Talk:Candida hypersensitivity

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution

Barrett of Quackwatch requires attribution, and so also does Novella of Science-Based Medicine, per the numerous discussions on QW. Pretty much they always need inline attribution, or removed. I would make the change, but they are leaned on very heavily, almost entirely, and also some of the citing in this article is really weird. For example, in the opening sentence, cite one is to Crook's own book, but the sentence is Candida hypersensitivity is a pseudoscientific syndrome promoted by William G. Crook, M.D. Surely, Crook does not call his own efforts "pseudoscientific", so I wonder what is the purpose of this cite? A lot of them are like this on this article. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussions say they require attribution? WP:RSP says they don't. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says exactly the opposite:

Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself.

Numerous RfCs and other discussions have discussed QW. It is definitely not a consensus RS, which is why it is highlighted in yellow. "Wikivoice" cannot be justified by these sources. Yes, "require" was not the right word here, as in "the policy doesn't require it", but my point is that this article does need it. I am on the side of this dispute that says QW citations should be attributed. I go even further, that if the article is written by Barrett, then attribute to Barrett as well.

I'm not aware of any discussions on Novella and his site, because I haven't looked, but they appear like exactly the same category of things. He is just a newer version of Barrett. In fact, it was just last night, a writer on SBM (not Novella) appeared to lift almost wholesale the arguments and flow of a Barrett article for the first half of their own article. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are "some editors" and you think they should be attributed in this case. That's quite different from what you implied, which is that Quackwatch is somehow unreliable. SBM is considered a reliable source per RSP. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can previous editors please explain this weird usage of some of the citations?

From the lede:

Candida hypersensitivity is a pseudoscientific syndrome promoted by William G. Crook, M.D.^[1]

William Crook's own book is the citation. That doesn't make sense, since the claim is that it is a pseudoscience, which of course Crook disagrees. If the point is to show where Crook made this claim, that should just be stated somewhere.

In the Symptoms section:

After reading publications by C. Orian Truss, M.D.,^[2]

Again, citing Truss rather than just pointing to the person or book with an actual sentence. The actual claim itself here is uncited entirely. Was Crook actually influenced by Truss? Say's who? I am not actually calling for a cite of this particular claim, I'm just pointing out this strange citation habit.

Same section:

Many patients presenting with symptoms of environmental sensitivity claim to suffer from multiple "fashionable" syndromes.^[3]

Not so much strange as a policy violation. This is a WP:Primary source, but we aim for secondary. It also appears to be WP:Synth.

^ Crook, William G. (1986). The Yeast Connection: A Medical Breakthrough. Vintage Books. ISBN 0933478062.
^ Truss, CO (1983). The Missing Diagnosis. Birmingham, AL: The Missing Diagnosis, Inc.
^ Stewart, Donna E. (1990). "The Changing Faces of Somatization". Psychosomatics. 31 (2): 153–158. doi:10.1016/S0033-3182(90)72188-3. ISSN 0033-3182. PMID 2330395.

76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to "Chronic Candidiasis"

"Chronic Candidiasis" is the term initial tossed by Truss. Although the term hypersensitivity has been used, it is not immunologically correct. There is a fungal dysbiosis and an immune response involving Th17 cells, but no "hypersensitivity". 178.51.222.215 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Page Update and Review: Addressing Disinformation on Medicine and Science

WARNING: The current page contains scientific and medical misinformation. My edits to solve this issue were withdrawn, although backed by multiple references to state-of-the-art medical literature. If this issue is not resolved within 48 hours (August 3, 2024 at noon), I will initiate a Digital Services Act (DSA) infringement procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.51.222.215 (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current content of the page is broadcasting outdated and potentially misleading information about medicine and science. Specifically, the references used are not up-to-date, and the content does not reflect the latest research and understanding of Candida overgrowth.

Efforts have been made to update the page with current information and credible references from authoritative sources, such as PubMed-indexed articles and recognized scientific websites. However, these edits were reverted by the user @ScienceFlyer.

Compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA)

The page, as it stands, may be in violation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) due to the dissemination of disinformation, which may lead to public health risks and undermine trust in scientific discourse.

Ensuring accurate and up-to-date information is crucial for compliance with the DSA, which emphasizes transparency and accountability for content published on digital platforms.

Request for Action

Remove Page Protection: Please consider removing the protection on this page to allow contributions that reflect the latest state-of-the-art medical literature on Candida albicans.

Incorporate Credible Sources: Allow the inclusion of updated references from reputable sources like PubMed and leading scientific websites to enhance the accuracy and reliability of the information presented.

By enabling updates with credible sources, we can ensure that the information shared is accurate, scientifically valid, and beneficial for users seeking reliable data on medical and scientific topics. 178.51.222.215 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. The IP has been blocked for one week for making legal threats, i.e. to 'initiate a Digital Services Act (DSA) infringement procedure'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Crook-1] Crook, William G. (1986). The Yeast Connection: A Medical Breakthrough. Vintage Books. ISBN 0933478062.

[2] Truss, CO (1983). The Missing Diagnosis. Birmingham, AL: The Missing Diagnosis, Inc.

[Stewart1990-3] Stewart, Donna E. (1990). "The Changing Faces of Somatization". Psychosomatics. 31 (2): 153–158. doi:10.1016/S0033-3182(90)72188-3. ISSN 0033-3182. PMID 2330395.

[1]

[2]

[3]