Talk:Young blood transfusion

Simpsons

Blood Feud (The Simpsons) may be an example of this. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Medical citations

I've removed the "medical citations needed" tag given that this article is about to appear on the front page and, more importantly, I don't believe that it does need such references. There are no claims in this article that are unqualified. Please discuss. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Please give any examples where this article makes a claim that isn't sufficiently qualified or referenced. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This is unarguably a medical article, and requires MEDRS sources for any medical information. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Any biomedical claim made in any Wikipedia articles requires sourcing that complies with WP:MEDRS. Here are some examples of unsupported claims:

• Tests in mice have returned favourable results
• Tests in humans have shown changes to biomarkers which relate to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.
• Karmazin claims in an interview with New Scientist that "Whatever is in young blood is causing changes that appear to make the ageing process reverse".
• carcinoembryonic antigens fell by around 20 per cent
• stated that most participants showed improvements within a month

Those statements need to have MEDRS sourcing or be removed. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

So "Karmazin claims ..." doesn't make it clear enough, give me strength. None of this was reported as factual, all was clearly "claimed". violet/riga _^[talk] 21:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No. For Heaven's sake, you can't just hedge medical statements by "Karmazin claims" without them being supported by a MEDRS source. Otherwise, there's no point in having MEDRS, if any scrappy bit of primary research can be added to an article by prefacing it with "According to so-and-so ...". It's not a matter of it being clear: it's a matter of it being supported by good enough sources. If it's not factual, it doesn't belong in our medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Daft. So we can't report claims even when they are clearly and unambiguously written as claims? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We can't even use New Scientist and The Economist as sources. Hmm. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS has broad and deep consensus in the community and there is good reason for it. Continuing to ignore that will end up wasting more of your time and other people's. That would be daft. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting signs that you're improving anything. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Per Rexx above. And please study MEDRS; Wikipedia's dealings with research and science aren't necessarily intuitive or the standard, in a journal for example. First, because this article is in an encyclopedia whose remit is to summarize the mainstream information in notable subjects, and second, because this article is about human health, we must comply with the MEDRS standards both to comply with what an encyclopedia is and second to protect readers. That means your sources must be secondary. We can't bypass that secondary source requirement with language in the article itself. The concern we have on Wikipedia is that readers use the encyclopedia for medical information. Secondary sources means that whatever information we have is information from studies that have been replicated-shown over and over to be factual or accurate as much a studies can be factual or accurate. Most new research can be considered fringe to the mainstream-meaning not mainstream at this time-and we have to be careful of that fringe information because it could impact real people in real lives. Fringe isn't necessarily a pejorative label nor does it mean the science is poor or not accurate; what it indicates is that something is newer rather than something proven over time in the well established scientific literatures. MEDRS has become a heavily supported standard on Wikipedia so your best bet is to take an in-depth look at it and see how this article can comply.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for your calm and considered approach. However I am familiar with such policies and maintain that the language of the article and the secondary sources used were in line with RS and MEDRS. I might be a little more amenable to things if my hard work wasn't torn apart leaving virtually nothing behind. I see it as other people's duty to improve the article rather than just remove content. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

An example of this nonsense:

• Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system.

Removed despite being clearly cited from Scientific American. How is that unacceptable?

• News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.

How does this not remain in the article when it is one of the key things stating that it's snakeoil?! violet/riga _^[talk] 22:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't respond to rhetorical questions, and I don't know anyone experienced who does. If you become interested in learning please let us know. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're not able to understand the question then. Want to try and answer them rather than taking the simple way out? violet/riga _^[talk] 22:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Its a simple equation. In the article = secondary source. In the article= MEDRS compliant. The problem isn't whether we're talking about snake oil its about whether the snake oil is supported by secondary sources AND is MEDRS compliant. MEDRS is not necessarily an easy concept to get the hang of. It always helps me to think of this as an encyclopedia so research like articles aren't the what we're writing. We're citing what's already published and established and in research into human health that means:

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials.

I still maintain that secondary sources are used, that nothing unprovable is claimed, and that the article does not contravene policy. My examples are given. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I know the frustration of working on something and then having it ripped apart. I'm sorry about that. The MEDRS compliancy has become a serious issue and is adhered to stringently because there seems to be indications that even physicians use WP. I don't like that but what can one do except make sure everything is supported in the sources so that when a reader or physician comes to Wikipedia they get the mainstream view and can look more deeply into the area. Then if they want something newer they can look for it somewhere else. Its a big responsibility to write these articles and I think you tried to do a good job in this. Wikipedia is collaborative and I've learned over time to not be attached to what I write. I've even walked away from information I know is incorrect because of a consensus. I know its frustrating to have your work destroyed. If there is a silver lining its that in repairing your own article you'll learn implementation of MEDRS more quickly than reading about it. A small lining and not so silver, but...:O}(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to be nice but I'm pretty experienced when it comes to writing articles including the importance of reliable sources. I'm not about to rebuild 'my' article when I believe that everything that was already there was fine and most of the content has been removed in a drive-by. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you're experienced. Mind you MEDRS is a whole other bag of snakes than RS in general. If it helps both Rexx and Jytdog have long term experience with watching for MEDRS articles so they probably watch for new articles, as do I. I suspect they came not as drive by editors but after the DIY which rang alarm bells. I don't know much about Jytdog's experience but Rexx has been around a long time and can be very helpful and is usually right about what he says. There have been many occasions when true driveway editors really damage articles and Wikipedia in general. I've seen whole pages deleted just out of a whim so there may a tendency to overreact in some cases in this area. You may have felt that. And its not pleasant even if its understandable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

MEDRS doesn't apply to the material about the Fountain of Youth and vampires; that's cultural information, not WP:Biomedical information.

User:Seraphimblade removed it with the edit summary "Editorial/argumentative" – not with a complaint about the quality of the sources behind it.

Also, Violet's correct that some of these disputed sources are secondary sources. Secondary sources are not always scholarly sources ...like that SBM blog post that's repeatedly cited right now. (Yes, SBM actually is a blog, according to their own website.) But that's okay: if you won't take the word of a reputable lay magazine for those kinds of claims, then you can cite SBM for it, since that blog post has an entire section titled "Elixir of Youth". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The reason I removed it was because that section said that media used "hyperbole" in reporting, but none of the reliable references cited backed the claim that media reports were hyperbolic, as I've said in another section here. We don't editorialize; if we're going to claim hyperbole, we need reliable sources backing that claim and calling the reporting hyperbolic, not the opinion of the editor who read them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that hyperbole is a descriptive term used to highlight that they are not really calling it the elixir of life. I think that we have a baby and bathwater situation - if the problem is that one word then surely a variation of that sentence would be valid for inclusion. violet/riga _^[talk] 12:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well apparently we have to discuss everything here before adding it to the article despite the offending words being removed, so I suggest we reword it to:

• News media have widely reported such practices using grand metaphors, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.

violet/riga _^[talk] 14:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Medical sources

I've attempted to find any information on related subjects in humans

Primary sources

• Association of Blood Donor Age and Sex With Recipient Survival After Red Blood Cell Transfusion 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3324; found that blood from younger donors was associated with increased mortality
• Lack of association between blood donor age and survival of transfused patients 10.1182/blood-2015-11-683862; found no effect on mortality
• Association of Donor Age and Sex With Survival of Patients Receiving Transfusions 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0890; found that age of donor had no effect on outcome

Secondary sources

• Younger blood from older donors: Admitting ignorance and seeking stronger data and clinical trials? 10.1016/j.transci.2017.07.002
• Blood Donor Demographics and Transfusion Recipient Survival—No Country for Old Men? 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3355
• The Business of Anti-Aging Science 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.07.004
• Exploring donor and product factors and their impact on red cell post-transfusion outcomes 10.1016/j.tmrv.2017.07.006
• Neuroscience: The power of plasma doi:10.1038/549S26a

Company sponsored studies Complete, Incomplete

Natureium (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the secondary sources listed above:

• PMID 28780993; interesting. Used it.
• PMID 27400131, a commentary. not using it (but interesting read)
• PMID 28778607. I've used this elsewhere. good ref.. thanks for bringing it!
• PMID 28988603 - about how messy the field is due to lack of well-characterized blood products. yikes. used.
• PMID 28953857 nature news piece about alkahest and grifols. will cite there.

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Building

We're supposed to be building an encyclopaedia not wholesale deleting content. How pathetic. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We're supposed to be building an accurate encyclopaedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Everything was accurate. And properly sourced. I look forward to the new version of this article completed by those who have ripped everything else out of it. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, smarten the hell up. You are not the only editor here, and your tone and explosive edit summary are not acceptable when dealing with other good faith editors. You've reverted grammar and syntax changes which are arguably improvements. And you initial response to this editor didn't help her/him. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

So now the article is essentially written by Jytdog, their preferred version was reverted to, but they then put a reftag on the article?! violet/riga _^[talk] 23:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thiel

Thiel is not an investor. What the Inc source says is "Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing.". This incorrect thing being spread around based on a misreading of the Inc story was covered by this piece in Tech Crunch which reports that Karmazin "told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”" Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful to have you actually starting to collaborate. I’m sure you will review and amend the article without wholesale deletions. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

About -- "Bercovici states that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood"." This is just horrible. See WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Or you are operating outside of your zone of knowledge. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mouse research

Please stop adding content about the mouse research sourced to popular media. This is explicitly discussed in MEDRS. Please don't do it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It is relevant to the content and context. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not OK. It will soon be removed, again, by others. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So we can mention the company spun off but not the research that the university did? And now it refers to ‘the university’ without stating which one. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is a review that discusses it, then sure it can be discussed. In fact one of the reviews that Naturium found does discuss it. I can fix that. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"The evidence about human "young blood" was surprising"

What does this mean? Did they do any research with human young blood? I can't access the article right now. Natureium (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on the mouse research people thought that the human trials would show a benefit for young blood. The human trials did not. The source says:

Recent studies shed light on an unexpected issue in transfusion medicine and blood collection: not all donors may be equal relative to the quality of their blood and the transfusion outcome in patients. Young and female donors’ blood may be poorer than male and older donors’ [1]. This was indeed unexpected as experimental work—though unrelated to the transfusion field—suggested rejuvenation factors in young individuals’ plasma, at least in mice and as applied to neuronal plasticity [2,3]. </ref>

Thanks again for digging up those refs. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Gossip

In my view the following should not be included in the article, per WP:NOTGOSSIP. What do others think. We can have an RfC if there is no clear consensus here.

Jeff Bercovici wrote in Inc. that "life-extension science is a popular obsession" in Silicon Valley and that regenerative medicine was a fad which started in the 2000s. Bercovici states that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood". Technology entrepreneur Peter Thiel has an interest in Ambrosia. News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.

References

Most of it is "reporting" recentist gossip, and the only putatively substantial part, about Thiel's "interest" is also gossip, per this piece in Tech Crunch

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind that passage (the last 2 sentences). I haven't read all of the 4 sources, but it emphasizes that this is pretty much woo. Natureium (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

These sources fail MEDRS. Blood transfusions to create eternal youth are health related so our MEDRS should come into play. I'd add I did remove alternative medicine since I considered there is zero sense from any quarter that this procedure works. I have no attachment one way or the other on the alternative aspect but think MEDRS must be adhered to here. Not sure why it wouldn't. And as a note; I don't think its our place to show woo, and I hate that word, but to be scrupulous about the sources and NPOV. These sources fail MEDRS so our decision is pretty simple seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

These aren't medical claims being made, they are saying "this person thinks this is cool", so MEDRS doesn't apply. Whether it's appropriate for an article is another matter. I'm leaning toward not relevant. Natureium (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I skimmed this; you're right.

I don't think this is gossip which is basically rumour. If something is sourced in a reliable source then it becomes journalism :O). Because this is not just about some obscure research but has been reported in the popular press, we should note that, so this is fine. "News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, making hugely-exaggerated claims likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life"(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

Medium source

Does anybody think that the Medium source even meets WP:RS? I can bring this to RSN if there is no clear consensus here.

The source is "Young Blood Transfusions - The Elixir Of Youth?". Medium. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 6 May 2018. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

The citation omits the author, which btw, is "Immortal Coin". Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Medium is self-published, right? Natureium (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is a blogging platform as described in our article about it: Medium (website). Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You expect me to read articles that aren't about medicine? Natureium (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:) And so...? Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO, articles published on a blogging site would not qualify as a reliable source. I can't find any information about who Immortal Coin is, so I don't imagine they would qualify as an exception. Natureium (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So that is two of us. It was in the piece as created and nominated for DYK in this version. I removed it here, citing RS, and it was restored here. I should not remove it as I have been too reverty already today.Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to being unreliable, none of the references cited even supported the material it was citing (that the media were using "hyperbole"), so I've removed that piece entirely. If someone wants to say media coverage is "hyperbolic", the specific claim of hyperbole will need to be backed by references saying so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Typos, FRINGE-pushing

These diffs are not an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog:, Could you be more specific? I explained that Alkahest and Grifols were companies, added some wiki links, and made a single typo. Just expesssing your displeasure helps no one Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Murchison-Eye: I think some of it's alright, and I think we probably should cover the commercial aspect, but your edit looks to have added stuff like "Although the scientific community has rolled their eyes at the startup...". We don't throw jabs like that, nor use an informal tone like "rolled their eyes". We just state facts. If the fact is that the scientific community has not found good reason to believe that this is effective, we state that, in that way, not in a dismissive fashion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those fixes User:Seraphimblade. I also don't understand why people need to add sections. This is fine without them. If there is going to be a "commercialization" section (not "commercially") then it should be placed above the paragraph about Akerhast, which is also commercializing this (albeit appropriately). That doesn't really work, of course, since the beginning of that paragraph speaks directly to the one above it. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case that was just a quote, but I agree. The intention was to note that despite the scientific consensus, the business has been quite successful commercially. I have re-worded that intention in my recent edit. Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why in the world would you say that company is successful, based on its self-reported number of "clients"? Why do you even think 600 "clients" is a "success"? The Guardian doesn't describe it that way. That is all you, and all FRINGE/quackery flogging. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be self reported. If you offer a service, and people buy it, that is a success. But you should also note I did not mention sucess in the article, so I don't know why you are upset about that. Murchison-Eye (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That means you're convincing random people. Not that the procedure is a success. Natureium (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I didnt say that either. Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in lede is not indicative of source

• To be honest I find this whole area pretty disgusting.... However, I feel we have to be neutral. This sentence in the lead does not summarize the source. The source is also a blog which is problematic. This is our lead," The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil.[1]"

This is some of the content which indicates there may be more than just a claim of snake oil:

What is the current state of the science in terms of parabiosis and anti-aging effects? Any specific health claims for humans is definitely unproven at this time, but the research is intriguing (i.e., perfect for snake oil).

We are in the preliminary research stage. In order to truly answer these questions we need to do carefully-controlled clinical research in humans. As of right now, young blood transfusions as the next elixir of youth is enjoying its 15 minutes of fame. The science is genuinely interesting, and seems deserving of further research. What is clearly needed is high quality clinical research, before any clinical claims are made.

Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product.

• Add: In no place does this source say, "the scientific community...." the comments in this source are the opinions of a single person; therein lies one problem with a blog-like source. So we have to rewrite that lede sentence if we are going to use the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

• • By the way I think the source is fine given the credentials of the writer and the oversight of the source in general. We just have to make a more accurate summary of what the writer says.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

As I believe you well know, the community considers SBM fine for FRINGE stuff like this; this has been discussed to death. If what you are recommending is that the content say something like "more research is needed", we don't ever say that per WP:MEDMOS (control-f for "more research is needed"). Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I just suggested the source was fine I'm not sure what your point is. And no I don't remember discussion on this source specifically but I did look at it myself and thought it would do. I didn't suggest a change; I do think we have to summarize the source accurately and truthfully. What we have now doesn't do that. Since you mention it what about this,"There are no proven health or clinical claims and it is probable that young blood transfusion will become the newest snake oil. The science on young blood transfusion itself is interesting, intriguing and deserving of further research." Just a suggested direction to summarize the source. I am not attached to any of this and given my distaste of the subject I'll probably move on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

I don't particularly like this, "The science on young blood transfusion itself is interesting, intriguing and deserving of further research." since it seems to weight this aspect more than the present state of the research, but I do think we have to note that the author clearly indicates there are possibilities and that they are intriguing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

By the way I believe that the position against the "more research is needed" phrase is a response to how research itself is cited, (although I don't see what you are talking about in the control f point). In the past, in my experience, this phrase has been used to counter a skeptical position. In this case we are attempting to summarize the respected author's view on the research. Since the source is a skeptical source to begin with I think we can assume the author is not trying to neutralize a skeptical position. The issue is not whether we use what the author said but how to weight it so the lede does not seem to support "young blood transfusion".(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

We just don't say "more research is needed", generally. It is almost always true, and is trivia. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We have to summarize the source; WP 101. I'll leave this for now and see how this develops.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

The title of the article in question is "Parabiosis – The Next Snakeoil"

Right now promoting it is like promoting "snakeoil". There is no evidence applicable to human.

That their are claims of benefit in mice are neither hear nor their to an overview. Putting that in the lead is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the lede as written now. However, I have a few thoughts. Summarizing a source accurately can't be a promotional action. While I agree we don't want to give the sense that there is support for this procedure we also have a commitment to note what is in the sources. If we accept that an author is reliable for pejorative content per our standards, he logically must also reliable for the other stuff too. We can't cherry pick just the parts of the article that support the view that we are writing about something that is fringe. The author says specifically the research to date has been intriguing and is worth looking at further. I have no desire to get into a discussion about whether this content should be included but I do want to make a clear point here and for later, that summarizing a source in its entirety is what we do. If there is something positive in the article and its is clearly an aspect of the article we are bound to report it like it or not. This topic gives me the shivers and makes me think of some of the post apocalyptical movies I've seen. I hate the idea whether it works or not so I sure don't want to promote it, but as a Wikipedia editor I am bound to deal with all of the source faithfully. What we have to do is make sure it is weighted properly per other content. I'm not sure how to do that in this case as I said above but its what we're supposed to do.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC))

Add: This (below) would be good. Remove the mouse content and leave the rest. Per MOS the lede doesn't need sources since lede content is summarizing content sourced in the rest of the article.

• • Could we discuss this, collaborate, and not edit war? Just a wild and crazy thought!

There are no human trials on the technique and the lack of evidence and rigorous test environments means that the scientific community remains highly skeptical and considers the practice as little more than snake oil. Furthermore, contradictory evidence suggests that young blood may have a reduced impact compared to other sources.

Thiel redux

So

• Inc says

So Karmazin was somewhat surprised to get a message from Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing."

That sounds like Karmazin told the reporter that Camm actually reached out to him.

• Tech Crunch says

The story reported that Thiel Capital medical director Jason Camm (who is also an angel investor) had even contacted a startup called Ambrosia that was harvesting the blood of teens.

In short order, Vanity Fair, Gawker and numerous other media sites repeated the story. Ambrosia received so much press attention that founder Jesse Karmazin was even invited to talk about his work at Recode’s recent Code Conference. Meanwhile, an episode of HBO’s “Silicon Valley” poked fun at the unsettling idea.

But the story that took shape, that Thiel was looking to harvest the blood of the young, simply isn’t true according to Karmazin, who told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”

here, Karmazin is cited as saying the opposite.

So why does the article act as thought the 2nd ref doesn't exist?

Again this is pure gossip and should not be in the article. It is not as though Thiel actually invested (which is what this page actually said when it was nominated for DYK - namely Billionaire Peter Thiel is a prominent investor in Ambrosia.)

This chunk of content is all about whether X talked to Y which is not even certain.

This passage is not "accepted knowledge" and has nothing to do with our mission. Again, WP:NOTGOSSIP.

If we need to go to an RfC I will do that, but i cannot imagine that community would find the current content even close to OK. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions, RfCs... threats are not productive. I'll look into this situation later when I get the chance. violet/riga _^[talk] 07:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog. I'm not sure what you're asking for here, but I'll take a stab at it. This has nothing to do with gossip seems to me. Gossip is rumour. What we have here as the Tech Crunch source implies is a probable cover up. The final paragraph in the Tech Crunch article alludes to this in," I am happy to let readers draw their own conclusions about why Karmazin brought up Camm’s name to me in July 2016, acknowledged bringing it up afterward and complimented the story I wrote based on our conversation, denied having mentioned Camm 10 months later, and now has no comment whatsoever about the matter." The question is whether this content has any place in this article. One of the things we have to do as editors is make editorial decisions. So I guess that's where we are. I agree that if we do include this information it has to be complete using both sources and noting the implied cover up - this is possibility number one - or in the second possibility we leave out this content altogether. The question is whether we want to extend this article to include this story necessarily in its entirety in which case the content we have now would have to be rewritten. This content comes a bit close to coatrack content so that may be a consideration. Whether it is coatrack content is, I admit, a debatable point. I could go either way either using the content or removing it all. I don't see blame in an editor having missed this source; this happens all the time. As a new source is found we simply revise(Littleolive oil (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC))

It is recentist gossip. I didn't say anything about coatrack. I haven't brought this up before stating these rumors about Thiel is probably a BLP issue. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it for now and posted at BLPN, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Thiel_and_"young_blood". Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, I support removal of this WP:TABLOID nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thiel is not mentioned and has not been for a while. Nor is he mentioned in my preferred version of this article. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

So the lead has been reverted. Now it has the same citation three times in a row despite leads not needing citations. The lead I wrote summarised the article without, I think, promoting any viewpoint. It was reverted with the comment "we do not hype rodent studies. Ever." Well to me that's a blatant example of systemic bias. This article isn't supposed to be all about the effect in humans - current research has been focused on rodents. It's mentioned significantly in the article and should be in the lead too. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In my mind the rodent content was too heavily weighted per the rest of the content in the lede. The animal studies should perhaps be moved into a section on their own. The lede should then systematically summarize the sections in the article and the rodent content could go back in.I think right now because content was moved, removed, edited and generally jumbled around the article may not have a lot of coherence and then its hard to set up a lede that is weighted properly per sources. Edit warring doesn't help. I'm trying to include everyone's versions but that isn't working very well, apparently.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

...and by the way there is no hype of rodent studies....we have to summarize what's in the sources per WEIGHT and without POV. Editor cannot confuse content that is either positive or not pejorative and call it either promotional or hype. We have to summarize sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

Emphasizing the promising rodent students is not something we do. Humanity has cured cancer a zillion times -- in mice. This is exactly what snake oil-flogging shills do, every day on the internet. We do not do it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no emphasizing rodent studies. This is part of the history of this procedure and its in the source; there is no sense in the source that the rodent studies are promising. We are not citing sources to underpin content that suggests that because this works in mice in some ways that it works in human beings. I don't see anyone suggesting that and the source doesn't say that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

There was. both Doc James and I have removed it. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This,"While some studies declare that benefits have been observed in mice the lack of evidence and truly rigorous test environments means that the scientific community remains highly skeptical." describes benefits in mice. There is nothing that says the mouse benefits were also applied as a benefit to human beings. I think there's a misunderstanding. As a matter of fact the text said, "the lack of evidence". As I said, no one added content to make a connection between the history of the procedure or procedures in animals and anything in human beings. In fact its important to show that although there were preliminary studies in rodents there was never evidence that the same benefits were possible in human beings which is what the source implies.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

There are many many things that have been tested in vitro or in mouse and appear to work. We don't emphasize mouse studies. I only agreed to mention it in the body because this was Extremely Important to another editor. Now it is being pushed into lead. Give em an inch... Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog. If there is content in the article on mouse studies then the lede which summarizes the body of the article can also mention in a summarized form the mouse studies. You keep citing the mouse studies as if they were added to show that what happens in mice could also happen in human beings.I keep telling you, that isn't what's being added and I don't see that in the source. You seem fixated on this point. Of course there are studies which create health benefits in animals which do not effect human beings in the same way. I repeat no one is trying to say that the mouse studies showed usefulness in human beings.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

Would you please indent properly. I am just working to make this page like any other article about a proposed treatment, which is why both Doc James and I have removed it. You can bang your head against the wall all you like. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Besides the fact that your rudeness is spectacular, that you decide to remove content does in no way makes your move correct. I am challenging your reasoning and your rudeness as an answer is a red herring. This isn't a proposed treatment; it's a long way, according to sources, from any kind of treatment at all; no one is suggesting it is a treatment but you. This is fringe content. We do the reader a disservice if we don't explain clearly per the sources how this went from sewing a couple of (unfortunate) mice together to a fountain of youth elixir. And if we are including the history in the article body a summary belongs in the lead. You certainly haven't told anyone why we can ignore that Wikipedia guide to writing ledes. I'm busy today so won't be back but for heaven's sake tone down the rudeness. Everyone I've seen here is trying to work through this and for that they should be respected and not treated like trash.(Littleolive oil (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC))

• Jytdog it is really concerning that you are acting and reacting as if there are editors here who are trying to slant this article. That isn't the case.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC))
• Herein lies the problem. You are saying that this is a "proposed treatment" but it is not. It is something that is being investigated at the moment with rodents. You are the one trying to slant this article to be about humans! violet/riga _^[talk] 07:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the lead having citations. If we disagree on the wording we can come up with some proposals for wording and than have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is something wrong if one reference is used in three consecutive sentences. There is something wrong if the lead needs referencing to back up statements that are cited in the main body of the article. There is something wrong if you needing a straw man. violet/riga _^[talk] 07:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those are a problem! How were you ever an admin? Natureium (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would every sentence need the same reference and only that reference when standard practice is to have it at the end of the paragraph? And I’ll ignore the attempted provocation. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What happens when someone inserts material between multiple sentences that are from the same source? If you only add a source at the end of the paragraph, it's very unlikely that they are going to add a source to the first sentence, and then you have material that isn't referenced. This happens all the time when expanding articles. One scenario is that the material says "A causes B. A also causes C." In this case, it's easily assumed that they are from the same source. But when the text say "A causes B. B and C are common in area D. C has been proposed to do E." how is someone to know that they need to duplicate the reference? Natureium (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need this discussion here? There is no ideal situation when referencing a collaborative endeavour like this. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sections

Littleolive oil makes the point above that the article could be written in sections to highlight the difference between testing in rodents and testing in humans. This is indeed something that needs to be made clear in the article. In fact, that's exactly what there was before Jytdog came and messed around with everything. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I made this its own section.

The page is very short, due a lack of high quality sources about this medical procedure.

I do not see the value in any sections, on a page so short, nor do I see any way to add them, that doesn't break something or create an artificial distinction. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be too short. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Lots of unacceptable sourcing about health in that page. That would never survive in mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because you'd butcher it again, yeah. You clearly have no intention of trying to work at a solution so perhaps you should stop editwarring and wasting everyone's time. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You have still not made clear your reasoning for why that version of the article is so abhorrent. It doesn't violate BLP and is fully sourced from reputable secondary sources. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue here with respect to collaboration, is that we don't share assumptions (in other words, an understanding of the policies and guidelines and how to apply them) nor a goal (the mission of WP which is defined in WP:NOT). So yes everything is clashing. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Your addition of a section titled "Availability" makes this article seem more commercially focused. I think if we divide out a section on commercial availability, we need to create sections for the other information. Anyone disagree? Natureium (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What would you call the other section? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparing blood from mice of different ages

When comparing blood from mice of different ages it has been observed that the amount of some proteins in the young mouse blood exceed that in older mice. This is taken from a source that Jytdog favours yet he refuses to have it mentioned in the article. This is the exact meaning of this article!! Stop being so human-centric! You claim that there aren't any human trials so you want to remove the only studies that have been concluded?! violet/riga _^[talk] 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As has been discussed many times, we do not emphasize mouse studies this way. Nobody cares about improving the health of lab mice. The existence of the lab-mice in labs, is humancentric. The reporting of the work is humanentric. The studies are done on lab mice as proof of concept for human studies.Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

e/c : ... and yet the first line of the article defines the issue here ... specifically from a young person into an older person ... Are we having a Laurel/Yonni Mouse/Person problem here. -Roxy, the attack dog. barcus 23:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I agree that it should not be like that and my original wording was from a young source into an older animal". violet/riga _^[talk] 00:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We do not emphasize mouse studies when there are human studies to which we can refer. You're keen on saying that no such tests exist so should be happy to include this. There is no evidence of human studies for many things, let's say Dirofilaria immitis. That doesn't mean that we can't have such content. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jyt. We should not be emphasizing the mice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

this was a bad edit. There is evidence of this being done in lab mice, which is done only to see if it will work in people. No one does this in mice with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit to the mouse. If this were a veterninary treatment used in pets or race horses or something I could see the "animal". Lab mice are often killed at the end of the experiment to look more closely at what the experiment did. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is where the problem lies! This article is about animals because it’s not really a thing in humans! You’re treating it as if this is a typical medical procedure, but this is an article about the research that is ongoing! violet/riga _^[talk] 01:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares about curing mice. We don't hype research. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This doesn’t hype anything; it reports a widely-covered topic which is currently centred on mice. Your insistence that we must only write about human treatments is puzzling. violet/riga _^[talk] 01:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to emphasize the mice evidence is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The studies have been all about mice. This article is about the studies, ergo a significant part of this article will be about mice. If the efficacy of the procedure is promoted as being in humans then that would be wrong. violet/riga _^[talk] 08:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Snake oil

Stop adding the reference to snake oil. The source does not call young blood transfusion that - the mention in the source relates to parabiosis which is different! violet/riga _^[talk] 01:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay I will begin a RfC. It does say "Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product."

The source also says "Until then the treatment will likely have a second life on the fringe as snake oil. Given that this is likely to be a very expensive treatment, it will probably be elite snake oil for the wealthy."

Thus it does state that it is "snake oil"

The bigger question is what is the mainstream scientific position on "young blood transfusion"?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How to summarize the mainstream scientific position on "young blood transfusion"

The first sentence of the article define what it is. The second sentence should explain the mainstream scientific opinion on this practice. IMO the following sentence sums it up well.

Option 1: The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than snake oil.

The source in question says:

"Given history, however, it is likely that young transfusions, or even some form of parabiosis, will now also take on a life of its own as the latest snake oil product."

"Until then the treatment will likely have a second life on the fringe as snake oil. Given that this is likely to be a very expensive treatment, it will probably be elite snake oil for the wealthy."

This ref says it

"“It just reeks of snake oil,” said Michael Conboy, a cell and molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who’s collaborated on studies sewing old and young mice together and transfusing blood between them. “There’s no evidence in my mind that it’s going to work.”"

IMO this supports the text in question. Please feel free to add you suggestion below. Once we have collected the suggestion we can start the RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying “The scientific community” is too strong given that it is partially called that in one source. I don’t want an RfC on this tiny part - my argument is that we should be able to include references to trials in rodents, as per my suggested version of this article (which incidentally does have mention of snake oil. violet/riga _^[talk] 01:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

At your last edit[1] there was not "snake oil" in the text.

This section is about how we should summarize the mainstream scientific position.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I refer to the previously-mentioned User:Violetriga/ongoing/Young blood transfusion. violet/riga _^[talk] 02:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay so you have no proposal for summarizing the mainstream scientific position on young blood transfusions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The version in my area has mention of strong skepticism in the opening and then a qualified mention of snake oil later in the article. That’s my preference but if there are other sources which represent the ‘community ‘ then it would be fine in the lead. violet/riga _^[talk] 02:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific position should be the second sentence in this article after the definition IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputed content

Despite Jytdog's attempts to silence the 'opposition' there actually remains very little content that is disputed. I am going to assume that the article as it stands now is accepted by Jytdog given how quickly opposed content has been removed. I will try to summarise the differences between the article now and the version I have worked on in user space. Hopefully these can be looked at separately rather than a bulk dismissal. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Researcher naming

The inclusion of Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers. I think that naming one of the lead researchers in the field is beneficial. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this would be WP:UNDUE -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Name-checking researchers is not beneficial to the article. We name a source when we are attributing opinion, but the research, not the personalities are attributed. Even then "Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray" is a typical PR formulation attempting to spin a weak position. All of the relevant researchers' names are discoverable by following the links in the references. The name of a researcher does not improve any reader's understanding of the topic one jot. That's the definition of UNDUE. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mice

It has been said that we should not have too much content about mice. I maintain that this topic is almost entirely focussed on lab tests in mice and that it is not a problem to refer to them when no human tests are available as long as it is not presented in a way which implies that the same results are expected in humans. Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system. The study concluded that the blood from the younger mouse contributed to improved synaptic plasticity in the older mouse and this consequently led to a perceived improvement in learning and memory. They also demonstrated that a transferral of a young mouse's blood plasma into an older mouse allowed the latter to significantly improve in certain tasks related to learning and memory I believe that this comes from a decent source (Scientific American) and it links to the 2014 study as published in Nature. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is about mice, not humans, and is not suitable for this article. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this is where the main problem lies. I do not agree that such research, which is widely published, does not merit mention in an article to which it directly relates. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How does it relate? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The research into young blood is almost exclusively on mice. Why would mice not be mentioned? It's a significant portion of the parabiosis article which does not appear to be consumed by opposing viewpoints. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets see if we can insert a crowbar of understanding. I understand why the mice get mentioned in the parabiosis article. Have we got any sources relating parabiosis in mice to "young blood transfusions" in humans? No we do not. At least not yet. You need to wait until science gives us something to substantiate your speculations. Wikipedia doesn't do that. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What have I speculated about? I'm specifically saying that it does not relate to humans! violet/riga _^[talk] 11:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There we go. Well done. Lets have no more of this nonsense then. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So the fact that there is research about mice relating to young blood transfusions is not worthy of inclusion in an article about young blood transfusions? How does that make any sense? violet/riga _^[talk] 11:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to suggest that "research about mice relating to young blood transfusions" is relevant to an article about supposed medicinal benefits of young blood transfusions to humans. By conflating the two, you create a false impression of effectiveness that is not warranted. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a more reasoned response, thank you. I do disagree though because it fits in with the section about mice. I in no way want to imply that this is anything anywhere close to something useful in humans, and I think that something published in Nature is worthy of inclusion in a topic tightly related to it. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Cord

In 2017 a further study by Wyss-Coray and his team was published in Nature. This showed that older mice could benefit from blood transfused from human umbilical cords. They claim that this appears to "rejuvenate an old brain and make it work more like a younger one". Again from Scientific American. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As immediately above. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A single study shows nothing of the kind. Not relevant to humans anyway. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Spectacular mice

In a 2017 article published in The Economist the effects in mice were labelled "spectacular" but the author made the point that the reason why this happened was not clear. This again clearly refers to mice and does not suggest that such things are likely in human trials. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

These mice are getting annoying, disruptive even. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. And it is clear that there is not support for emphasizing the mice so unclear why this keeps getting raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Villeda

In 2018 a study by Dr. Saul Villeda, an assistant professor at the University of California, published new findings in journal Cell Reports. Villeda suggests that old brains may have "dormant plasticity" which can be utilised. "Young blood" has the ability to stimulate significant changes in DNA as regulated by the TET2 enzyme. Older brains have lower levels of TET2 with the hippocampus, the area of the brain associated with memory and learning, being particularly deficient. Villeda believes that DNA manipulation might in the future allow scientists to "make an organism younger again". This gives info about a potential reason why mouse studies have shown positive results. I am not particularly in favour of this section as it does sound like it is suggesting potential success in humans despite referring to "organism[s]". violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not human related. I bet you never saw that coming. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Dangers

The current version uses an MIT Technology Review reference three times. I believe that this could also be included: Amy Maxmen writing for the MIT Technology Review warned of the dangers of such trials, noting that transfusions are generally considered safe but can have side effects including deadly infections. This explicitly warns of (one of) the dangers of this treatment so I'm unsure why this is not acceptable. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I havn't read this ref, so I need to ask if it is Murine related? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is directly related to Ambrosia, so human. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a reasonable question, given that all the above is Murine related.-Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Silicon Valley trend

It is widely accepted (New York Times NewYorker Wired Smithsonian Financial Times) that Silicon Valley has some fascination with life extension. Young blood transfusions have been called a "current trend" in regenerative medicine, with significant Silicon Valley investment in "life extension". Jeff Bercovici wrote for Inc. that it is "a popular obsession" and that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood". I think that this is vital in reporting that some people are obsessed with it when such reports are commonplace. I don't believe that this is a BLP issue as claimed because nobody is identified by the general statement. It does not imply that the 'treatment' works, merely that some people are spending stupid amounts of money on this very thing. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind us noting that some nutters in Silicon Valley are spending stupid amounts of money on a ridiculously unproven anti-aging "therapy." -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely a trend for regenerative medicine in silicon valley. The claim that "there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood" is badly written gossip about actual people who are un-named. This is just gossip and no, we don't amplify gossip. The phrase, "wealthy technology bosses", is ... just weird and not encyclopedic. Even the Daily Fail has a more professionally written headline Silicon Valley executives are getting $8,000 BLOOD transfusions from the young in an effort to turn the clock back on ageing. And the fact that this is a Daily Fail headline is, I think, all that needs saying about how inappropriate this is for Wikipedia.Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As I have shown there are many reputable sources that note a link between Silicon Valley and life extension and this procedure specifically. I'm happy with a redrafted version of the wording and think that this is integral to the article, showing that it is being abused in this way. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The New Yorker source is measured and careful. I could see using it to have content in a "Society and culture" section that said something like:

Longevity and life extension research has always interested the public and the scientific community. In Silicon Valley interest in life extension was crystallized in 2013 by the founding of Calico by Bill Maris, who ran Google Ventures. This interest included the results of parabiosis research. Tom Rando, from whose lab at Stanford Alkahest was founded, told a reporter from the New Yorker: “I’ve had a lot of meetings with young billionaires in Silicon Valley, and they all, to varying degrees, want to know when the secrets are coming out, both so they can get in on the next big thing and so they can personally take advantage of them. I say, ‘This is not an app. If you come at biology from a tech point of view, you’re going to be disappointed, because the pace is much slower.’”.

something like that. Not sure what others will think of this. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a possibility - thank you for taking the time to research and write that. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Silicon Valley parody

Nothing is real until it has been parodied. The practice was referenced in a 2017 episode of comedy series Silicon Valley in which the boss of a technology company uses transfusions from a "blood boy" in an attempt to stay young and live longer. This lends weight to the fact that it is a widely-reported trend in Silicon Valley. It could be rewritten to make it clear that it's satirical. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Unmitigated trivia. I will not take part in the consensus forming for this... -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Trivia. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

News media

News media have widely reported such practices using far-fetched analogies, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires. To paraphrase a source, the vampire analogies write themselves. Because this rumoured practice is so prevalent I think it is fine to say that it is being reported in an overly-hyped way. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

... this isn't encyclopaedic. Also, I didn't think we covered rumours? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC) -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

To me this finishes off nicely any thought that it is even remotely close to human use and warns that the media over-hype things. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this as unencyclopdic, recentist gossip. This was already removed by an admin. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation - it was removed because of the use of the word 'hyperbole'. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The content was absolutely removed by an admin. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Because of the word 'hyperbole', yes. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The diff is here; the edit note is Editorial/argumentative. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They explained it here. yes, Seraphimblade said that the word "hyperbole" was unsupported, editorializing/OR. You have replaced "hyperbole" with "far-fetched analogies". it is the same problem. It is not the word, it is your analysis. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write the headlines used by all those reputable sources. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

the content is your characterization of those headlines. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So you'd prefer me to present them unqualified? Surely explaining that they are "far-fetched" makes it clear that they are in no way claiming them to be true. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the characterization. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As I say, this could be reworded to remove the analysis but it is surely better to point out the obvious: that these are far-fetched analogies. We have not found a panacea. We have not literally found the Fountain of Youth, but news media repeatedly use these phrases. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

My redrafting of the sentence is:

While media reports liken the potential to the fountain of youth and the elixir of life no evidence of success has been found in any human trial.

This then brings the lack of evidence into the body and not just the lead. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What source are you summarizing there? Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibilities include:

• Scientific American, used in the headline only though.
• Business Insider
• PBS
• Gothamist
• FT

violet/riga _^[talk] 21:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I take it that you don’t object to this then? violet/riga _^[talk] 12:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

Options for wording of the first sentence:

1) "from a young person into an older person"

2) "from a young animal into an older recipient"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Support 1 This topic is notable as people are proposing its use in humans not that it was studied in mice. Therefore IMO the first is better than the second. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 or version of 1 The topic is notable because of its application to human beings. The mouse studies were not notable so I would agree that the first line should read from a younger person to an older person... or younger subject to older subject. I'm not attached to the specific wording. The mouse studies were a significant aspect of the history of this notable topic so I do think the article could collect information into a section about the mouse studies and other pertinent, historical-type information that led to the point where human studies were begun.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC))
• 1 obviously. There is no source describing doing this in a non-human animal for medicinal benefit. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• 1, notability in humans is the reasoning I've been waiting for. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Just noticed this straw poll. I've already changed:

• Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young animal into an older recipient with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit. to:
• Young blood transfusion refers to transfusing blood specifically from a young person into an older one with the intention of creating a medicinal benefit.

because there is nothing in the sources suggesting that blood transfusions in mice are done for the "medicinal benefit" of the mice. I'm sorry, James but I don't see that there is any option here. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So sorry I was writing as you were and just saw your post on Mice. I reverted my edit as repetitive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC))

No problem, Olive. That section follows the one on mice, so the context for the content you added should be clear to any reader. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sentence about trials in China and Korea

Human trials are reported to be underway in China and Korea but with very little detail about what is actually involved.

References

So what Inc says, exactly is:

That practice is known as parabiosis, and, according to Thiel, it's a potential biological Fountain of Youth--the closest thing science has discovered to an anti-aging panacea. Research into parabiosis began in the 1950s with crude experiments that involved cutting rats open and stitching their circulatory systems together. After decades languishing on the fringes, it's recently started getting attention from mainstream researchers, with multiple clinical trials underway in humans in the U.S. and even more advanced studies in China and Korea.

So a few things.

1. This is popular media and we should not be using this to discuss biomedical research.
2. The paragraph quoted above, is not part of the discussion of Alkahest in the Inc article, but the placement of this sentence in our article, was in the paragraph about Alkahest, and made it appear that Alkahest was doing the clinical trials (see this version).
3. If you click on the three relevant links in the Inc article, the first one is relevant to this topic (and to Alkahest), while the second two are not about what Alkahest is doing, nor even relevant to "young blood transfusion":

   the first one is clinicaltrials.gov to an open label study being done at Stanford sponsored by Alkahest.

   the china one is a link to a published primary source about laboratory (not clinical) research done in China in which the authors said they identified "non-platelet RNA-containing particles" in human umbilical cord blood. I have no idea why the Inc author linked to this.

   the Korea link is to a clinicaltrials.gov entry about a study at a hospital in Korea that has four arms; frozen cord blood, unfrozen cord blood, frozen plasma, and a control. There is no discussion in that entry about the relative age of the plasma donor and the subjects in the trial.

So - the source is not OK, and unsurprisingly it gets the science wrong. The content also misled the reader. This sentence and source should not be in the article. I will see what I can find from MEDRS sources about ongoing research. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to reasoned discussion. I accept your review of that source and agree that we should not include it in the article. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Physician David Wright

The mention of David Wright does not say why any of it relates to young blood transfusion rather than simply being an IV treatment. Physician David Wright is involved with doing intravenous treatments of vitamins and antibiotics for "non traditional" purposes. This should be clarified or removed. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

clarified here. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)