User talk:Doc James

 Translation
Main page Those Involved
(sign up) Newsletter 

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online. Mediterranean diet Hi, Doc James. If you are so kind, I would like you to give your opinion on this issue: This text, included on revision of 14 December 2015 [1] was removed on this revision of 28 April (→‎Health effects: rv conjecture per WP:FRINGE & WP:NOTOPINION) I reworded it [2] and it was again modified by "curious" reasons (→‎Health effects: copyedit and trim for balanced perspective, WP:NPOV; trim per WP:OVERCITE), with a result not supported by the source: "Depending on the bread products selected". Where does it figure on the source??? Mention about gluten was removed at this revision [3] IMO, to confer really neutrality to the section "Health effects", we must state both beneficial and negative effects, even in a minority of people, which is an indiscutbile reality, perfectly supported by many reliable sources. If you agree, can you review and reformulate from these texts?: [4] [5] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC) In Spain right now. Will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Doc James. What do you think about this? Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Head lice infestation Hi, I already added a reference, I'm sorry I couldn't find one in English, I guess in Spanish is ok, if it's taken from the Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría web. Please talk to me before reverting my edit. --RoRo (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC) A Spanish source is not great. I am not seeing it as supporting the content in question per here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Ok, no Spanish sources: you may like to know every biologist who worked with insects and other arthropods knows ethanol kills all of them, I could find many sources for that affirmation alone, i.e. this one: "...It has been shown that at concentrations higher than 95%, commercial alcohol preserves DNA (Nagy 2010), but the use of highly concentrated commercial alcohol as a killing solution may be prohibitively expensive when needed in large quantities, such as in large-scale biodiversity sampling. In Brazil, for example, it is illegal to carry large amounts of commercial alcohol on long journeys, which could hinder its use in extensive field expeditions. Here we propose the use of ethanol fuel as a cheaper and logistically feasible alternative..." Szinwelski, N., Fialho, V. S., Yotoko, K. S. C., Seleme, L. R., & Sperber, C. F. (2012). Ethanol fuel improves arthropod capture in pitfall traps and preserves DNA. ZooKeys, (196), 11–22. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.196.3130 So what do you think, it's ok to put that claim in a pediculosis article? --RoRo (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Lets continue on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Glioblastoma multiforme Hello Doc James: I want to become a more experienced Wikipedia editor, and therefore would like your feedback on why you cut my text (“intranasal drug delivery”) on the Glioblastoma multiforme page on May 7, 2016. In particular: (i) The original, primary scientific publications describe 2 clinical studies. One study was performed with recurrent GBM patients, the other study included primary patients. In GBM this distinction is important, because recurrent patients are usually treatment resistant (after having undergone radiation plus temozolomide), whereas primary patients are treatment-naïve. So, IMHO, it would be relevant to mention both studies, whereas you reduced these 2 studies to “A small study…”. Agreed to mention both studies? (ii) The two studies included several hundred patients. Malignant glioma (grade III+IV) is a rare (orphan) disease; therefore, several hundred patients should not be considered a “small” study. Agreed? (iii) I realize that Wikipedia prefers MEDRS-type articles, and several references of this type had been added, in addition to the respective primary articles. However, you deleted all of the primary articles. Would it not be okay to have at least one primary reference of the original clinical studies? (iv) You also deleted any reference to the fact that clinical trials have been initiated here in the US (the first two trials were done in Brazil). You don’t think that this is worthy of mentioning? [Several other sections on this page do mention clinical trials (with reference to ClinicalTrials.gov).] Looking forward to your feedback and learning from it. I would like to add back in some of the deleted text, but want to avoid back-and-forth editing. Thank you. Ossky (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Yes trimmed the primary studies. Do the reviews you added comment on them? We do not typically use clinical trials.gov to comment on what trials are ongoing. There are of course a lot of trials ongoing in the US for GBM https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=glioblastoma+&Search=Search The ref does not make it clear why this one was important. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC) talkback Hello. You have a new message at Baffle_gab1978's talk page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Inconsistent statements Hi James. Denny states on May 2 2016 "I voted for James’ removal from the Board because of his perceived reluctance to cooperate with the formal investigation, his withholding of information when asked for, his secrecy towards other Board members, even once the conspiracy was lifted, and him never convincingly taking responsibility for and ownership of his actions and mistakes." Lorente says on 31 Dec 2015 that "Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had multiple conversations around expectations for Trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality. Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion that we were not able to reach a common understanding with James on fulfilling those expectations." I originally read Lorente's statement as referring to your breach of confidentiality. But Denny's statement suggests it was the other way round. You were being too confidential, as it were. Or is Lorente referring to another set of discussions? Peter Damian (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Hey User:Peter Damian, I was involved with providing the new investigating committee an in depth report of the concerns we had discovered. I do not believe that me providing specific emails added to what was in that report and was also hesitant to provide them since some of the concerns were collected in confidence. The degree of transparency around the long term strategy of the WMF should be very different from that of private communications with staff. With respect to Denny's request that I take "ownership" of my actions, I assume he is referring to the claim by some members of the board that I misled staff regarding how the board was going to vote in November. I do not believe I mislead staff. And this has been corroborated by at least some staff.[7] I never guaranteed that the board would make a specific decision or claimed that I spoke for more than 10% of the board. I was open about the fact that I took staff concerns very seriously and voted along the lines of that position. So yes I refused to take ownership for something I do not consider I did. With respect to Lorente's claim that I breached confidentiality, I am not entirely sure to what he refers. When Lorente made this semi public statement commented on by Oliver here "my concern is that when staff reached out the Board replied with a letter indicating they had full and unanimous confidence in our leadership" he did so without my consent. I did privately clarify this statement and my position to the staff who reached out to me, so he may be referring to my clarification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks. I need to think about this. Peter Damian (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) User page User:İnternion My request has been marked for deletion --İnternion (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Not exactly sure why the request User:İnternion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Please be aware of this issue. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This entire article, and all of the articles on the drugs involved, are riddled with significant errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1_antagonist This is incredibly detrimental to human health. I've been making some edits to attempt to reflect the research as of 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenhydramine#Mechanism_of_action Diphenhydramine is an inverse agonist of the histamine H1 receptor.[38] That was an edit I made, because I am not good at making more sophisticated changes with the tables and so forth. Another person(s) read my edit and changed the article to reflect the current research. It is worth noting that that drug has been used in the United States and abroad for 70 years before I came along and made that edit. This is extremely distressing. Of course the scientific article I cite must be studied, at least for a moment, but there is no paywall and I will provide the text so it can be quickly examined: Since all H 1-antihistamines examined to date have shown inverse agonists, it is suggested that the term "H 1-receptor antagonists" be replaced by "H 1-antihistamines." [41],[42] Constitutional activity is also demonstrated at H 2 receptors. Many H 2 receptor antagonists, such as cimetidine, ranitidine, tiotidine, and famotidine, described previously as pure H 2 antagonists, actually behave as inverse agonists and diminish basal cAMP levels. By using transfected Chinese hamster ovarian (CHO) cells expressing different densities of wild-type H 2 receptors or uncoupled H 2 (Leu124Ala) receptors, considerable agonist-independent H 2 receptor activity was found. [43] Ranitidine and cimetidine acted as inverse agonists (both induced H 2 receptor upregulation), whereas burimamide was shown to be a neutral antagonist. Cumulative anticholinergic use is associated with an increased risk for dementia.[28][29] I am willing to take some time in carefully edit some or many articles, studying each drug to make sure my accuracy is as good as can be expected. On that Benadryl article, I replaced a paper that was published in 1994, kind of distressing since the human genome project was completed in 2003. The problem is that the organizational structure supporting all these drugs is something that I cannot edit. I am a novice user. This next bit is a little more theoretical and will certainly not be reflected in my editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_epigenetics#Learning_and_memory Studies in rodents have found that the environment exerts an influence on epigenetic changes related to cognition, in terms of learning and memory;[4] environmental enrichment correlated with increased histone acetylation, and verification by administering histone deacetylase inhibitors induced sprouting of dendrites, an increased number of synapses, and reinstated learning behaviour and access to long-term memories.[1][28] Research has also linked learning and long-term memory formation to reversible epigenetic changes in the hippocampus and cortex in animals with normal-functioning, non-damaged brains.[1][29] In human studies, post-mortem brains from Alzheimer's patients show increased histone de-acetylase levels.[30][31] Alzheimer's disease accounts for over 60% of dementia. This suggests the potential for Anticholinergic drugs may be involved in epigenetics. Maybe. I've been to Southeast Asia and China and people develop allergies due to the pollution (epigenetics have been linked) and treat them with antihistamines, which could potentially lead to more epigenetic changes that are very harmful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_information_on_Wikipedia#Other_views Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has said that lack of health information increases preventable deaths in emerging markets and that health information from Wikipedia can improve community health.[29] Wales presented the Wikipedia Zero project as a channel for delivering health information into places where people have difficulty accessing online information.[29] I myself use Longvida Curcumin to prevent cognitive dysfunction that may come with aging. Very powerful HDAC inhibitor. In any case, please be aware that I have also forwarded a variant of this message to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seppi333 But I am really trying to get things moving along, because we've been using this for 70 years already. Benadryl came out in 1946. We need to crap or get off the pot already. Hello from the East coast, I see you are from the West, getting hot 'ere by', just switched from winter to summer in one day. Wish we had spring here, dying from the heat. Regards Salvia420 (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Hey User:Salvia420 they main thing we need to do is make sure we stick with high quality sources per WP:MEDRS. Which issue are you most concerned about? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC) The change I want to make All of H1 antagonists (Benadryl, etc) are inverse agonists. Also some H2 are inverse agonists as well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11972592 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195115/ That is what I want to change. To be perfectly clear, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenhydramine#Mechanism_of_action This article above is right because I editted, and would still be wrong right now if I did not. The rest are all wrong save a few. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1_antagonist I cannot do anything except edit sections, and am not willing to learn. Salvia420 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Inverse agonist and antagonists overlap. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC) So we just call everything antagonists? If we have a bag of circle shapes and square shapes, do we call them all squares? Assuming that what you are saying is right (we are talking specifically about H1 receptor here, we are dealing with the H1_antagonist article on Wikipedia. The literature states: "Since all H1 -antihistamines examined to date have shown inverse agonists, it is suggested that the term “H1 -receptor antagonists” be replaced by “H1 -antihistamines.”" In that case, they do not overlap and you could even rename it H1_Inverse_agonist. But I think that is counterproductive and we should adhere to the literature in moving away from characterizing them by their reception actions. These are dirty drugs and labeling them antagonist or inverse agonist and so forth is inappropriate. There are some crossovers once you start looking at the H2 receptor sites. Or if the literature is wrong and not all H1 antagonists are inverse agonists as it states, I find it very hard to believe its a good idea to name them all antagonists or inverse agonists. It's completely misleading and inaccurate, and harms the credibility of Wikipedia. I cannot be wrong here. By the way, this results minor increased rates of Alzheimer's disease with cumulative use, and you would expect these receptor sites to be up-regulated if they were antagonists. But that does not happen. Regards Salvia420 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Doc James just to jump in here - I don't know how much you have dug into this but the background here is that folks used to think antihistamines were just antagonists - that they temporarily blocked the active site of the receptor so the receptor couldn't be activiated by histamine. But histamine receptors are GPCRs and like lots of GPCRs (and other receptors) they are moving all the time, shifting between "off" and "on", and they have a low level of constitutive "on" activity that is actually important to normal health. What the antihistamines do via this "inverse agonism" is that they bind off the receptor site and stabilize the receptor in the "off" position so that they kill even the background constitutive "on" activity, and folks think this is what causes some of the side effects of anihistamines. This does seem to be the current view. I don't agree that it is as urgent as it is being framed but it does seem useful to update articles to reflect this. Perhaps folks at WT:PHARM would be willing to help this person? I can post there about this if you like. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:Jytdog sounds reasonable. If this is the current terminology happy to see it updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC) There is no doubt that many of the 'antagonists' for G-protein-coupled receptors are actually inverse agonists, but the function difference between an inverse agonist and an inverse agonist is very subtle for native receptors which usually have little intrinsic activity. Most of the studies showing signficant effects occur in cell lines (like CHO cells) in which many receptors are forcibly expressed (over-expressed); showing important effects in real tissues is tricky. That's why the IUPHAR nomenclature still lists many such drugs as both "antagonists" and "inverse agonists" (see, for example, the listing of drugs that act at the H1 receptor). So, I don't think that there is a need for a title change, nor should Wikipedia be leading nomenclature change ahead of industry-recognised guides. Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:Klbrain thanks also sounds very reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Jytdog it is worth mentioning that these have been linked to with a minor increased risk in dementia. In Alzheimer's patients epigenetic factors can be observed which are also important in things such as reinstating learning behaviors, long term memory, sprouting dendrites etc. Therefore it may influence humans on a very subtle level. At a level we may never understand, actually, we will never be able to obtain human brain tissue or experiment on humans. Rodent students are not something that is particularly valuable when a human with an education and life experience, etc, is losing their mind to Alzheimer's. The research is almost always going to be cor-relational and not directly indicating causation. No one else will do anything, all of these organizations have people in them connected with companies, lobbiests, etc, etc, these drugs make a lot of money. We can barely get the fact up there that these drugs can effect the minds of old people. I mean if I take bendaryl, it will effect my mind. This stuff is a no brainer. But the fact is, is that a word has to mean something. There are drugs that are actual antagonists. You can say that they are antagonists and be honest when you say that. I don't understand why we are waiting for some corrupt organization to allow us to tell others that an antagonist is not an inverse agonist. You will find cures with epigenetics but never the causes of disease. Never will we find the causes and establish a solid link. But words lose their usefulness when the word does not connect with the idea. How can anyone say that H1 antagonist connects to the idea of a receptor site being antagonized? Inverse agonism is there, we admit it's happening. It doesn't matter if that has any effects, what matters is that the word is completely accurate, and if it is inaccurate, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says, because a square is not a circle, and we are intelligent people. This is not a crazy rant, if words don't work anymore then we are screwed, honestly. It's not just an antagonist. And anyones opinion of what an inverse agonist is irrelevant. If it causes epigenetic problems, we'll all be dead from old age before we ever know. And why does the mechanics section of diphenhydramine still say it is an inverse agonist if it didn't matter? I don't understand this at all. I have a liberal arts degree, so I don't understand the medical sophisms here, and that is not to be rude, but I did learn Latin, and that was used for all the medical terminology, and I know that a word is supposed to be accurate and do something. These are not H1 antagonists, the word is obsolete thanks to modern research, the research in this medicines citations are garbage, from 1994, that's 9 years before the human genome project was ever completed. It seems urgent to me, the fact that we take drugs and we have no idea what they do. We never will. The cause of autism is epigeneticly related and the rates are skyrocketing. We should be worried to at least provide objective and accurate names for the functions of drugs, and be the source of change instead of waiting for people to tell us that a square is not a circle. An antagonist is not an inverse agonist. Really all it comes down to is that single sentence, for the basic fact is, is that a word is a word. A light is either on or off. It's ridiculous that anyone thinks they need permission to be told what "on" means. This is a bit of a rant, but no matter how educated you are, you will never be able to tell me an antagonist is an inverse agonists, or someone needs to wait to approve that. That is not how words work, are things so complicated now that on can also mean off? We might as well start barking at each other like dogs, words just are abstract sounds at this point. It's the truth. More than my opinion when it comes to that point I'm afraid, regardless of anything else said. I'm either right or the mechanisms of action section in Diphenhydramine ought to be rewritten as antagonist, so the word connects to the idea it represents. References Salvia420 (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) user:Salvia420 Doc James has made it pretty clear that this is not something he is going to get into (he is more of an MD than a pharmacologist so that makes sense) - you really should take this up at the thread I opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Update_content_on_antihistamines. I am going to close this thread so it doesn't keep burgeoning. Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. DMT1 Very disappointed to see the only doctor to be removed from the Wiki Trustee. Anyway, could you please take a look at Talk:Diabetes mellitus type 1, regarding "comorbidities with other autoimmune disease", I'm a bit surprised there's nothing included there 1.129.97.52 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the words of support. I will run again. Will take a look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Edit Request Hi Doc James, I'll address this edit request to SlimVirgin as well since DocJames is on vacation. Would you please add a sentence to the finasteride "society and culture" section about the ongoing product liability issues? I have not added this in the past because I expected it would be rapidly removed due to the degree of tension on that article. Nonetheless, I think it is notable and WP:MEDORDER specifies that legal issues should be included in the "society and culture" section. I recommend a simple sentence that closely mirrors the company's quarterly report. "As of March 31, 2016, approximately 1,385 product liability lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs against Merck who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with finasteride." The source should be their latest financial report at http://s21.q4cdn.com/755037021/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2016/Q1/1Q16-Form-10-Q.pdf. I also think the first paragraph of the section about the historical finasteride ban is no longer notable since it the drug has been re-instated. I would like to have that paragraph deleted as well but mostly just see it as trivial information. JYTDog has offered to "walk away from the article" if I refrain from editing indirectly, so this is my effort to uphold my part. Thanks - Doors22 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)