User talk:The Sceptical Chymist

Welcome!

Hello, The Sceptical Chymist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Skinwalker (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the nerdy welcome template. Your further contributions to anti-depressant articles would be appreciated. Skinwalker (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paroxetine

I noticed you made some contributions to some of the SSRI pages. Perhaps you would like to take a stab at Paroxetine. For some reason, that page has more warnings about "suicide ideation". It is my understanding that these drugs tend to reduce the incidence of suicide and that the increase in suicide ideation amongst teenagers was not statistically significant. Here is an article you may find useful. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54606 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re TCA abuse potential

I have looked at your refs before reverting. Please see discussion and respond there. We have revert/discuss. Case studies (a single case) are not sppropriate material. All but one unclear are mixed use by alcoholic/junkies on methadone. Reviews and med consensus says they have no abuse potential, thats what the last ref (with the Indian woman) says itself. It also says that the case is not clear cut.(Is a depressive patient taking more pills than prescribed just desperate or an abuser?) 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MEDMOS, for the guideline to base claims on reviews and other secured material. Letters to the editor and concerns of some MD are not encyclopedic material. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this is also what I find disturbing in many other articles: Claims based on a single patient who abused pills and had braindamage as indication, that the pills cause braindamage etc. Claimed causality based on this. TCAs have no abuse potential. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re generally, TCA

To be precise the gov source notes that it is "moderately" abusable, comparable/same category as OTC diphenhydramine, when used as a sleep aid, in AIDS infected intravenous abusers. Other remarks: inserted "very few cases" from your book source for antidepressants in general, inserted fact tags where no abstract available. Looks better now, what? 70.137.151.133 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed your book ref says pp213 "However the number of cases reported over the past 30 years is very small", about antidepressant abuse in general. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also says there it is controversial, "given the tiny risk of abuse", if the patient should be made aware of this, because of a resulting risk of non-compliance and suicide. ibd. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCA, discontinuation, withdrawal

Reverted your edit. This is backed by a valid reference, which says discontinuation and withdrawal are not the same. So will you not revert that without discussion. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my talkpage. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my talkpage again. beta-blockers and other blood pressure meds produce a dangerous rebound syndrome (blood pressure crisis) on rapid withdrawal. That why I mentioned them as a counterexample of "withdrawal symptoms". It is rebound and has nothing to do with chemical dependency. Are you really older than me? 70.137.151.133 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page again. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page again. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, The Sceptical Chymist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additional information needed Mayalld (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bupropion

Hi there

I saw your recent edit, and have posed a question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_.28medicine-related_articles.29.23Drugs. Perhaps you can take a look? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Major depressive disorder

Please review WP:MEDMOS. Medical editors work hard to keep a consistent layout to medical articles, and I needed to revert your combining Prognosis and Prevention sections. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I read MEDMOS and it says: "Some sections will necessarily be absent or may be better merged...". MEDMOS is a guideline not a law set in stone. If a change improves readability, the WP:IAR policy overrides any guideline. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MDD is a featured article and, as such, convention is that major changes require discussion. This qualifies as a major change, and moreover, it's a change that doesn't make the article better, so why do it. Like all Wikipedia guidelines, none are set in stone, but in medical articles there are reasons to keep consistency.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 11:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prevention paragraph did not pass the FAC scrutiny. My point is that merging a stubby, one-paragraph chapter with the other that already contains similar information improves readability. If you think that it does not - argue in Talk. Do not offer MEDMOS as an argument though because MEDMOS actually recommends merging some chapters when necessary. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read you edits on the subject and they appear in good faith. The Sceptical Chymist above tried to get you blocked for these edits. He has a POV which he feels that wikipedia must agree with, or he goes on the offensive. Mwalla (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]