedia its not the duty for authorities to edit or else wiki just becomes just another corporate propaganda cheerleader. wiki was designed as a collection of ideas from the community not corporat and government spin. wiki is usless if you guys keep spreading your propaganda. im sure people want to get away from the status quo and seek wiki for fresh information.

stop editing my helpful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an editor, exactly like you, "Astrotheology". The only difference is that I have somewhat more familiarity with Wikipedia's mandatory policies about verifiability and reliable sources and ban on original research than you apparently do.

I'd be happy to have this article include all of the verifiable, reliable, directly related information about brain fog in humans. However, you seem to be adding information that is about any kind of cognitive impairment. For example, you've added sources about Alzheimer's, which does not involve brain fog. You've also added case studies and animal studies, which are notorious for being proved wrong later. This sort of problem is why Wikipedia recommends that you use reviews instead of original research papers.

Please note that your recent deletions involved deleting the sources that you provided. I've just provided the complete, written-out citation instead of the URL. Providing the entire citation (authors' names, article name, publication date, and so forth) allows the reader to figure out what the source is without clicking the link, and it also allows us to find it later if the website ever changes the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"WhatamIdoing". What kind of editor are you though? are you being paid to edit? its not one companies or governments roll to edit this ant some advertising tool for business that includes the medical industrial complex. this encyclopedia is much bigger than just one industry. its a collective effort from everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology (talk • contribs)

No, I'm not paid to edit anything. I'm a volunteer. I assume that you are, too. If you look at my contributions, I think you'll find that I edit in far too many areas to justify these inappropriate accusations of being a public relations employee.

Now can you tell me why you're deleting the fully written-out references that you provided? Do you think it hurts the reader to see:

• Thatcher RW (2000). "EEG operant conditioning (biofeedback) and traumatic brain injury". Clin Electroencephalogr. 31 (1): 38–44. PMID 10638351. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

instead of just the bare URL, like this:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638351

I can't imagine why you keep doing this, but perhaps you don't want the reader to know the name of the author, the date it was written, the title of the paper, and so forth? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

i delete it because a person complaining of a foggy head isnt going to be interested in something that is not clear, precise and easy to understand. its just not my prefered reference. those references you leave undeleted of mine are the weakes of the lot or either the longest ones. i dont think a person complaining of a foggy head wants to dive through 18 pages of research or an article that doesnt clearly explain how effective a treatment is to a particular symptom. Also your ocupational therapy only encourages a sufferers to live with there disability its not something i would encourage as it requires a lot of effort for little if any return. im not here for trouble i want to be helpful. i understand there are companies employing editors to edit wiki for there own benifit and that really bothers me. i even read some governments get in on the act if this is true wiki needs to be ignored and identified as a propaganda instrument nothing more nothing less. Astrotheology —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

I understand that your refs are weak, and that you might want to upgrade them. However, you don't seem to understand my issue. In one instance, you have been deleting the written-out full reference to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638351 and replacing it with http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638351. Note that these are the same paper. Why are you deleting the written-out full reference to the paper and replacing it with a link to exactly the same paper? Did you not bother to read the written-out reference to see that you were deleting and replacing the same paper? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

Some of these references do not refer to the condition described. Will look into things further soon.--Doc James (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked threw the references provided and NOT one of them mentions brain fog. This is a problem. Is this term verifiable? I see there has been discussion to delete it in the past.--Doc James (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Doc James There were references directly mentioning "brain fog" but they keep getting "deleted" its as if one is not serious about helping the suffer at all. seems only they trying to hide credible scientific proven therapies to address the problem at its core which is proven with thousands of studies showing they clear up the mind exceptionally well. things that actually work. ocupational therapy is a usless therapy can never restore a persons quality of life only forces them to accept there disabilty and to learn to live with it. are we here to help or promote sickness?

Also references dont need to mention brain fog directly because brain fog is characterised by symptoms of confusion and memory deficits and alike. if there is something that targets those symptoms they will definately help the disease. are we here to talk politics or to help find solutions? This is a joke when credible and legitimate therapies are ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.220.36 (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to do anything at all for people that are suffering from diseases. This is not a self-help project. The point behind the encyclopedia is to collect verifiable information. See for example, WP:Medical disclaimer and WP:MEDMOS#Audience.

is your real name mason? are your friends on here doing the same as you, containing information is a full time job i bet. I read WP:Medical disclaimer and i can see it clearly explains "Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate" yet you want it to be completely accurate based on what you believe is accurate which isnt really accurate because conventional medicine ignores anything that works. they promote what is profitable. its controlled by medical cartel's in the industry. who is to say you know best? you dont know best the medical system is dysfunction beyond belief and thats where you get your info. its only a sickness industry designed not to cure but to only treat. they need sick people to keep the money flowing and the system running. no cures are ever coming my friend you can bet your life on that one. you keep publishing your trivial post, you probably are deliberately dumbing down the people of the world because i suspect you are paid to edit. your to involved in this editing thing to do it for enjoyment or to be helpful. i can see you only contribute what everyone already knows, nothing new no extra help. people might as well ignore wiki and just ask a regular GP they will get the same info they get here. so much for the collective knowledge of the internet will just kjeep listening to the flawed system. thanks for making this world a poorer one. im not using wiki anymore wiki is a joke. didnt they just get 6 million in donations? what for? to help spread disinformation and info that we can already look up in a conventional encyclopedia? ill say it again. wiki is a joke yet could have been something great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the point of the article is the non-medical term "brain fog", then we really do have to have sources that specifically mention that term. If the point of the article is anything-that-makes-your-brain-not-quite-work, then the list of acceptable sources is dramatically larger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved

As per wiki policy I have moved the page to a more fitting name. Brain fog is slang for cognitive dysfunction. --Doc James (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the best choice. I think that brain fog is somewhat more specific than cognitive dysfunction. For example, dyslexia is a type of cognitive dysfunction, but it doesn't involve confusion, forgetfulness, or other classic "brain fog"-type symptoms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with calling it "brain fog" these are the terms some people use. Whats wrong with having both "cognitive dysfunction" as well as "brain fog" its not going to confuse or discredit the idea and will only be further helpful to the people trying to seek it. if the name is a problem make comments on how its totally fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology (talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind have a page called Cognitive dysfunction. However, since brain fog appears to be a small subset of cognitive dysfunctions, then using that title for this subject is sort of like having a page called Food but solely including information about carrots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ORLY?

Cognitive dysfunction (or brain fog) is defined

Really? By whom? --70.131.119.35 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)