Talk:Hydrazine sulfate

Chemicals Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"Statistically significant"

How is a P value of 0.1 statistically significant diff? Even the paper in question does not make this claim, it states

Considering all patients, median survival was greater for the hydrazine versus placebo group (292 days v 197 days, respectively), but the difference did not achieve statistical significance.

Citing this paper to state that the drug produced a "a statistically-significant trend toward survival" is not "correcting a misrepresentation of the medical literature", it is exactly the opposite. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit-war to introduce factual inaccuracies, this edit reinstates the exact same problem as I have explained above. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources

Dear Mr. Vickers,

Thanks for your message of 6/12/2009.

It is not with my wife you have been communicating, but with me.

In your message you write that you must rely on the most reliable sources. In this case-in a dispute involving the results of medical studies, it is the medical literature which is the most "reliable source."

In my previous e-mail to you I presented an example of your present statement on hydrazine sulfate being factually incorrect, in which it was stated that the California (Harbor-UCLA) studies did not show any statistically significant improvement in survival or other benefit, whereas in fact they did-and I provided you with an exact quote from the California studies so stating.

I suggest you extend yourself and consult the medical literature itself. You can do it by computer and it might take you all of 5 minutes. The exact reference is: Journal of Clinical Oncology 8:9-15, 1990. The authors state: "For PS [Performance Status] 0-1 patients survival was significantly prolonged with hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (P = .05). The survival at 1year was also significantly increased (P = .05) for hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (42% alive v 18%, respectively."

Do you understand that these studies showed a survival increase statistically significant to the P = .05, level? It doesn't matter what your cronies are telling you about these studies. The studies speak for themselves and show a statistically significant survival benefit.

Why would you possibly want to carry incorrect and medically misleading information on Wickipedia, no matter who communicated it to you?

I am certainly determined to straighten out this situation by going to the highest levels of government, if needs be.

In the meantime perhaps you would have the courtesy to personally communicate with me, as you obviously have with the long time adversaries of this drug.

Joseph Gold, M.D. Phone: 315:472-6616 E-Mail: jg@scrinst.org

Judytaylorgold (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]