There is a fundamental problem here in that you are confused about what a drug is. I am bringing it here so it isn't scattered all over Wikipedia, but it needs to be resolved because it's contributing to the problems on the article. A syringe is not a drug. A cup is not a drug. An e-cig is not a drug. Can we agree on this? If not, please explain exactly why a syringe is not a drug but an e-cig is.--[[User:FergusM1970|FergusM1970]]<sup>[[User Talk:FergusM1970|Let's play Freckles]]</sup> 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a fundamental problem here in that you are confused about what a drug is. I am bringing it here so it isn't scattered all over Wikipedia, but it needs to be resolved because it's contributing to the problems on the article. A syringe is not a drug. A cup is not a drug. An e-cig is not a drug. Can we agree on this? If not, please explain exactly why a syringe is not a drug but an e-cig is.--[[User:FergusM1970|FergusM1970]]<sup>[[User Talk:FergusM1970|Let's play Freckles]]</sup> 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
Dr. James,
1. I am not using Wikipedia for self promotion as your friend implies!
2. As I have indicated several times before, I am very concerned – as a scientist who devoted over 20 years to research agmatine effects and mechanisms of action - that the Agmatine entry in Wikipedia is bellow standard, incorrect and misleading.
3. I confess of not being versed in the rules of Wikipedia editing, but my version as is, is up to standards, accurate and adequately referenced. It is also unbiased and to infer otherwise is unfair!
4. I have read the links you sent. Wikipedia does not work by iron rules (this is one of its great advantages). Once the entry will be edited, references won't be left missing
5. At this point your objections are apparently entirely excessive. You may on the other hand, help by editing/styling the entry accordingly.
6. As I indicated before, leaving the misleading and substandard Wikipedia entry on Agmatine as is, is entirely your responsibility!
7. At this point, therefore, it is entirely in your hands.
Hi, I've noticed you misspelt the title of this file on Commons (it should be spelt with an e after the d) and I'd like to recommend that you rename it accordingly (granted I realize the opposing side to the argument of its inaccuracy, namely, that it appears on several different Wikis). Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 17:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there James, thanks for getting involved on on the South Beach Diet article recently—and nice to finally cross paths on-wiki! Last week it seemed as if there was just about agreement on an expanded History section for the entry, however one minor disagreement seems to have stalled it, and I am still the last editor to comment—my last message here. If you have time to take another look, I'd love to have your input. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FGM
Hi James, just to let you know that FGM was promoted to FA. Thank you again for everything you did there, including help with sources. It was really invaluable. SlimVirgin(talk)01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The block notice was placed today, by a non-admin user with a low edit count, and the user on whose page this was placed is not blocked (just retired) AFAICT. -- Scray (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im curious as to why you think you have all the answers regarding the subject, and are unwilling to let those with far more experience edit your article. You seem to want to stand on "science" by calling EFT "pseudo-science"... well, hiding behind a privacy lock and not be willing to hear challenges to your position is the definition of pseudo-science.
seem to be a little extreme to semi protect the article for years ... is it ? What about removing the protection in 2015 to allow new authors to contribute - if things get out of hand we can still go back and add another few month of semi protection. What do you think ? Christophe --基 (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you do know the rules around protection ... in particular the part about protection not to be used as a preventive measure ?--基 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You did delete a recent review article without a proper explanation, but no I am not. Semi protection does not affect your ability to edit. It does decrease the people that the above piece is attempting to recruit plus the sock puppets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
funny - I was convinced I mentioned WP:Lead section when edited the Lead section and as you can see I did elaborate on the talk page after you reverted the edit. I am also convinced having read something about involved admins in WP:EN (I do edit more in WP:DE so I am not quite familiar with the rules in the English version of WP).基 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to request that it be unprotected so that the those being actively recruited can edit it. I believe that I protected it last time because of active recruitment for disruptive purposes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think misunderstand my point - the only thing in the article you cite above that actually hits the spot is the one about WP not following it's own rules - un-protecting the page is the right thing to do ... if vandalism strike we protect it again (it's not like we have to file 4 copies of E211 forms and wait 2 weeks for someone to do it). Leaving it protected for years simply sends the wrong message (in German I would say "we are handing out the sticks to get beaten with") - I have no skin in the game - so really - I don't care all that much. I still think the lead section sucks though (but - by any means - I might not be the right person to fix that) I'll re visit in 2015 more because I am curious ;). So Marry Christmas & a Happy New Year 2015 (no sarcasm - I really mean that).基 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referring back to stroke thrombolysis (archive 75 stroke) you commented on Nov 10: "We could add something about the controversy of tPA in stroke. We just need to make sure that it is supported by secondary sources or position statements from the last 5 years". I did actually post those references on Nov 7. I would like to reactivate my original edit request for the thrombolysis section from October, please. Thanks
Hi James, I hope you've been well my friend, I have a quick question about this edit [5]. I'm not sure I understand the reason for the removal of hypotension as a sign of sepsis. A cursory glance of the literature (e.g., here in this 2014 review: http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.library.touro.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3966671/ and here: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4050292;jsessionid=dLRt9dbr5dA4rHlIqQBL.0-granted the second reference is specifically defining it for neutropenic patients) seems to indicate that arterial hypotension as a hemodynamic variable is considered to be a sign of sepsis and not just a sign of severe sepsis and septic shock. Is there disagreement about whether hypotension is considered part of the definition of sepsis as opposed to just being part of septic shock and severe sepsis? If you can clarify for me so I understand, I would be very grateful. =) Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:TylerDurden8823 If there is a low blood pressure that is severe sepsis per "Severe sepsis is defined as sepsis plus sepsis-induced organ dysfunction or tissue hypoperfusion" " Sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion is defined as infection-induced hypotension, elevated lactate, or oliguria" [6]. We mention this below thus removed it above to decrease repetition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what of these studies I linked above? Another review from 2009 (http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.library.touro.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3098530/) states the following: "Sepsis is defined according to the clinical signs of a systemic response to infection [10]. However, the clinical symptoms of sepsis including hypotension, tachycardia, tachypnea, hypoperfusion, lactic acidosis, and altered body temperature (>38.3°C or <36°C), are not exclusive to infection and can also be triggered by shock, trauma, or severe injury [2, 11]. The term “severe sepsis” refers to the sepsis-associated failure of multiple organ systems [10]."
From this quote, this sounds like arterial hypotension is not considered to be unique to severe sepsis and septic shock on the continuum, but is considered to be a part of sepsis as well. Do you disagree? If so, I'm still not sure I understand why. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both severe sepsis and septic shock are types of sepsis. Thus hypotension is part of sepsis. But hypotension is not part of non-severe and non septic shock sepsis. If hypotension is present the person automatically has severe sepsis.
Okay, I just took a look at the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines and similar documents from the IDSA and I think I pinpointed the reason for my confusion. Thanks for clarifying. It was previously unclear to me the way they were presenting the tables that they were using sepsis (and saying arterial hypotension is a part of that) to mean as a general feature of sepsis but really meaning severe sepsis and septic shock only and not including non-severe sepsis (meaning SIRS criteria + source of infection since SIRS criteria does not use hypotension as a diagnostic criterion). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up question about a different aspect of sepsis-in the article's section about EGDT, it states that EGDT has been shown to decrease mortality. However, looking at more recent literature, there seems to be active debate about this topic with some recent RCTs suggesting otherwise. Since this is about something rather important (mortality in sepsis), do you think it would be reasonable to briefly mention some recent studies have differed in their findings? Or do you think it would be more prudent to wait for a review article to discuss these more recent RCTs. I'm guessing you're familiar with the studies I'm referring to, but if not, it's these: Goal-Directed Resuscitation for Patients with Early Septic Shock
Yes am familiar. No one is saying that EGDT is not good. And it has definitely revolutionized the care of sepsis and dramatically improved outcomes. The question now is are all parts of EGDT needed or just some parts. Basically can we achieve the same results with a slightly less aggressive and less expensive version of EGDT. The same is occurring with therapeutic hypothermia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another question for you regarding a recent addition I made to the article. I'm conflicted about the definition of sepsis (strictly infectious as stated in various places in the article and in many reviews or open to include noninfectious insults as well as stated by the 2014 immunity review (a rather highly regarded journal with a very solid impact factor and authors from a reputable medical school)). Perhaps state that definitions differ and some sources state it's exclusively infectious in origin while other highly regarded sources employ a broader definition to include infectious and noninfectious causes? What do you think? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The surviving sepsis campaign definition IMO should get the greatest prominence. If their is disagreement this could be detailed in the diagnosis section. What do you think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, over time I will see if other new reviews from respected journals also use this newer, more inclusive definition of sepsis that was used by the Immunity review. For now, let's keep it consistent and keep it to infectious and if there are differing definitions, we can keep it in the diagnosis section where we have definitions, I agree. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute
Spike
Spike has graciously volunteered to mediate our dispute, but she may not be an ideal choice due to her limited vocabulary, reading skills, and the ease with which she is distracted by small rodents. Was wondering if you can suggest an alternative approach. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started to add some material to the olanzapine article but thought maybe we are getting into a rut. We could do a RFc on the question of whether the discussion of efficacy in antipsychotic articles should routinely begin with Cochrane's assesment that no one really knows, but the poor turnout on our MEDRS RFc suggests to me that people are getting bored with our disagreement.
I'd be willing to accept Casliber as a third opinion and drop the issue if he says that the Cochrane statements are reasonably close to scientific consensus. Would you be willing to accept his third party judgement? It would be nice to put this to bed and move on. I'm starting to feel like one of those people who edits E Cigarette 18 hours a day. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that Cochrane reviews should be mentioned if the article is comprehensive. Thing is, what we should be doing is be being faithful to sources. Cochrane reviews are generally pretty frank about what they conclusions they are or are not confident about depending on the data they have drawn, and thus a drug will have this listed, as well as reviews done in different ways. I am a proponent of presenting material warts and all with uncertainties spelled out - e.g. in psych I am a bit sick of facile nuerotransmitter explanations for which there is evidence but still alot of unanswered questions and incongruities. (also that way when there is strong evidence it does stand out) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Casliber:. That was not exactly the question I was asking (I never thought we shouldn't mention Cochrane), but whether the Cochrane conclusion that the utility of these drugs in maintenance is unproven should be mentioned as the first and most prominent comment under the efficacy section, as it is in several articles. I think that James has already agreed to my request that we put this conclusion after the practice guideline recommendations (I'm concerned about encouraging non-compliance). Nonetheless, I'd like to hear your opinion and will follow it. Is this consensus in the field?
I also disagree with James's statement that these articles were the main issue behind the RFc, but that's a minor point and I've already conceded defeat on that issue. :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with having the conclusions of the guidelines first for these medications. Maybe we were partly talking past each other. Equal weight does not necessarily dictate order of presentation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I was quite surprised to find my edits on the Ebola Virus Disease page removed. This is because 1) my citations were valid and 2) Wikipedia is built for a quick glance, and many Americans trying to learn about the disease need these myths lifted. I stand by my edits on the Ebola Virus page. I would like this issue to go to rest, so if you could contact my talk page directly and tell me what you would like changed, we can perhaps find a compromise. Kieran P. Clark (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kieran, I now see the discussion you referred to on my talk page is taking place here so I'll address your comments here as well though certainly not in place of James' response, this is just what I think about these additions. I do think your edits are well-intentioned and I certainly agree that there are many misconceptions about EVD, but our goal here is to dispel such misconceptions by providing accurate and thorough information sourced to high-quality references that can be used for verification purposes. However, I do not agree with you that your citations are valid-to be more specific, this reference (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/72460-debunking-ebola-misconceptions) is really not ideal since it appears to be a popular press article and for a topic like this, such references are really not preferred.
Also, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, and I'm not sure if you're new here or not, it's frowned upon to revert reverts of your edits since this leads to edit warring. We generally try to follow the WP:BRD guidelines and discuss contested edits on the article's talk page to work out any disputes or concerns. The reference you used from the WHO is fine, but much of your addition after that sentence was also unsourced and that raises additional concerns. Lastly, phrases such as "The existence of these myths is mainly due to the misinformation of certain news network, as well as anti-Africa stereotypes, misconceptions on the passage of viruses, and general lack of proper information on this virus in general, which is certainly regrettable." sounds like a personal opinion and editorializing and Wikipedia articles are not the proper place for something like that. I look forward to your response (preferably on the article's talk page). James, do you have any thoughts on this topic you would like to discuss? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Thanks for the feedback for my students. I have lots of them working on this project at once, and it seems the directive about primary vs. secondary sources hasn't penetrated with all of them yet. Two clarifications on that point:
1. I'd generally consider a good meta-analysis as good or better than many reviews, and definitely stronger than other primary sources. I've encouraged them to look for meta-analyses - would you concur?
2. In some cases, there may be strong theoretical reasons to cautiously include brief mention of a primary study. E.g., if epidemiological theory points to a line of inquiry that is only scantily researched to date, so there is no obvious secondary source to use, but there are one or two good primary sources that bear upon that point, I'd suggest including those. This seems to fit what's out there now on Wikipedia. Right?
User:BrooklynProf (1) Yes a meta analysis is a type of review article. I consider them better for some stuff, often; however, they are narrow in scope and other resources are needed to fill in the spaces between
(2) For major topic areas, the question becomes if these primary sources are so strong then why are they not in secondary sources yet? The use of primary sources is fraught with issues. I use them to support less than 1% of my edits.
Hi Doc James. I noticed your comment here in which you refer to me as involved in the E-cigarette discussion. Could you please review WP:INVOLVED and then put together your evidence (ideally diffs) for this statement, either here or at my talk? If you find you are unable to do this, could you please strike this material? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved. I am especially surprised as Doc James is an admin and should be familiar with what WP:INVOLVED says, but let's let him answer for himself. --John (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. And is this opinion based on any evidence? Because if not I will just treat it as an unevidenced burble. As I said, if you do have any good reason for stating this, please state it. --John (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me. This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED.
I will do my best to find secondary sources that support the same information. It may take some time though. I will add the citations to the article once I find them. Thank you. Lawler.70 (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing to light the inappropriate edits made by students in my course. While their initial confusion between what constitutes a primary versus a secondary source seems to be an honest (yet lazy) mistake, the plagiarism is not acceptable. NeuroJoe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James -- thanks for your prompt attention to protecting Quercetin. For NeuroJoe -- it seems irresponsible of him (or any teacher) to convey to students that Wikipedia is a suitable forum for submitting course-related test content without paying attention to English grammar, WP:MOS and editor guides on sources like WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His class is better than many and User:NeuroJoe does keep some eye on them. We do really need to discuss how we are going to address student editing in general.
Thank you Zefr, the students had very detailed instructions to follow, including WP:MEDRS, but failed to do so. Well over a hundred of my previous students have made beneficial improvements to neuroscience stubs in the past and we have not had problems of this significance. While the primary/secondary sourcing problem can be chalked up to laziness, the plagiarism is more worrisome, and will be dealt with internally. They will not be editing the Quercetin page again. My apologies, NeuroJoe (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zefr and Doc ... late getting home from an evening engagement, but I will have more to say tomorrow on the Med talk page about NeuroJoe's characterization of the problems we've "not" had with his course in the past (and Doc, even if he were "better than many", that's a pretty low bar). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I did not say my students have never had problems; some have made rookie errors in the same vein as other first time editors whom are not part of a university course. I said that we have not had problems of this significance, and that is true. What this group of students did was not acceptable, and I take responsibility for that. The pages that my students have improved in the past have all been neuroscience stubs with little to no beneficial information, and all of those articles now stand in much better shape than they were originally. If the experienced Wikipedia editors choose to demonize all student work, that's certainly your prerogative, but upper level university students usually are very capable editors, if not better than the average Wikipedian editor. Feel free to browse through our previous work before you pass judgement. NeuroJoe (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if what you represent is true because a) you have apparently decided to no longer run a course page, making it harder for us to check your students' edits, and b) your students tend to edit on obscure topics, so the problems may be going undetected. Even more so now that your course has essentially "gone underground" (no course page).
Certainly, as to past problems, your students did not understand primary sources when I encountered them in 2011, and my experience with your course led me to resign as FAC delegate to attempt to get some change (unsuccessful) in the Education Program. Your students' involvement forced me to clean up an obscure topic about which there is basically NO secondary review information, period, so I was forced to carefully use their primary sources to fix their work.
So, now, you are openly operating outside of the Education Program, making more work for regular editors (these problems should be dealt with by the paid staff of the Education Program, not us), and making it impossible to know who your students are and which articles they may have damaged with copyvio.
And your statement that "all stand in much better shape" is not because of your students. I had to edit the silly klazomania stub into compliance with policy and guideline, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to correct your student edits on an obscure topic that gets less than 20 page views per day. That article is improved because of MY time, not your students, and my time could have been used more productively elsewhere. And, of course, for all the timme I in good faith invested in mentoring and bringing them up to speed on Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines (holy cow, see my article edits and the talk page and my talk interaction with them), not a one of them returned or stayed on as Wikipedia editors, which is pretty much 100% true for all student/courses. YOUR course caused me to stop enjoying and stop editing. While you are running a course and had a total of something like four edits in 2013, and now a few in response to this for 2014. You are clearly not an involved professor.
It would be a great assistance to those of us who have to clean up the damage your students leave if you would a) register a course page, to b) work with the paid staff when your student edits need cleaning up, c) identify which other articles your students have edited, and d) engage the project yourself (that is, follow the edits your students make, make sure they are adding a course template on talk, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very bare minimum is to have a page, or section on your user page, where all the students have to sign once, and to notify the existence of that to the relevant education and medical project pages. At least that allows their contributions to be found with relatively little difficulty. To do less than that is completely reprehensible. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to editing Wiki pages. I am a physician researcher in child abuse. I have a particular interest in SBS/AHT. As you know it is an area of great contention. I hope to contribute to the page to ensure it is as accurate and informative as possible.
I appreciate your oversight to any edits I make to the page.
I appreciate your input/advice. I am a PhD student in Pharmaceutical Sciences and do not assume to have the qualifications to provide medical advice. I am simply updating this stub from a researcher's view point. Please feel free to correct/ contribute to what I have added thus far. Thanks, K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have perused your suggested articles. Second, this article is a work in progress with respect to my contributions. I have been asked to address certain subject matters relating to a class I am attending pertaining to the clinical, commercial, and regulatory aspects of drug design/development. Synthesis is one of them. I appreciate your constructive criticism but i will ask you to refrain from deleting my work. I have put a lot of time into this project and would rather you add to or edit my work rather than simply deleting it. I appreciate contributions to my text/advice pertaining to the use of this forum ,such as what you have recently done,rearranging my sections. I am happy to elucidate my sources, especially when referencing patents, which are valuable sources of information pertaining to the development of new products and indicators of the future of pharmaceuticals. However, I believe it is understood that this website/encyclopedia is not a source of medical advice and therefore should be approached as a free/ all encompassing source of information.
Thanks it may be useful for me to touch base with your prof. It would be good for him to understand what sort of sources are expected and what sort of layout we use. I will email you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes:) All of us are editing a page but more from the perspective of drug development then medical advice/ information. That's why you will more information pertaining to physical chemistry, patents etc. than usual. We have been told that certain sources are alright to use, including patents....however, we have not been edified as to the correct referencing of said sources, specifically clearly stating that such sources are works in progress and have not been peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean students are copying information? I would to aware of the specifics of this issue that I may avoid it and provide advice to my classmates, the ones you cited, as to the avoidance of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no one has told me that a patent is an appropriate source of medical uses...rather I made a rookie mistake referencing said source and as you can see I fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. I will notify my professor of your request. I will make him aware of your view point, comments, and request to discuss this forum with him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgermany (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was unfair of you to remove my post on the drug Benactyzine. My comment about its physical relaxant activities was not copied and pasted. They were words from my own mouth. I cited the source from which i gleaned the information from. I would sincerely hope you do not remove my posts from this point forward.
"Certain muscarinic antagonists (e.g., atropine, aprophen, and benactyzine) are used as antidotes for the treatment of organophosphate poisoning. ... The interaction of aprophen and benactyzine, both aromatic esters of diethylaminoethanol, with nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) in BC3H-1 intact muscle cells and with receptor-enriched membranes of Torpedo californica /was examined/. Aprophen and benactyzine diminish the maximal carbamylcholine-elicited sodium influx into muscle cells without shifting Kact (carbamylcholine concentration eliciting 50% of the maximal 22Na+ influx). The concentration dependence for the inhibition of the initial rate of 22Na+ influx by aprophen and benactyzine occurs at lower concentrations (Kant = 3 and 50 microM, respectively) than those needed to inhibit the initial rate of [125I]-alpha-bungarotoxin binding to the agonist/antagonist sites of the AChR (Kp = 83 and 800 uM, respectively). The effective concentration for atropine inhibition of AChR response (Kant = 150 microM in BC3H-1 cells) is significantly higher than those obtained for aprophen and benactyzine. Both aprophen and benactyzine interact with the AChR in its desensitized state in BC3H-1 cells without further enhancing agonist affinity. Furthermore, these ligands do not alter the value of Kdes (equilibrium concentration of agonist which diminishes 50% of the maximal receptor response) in BC3H-1 muscle cells. The affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the allosterically coupled noncompetitive inhibitor site of the AChR in Torpedo was determined using [3H]phencyclidine as a probe. Both compounds were found to preferentially associate with the high affinity (desensitized) state rather than the resting state of Torpedo AChR. There is a 14- to 23-fold increase in the affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the AChR (KD = 0.7 and 28.0 uM in the desensitized state compared to 16.4 and 384 uM in the resting state, respectively). These data indicate that aprophen and benactyzine binding are allosterically regulated by the agonist sites of Torpedo AChR. Thus, aprophen and benactyzine are effective noncompetitive inhibitors of the AChR at concentrations of 1-50 uM, in either Torpedo or mammalian AChR. These concentrations correspond very well with the blood level of these drugs found in vivo to produce a therapeutic response against organophosphate poisoning"
ref says
"Certain muscarinic antagonists (e.g., atropine, aprophen, and benactyzine) are used as antidotes for the treatment of organophosphate poisoning. We have studied the interaction of aprophen and benactyzine, both aromatic esters of diethylaminoethanol, with nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR) in BC3H-1 intact muscle cells and with receptor-enriched membranes of Torpedo californica.Aprophen and benactyzine diminish the maximal carbamylcholine-elicited sodium influx into muscle cells without shifting Kact (carbamylcholine concentration eliciting 50% of the maximal 22Na+ influx). The concentration dependence for the inhibition of the initial rate of 22Na+ influx by aprophen and benactyzine occurs at lower concentrations (Kant = 3 and 50 microM, respectively) than those needed to inhibit the initial rate of [125I]-alpha-bungarotoxin binding to the agonist/antagonist sites of the AChR (Kp = 83 and 800 microM, respectively). The effective concentration for atropine inhibition of AChR response (Kant = 150 microM in BC3H-1 cells) is significantly higher than those obtained for aprophen and benactyzine. Both aprophen and benactyzine interact with the AChR in its desensitized state in BC3H-1 cells without further enhancing agonist affinity. Furthermore, these ligands do not alter the value of Kdes (equilibrium concentration of agonist which diminishes 50% of the maximal receptor response) in BC3H-1 muscle cells. The affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the allosterically coupled noncompetitive inhibitor site of the AChR in Torpedo was determined using [3H]phencyclidine as a probe. Both compounds were found to preferentially associate with the high affinity (desensitized) state rather than the resting state of Torpedo AChR. There is a 14- to 23-fold increase in the affinity of aprophen and benactyzine for the AChR (KD = 0.7 and 28.0 microM in the desensitized state compared to 16.4 and 384 microM in the resting state, respectively). These data indicate that aprophen and benactyzine binding are allosterically regulated by the agonist sites of Torpedo AChR. Thus, aprophen and benactyzine are effective noncompetitive inhibitors of the AChR at concentrations of 1-50 microM, in either Torpedo or mammalian AChR. These concentrations correspond very well with the blood level of these drugs found in vivo to produce a therapeutic response against organophosphate poisoning.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and btw, I respect your leadership and all your hard work and time very much. I am asking you to rethink how you are deploying EBM compared to statements by major medical & scientific bodies. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we disagree and the opinion about "leading astray" is mutual
When there is a controversy we should neutrally present the different major positions without additional puffery.
You know Doc, I always respect you and 99% of the time I even like you (which I'm sure brings you infinite peace of mind). But I really think the Oseltamavir conversation lost its way last night in a way that does not reflect the best of Wikipedia. You were making edits to adjust POV so fast that you introduced factual errors (the meta analysis of meta analyses found no evidence of benefit, not evidence of no benefit, and the CDC responded to the Cochrane analysis, not to the meta analysis of meta analyses) and either you or someone else scrambled citations. It was edit warring plain and simple, with no one really engaged in a collaborative effort to take the wisdom from multiple viewpoints and synthesize a deeper understanding of the issues. You obviously were not the only one, but then you're supposed to be leading by example due to your role, at least from my pov.
As for how to write the article so that it is more understandable, I think the answer to that is to emotionally disengage. The story seems to me to be a simple one. Roche undertook a development program that was designed to maximize profits by gaining extensive use of the drug for prophylaxis and commonplace mild influenza infections. Most but not all who have looked closely at the data think that it has an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio to use in this way or think that it should be held in reserve to minimize resistance development. There is some controversy regarding its utility for prophylaxis in high risk people and for treatment of hospitalized patients, in large part because Roche did not do the trials in a way that would effectively answer those questions, or perhaps even ran them in a way designed to obscure them. Most favor using it in these latter applications, but the evidence is not all that solid. The differences in many ways boil down to how usable data from observational trials is, and whether ITT or ITTI is the appropriate patient population to look at. Nobody thinks its a great drug, its a debate about whether it is mediocre or worthless, and the answer is likely somewhere in between.
Isn't that what the article would read as if it were written in the way you so often counsel, for the average reader who is not a medical expert (and who probably doesn't know or care who Cochrane or the IDSA are)?
I enjoy a lively debate (I've said many times I almost never learn anything from people who agree with me, and so I've learned more from you than most :>)), but yesterday evening wasn't that.
User:Formerly 98 glad to hear the respect is mutual. My main effort was to switch the efficacy section from one section to three. Do you see an intrinsic problem with that? Currently it more or less says what you summarize above does it not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Codeine and essential medicine status
Hey James. I noticed codeine had the WHO essential medicine list status in the lead. I also noticed this concept was not the body, and if I remember correctly, you added this sort of info to the leads of many pharmaceutical articles. To me, I don't know of any reason to include something in the lead if it's not in the body, and I am not certain this status deserves to be placed in the lead itself. Any thoughts about this? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have quick question. I was reading the noticeboard on my blocking incident, I was wondering if you could explain to me the difference between the plagiarism and copyright violation. I do acknowledge that I was careless in adding information to wikipedia but that was because I was just completely unaware of how to do things here plus this is my first year in college so I'm still trying to learn how write and cite on the college level. In regards to accessing my sources, they are valid but I did attain them through my university, so that is why they were not accessible to the public. Also the block did help because it forced me to look at mistakes, something that I wouldn't have done because I'm trying to find the time to complete other projects as well. But it was harsh because I might face a lot of repercussions for things that I still don't completely understand and I'd rather not feel like a criminal if I did not intend to do anything wrong:/ . My biggest mistake was thinking that copying and pasting was okay even if I included citations (which I did but I cited it in MLA format) I would hope in the future that I (and other students) especially during this time of year could have access to one wikipedia page specifically geared to college students that defines the plagiarism and copyright violation assuming that we don't know best because I know that I can miss small but important details while I am on a time constraint. In this case it would have been quotation marks. For example, all the resources you pointed out to me and the simple steps you gave me we great! I just want to enable other students to see that with a one page reference that has all the basic information or links to this information. Overall thank you for your help and I understand your frustration, I can't testify for the motives of other students but I can for my own. In any case that you or any other admins would like to do this, I would love to help after finals:) Esth270 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Esth270: Hi, Esth270. We do have an online student training that reviews a lot of the plagiarism and copyright violation details, and we request that instructors assign this as homework early in the term. I am sorry you didn't get the chance to review these policies outside of your initial Wikipedia training, and this is a great reminder that we need to push it to instructors to ensure that more students who are eager to make a positive contribution have a chance to do so. Thank you for engaging here to learn more about editing policies, and I hope this was a learning opportunity about how plagiarism works and why it's so important to avoid it. Hope to see you continue editing after your class. Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between copyright violation and plagiarism is not really important. If you alway put everything in your own word and do not ever either "copy or paste" or even use quotes which are a borderline case you will not have issues.
You have sort of been pulled into an issue not of your own making. You are not the first or only student who is having issue with this and this is not the first year we have had issues. If only one student had issues we of course could "blame" them. However, with many students having problems it is more of a system issue. Basically either your assignment is not appropriate, you have not been given sufficient instruction, or this whole effort has not been provided with sufficient oversight.
More precisely, you need to use whatever formatting style is in that article, which may well be APA. Every single article is entitled to have its own citation style, and APA is one of the more popular ones here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this link - I bet you spotted that it's written by someone with a vested interest. As, indeed, is pretty much everything supportive of "energy psychology". Guy (Help!) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Initially we would like to take the offline sync and develop it into a robust extension with first implementation with NASA's EVA mediawiki installation. Then we will develop a mobile framework similar to the current WikEM app that will allow any user of a mediawiki installation the ability to create an offline version of their wiki and have a mobile app to accompany the wiki. This extension will hopefully also be useful for the wikipedia as well especially.
On the Ebola page, I saw most part of the lead was transferred to a new-launched "Background" section. But, I think the lead itself is the background, right? I did check the talk page there but nothing about this issue was found. Is this organization method applicable to all other disease related articles? Any specific reason for this act? Thank you! Biomedicinal (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry James, I can see that annoyed you, but the statement about it having the 7th highest "fatality rate" was simply wrong (and certainly not expressed that way in WCR 2014). When I started that talk-page section I thought that would be the only point I needed to raise, but then I found another two in the same section. I still think the sentence about the PanNETs found in autopsy studies (an interesting and pertinent epidemiological observation, imo) is somewhat unclear. Obviously I'm not looking to trouble John or anyone else in any way. Best, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James. Lol, an example (imo) of how tricky these forum dialogues can be... After the recent FAC incident where I got harangued for making changes to the article itself (as well as for contributing to the FAC page), I thought I'd better raise my concerns on the article talk page rather then editing the page directly. Then the gf communication ends up getting kind of complicated... the opposite of what we all want. Ah well, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re:References
Hi Doc James, I don't believe menstruation is the only cause of constipation, of course not, but it is one of the causes. I opened a discussion on the talk page so we can discuss it. I agree the quality of the references are not the best, but they still meet the rs criteria, no?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll leave it for now till I find more reliable sources. In the meantime since you're a medic I'd recommend you find some sources. WOuld you deny this to be a cause?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you'll be as pleased as I am to hear that after decades of sulfonylureas, glitazones, and DPPIV inhibitors, my industry has finally succeeded in developing a diabetes drug with absolutely no side effects.
Seriously though, the article appears to be written by a Zydus employee, as evidenced by the somewhat promotional tone of the article as well as the specific calling out of this drug (which is not widely discussed in the literature, at least not yet) in some of our general diabetes articles. I've tagged the article and have started tracking down these call outs (its hard to do because the drug is in the diabetes template, and so the "links here" list is crowded), but aside from this I don't know how this is usually handled.
Hi Doc James; My recent plans were to do another set of improvements to Aphasia which I had started last May. Could you give me the short form version of the current page protection there and if there are any concerns. I would like to make some incremental improvements to keep nudging the article closer to peer review quality. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fundamental problem here in that you are confused about what a drug is. I am bringing it here so it isn't scattered all over Wikipedia, but it needs to be resolved because it's contributing to the problems on the article. A syringe is not a drug. A cup is not a drug. An e-cig is not a drug. Can we agree on this? If not, please explain exactly why a syringe is not a drug but an e-cig is.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
