Jump to content

User talk:Doc James

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JARacino (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 16 May 2015 (→‎Traumatic brain injury). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Translation
Main page		 Those Involved
(sign up)		 Newsletter 


Traumatic brain injury

The traumatic brain injury site was deleted with 6 hours academic work on yesterday. The two comments listed are from you. Did you touch the site??!! The long term care and nursing sites were also touched (another 8 hours work), so I assume you have been lying to the government and public again. Wikipedia Lead on community services administration. JARacino (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

add: http://www.crcpress.com/authors Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US (Racino, 2014)

The site said you removed my edits by which you mean all references and text referring to Long Term Services and Supports in the Community (40 year history with the article claiming to do history), and all linkages to community services for the categorical population group. This is the reason I am on wiki as an editor, because the entire community services categorical systems in the US are missing from the "free encyclopedia".

In addition, you deleted all references to research that involves community, including that of our Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers in the US, which are not the same constituency as your article represents. Instead, you actually prefer to highlight drugs that do not work. Your idea of old references is to delete who invented electricity because it is old.

The head and brain injury area was given to the community rehabilitation sector, not to the medical sector (nursing, therapy aide, and physician) to develop services in homes and communities (yes, not yours, stolen!! now, if the review indicated that "you" actually did the job, I might let it slide) which are lacking.

I'll try the undo, but you do not have the right to delete wholesale what you do not like in the world, though, hell lies daily that way to government for public funds. Brain injury field (just look at the personnel, the design, and the administration) smells like government ripoffs to begin with - more and more funds to medical centers, and less and less for the individuals and families.

JARacino (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Class page

Our professor has not created a class page. We were instructed to create Wikipedia accounts and edit/create our respective pages.LithiumCHM333 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:LithiumCHM333. How many in your class? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Around 55 students, with about 5 per group. The topics covered are:

LithiumCHM333 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note, i posted here: Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#New_course_with_55_students.2C_not_integrated_to_Project_Education Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking through histories of pages related to the list above and, with some detective work, did manage to find the class, CHM333 at the University of Toronto Mississauga. I'm going to reach out to the instructor via email and will go over WikiEdu, support, class pages, and all the usual information. But I think what would help a lot is a phone call to go over MEDRS/MEDMOS and/or some of the specific issues students are running into. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), but also @Doc James if this is one WikiMed would be into supporting. PS: I stopped going through articles when I figured out which class it was, but these are also student articles: Chromium(III) picolinate, User:CHM333five/sandbox, and Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): @Ian (Wiki Ed): Any news on the CHM333 class and their plans for these articles? One of them was sent to AfD, which I userfied as it seems best not to handle these contributions piecemeal, but the ones I've come across really aren't suitable for mainspace as written. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard anything yet, but it hasn't really been that long. Thanks for userfying that page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: I haven't heard back either, sorry to say. I will be sure to update here when/if I do (and if Doc continues not to mind using this space :) ). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than welcome to continue this here. They are beginning to drop their assignments into Wikipedia per Zinc in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Not really excited about "marking" these papers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. I feel bad for these kids; they're doing a lot of work on topics that are not all really going to be viable standalone articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just comment one more time before this thread is archived: Never received a response from the prof, sorry to say. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osteoarthritis

Hello, I have written in the Osteoarthritis article something to the effect that there are people who take the view that Osteoarthritis is caused by inflammation, and I have linked to a study by stanford.edu. Currently, the article states "Osteoarthritis is caused by mechanical stress on the joint, and (unlike rheumatoid arthritis), is not caused by inflammation..". However, I have just realized that the source given for this, reference 4, does not seem to support the statement, but the opposite, that osteoarthritis is not a "wear and tear" disease, but driven by inflammation. As I understand it, you seem to have reverted the article back to a state where no reference is made to osteoarthritis possibly being inflammation driven, and I was hoping somewhere on a talk page to to see why you did so, but if it is there I have not found it. Needless to say, I think the article has to change, so I would be grateful to hear from you. Carystus (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i opened a discussion at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. Agree we had poorly summarized the current review article. It more or less agrees with that other paper therefore I have adjusted. Many thanks User:Carystus for picking this up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Student editing

Can you run this through your copyvio detection thingie? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical cannabis

But i didn't say it mentions medical marijuana usage i just said those are the US statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunenmensch (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hunenmensch But it is likely more appropriate in a difficult article if it is not about medical cannabis no? Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

come on and stir it up, little darling stir it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunenmensch (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not sure what you mean User:Hunenmensch Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But see we are not talking about medical cannabis we are talking about recreational cannabis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunenmensch (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay true. I will see if I can find a better ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collagen for RA treatment?

Good day Doc, I do agree with you that this kind of treatment are lack of evident but this kind of statement just pop up everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_collagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youeverknow (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Youeverknow I removed it there to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit query

Regarding article on Parkinson's Disease. The first paragraph was lengthy so i added break that syntax is html syntax for leaving an empty line. So that it looks clean; if you have better idea then use it; but i presume their are not rules for editing to make it neat. Dr.Ash (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - RFCU

RFC User (RFC/U) was deprecated last year. [1] --NeilN talk to me 19:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. Yes now that you mention it I may have even supported its deprecation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to the topic

I noticed someone had edited this page's content. I took it upon myself to restore the page to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewatchfulobserver (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that however the previous content was too promotional and was thus removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag

You placed a COI tag on Joe Kovacs but left no comment. I don't see anything in the article the looks like COI. What motivates you to think so? You can reply on my talk page or better yet, take it to the article. Trackinfo (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by this user [2] As they were not that concerning will remove. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudohypertension

What is your opinion if we merge (Pseudohypertension in the elderly with Osler's sign (pseudohypertension)? --Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mahmoudalrawi definitely merge as they are the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could also move all the content to Pseudohypertension Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epistop

Hello James,

I know that you are very busy and regret adding anything to your plate. But I have an inquiry about the EU funded study on epilepsy called "Epistop" on my talk page. If you could make a comment, I would be grateful. Thanks for all you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Thanks for your comment. Please help me edit the page or give me some specific areas that need cleaning up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvia Matovu (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have help :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Study 329

Hi. I did not redo the ref ordering, so I am not sure what exactly you reverted. For example, why you reinstereted a broken blockquote tag? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am about to post on the talk page. Not sure why you are replacing <p> tags with unneeded templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still this was only one of the 6(?) edits I did and it had a clear edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your question: You can check Template:Paragraph_break#Purpose. In fact after a huge cleanup that many editors participated, no pages contains anymore p tags (sometimes new pages with p tags occur but this is also rare nowadays). -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am looking at your edits.
You did do a few other things
1) you broke this ref "implications..<ref name="McGoey and Jackson 2009"Jackson 2012"
2) you added extra punctuation here nt."."<r
3) and you removed an unneeded </blockquote>
I have restored the last bit.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way we had a long discussion about these tags here Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_13 and Graham suggested a solution which works for all I hope Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the broken reference. I did the edits manually. Thanks for restoring. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the template I can have a better control of where paragraph breaks are used. It's also a check for me that I removed the page from the list of pages. Not a big issue I guess. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the template is made to work in all languages of Wikipedia than I am okay with its use.
Otherwise I am supportive of SV going with a solution that works in all languages as discussed here [3]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the template in some other languages in the past to be honest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work in all of them including incubator? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. The p tags solution has one extra problem, that we should close the tags properly. This is usually not done and many editors tend to remove the closing p tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As these template have the problem of not being compatible in all other languages when content is translated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with incubator. Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the template seems to be quite popular while p tags do not exist in English Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean? We have a couple of articles that use them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's only those two. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick database scan reveals no other pages. Your revert introduced problems for screen readers instead of fixing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned here that Pain has several <p>, and Petroleum has </p> without <p>, and Enrico Fermi has <p/>. There are other examples. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick look found: Administrative Review Board + Bloodlands + Conjunction fallacy + Drone strikes in Pakistan + Earl of Egmont. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq thanks. Which database dump did you use? I wonder why I did not find those. Any chance that you can provide me a full list? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magioladitis did you read the reply by User:Graham87 here. He states "I'm a screen reader user. I've received email communications about this kerfuffle from various people ... and as I've suggested to some of them in private and will now suggest in public, enclosing the references in <p> and </p> tags would also get around this problem, without having to use templates. The regular <p> tags don't work so well in references, for some reason. " So it appears that these do not need to cause problems for screen reader users. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the heads up. There is an active discussion in WP:ACCESSIBILITY. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia

Do you have a medical opinion on the subject of cannabis and schizophrenia? XenoRasta (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources support a link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked. Do you have a medical opinion on the subject of cannabis and schizophrenia? XenoRasta (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a doctor, have you ever come across a publication claiming one thing, while your personal or education experience knew it to be false? XenoRasta (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of people with schizophrenia who have issues with drug addiction. I typically go with the best available literature on this sort of thing though as personal experience is not very effective for determining causation. The literature is concerned enough that I recommend young people avoid THC due to this risk. Schizophrenia is a devastating disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Peaceray prior to the OHSU Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon

Hi, Doc James, F I am currently riding the Bolt Bus from Seattle to Portland & expect to get to the site by noon. Although I have had participated in several editathons & am the president of the board of the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, I am coming into this event somewhat cold due to having just got back from my son's graduation yesterday from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. I do have some research experience from my nearly 8 years as a part-time reference librarian at one of Hawaii Pacific University libraries & helped to support nursing students find scholarly sources for their epidemiology papers.

You may know me on-wiki for two items. You reminded me that "It is better to link terms in the text than to have see also sections." I also revamped the documentation for {{WikiProject Medicine}}; you can see my changes here.

The event organizer Katherine Hart wrote to me that "Dr. James Heilman of the WikiProject Medicine group has agreed to call in to welcome people and explain that group’s efforts." I thought you might like to know who the Wikimedian-in-residence for the afternoon would be.

Yours, Peaceray (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect thanks User:Peaceray. This is a very exciting collaboration and it is great having you involved :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Diet

You reverted my edit on the Healthy Diet wiki where I removed reference to a paper produced by the egg industry used to say that dietary cholesterol has a negligible effect on blood cholesterol, as well as a smaller edit clearing up the fact that saturated fat mainly raises LDL cholesterol with much smaller effects on HDL, since the article seems like it's claiming saturated fat has a neutral effect on heart health. Here's a meta-analysis not paid for by people who sell dietary cholesterol

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/55/6/1060.full.pdf

"Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly added by dietary cholesterol but the magnitude of expected change is modulated by baseline dietary cholesterol." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That review is from 1992 which is way too old. [4] I will update with the 2015 IOM report. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Updated here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean it's too old? Scientific data doesn't just expire and get thrown out after a certain time has passed. According to the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the US dietary guidelines committee's statement about dietary cholesterol is based on a technical error in their report, misinterpreting the words of an AHA/ACC report that simply called for more research, rather than dismissing a link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdapteVCOy0

The IOM maintains that there's an incremental increase in LDL cholesterol with increasing intakes of saturated fats, trans fats, and dietary cholesterol, stating that all three should be minimized in the diet.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/New%20Material/8_Macronutrient%20Summary.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is from 2002 and we have a 2015 document. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 document you're referencing isn't the IOM, it's the DGAC. As was said, their statement was a technical flaw based on a misinterpretation. My link to the IOM is their current stance on the matter, taken from this page, http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/DRI-Tables.aspx last updated 3/04/2015. The statements may have been originally made and retained since 2005, but it hasn't been updated since (despite other aspects of their recommendations being updated more recently) because no serious data has since overruled it.
Put another way, by the National Academies of Science, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=542 "there is much evidence to indicate a positive linear relationship between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein concentration, and therefore increased risk of coronary heart disease." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my apologies I meant DGAC from 2015. 2005 is a little too old. A lot has changed in the last 10 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AHA/ACC state in 2013 "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-C." [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed specifically? It would have to be pretty amazing to nullify the decades of preceding science, and I don't think the egg industry sponsored article referenced is enough to make that claim. This 2010 article by renowned scientists John David Spence, David Jenkins, and Jean Davignon cite "the sustained propaganda campaign of the egg producers lobby," including industry funded studies designed to cover up the effects of dietary cholesterol, as reasons for recent confusion about the subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989358/ Let's not let that propaganda infect wikipedia. I noticed this same issue, instead with the dairy industry, on some other wiki pages. The atherosclerosis page for example cites the Dairy Research Institute in saying that high fat dairy does not contribute to atherosclerosis risk or may decrease it. I don't want to assume foul play by you or suggest that you have an affiliation with any of these industries, but for the sake of quality and the health of people who may read these articles, you need to filter out some of the more obviously biased references and allow more sensible information to be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My job as a Wikipedia is only to reflect the best available literature. It take no money from industry, never have.
This 2013 guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology published in 2014 in Circulation however hold a great deal of weight.[7] And thus we say what we say.
The Canadian Journal of Cardiology is an okay source but 2010 is a little old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way it is fairly amazing and thus the press:

Etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AHA and ACC are certainly respectable, but I disagree that the phrase "there is insufficient evidence to determine the whether lowering dietary cholesterol reduces LDL-c" means that the evidence doesn't reflect a role of dietary cholesterol in raising LDL, just that not enough research has been done on dietary cholesterol lowering in isolation, while the meta-analysis I cited looked more at the effect that increasing dietary cholesterol has on LDL. You can see that for the other dietary factors, they were able to calculate and give estimations for LDL lowering, while they simply weren't able to do so to the same degree with dietary cholesterol. Thus, they deemed their evidence insufficient. That isn't to say that there isn't evidence of dietary cholesterol's effects on serum cholesterol or that it can't significantly affect blood lipids.
I also wouldn't say the press jumped on it because it was a massive scientific breakthrough, but rather because blowing out of proportion something that people want to hear about some of their bad dietary habits generates a lot of views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just popular press have published statements. So has Cleveland Clinic Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see that, but then again, the man being quoted in that article is apparently a saturated fat denier http://time.com/3714759/nutrition-dietary-guidelines-eating-cholesterol/ and, in your article, claims that the development of heart disease is little influenced by diet, and is mainly genetic. I'm not aware of the Cleveland Clinic as an institution backing up that claim, nor any other group of expert cardiologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.90.146 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref

Hi Doc James, thanks for your note. I will update with better source. Steelyskoal (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. The 2010 review article is not that bad. But if you find something better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Doc and Steelyskoal, I was just reviewing a boatload of edits at endometriosis which (after stepping through all of them) seem to have resulted in no change except the addition of an empty parameter to a citation and some juggling around of text, so then I went to Talk:Endometriosis to see what was up and found ... nothing. It is helpful to article development if editors keep content discussions on article talk rather than on user talk pages ... I just went to two talk pages (here and Steely's) AND article talk (three stops :) to see if you all had communicated or if Steelyskoal needed any help or guidance.

As a general goal, it's good to teach new users to use article talk for content improvements and to keep us all on the same page, which is usually article talk. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks Sandy. Should have also posted on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of preventable causes of death

Hello Doc,

I made some minor changes to < List of Preventable causes of death > in case you would (likely) like to review these. Thanks! Whalestate (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(in case you're unawares of) > Kalos kagathos < Whalestate (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted a bit. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

vitamins discovery

Balul9 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Hi doc,04:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC) I sent you an email. Did not get any reply so far ? kindly respond.[reply]

Thanks.

The talk page of the vitamin article is the best place to discuss this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement to Arbcom

In your recent statement to Arbcom you claimed [12]:

I have looked at the textbook and it concludes "There are promising results supporting its efficacy for adult postoperative and chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and for postoperative dental pain".

This sentence which you quoted does not appear in Miller's Anesthesia. It was taken from Practical Management of Pain. Anyone with access to Google Books can verify that. -A1candidate 10:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of textbooks use the exact same text between them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me the page number so I can verify it myself? (I have the 8th and latest edition) -A1candidate 22:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:A1candidate Thanks looking again. The ebooks do not have page numbers. It is Chapter 40, 1226-1239.e5
You are correct I appear to have mis searched on ClincalKey. My apologies
Miller 8th states "Many of the clinical acupuncture studies that have been published are of poor quality and suffer from insufficient sample size, high dropout rates, inadequate follow-up, and poorly defined illnesses, enrollment criteria, and outcome measures. 164 Acupuncture studies suffer from inherent methodologic problems, including difficulties in blinding patients and acupuncturists, using placebo or sham acupuncture, and choosing between different acupuncture techniques." "When compared with placebo, acupuncture treatment has proven efficacy for relieving pain."
My concern is one textbook cannot support "most textbooks in the field" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After I realized my error, I tweaked my wording immediately. We all make mistakes, I accept your apology. Thanks for clearing up a possible misunderstanding. -A1candidate 22:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good. Did not notice that change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

I came across this quote, and couldn't resist sharing ... "Any homoeopath who knows medicine realizes that syphilis has bestowed upon humanity a terrible heredity that would take many decades, if not indeed aeons, before its far-reaching effects (upon successive generations) could be eliminated by careful homoeopathic prescribing." -- George Vithoulkas, in British Homoeopathic Journal Volume 68, Number 4, October 1979 LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finasteride

HI Doc,

I see you stopped by finasteride. User: Doors22 has suggested that we ask you to be our official referee. I would welcome this, as after a year of fighting, I'm beginning to feel like the English after WWI. The issues are less important at this point that exhaustion with the constant bickering.

The reference you have requested is here. It is page 98 by the numbers on the bottom of the pages, but page 6 by PDF numbering. This is the fourth of about 8 PDFs of the FDA approval summary that can be seen here. I can see where there could be some MEDDATE concerns about this, but my position is that if we are going to quote a paper stating that none of the trials adequately assessed safety, and sexual side effects are the main adverse effect associated with therapy, we should note that at least one reliable source reached a different conclusion about this issue for the four pre-approval trials. The conclusions that these side effects were adequately evaluated in these four trials should presumably still be valid. That being said, I'm not going to fight with you about this. I've had enough fighting over this article.

I'd also ask that you consider the questions I addressed to you here. which you never responded to. I believe you were on vacation at the time they were posted. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the assistance and objective feedback is appreciated. I know you are an extremely busy editor and IMO this is a complicated issue so please let us know if you are short on resources and could recommend another reputable editor to mediate. Doors22 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reference for the FDA comment can be found here. One thing I'd like to highlight is this is an issue that is being investigated on an ongoing basis so I feel it is important the article at least considers the newest sources. Doors22 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation DM2

Hi, I want to congratulate you for your medicine articles! I think they very great so I've translated Diabetes mellitus type 2 to spanish and about to finish Birth control. I get the first in a revision for Good Article and it goes very well, but the ref 47 is dead and a citation is needed in " C-peptide levels normal or high in type 2 diabetes, but low in type 1 diabetes" for get it approved. I also did some little changes in the original article. I -and I think a lot of people too- appreciate your time, so I'll be waiting. Best wishes. --Hiperfelix (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Hiperfelix for point that out. I have fixed ref 47 and adjusted the wording.
Have added a ref were that one was missing.
By the way have you seen this table [13]? If you could update it that would be great :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&oldid=662611598"