Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Videos from Science Museum, London

Hi All

I'm the Wikimedian in Residence at the Natural History Museum and Science Museum in London for the next few months, today the Science Museum released 3 videos about pain under an open license as a test to see how open knowledge projects can help them in their educational aims. I think they're really nice and hopefully will be useful.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the issues I have with videos is 1) the content is not easily verifiable 2) they are not easily edited by others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of thing that you would add as an image in an article, or link under ==External links==. I looked at the first bit of the first one, File:Virtually Painless. Science Museum Painless Exhibition Series.webm, and it's an interview with a patient about his personal experience with phantom limb pain. It's not the sort of thing that needs to be verified or edited; it's not an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I watched them all and like them all. James is correct - videos are not easily verifiable and the content is not easily edited by others, but I also agree with WhatamIdoing in that further verification is not necessary in this case. Since the videos are coming from the Science Museum, London and since that is a respected curator of science media, I trust the source as reliable and I am satisfied with these meeting verifiability requirements of being single accounts of health conditions each co-presented an expert and a patient. I do not think that these claim to represent all perspectives any more than any image in any article on a health condition represents all cases, but videos like these are an excellent attempt to present the subject matter of Wikipedia articles in a way that compliments the existing text.

I added these videos to the following articles:

• Phantom_limb#Phantom_limb_pain
• Twilight anesthesia
• Congenital insensitivity to pain

I can think of no rule to determine when videos are good or bad, but it is my opinion that these videos are ideal for inclusion into Wikipedia. They are high-quality, short length, and exemplify concepts which would be difficult to to communicate in any other way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

See the video at Dysthymia#External_links. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

John, would you consider putting me in touch with the producers of the videos? I'd like to learn more about what they're up to. (I both have an interest in pain medicine, and am very keen to see Wikipedia embrace video.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, yes of course, email me at Wikimedian@nhm.ac.uk and I'll pass you on to them, I'm meeting with them next week some time Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A link from the talk page to evidence

Pubmed allows one to sort literature into "review article" and "last 5 years" and "free full text". I am wondering what people think about adding something like this to the article talk pages to help our fellow editors find high quality sources? I have created a mockup for the talk page of gout. Ivo Varbanov (pianist)

From http://ivo-varbanov.com/about-me/short-bio/ There are a few issues that need to be address before possible rollout. While we can currently get a url that links to a specific top, we need to have the url also specify the filters. I will speak to the NIH about this. Would also need a bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Great idea! I think we can refine the links. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the link at the end of line 2 assures the reader they'll get free full text (isn't it just a Pubmed search), nor does this provide much assurance of high-quality journals. Some options to consider including searching:

1. Pubmed Central for the same "gout" term: guarantees free full text results
2. Pubmed for "gout AND review[pt]": review articles on gout (not all full-text)
3. Pubmed Central for "gout AND review[ti]": full-text reviews (imprecise; I don't know whether PMC supports the Publication Type ([pt]) field)
4. Pubmed for "gout AND review[pt] AND jsubsetaim": this last flag limits the search to the Abridged Index Medicus, providing a limited but high-quality subset of clinically-oriented journals

Of course, any of these can be limited to a range of dates as desired (in Pubmed, could use 'AND "last 5 year"[dp]' - rather than using a specific range of years that will go stale quickly). The kernel of the idea is great. I think we should leverage PMC (with its full-text guarantee) and flags like "review[pt]" (need this for PMC) and "jsubsetaim" (would be great to use this in PMC, and if there were other lists that included a broader swath of high-quality biomedical journals). -- Scray (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Try this. --Ossip Groth (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That page does not give me a list of free full text reviews that I can see. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Metatextbook of Medicine - Instructional Picture 05

Pic05 : At field (6), date and review filters can be set.

Metatextbook of Medicine - Instructional Picture 08

Pic08 : anything with funny colored buttons is free to download; slight blue only in germany. --Ossip Groth (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Have added search function for www.wikipathways.org; available since month is wiki en und de. All at (4) at maximum scrolldown. :) --Ossip Groth (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The NIH link is not clean yet. I'm working on getting the link to limit the search to "review" "last 5 year" and "free full text". The NIH wants to emphasis "systematic reviews" which are definitely the way to go for specific question but not as useful for writing certain aspects. Until we get a proper link this will not be ready to go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I know of two projects doing this in other contexts. One is Template:Library resources box, which seeks to connect any given Wikipedia article to library resources. This proposal has the attention of Wikidata and WMF folks but still does not have community support. Another project is Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory, wherein external links to videos from a Khan Academy project are given special preference in Wikipedia articles. There are things that I like and dislike about both of these proposals. This proposal to have special talk page linking on health articles seems simpler to execute than those and a good idea presuming that people would find and use them, but I am not sure that users would. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is more for editor (I am not sure if that is what you mean by users). It is NOT to go in the article space but only on the talk page. The examples above appear to go on the talk page and thus appear to be for readers rather than editors. Not sure what I think about these. Not a big fan of adding ELs to videos.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Somebody at WP:WikiProject Philosophy was trying something like this, too. Unfortunately, he was trying it on category pages, which are not appropriate pages for external links, which isn't okay. You can see the template at {{Philosophy reference resources}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Figure out the pubmed link that goes right to reviews from the last 5 years [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a problem with the PubMed results, James. I looked at the box at Talk:Croup and cross-checked the PubMed results with the Trip results. I wasn't expecting to get identical results, but I was expecting something similar.

PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Croup+AND+%28Review[ptyp]+AND+free+full+text[sb]+AND+%22last+5+years%22[PDat]%29&cmd=DetailsSearch) shows me 3 results that look very good, but Trip finds 70 secondary sources, which on inspection shows (as an example) a 2012 Cochrane review on "Glucocorticoids for croup (Review)" which I can see as full text. I agree that it's confined to one aspect of croup, but it seems too good to miss - in fact it's used in the article. I suppose there's a tension between getting a very precise set of hits from PubMed, which are going to be first choice, and a broader set of results from Trip that you have to do some work on if you want to expand the article. It certainly shows to me that Trip is a very useful alternative to PubMed and deserves its place in your template. Good work, by the way! --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane is not free full text in my area of the world. The TRIP results also show none free secondary sources. SO yes some overlap but we should have both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Progress

I have managed to figure out how to link directly to free full text review articles from the last 5 years automatically based on the name of the article in question. Examples are here Talk:Croup and Talk:Gout. I still need to fiddle with it to figure out how to get it to work for two work articles. Do people support this idea in principle? Would it be reasonable to apply it to all medicine disease related article talk pages / medication talk pages? If so we could look at a bot to put it there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Have it working for multi word titles Talk:Streptococcal_pharyngitis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think that's great and would support wide use in WPMED. I am surprised this isn't getting more comments; perhaps this thread has drifted too far up the page for folks to notice. -- Scray (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Template needs cleanup but Support the idea. Zad68 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Like Hold on this didn't get the recognition it deserves! Doc coded a new message box using WP:MAGIC! That's awesome! Zad68 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea and impressive work. I am new, but appreciate the effort and time put into this and would love to see it work.Ochiwar (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Impressive bit of work, indeed. It looks very useful. I'm not sure, though, that we want it to pre-ignore non-free sources. It has been a while since I last saw a discussion on FUTON bias. Have we come around to accepting the inevitability of bias for freely available sources? I wouldn't object, but I'm a bit surprised it got past me. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree. TRIP of course is both and I am about to adjust pubmed to also link to all reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a bias to look at free reviews first. It's about understanding who reads and contributes to Wikipedia and trying to start from a more accepting place. Just because someone came up with an acronym for a provocative hypothesis doesn't make non-free reviews better. Generally for any established topic I have trouble finding non-free reviews which don't cover what free reviews already do. II | (t - c) 04:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all: Greaaaaaaaaaaaaat work. Second: While I would say that most commonly non-free sources are more useful than free ones, I think that in this case it would be more useful to leave in the template only the free ones. Most of us who have access to non-free sources are also used to finding them so we do not really neeed the help of the template. However this template could be a great way to engage new editors who do not have neither the knowleadage nor the access on how to get to secondary sources. Best idea is to have the two options as I see that has been done in at least some articles such as ADHD. --Garrondo (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The abstracts of non free sources such as Cochrane reviews however can still be useful. Thus the three options. Hope to eventually combine User:Ocaasi work on getting access to paid sources via Wikipedia:TWL into the template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Next step

Okay since there is general support the next step will be to have Zad create a bot to add this template to article talk pages which 1) have a infobox disease 2) have a drugbox 3) have a infobox symptom Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Have moved the main copy of the template here Template:WPMED/Evidence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• First, have a look at this quite simple template-based wikipage to cope with a multitude of search terms of different ROC (sensitivity/specifcity) characteristics:

Example FcRn

• then, feel free to view the sources of that page and of the essential template:y - they are located on my private wiki on my serva.
• I will up the sitesearch.php in a few days as a wikimedia extension and I will debug on my private wiki.
• Remember, my private wiki does not accept contributions (because it turned to be the web's major place to talk about buyviag and other funny things until I stopped-off the spamers).
• remeber, filters will be set at the sitesearch.php level, and I have the NOT-REVIEW option,too, and I have a higher freefulltext retrieval than pubmed because i own a major db of all hybrid journals from which i can predict openness.
• remember, searches are funnelled into sites like WILEY, SPRINGERLINK, HIGHWIRE, J-STAGE and DOAJ to run searches on these external servas to get really bulk papers !

--Ossip Groth (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion: I would tweak the wording a tad to suggest that those two links would be "a good place to start looking for MEDRS compliant sourcing" or some similar wording. While it is not explicitly stated, a new editor might see this notice and assume that any and all search results from either database automatically meets WP:MEDRS, which is not necessarily true (especially with the increasing number of non-MEDLINE indexed "open access" journals in PubMed now through PMC, and the usual fringe topics published in foreign nursing journals). Just my 2 cents. Yobol (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes good suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is nice! Some suggestions:

* Move the template to the top of the others (I did this for Talk:Croup). I think if you want to have any hope of it getting noticed/used, this is important.

* Have some kind of bold header line in the template box, like "Finding sources for this article", in order that it might catch people's eyes. Maybe it would be enough to bold "Ideal sources" in the beginning, but I'd vote for something a little more.

* Unlink "review articles" -- anybody reading this template will know what a review article is.

I'm trying to figure out if there's a way of linking directly to PMC search results just for review articles ... I should know this, but the closest filter I could find, "research and review articles"[Filter], is not the same.

Klortho (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree moving up looks good. The picture makes it fairly bold and have added the additional bolding as you suggest. Most people are not clear the difference between review article and peer reviewed thus the link. How would a like to PMC be different than the current link to all free reviews on pubmed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm ... you had asked about linking to PMC above, so I set about trying to figure out how to do it. But now I see that what you have here, linking to PubMed, is better, because it lists free full text articles whether they're in PMC or available free from the publisher. Cheers! Klortho (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• preliminary, my linkout has reached hellow-world state of development as to be seen at Example: Juxtaglomerular apparatus not renin

--Ossip Groth (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)--Ossip Groth (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ossip I still do not get how this site of yours works. Thus until you get consensus for it use we probably should not add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Chromosome location of CCDC113.gif

File:Chromosome location of CCDC113.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It was not properly uploaded. It would have been trouble for me to fix it so I just uploaded it again properly. Next time use Commons:Special:UploadWizard and chose the option which says that the file was made by the US government and therefore in the public domain and available for reuse.

The page at User:Bene0143/sandbox looks great and could be merged to CCDC113 immediately. If you need help then let me know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Antipyschotics

FYI, the disruptive editor mentioned above who edits antipyschotic-related articles appears to be back with a new account, User:Booklaunch, after the last two were blocked. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mandragua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.194.57 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Since links are not correct I cannot find discussions named, but it seems indeed that mandragua is back. This time he has edited Antipsychotic, Risperidone and Dopamine, filling them with OR and POV editions. Help is needed since it is a really perseverative user, and until he is blocked (and even then) he will continouly readd his texts.--Garrondo (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain that this is Mandragua, although it very well could be. Mandragua's sockpuppets and IPs made exactly the same edits as Mandragua did. Booklaunch is editing the same articles on similar themes, but with different content. Unfortunately meatpuppetry is a real possibility for this topic. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the articles, and file an SPI request if the situation clarifies further. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The benefits of antipsychotics are controversial with the WHO reporting better outcomes for schizophrenics in developing than developed countries. Long term antipsychotic use was 16% verses more than 60% if I remember correctly.[2] Life expectancy is also 12 to 15 years less in those with schizophrenia which is primarily attributed to the side effects of the "new atypicals" including obesity and metabolic syndrome [3].

We know they have a small benefit in the elderly and a number of harms including shortened life expectancy / stroke and EPS symptoms.[4] They are thus not recommended treatments in this group. Two of them are the 5th and 6th most prescibed medications by sales in the USA [5] so there of course is a strong financial incentive to show them in a good light. The history is interested as the original antipsychotics were referred to as "pharmaceutical lobotomies" in a positive manner in the 1950s when these were still believed to "work" [6]. High dose antipsychotics were also used to "torture" political dissidents in the USSR. [7]. I will have a look... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It is widely recognized that antipsychotic drugs, especially the older ones such as chlorpromazine, have terribly serious problems, including very nasty, unpleasant, and long-lasting or even permanent side effects. The only excuse for using such nasty drugs is that not using them may have consequences that are even worse. Our articles already cover the negative effects, and there could probably be even more coverage of them. But basic policies such as NPOV and MEDRS still apply. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely and there are excellent references to improve these pages. Do we have a clear ref for "The only excuse for using such nasty drugs is that not using them may have consequences that are even worse." Of course when one says "may" it equally means "may not" but the sentence does not work as well. This 2010 Cochrane review on respirodone is a little more sedate in its conclusions [8]. And here is the review stating that the difference between atypicals and typicals is unknown [9] Doc James (talk · contribs· email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

By "consequences that are even worse", I mean things like walking down the middle of the road at night with no clothes on, as a schizophrenic friend of mine once did during a psychotic break. Whatever else they do, antipsychotic drugs acutely suppress psychotic behaviors of that sort. They allowed a huge reduction in the numbers of people who were long-term institutionalized. There is some controversy about whether it might be better to use drugs less heavy-handedly in hopes that the condition will eventually remit, but there is no serious dispute about the acute effect of these drugs in suppressing psychotic behaviors. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The WHO multi country study however gives pause regarding the long term benefits of antipsychotic treatment. And the comparison of risperidone with placebo by Cochrane looking at short term benefits also gives pause. To be a bit of a devils advocate lobotomies were also affect in decreasing these behaviors and tentative evidence supports antipsychotic use decreasing brain matter.[10] This statement "They allowed a huge reduction in the numbers of people who were long-term institutionalized" is also controversial. Having spent a few months treating people with schizophrenia in Vancouver most of them were in "supportive housing" and far from independent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with the specific edits in question. In this [11] he refs [12] which is a 2007 systematic review. However his conclusion from it sort of misses the point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think anymore that it is a sock. Attitude is clearly different, much less oppositional and edits seem to be more well intended. --Garrondo (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We should probably move this discussion to the article talk page :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comments and help needed in the Antipsychotics article. I have explained several problems of last edits, but I cannot revert per 3RR. More eyes would be really useful.--Garrondo (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I really need further comments (in any sense) at talk page, since the editor feels I am in a personal crusade against him. He has just gone to Doc James talk page trying to get me blocked.--Garrondo (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I still happened to have that article on my Watchlist from Mandragua. Booklaunch may have a point, but the most recent edits didn't look like article development accurately reflect the best sourcing. I have removed the recent changes while discussion continues on the Talk page. Surely you do not have to worry about the request on Doc's User Talk. The best thing to do is just ignore anything not related to article content and let's use the Talk page and see what consensus develops. Zad68 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not worried of getting blocked, but since nobody expressed any opinion the feeling this editor had of being a victim of a personal persecution by me was being reinforced. Moreover I do not really have an opinion on his POV on drugs since it is outside my area of expertise, so in this sense, any direction the edits take is ok for me if MEDRS and NPOV are followed (Which was not the case right now). Thanks for the comments.--Garrondo (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes this users edits are not cool. Have weighted in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

virtual surgery, serious games for surgery, surgical simulators

One of my student's topics was the use of computer simulation for the training of surgeons. It is up as Serious games for surgery. Im reviewing it but I found a short article Virtual surgery. Another name the students found was "surgical similators" However, "serious games for surgery" comes up a lot more on Google than the other two, despite its perhaps less impressive-sounding title. Id like to see what the community thinks before I put the rewrite/merge onto Wikipedia.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest "Surgery simulator"—along the lines of "Flight simulator" and "Driving simulator". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. The new version is up under Surgery simulatorThelmadatter (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I nominated this article for "Did you know?" recognition because it is awesome. See here if you like. After a week or so check the pageviews to see how many people read it. I wish the best for your students - encourage them to nominate each other for Did you know if they want the attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Kratom, neutrality issues

I came across this article doing some supplement research. The tone is ridiculously not NPOV, almost as if it was written by Kratom suppliers.. I don't have time to address it right now, but it seems like it needs some eyes on it and a solid cleanup. Thanks!!! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I worked on it a little bit and identified a few problem areas. You're right though, the article needs a considerable amount of revising.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Multiple Normal Tissue Expression of A1BG.jpg

File:Multiple Normal Tissue Expression of A1BG.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Causes of autism

I've started a discussion on Talk:Causes of autism#Postnatal causes - are these even needed?, and more opinions would be appreciated. The causes of autism article as written currently is more of a catalog of proposals, especially in the postnatal section, where a lot of refuted ideas are given a large amount of space. So basically, is it worth giving things that aren't causes of autism their own sections in an article about the causes of autism? ComfyKem (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Neuroaid

is marketed as a stroke treatment. I have cleaned-up the article which seem to have a lot of poorly-sourced content - but medicine is not my core area so this could probably do with some wise eyes. (Cross-posted from WP:MEDRS.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like mostly primary sources, mostly very weak and in some cases misquoted. Will have time too look in detail in 18 hours or so.Ochiwar (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article has been cleaned up quite a bit by Garrondo, Biosthmors and myself. I am still a bit unsatisfied about the use and quality of references in the article and would like to make use of this case to learn a bit more about the use of medrefs on wikipedia. A specific example is this ref used in the article. This is basically the only study that ascribes any positive effects from the use of Neuroaid. The problems I have with this reference are firstly that it is original research and primary source (as are most if not all other refs in the article). Secondly (and more importantly) there is an obvious conflict of interest inherent in the study. Several authors of the study are shareholders and employees of Moleac which produces the stuff. At the time of the study David Picard was the CEO of that company and other authors where paid consultants (examples Marie Bousser and Christopher Chen) and/or shareholders. To quote the study itself under the section "Disclosures" (near the very end of the PDF)

. S.X. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board and a shareholder of Moleac, which owns the commercial and intellectual property rights of DJ outside China. DP is a shareholder and an employee of Moleac. C.L. served as an employee of Moleac until July 2006

I had tried to introduce some of these facts in this edit of the article, but it was modified by Garrondo. In its present state the article does not adequately inform the reader of these important facts and associations concerning this study. Garrondo requires secondary sources for me to include such a warning in the text of the article but the information is contained in the reference itself (see quote above). To my understanding, it is rather the reference/study itself which is original research/primary source and not the self evidenced (and referenced) facts I added to try and put the claims into perspective for the average reader. My question here is that since the inherent conflict of interest is specifically declared in the study itself (see section Disclosure) would it not be pertinent for us to at least hint at this (to the understanding of the average reader) while using this study as a medref? Ochiwar (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, although it could be discussed: there are many articles where a potential COI is stated, but it is only "potential", by itself it does not invalidate the article conclussions. If we say something in the line of "the article is not valid because there is a COI we are drawing our own conclussions and therefore it is a case of mild original research unless somebody else (a secondary source) has said that that COI is indeed probably invalidating the article. At most we could say something like: authors declared a potential conflict of interest since XXX. In this sense we are not drawing a conclussion since we are not saying that the article is not valid, but just quoting the content of the primary source. Nevertheless my personal preference is to not indicate the COI unless it is stated in a secondary source and explain succintly the conclusssions of the primary source using a secondary high quality source if possible, but if not using with GREAAAAAAT CARE the primary source. In this case I tried to explain with care the primary ref, using as help the commentary in the pakistany journal (secondary, but probably not peer-reviewed) you added, and eliminated your probably a bit POV edit on the COI. Opinions?--Garrondo (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To my mind using such a ref with great care would include boldly mentioning a potential conflict of interest, for example in the way you suggested above. My intention is not to invalidate the reference but to let the reader know not to take the study at face value but to have a closer look before making conclusions as to the value of the study. The reader should be able to put the source into perspective. Your suggestion above: "authors declared a potential conflict of interest since XXX" or something along those line would do the job nicely. Ochiwar (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would rather leave it without mentioning it per reasons above, but lets see if anybody else gives their opinion. I am not sure if there is any written policy in this sense.--Garrondo (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I avoid saying that a published source is "original research", because it's easy to confuse people here. "Original research" in the WP:NOR sense is something that Wikipedia editors must never do, but that our sources are freely permitted to engage in.

I think that the "debunking" effort was too much. We can't say that the neutrality of the study (another thing that sources aren't required to do) "may be questioned"; either it was, in which case you should cite it, or it wasn't, in which case we don't mention that. We could add a very brief mention of the authors ("In a paper published by several of Neuroaid's employees..." or whatever the facts support).

In general, I think that whole section needs to be revised and substantially shortened. Have a look at WP:MEDMOS#Writing style, especially this item:

Do not provide a detailed analysis of an individual study unless the analysis itself is taken from a published reliable source. Wikipedia should concisely state facts about a subject. It should not discuss the underlying literature at any length. Generally speaking, the facts will be found in the conclusions or results section of a study, not in the detailed methodology. Articles that rely on secondary sources are less likely to fall into the trap of discussing the size of a single study, its methodology, its biases, and so forth. Thus, "washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness", not "An uncontrolled survey involving 132 experienced long-distance backpackers on the Appalachian trail in 1997 concluded that washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness."

Keep in mind, too, that average people (i.e., not you) usually assume that the inclusion of methodology details like sample size means that we're trying to say that this is a good, trustworthy, fully scientific study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links especially the one on original research as it has helped me with the terminology and explains the distinction between original research and primary source. Yes I agree that the debunking attempt was a bit plump, but my fear is exactly that which you address in your last sentence: average people will think that we are saying that this is a good trustworthy, fully scientific and unbiased article, that is "sanctioned by wikipedia" unless we somehow make our reservations clear. To that effect, I have added a list of ingredients (and made them readable to the average person)to the article which I think puts the whole product into perspective very nicely (at least to the discerning reader). The list had been published by Moleac only in latin. I think I understand why because going through the list in english brings up associations of Snake oil in me. Anybody who knows what is in the stuff would probably look twice at any studies or references, I hope. Thanks Garrondo and WhatamIdoing for the explanations.Ochiwar (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. The current version lists "horn of an endangered antelope species" as an ingredient in this stuff. Thanks for your contributions. Biosthmors (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Human vaginal size article

Note: As mentioned below at the same time as this small piece of text, I should have initially thought of this topic outside of anatomy in a strict sense/medical sense when seeing this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So this article was created late the previous hour in response to the Human penis size article, though the vagina is not homologous to the penis. Since the editor participates at WP:Feminism, and was at that project right before creating this article, a feminist aspect might also have something to do with the creation of this article; I know that some of our feminist editors, and non-feminist editors as well, feel that Wikipedia lacks balance between the sexes/genders. And while I understand the need to create such an article in response to the Human penis size article, the Human vaginal size article clearly cannot be expanded beyond a stub and therefore I see no reason that this topic should not be directed to the Vagina article and covered there instead. The editor has already taken some information from there, using this and this poor source (the latter source is also a dead link), and added it to the Human vaginal size article. Once I get around to significantly fixing up the Vagina article, which is long overdue, I would likely redirect the Human vaginal size article there. But I am obviously open to hearing comments on this matter. I'll alert the creator of this article, and WP:ANATOMY, to this discussion. Since this WikiProject (WP:MED) is significantly more likely to leave a few or more replies on this matter than WP:ANATOMY is because WP:ANATOMY is significantly less active, I've decided to have this discussion here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to improve it, and bringing it to notice here; a poor stub is all I could produce, and it could be greatly improved. I think the relevant factor in interlinking the two is not that the structures are homologous (they're not), but that one is (typically) inserted into the other as part of their key biological function. It could easily be expanded, if there's data for the changes in size due to sexual intercourse (there's at least one in vivo MRI study of the mechanics of human sexual intercourse, although that had N=1), and childbirth (for which there is abundant data.) I'm not sure about merging it completely into the main article, though, unless you can find a way to pare down all the figures to something that flows smoothly as text. Perhaps this is a case for the {{main}} template? -- The Anome (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As always it comes down to sourcing. If there's lots of good sourcing for human penis size but nothing or next to nothing for human vaginal size then we should have a fully-developed article about the one and not the other... real-world differences in how humans think about or study male things vs. female things will be reflected in Wikipedia content in the same way, it isn't good or bad or biased, Wikipedia content just reflects the sources. (I think I'm preaching to the choir here.) If doing the redirect becomes an issue, bring it to the attention of WP:MED... Zad68 21:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(As an off-topic aside, yes, it's really quite interesting to compare the extreme interest in one to the relative disinterest in the other -- it certainly suggests that the primary interest in the size of the penis isn't its ability to fit the vagina -- which actually works just fine in all but the most extreme cases -- but male insecurity and competition.) -- The Anome (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Zad. Thanks for weighing in.

The Anome, wow, how did you type a response so fast? Considering that you posted here before I posted on your talk page about this topic, were you already alerted to this discussion, perhaps by the new notification system? Regarding the article, I still don't think it can be expanded beyond a stub, certainly not much beyond a stub. It wouldn't be an issue at all to have it as a subsection, or as a few subsections, in the Vagina article. I'm more for not creating a WP:SPINOUT article unless needed. But I'll wait and see what more editors state on this matter, if more comment on it. And the "main" template wouldn't be needed unless there was a section in the Vagina article specifically about the size of the vagina; we would use the main template to point readers to the Human vaginal size article for in-depth information on the topic. But again, there is not a lot of information out there on this topic, and the Human vaginal size article is a stub, so not having the Human vaginal size article merged with the Vagina article means that the Vagina article would have a very small section on the topic just to point readers to the main article on it; and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs, "[s]hort paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to the subject experts here about both content and layout. Yes, it was the new notification system. I'm surprised to find the new system, which I initially disliked and found gimmicky, is actually more useful than the old one. -- The Anome (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no expertise here, but two points. First, it seems that human vaginal size is a notable topic. Searching for "vaginal size" in GScholar nets 248 hits. Glancing at the first few papers suggests that there are a number of relevant issues surrounding this topic, both medical and non-medical: vaginal dilation at birth and during sex, physical anthropology studies of different human ethnic groups, size issues surrounding sex-change surgery, sociological and psychological perceptions of size, vaginal tightening surgeries, etc. There are nearly 800 hits in GBooks. I wouldn't think that lack of material would be a problem. Second, this article is being actively developed by an experienced editor. It is already beyond a stub, IMO. Why the rush to merge? --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a rush to merge; after all, I did bring the topic here for discussion. It's that I have doubt, as expressed above, that the topic should have its own article. Besides that, it doesn't seem that The Anome was aware that this topic, aside from social aspects, is going to require WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. But you have touched on aspects that now make me think that the article should exist. As for the article's size, it has been divided into sections, but it's still not beyond a stub. I am waiting to see how it develops, and may expand it as well. But discussing whether or not it should exist is productive. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the assertive tone of my question; I intended no challenge. I agree that it was good to bring the topic here for discussion and look forward to seeing what others think. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. At the moment, I know it's a very crude stub article that does not meet WP Medicine's standards, for which I apologise. However, I believe it was still worth creating, as fruitful soil for developing a proper article on the topic. In particular, the sexual arousal, intercourse, pregnancy and childbirth aspects are surely of medical and scientific interest, both from the viewpoints of sexology and obstetrics, but currently non-existent in the article. There must surely be material out there in the literature that is more recent than Masters and Johnson that touches on all of these. (Also, as an afterthought, perhaps the article should also touch on the topic of vaginal atresia, Müllerian agenesis. and intersex conditions which create unusually-sized, missing or deformed vaginas?) -- The Anome (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Mark viking, no problem. When seeing this article, I should have thought of this topic outside of anatomy in a strict sense/medical sense, especially since the Human penis size article also covers social aspects. Taking into account the aspects you mentioned, some of which the article already touches on, it can be easily expanded beyond a stub. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that this proposed material covering vaginal size should be anywhere else besides Vagina. "Chamberousness" (if I may make up a word) is part of the essential nature of the vagina's two main functions: to support sexual intercourse and childbirth. Vaginal size already has some coverage at Vagina, and that article is only 13 Kb of readable prose, there is plenty more room for content to be expanded there before considering spinning it off to a subarticle. Absolutely Wikipedia should cover it, but with the information we have right now it should be in Vagina. Zad68 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Try: vacuousness (I think that is a word). While you guys are talking about this stuff I noted on potential space that the vagina had been listed as an example. I understand that a potential space does not exist in health, and requires pathologic separation to be created, e.g. spread of pus that dissects between fascial plains. If someone can confirm that the vagina is anatomically classed as a potential space with a source please add to article. Lesion (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist, so you may discount my view, but I really think that this should be integrated directly into the main article. All of the basics and at least most of the pathological variation needs to be covered at the main article anyway, so there would be a lot of overlap.

My suggestion is to merge now, and to split later if it's really necessary. It is far easier to merge in a stub and split out a major section than to merge in a more significant article, especially if there is significant overlap in the two independently developed pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. Biosthmors (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a merge too. I think the most important related parameter is the maximal potential size of the canal during childbirth, which is completely missing now, and I can't recall any study on this topic. The current contents of the article describing baseline dimensions are relatively unimportant, but if we merge this article to the Vagina article we can deal with this issue later. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to create/maintain disease infoboxes

I run an academic research group, and one of our current projects is to develop the Gene Wiki project. Basically, we helped to create/maintain a template for key information on human genes. In cases where a gene page already existed, we just added/updated the template. When they didn’t exist before, we auto-created stubs. Now, we maintain a bot that keeps these infoboxes up to date with the source databases.

After the success of the gene pages, the idea of expanding to other biomedical topics has been suggested several times by other scientists I’ve talked to. The set of human diseases is one natural area. Clearly, Template:Infobox_disease is already doing a great job organizing many links to related resources. Relative to what already exists, I can see a few possible ways we might contribute:

• Systematically determining, adding, and maintaining the mappings (e.g., to OMIM, MeSH, GeneReviews, etc.)
• Adding new data sources (e.g. NCI Thesaurus, Disease Ontology)
• Identifying a “comprehensive” list of notable human diseases for stub creation
• Providing wikilinks to related genes and drugs/compounds (with references)

We would appreciate any feedback, thoughts, and suggestions on whether this community thinks our involvement would be useful and productive. (Note, we’ve also started a very similar discussion with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology [13] on the idea of expanding drug topics as well.) Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. This would mesh well with the efforts we are working on with the WHO ICD division. ICD 11 is coming out soon and the ideas we are mulling around is not only partly basing the ICD 11 on Wikipedia but looking at updating the infoboxes to ICD 11. This will require bots to do so and if you have a similar bot already developed that could definately be a starting point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We by the way have a fairly exhaustive list of diseases here [14] The difficulty is many diseases are known by a number of names and some of these should simply be redirects. Could we come up with a bot that would search disease name synonyms and see if Wikipedia has an article for one while adding redirects for the others? That would be a first step. Than we could have a bot that adds the disease infobox to the rest as well as adding the disease infobox to articles that do not have it already and maybe filling in the disease infobox where there is data but it is not included :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear there's some enthusiasm of this idea. Absolutely, no human should have to deal with any ICD codes, so systematically dealing with ICD 9 and ICD 10 while still prepping for the arrival of ICD 11 seems to be perfect for a bot. The list of diseases looks remarkable! We should definitely figure out how to incorporate this effort. We have been working with the Disease Ontology folks. The plus-side of DO is that they track many of the synonyms, so setting up redirects should be straightforward. However, by quick spot check, I see many diseases listed here that aren't in DO. Anyway, I think figuring out the overlap there could involve a very productive collaboration in both directions. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is a great idea. I'm a little uncertain about the "links to related genes and drugs/compounds", but I'm willing to see how it works out.

May I request an addition? One of the things we've talked about, but never managed to accomplish, is a |specialty= parameter, to answer the very basic question of "What kind of a doctor usually deals with this?" It wouldn't be necessary on many articles, but it would be very handy for some of them (e.g., most autoimmune diseases are handled by rheumatologists), and I hope that it would be mostly simple to figure out whenever it is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "links to related genes and drugs/compounds", another one of our collaborators has systematically curated links between diseases and genes and diseases and drugs. There is a mix of database imports and human manual curation, and they've tracked each link with the strength of the evidence. Clearly we'd restrict ourselves to the highest-confidence links. I was thinking about displaying this info in an infobox (either a new one, or expanding Template:Infobox_disease), but we're certainly open to how others think this information should be displayed.

Regarding the specialty parameter, sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I'd love to prepopulate that field with data from a database with our bot runs. Are you aware of any source of that information? Perhaps we could use the Disease Ontology hierarchy to infer that information. The fallback of course is simply to let editors fill that in one-by-one. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a good source, and each specialty tends to have an expansive idea of its scope, so that a dermatologist would include several heart conditions as being derm issues, or a neurologist would include cancers, etc. I'm hoping to get the primary specialty listed, not just any specialist who might encounter it. I think that pre-populating with an inferred specialty would be fine, and then we can manually correct it or expand it as necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that you'll need a very reliable source, because this will be contentious for the reasons you've touched upon. Nothing starts fights like turf does. -- Scray (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The good news is that we're not required to limit it to one answer. Skin cancer could easily list both oncology and dermatology, for example. I think that I'd avoid citing this (should be obvious 90% of the time, right?) unless and until someone actually challenges it in a specific article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And of course, this is exactly the sort of data that ought to be present in the Wikidata entry, http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192102. It's also worth noting that if we're really going to be ahead of the game, once we supply more than one item of information in a field, we really ought to be marking it up as a proper list like this: {{hlist | oncology | dermatology}} for example. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue of Wikidata and accessible lists in infoboxes is also being discussed at Template_talk:Infobox person#Parameters that can optionally be called from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for the additional thoughts. First on the subject of classifying disease, just a couple of thoughts. We are actively coordinating with the Disease Ontology [15] folks, and classification/organization of disease terms into higher-level concepts is definitely something they've thought a lot about. We are hoping to include some elements of that structure into the disease infobox. However, it's not quite the same as linking a disease to the primary specialty. Perhaps we should also follow the model of {{Breast_cancer_types}} and |{{Systemic connective tissue disorders}}? Again, this is not purely a bot issue since it will take human input to do the classifications...

Second, on the issue of wikidata, 100% in agreement. I apparently neglected to mention this, but we definitely will plan to put all the infobox data that we add/maintain into wikidata. And that includes all the old stuff we've done with {{GNF Protein box}}. Having said that, I think we're going to leave the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox person to others. Just know we'll be on board once all the options for querying and inclusion are worked out... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a very interesting project. Where can we go to stay abreast of the progress? Klortho (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad you find it interesting! For the moment, we'll keep the discussion on this page (and the parallel discussion on compounds/drugs). Eventually we'll bring together all of the various activities into a single place -- probably at User:ProteinBoxBot. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes when a more defined proposal has been put together will definitely look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to centralize the discussion with all interested parties and actually work on tangible prototypes, I've created User:ProteinBoxBot/Phase_3. We'd welcome your input and continued involvement over there! Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 110.174.147.166 at Heterochromia iridum article

IP 110.174.147.166 has repeatedly added unsourced information and WP:Original research to the Heterochromia iridum article. The IP has been repeatedly warned about this, and blocked twice for such editing, including for edits to the Eye color article; see his or her talk page and this insulting section that he or she created on my talk page. The IP has very recently added a source to accompany the text that he or she wants in the Heterochromia iridum article, but it is poorly sourced and so I reverted here and here. Like I also noted, the IP is not above altering an image's description at Wikimedia:Commons just to add a WP:Original research caption for the image in the Heterochromia iridum article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. I don't know what else to do about this IP, except report the IP at this project for help in combating his or her edits to these articles. The Eye color article is already currently semi-protected because of this IP. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP is also back to fouling up Talk:Eye color, which was recently semi-protected because of the IP. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for PC protection of the article at RFPP and for semi-protection of the image at Commons. Either they'll agree and protect it, or they won't, but we'll find out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for your revert. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes protection was added, but there are likely to be some instances where the IP's dubious edits will be accepted through pending changes. So I'll still need help making sure that the IP's unsourced changes and WP:Original research stays out of the article. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a friendly comment. Suggest you direct them to wp:no personal attacks, which surely does apply to that. Lesion (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Preventive mastectomy article/topic

Simply alerting editors of this project who are unaware of this new article about surgery, considering that it was very likely created in response to Angelina Jolie's preventive double mastectomy (the article was created yesterday), the topic is getting a lot of attention right now, and there may be significant improvements editors of this project may want to make to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Airway management rewrite?

Hi! I'd like to work on Airway management as I've mentioned on its talk page. As I am very much learning to edit Wikipedia, I just wanted to check here to make sure this proposed edit is ok. Any suggestions/objections would be appreciated. Bron (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of that article initially made me think of managing airlines and the routes (airways) airplanes fly on. Flyer22 (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at tracheal intubation and the contributions by DiverDave (talk · contribs). That might be helpful. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed merging Artificial airway to Airway management. The topics are basically identical in my view. Opinions?Ochiwar (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Proton therapy

Any thoughts on the costs section of the article? See this discussion, I appear to have stumbled into a minefield while checking out the contributions of a particularly bizarre IP editor. Graham87 12:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Medline plus

This has probably been discussed before, so apologies for not paying attention, but is medline plus an acceptable source? Especially when it seems that high quality sources (e.g. Cochrane) contradict some of the content...sometimes it seems that the task of writing a patient summary on medline plus has been outsourced to another organization, although usually these sound like mainstream, reliable ones. Lesion (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

All sources are reliable for something. A free, mid-quality website (like Medline plus or WebMD) can be useful to many readers, especially the ones (the majority) who are unable to access or even understand technical papers.

That said, if a mid-quality source is contradicted by most high-quality sources, then you should go with a better source. If it's just one high-quality source, then it's possible that the expert opinion is divided, or that there is new information in the field, and then you have to figure out DUE weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I typically never use it as there are better sources. Is it acceptable, yes but barely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem- if it is a problem- is that it is already used several times before I started editing the page. I think in this instance I will try to find better sources and see if I can remove it entirely as a source. Lesion (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is what I do when bringing an article to GA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

New pages

TedderBot is back! See User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult to find new articles that might be medicine-related. Also, Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles is filling up again, if anyone wants to spend a while removing anatomy articles and assessing the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am currently rating many anatomy articles on the importance scale and will gladly remove the WPMED banner from proper articles when I come across it, but... Is there a clear cut definition on when and when not an article should have both banners? I tried to look into this earlier, but came up empty. I know that the discussion have been brought up many times before but it seems to me that a clear consensus never been reached (so I abandoned the idea again). If such a consensus exists I will gladly remove unnecessary WPMED banners, when I come across them and maybe more important they (or some sort of guidelines) can be posted on WP:AN to reduce double work in the future. Does an article about an anatomy subject fall under WPMED if:

• If it has one or a couple of sentence about pathology or clinical relevance (Posterior tibial artery)?
• It has a clinical relevance section (Middle meningeal artery)?
• It has some sort of developmental biology or physiology section (Round ligament of liver)?

If someone could sort out these three examples for me, I could remove a lot (or few depending on the answers) of WPMED banners for you (I am pretty much just lurking on this side of the fence). Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No anatomy articles fall under WPMED IMO. Some of us here also edit anatomy articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that was easy (if everybody else feels this way). If none of three examples above falls under WPMED, then for my purpose it settles it (I got 951 anatomy stubs left to rate at the moment, so I can pretty much remove the banner when I come across it). But just to be clear; even articles about organs e.g. liver and heart are correctly labeled at the moment (only WPAN)? JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen those debates, and would like to hear more from Doc James or others regarding the "none" position. You (JS) have provided some great examples. The clinical content in those is potentially (and in some cases, currently) substantial. Do we advocate deletion (and prevention) of such content, or leave curating that clinical content by WP:AN editors? -- Scray (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No we do not advocate deletion of any content and we are all free to be WP:AN editors and curate these pages. We need to draw a line somewhere. Lead of course has lots of medical content in it but it is not part of WPMED (Lead poisoning is). Breast would not be part of WPMED but breast cancer is. It keeps us a little more disease / clinical focused. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. Agree. -- Scray (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I would very likely keep the leg artery, I might or might not keep the brain artery (the longer I think about it, the less likely it seems), and I would reject the ligament. Generally I keep both tags when the current article has more than a sentence or two about diseases, especially if the material isn't sky-is-blue obvious, but developmental biology or physiology generally doesn't justify a WPMED tag to me. On pages that are purely physiology, we're taking them largely because no WikiProject Physiology exists, and since WPAN is also taking these pages, then it isn't necessary for us to double-tag these partly-physio pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What is your rationale for wanting posterior tibial artery double tagged and not middle meningeal artery? JakobSteenberg (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How to find the pulse is an obviously clinical/medical action, and "stuff healthcare professionals do every day" is within our scope.

The second contains some obvious material (head injuries sometimes damage blood vessels in the brain: a good way to WP:Build the web, but not really news to anyone) and some information about research (the artery is easy to study in century-old dry specimens), which is not so much "medical-ish" as "research-y". This could go either way; I would probably remove it if I ran across it, but I wouldn't insist on it being removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Axona

User:AxonaForAD has made some request for corrections in the article. Maybe there is somebody interested in answering here.--Garrondo (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted... The editor has been pointed to WP:MEDRS. Personally I think the best course of action is just to wait until new article content is proposed, but feel free to reply. Zad68 19:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Megadose redirect

The above currently redirects to Megavitamin therapy. I thought megadose can be used to describe any medication given in very high quantities? Lesion (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

E.g. (albeit very short) list of pubmed hits with titles including the search terms "megadose steroids" [16] Lesion (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Rads Wiki images at commons

I have found the following category at commons: Images from RadsWiki, consisting in radiological data. Images in this category are taken from radswiki.net. They are published under the following license:

The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the radswiki.net is properly attributed. Derivative work is permitted. Commercial use is NOT permitted.

Following this license, in which commercial use is not permitted, they should be eliminated from commons. I have gone to radswiki.net and it seems they are part now of radiopedia.org, in which content is not free. Anybody knows something about this? Some of these images are surely included in articles from the project, and they may have to be eliminated. Unless somebody knows or proposes anything I will contact commons for a mass deletion.

--Garrondo (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

OK: I found that this had already been discussed at commons: there was a license change, so images previous to that license change were kept. In that case something should be made about the license text. --Garrondo (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The person who runs rads wiki is also a Wikipedia. He has agree to allow us to use images on a case by case basis under a more open license. If there remains issues send me a note. I have a bunch of email releases from him for certain fills. Were other images deleted?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not really sure, it seems that does uploaded to commons after 2009. With those before 2009 they were kept, but the license thing should be changed: now they say that the cannot be used commercially, but it seems that before 2009 the licence permitted commercial use, and they were kept because of that. In such case license should state so. Nevertheless this is only what I have understood from a deletion discussion.--Garrondo (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary or secondary?

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11915652
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12569969

Could someone please tell me if these sources are primary or secondary? much appreciated, Lesion (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

An important consideration when making such a determination is, "for what claim?" That said, from the abstract of the Shankland reference I have the impression (with phrases like, "As a result of this study, it appears ...") that it is a primary report, so it's unlikely to be a secondary source for much of anything (it's also from a very specialized journal of low impact). Schwartz & Freund appears is a review article about the use of botulinum toxin for treating facial pain, but it's published in a supplement with the note: "Publication of this supplement was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc". Elan Pharmaceuticals markets "Myobloc" (botulinum toxin). I would be cautious in using that. -- Scray (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So even if these are secondary, they may be secondary sources which seek to advance a particular view, and I think I read somewhere that these kind of sources are bad =D. I'm really looking for a reason to remove these sources from the article rather than wanting to add them, and you make good arguments for their removal. I can get better sources for the content they support anyway, thanks. Lesion (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The second one is a perfectly good source unless there is some specific reason to think it doesn't reflect the mainstream of opinion. That doesn't mean you can't find a better one, of course. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the possible conflict of interest highlighted above call the validity of the information into question? It was supporting at least some of the second paragraph of this section: Bruxism#Botox. There are Cochrane reviews, and few other reviews to hand... Lesion (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The first is primary; the second is secondary. It's perfectly fine for a source (primary, secondary, or tertiary) to advance a view. You may not advance your view. Sources may freely do so. In fact, some of the best sources are ones that advance a view, e.g., Cochrane Collaboration papers that are "advancing a view" that the subject they covered either do, or don't, have enough evidence to support a particular action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources - yes, you are correct. Here's what I read/misread "Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles" the advances a position refers to the action of an editor, e.g. cherry picking references that support their own view, and not to the sources themselves. I might actually read these policies fully at some point, but life just seems too short. Trial and error is not so bad either =D. Lesion (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many great sources out there with a estatement of COI, and many more that even if they do not estate it it is out there (which is probably quite worse). I would say that unless 1it -contradicts another better source, 2-A secondary source states that this COI may be relevant in this case; the COI does not invalidate the source. When in doubt search for a better source (more recent and/or better journal) and see what they say on the issue, and if there is a contradiction follow both the better source and your judgement.--Garrondo (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Vagina article

So we just got through discussing the vagina in the #Human vaginal size article section above. I'm here about the vagina again because the Vagina article, a little earlier this hour, was significantly expanded with information about "the vaginal ecosystem." That information was first proposed as an article for creation (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vaginal ecosystem), and then it was suggested that it be merged into the Vagina article. I need this project's help to determine whether or not some of this information should be removed because some of it is based on old sources that are far behind WP:MEDRS's Use up-to-date evidence criteria and because a lot of it is based on primary sources. I'll go ahead and do some heading and WP:REFPUNCT cleanup for the addition in the meantime. I first thought that the editor who added the information was a student, because, as a lot of you know, we've been getting significant expansions of sexual, medical, psychological and physiological topics from students (often times problematic expansions....ranging from problematic in a minor way to problematic in a big way or huge way), but now I'm not sure. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Images for deletion

File:Proteinplekhm3.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Minimum free energy.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those files should be deleted. However it is unclear if they have been tagged for speedy deletion or sent to WP:FFD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As currently tagged, they are up for slow-speedy deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Vaginal flora article

Same editor that I mentioned in the Vagina article section above is now working on the Vaginal flora article; that editor/that article clearly needs help in this regard. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Folk Medicine

Can we add something like a "Folk Medicine" section to medicine articles?

The purpose of this section is to include all treatments that lack sufficient evidence to prove or disprove their suitability to affect the condition in question.

Why have this section? - There are treatments that are popular in certain segments of the population and may not have been subject to randomized controlled trials. Therefore, we can't say that the treatments are equal to placebo as there have been no tests. It is possible that these treatments have been in use for thousands of years and may be effective. - This can also be a place to put experimental treatments, so maybe "Folk" is not the best term. - This will also help control a treatment being added, then removed, then re-add and a long discussion on he talk page about secondary sources and despite the treatment being "common knowledge" it isn't proven, so eventually removed. Then after some amount of time, the process will start again with another well intentioned person adding the obvious oversight of a popular treatment being ignored by Wikipedia.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The recommended headers include "History" - (the history of the science), and a "Society and culture" sections. Personally I would tend to put folk medicine/traditional remedies etc into the latter, although it could be argued that if such treatments were common historically then they could also be included in the History section. These are suggested headers in the MOS, not mandatory, so I say if you think a particular article would benefit with such a section then go ahead. Also remember you can always use subsections...e.g.

==Society and culture==

asdf

===Folk medicine===

asdfasdf

Lesion (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

But nevertheless we still would need adequate (secondary) sources for such sections, although in such cases we do not need to prove that they were effective, but merely that they were used.--Garrondo (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that someone added a lot of references to ayurvedic medicine treatments on several medical pages I've worked on, and these tended to be placed in the society and culture sections already ... mainly I think because they are still in use and therefore not historical. Lesion (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You could also include ineffective remedies under ==Treatment==, like "aspirin is not used for children with fevers due to Reyes" or "dextromethorphan is commonly taken for coughs, but it doesn't really work worth beans". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lesion, thanks for the suggestions. I think it would then fit best under the "Treatment" or "Management" sections and add a sub-section header of something like "Other Treatments".

WhatamIdoing, I'm more thinking about treatments that haven't been subject to modern testing and may still have been used for many years, like Ayureveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine, so it's not really possible to say if they do or don't work according to WP:Medicine guidelines.

Garrondo, your requirement of "But nevertheless we still would need adequate (secondary) sources for such sections" violates the whole purpose of the section. The whole idea is that there are many treatments that may have been used for thousands of years, or may just be some crack pot idea that someone came up with yesterday. There are no secondary sources, though these treatments may or may not work. I'm OK with providing a link to some external website, tough not requireing secondary sources. Does that make sense?Sthubbar (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not IMO: We would need somebody reliable saying they are used, independently of their efficacy, and certainly an external random website (for example of the person selling the product) would not be valid if not reliable by itself. With this I do not mean that such secondary sources should be MEDRS compliant or peer reviewed (although they would be perfect if found), but they have to be reliable for the kind of statement we are making. The kind of sources I am talking about and would be valid:

• First I would look for reviews on medical journals: For example there are many reviews on traditional or alternative medicines and they might indicate if such products are used. These would be the best possible sources.
• Second I would look for non-MEDRS-compliant high quality secondary sources: I am thinking for example on newspapers reports where they indicate that a treatment is used (it does not matter if they say that it is usefull or useless)
• Thirdly, I would also accept in this case (although these could be debateable) a primary peer-reviewed article which has its main focus on the use of such products: I am thinking for example of articles where they have asked people if they use this product, how often, etc.

Moreover: I would not include them under the section treatments unless it is made absolutely clear that there is no indication of usefulness in reliable sources. A subsection called "other treatments" is IMO misleading since it implies they are valid. --Garrondo (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Garrondo, how about this:

==Other Treatments==

The following treatments lack reliable evidence to prove their efficacy, safety and/or lack of either.

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthubbar (talk • contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a possibility, but negative statements pose a bit of a problem for MEDRS: they are a medical claim (that such treatments are not effective or have not been studied) that should be sourced, and therefore there would be a need to find reliable (secondary) sources indicating that they are either not effective or have not been well studied. If there are no secondary sources on their efficacy, or their use is more "folk" than "medicine" (such as leaving a key at night outside to be later put in the eye for eye problems- traditional Spanish remedy) it might be wiser to directly include it in the society and culture section instead of treatments.

Nevertheless I would again strain that the most important thing for such additions is to find high quality sources on the importance of their use in folk medicine. WP should not include a list of all possible remedies that any crank has proposed for a disease, but only the notable ones (even if completely crazy), and such notability would be indicated by the existance of secondary sources.

--Garrondo (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It all comes down to sourcing. If you want to talk about historical treatments that goes in the history section. If you want to talk about current use of ineffective treatments were the notability is simply how much they are used than that would go in society and culture. Some may also go in the treatment section under alt med. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen a folk remedy for which secondary sources couldn't be found. Keep in mind that "secondary" is not a weird way of spelling "peer-reviewed, scientifically sound review article". The Great Big Book of Grandma's Favorite Folk Remedies on the self-help shelf at the bookstore is a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

...and can also be used for fuel once fossil fuels run out. Lesion (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes usually we expect good secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bruxism

Reworked, MEDRS version of bruxism (apart from a few MEDDATE issues...) since the version we had before was in a bad way with advertising, mostly based on primary sources, fringe claims, undue weight, large gaps in coverage, etc

Most common cause of awake bruxism appears to be stress. The psychosocial factors section in causes is very short. Also the psychosocial interventions in the treatment section is very inadequate. I have requested at wikiproject psychology if anyone wants to expand these, but maybe someone here might be interested, or not. Lesion (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe someone with knowledge of sleep disorders. Lesion (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

End of the year

It is the end of the year and students are appearing again. Some issues discussed here. Please drop me a note if anyone needs pages protected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:NSPS.jpg

File:NSPS.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bupropion

Bupropion has several problems that I feel compromise its status as Featured Article. Please read Talk:Bupropion#Problems for my two cents. If these problems are not addressed, I will take it to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree FAR might be a good idea. A little out of date. Many refs are primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychiatric drugs and IP user

There is an IP user (2602:306:c518:6c40:f02a:330c:11cc:acdb (talk · contribs)) edit warring and doing disruptive edits at some psychiatric drugs articles (haloperidol, lurasidone, risperidone, and fluorobenzene). More eyes would be probably welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

Moreover; it seems that his ip editor and User:ChemNerd (who should be said that is probably trying to control the damage) have both broken the 3RR. Maybe a temporal protection of these articles would be wise. Additionally it might not be the case, but edits, tone and topic have some resemblance to those of Mandragua/Booklaunch, --Garrondo (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that guy looks like Booklaunch. Interesting in this edit he seems to indicate he has personal experience with antipsychotic drugs, but wasn't happy with the result. Is there an admin around? We might benefit from blocking the IP, but given the history he'll probably just come back as another IP in a matter of minutes. We might consider semi-protection on the small number of affected articles for a little while to discourage him. Zad68 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the edit warring. I should have known better.  :/ This editor is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy (or doesn't care about it), not knowledgeable in the science of pharmacology, and not knowledgeable in chemistry, in addition to all the behavior problems, and all his (non-trivial) edits have been reverted. ChemNerd (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not Booklaunch or Mandragua. A look at the history of Talk:Risperidone shows that the same person has been editing using similar IPv6 addresses since July 2012. The topic of psychosis has such a strong propensity to draw disruptive editors that we could easily get more than one editing on related themes. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin U

Does vitamin U really cure ulcers? I stumbled upon this article and found much of the content dubious, but I don't know enough to try to fix it. Can anyone here take a stab at it? Edgeweyes (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should be merged to S-methylmethionine, I am fairly sure they are the same thing. Lesion (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The NCI thesaurus entry is pretty clear that S-methymethionine chloride and Vitamin U are both synonyms for Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride, so it's just the difference of the chloride ion. Should be one article with redirects and an explanatory hatnote. Certainly the sourcing should be improved, there are scads of primary sources in there. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems from the history of S-methylmethionine that vitamin U used to redirect there, but was made into a stand alone article. Since, there has been a discussion to merge it to Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride before, citing the same source as you have above, however the consensus (incorrectly imo) did not merge it. Might be good to alert wikiproject molecular biology about this. My merge tags were taken off with the explanation that this merge was proposed before. I directed one of the IPs to WP:MEDRS and another secondary source treating Vitamin U and S-methylmethionine as synonyms. Might be the case that there are sources using the term slightly differently from each other, but the source you provide above sounds authoritative to me, and I think we should follow that. Lesion (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Further support for S-methymethionine chloride as a synonym: CID 14220 from PubChem and Vitamin U at the U.S. National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)

Unfortunately it appears there is a lack of suitable Vitamin U review articles. Boghog (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

75.152.123.238 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
To do the merger properly, all of the content from one article would hav to be put into the other article. At this point, that means moving all content from S-methylmethionine to Vitamin_U, then making the chemical name into a redirection, so that the other chemicals in Vitamin_U can be accomodated. Note that accomodating the other chemicals invalidates three dictionary entries for being overly simple. Note also that such a thing az an appeal to authority iz.
Following the rules will not get the job done.
-- Dilbert

75.152.123.238 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not prone to doing the merjer, because I suspect that s-methyl-methionine will be shown az a downstream metabolite of I3C, at which point there might be a race to find out whether I3C haz more effects on microbes, which it probably duz.
To believe it makes it true, therefore it's brain fart.

75.152.123.238 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Doing the merjer actually requires deleting content from MMSC, because the chembox would be confusing: It would lead people into thinking that Vitamin U wuz one compound. That iz my second reason not to do the merjer; lost content.
QUANDO OMNI FLUNKUS MORITATI (when all else fails, play dead)
--Red Green