Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|||
| Article policies
|
||
| Archives: 1 | |||
| WikiProject Microbiology | (Rated C-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Medicine | (Rated C-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Bm910713. |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
|
| This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Mlan321, Mbutke15, Ilykdogs. |
Contents
- 1 Review
- 2 Skin infections
- 3 Refs
- 4 Adding Phage Therapy in treatment
- 5 RfC on Handling of FDA-unapproved medical treatments within a disease article.
- 5.1 Definition of "medical treatment"
- 5.2 Use of the word “Treatment” and medical claim
- 5.3 Risk of medical professional bias
- 5.4 Wikipedia medical articles scope
- 5.5 Policy
- 5.6 Treatments available in other English speaking countries but not in the US
- 5.7 Treatments only available in non English speaking countries
- 5.8 Presentation of FDA unapproved treatments in an article
- 5.9 Another example: Pain Management
- 5.10 Writing for the opponent
- 5.11 ----- Proposals -----
- 5.12 SURVEY
Review[edit]
doi:10.1128/CMR.00020-18 JFW | T@lk 18:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Skin infections[edit]
MRSA skin infections are very common and the most common presenting manifestation of cases. User:Graham Beards you apparently don't see these cases in your line of work according to your edit summary where you write you have seen 1 case in 10 years, but the medical literature is full of reports of ever increasing frequency of community-acquired MRSA skin infections. You see 1 case in a decade. Twenty years ago, I'd see a case every few months. Now I see several cases a week, and it reflects what is reported in the medical and lay literature. MRSA UTI, pneumonia, and other infections are a minority by comparison, and it's consistent with MRSA usually primarily being an asymptomatic colonizer on people's skin. MartinezMD (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- https://cmr.asm.org/content/28/3/603
- https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/498770
- https://www.uptodate.com/contents/methicillin-resistant-staphylococcus-aureus-mrsa-in-adults-epidemiology
- https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/understanding-mrsa#1
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10634.php
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322903.php
- https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/how-we-live/2018/05/28/what-mrsa/597789002/
All of these are questionable with regard to WP:MEDRS. The photograph in question is a selfie of a boil. The legend says that MRSA "often presents" as such. Where is the evidence? Graham Beards (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- It’s already in the beginning of the article if you read the “Signs and symptoms” section. Second paragraph “About 75 percent of CA-MRSA infections are localized to skin and soft tissue and usually can be treated effectively.[4]”. Where reference 4 currently pis: Liu, Catherine... (2011). "Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Adults and Children". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 52 (3): e18–e55, which is a pretty reliable source to satisfy WP:MEDRS 2600:1003:B119:38B2:8430:177D:4EC0:4FAB (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Refs[edit]
Trimmed a bunch of stuff that was poorly references. Most of the sources were either primary in nature or were from a known predatory publisher. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding Phage Therapy in treatment[edit]
Riffstilde (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Please Doc James (talk) explain why you reverse all attempts to open a "Phage Therapy" subsection of section "Treatment". Maybe we can discuss this here? Thank you. Riffstilde (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. The ref says " the Soviet Union invested heavily in the use of bacteriophages — viruses that kill bacteria — to treat infections", "Phage therapy is still widely used in Russia, Georgia and Poland" and "Kutateladze, who is the head of the scientific council at the Eliava Institute in Tbilisi, which has been studying phages and using them to treat patients for nearly a century". Which means it is being used there to treat people; it is not merely studied as you say.
- Maybe we can agree to change the section "Treatments" to "Treatments available in the US" and add another section "Treatments available elsewhere" ?
- or within "Treatments" we could add a sub title "Treatments not available in the US" or "Not FDA approved" or "Treatments that require FDA emergency exemption [21 CFR 56.104(c)]" or "Phage Therapy (requires FDA emergency exemption)" Riffstilde (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just my $0.02, but I don't see any evidence that this has been successfully used as in vivo treatment. See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160242 for recent study of this. Bongomatic 07:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. The question here is to focus on Wikipedia guidelines. It seems : the fact that Phage Therapy is used as a treatment in other countries is non-medical information (it is not a medical claim) and as such does not depend on WP:MEDRS. Anyway, what about this ref from the American Society of Microbiologie ? Riffstilde (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- The biggest issue is making sure to separate the fact that it is being used vs. whether it actually work. The article on phage therapy has serious issues with undue weight and lack of reliable information - large sections on its use and implementation with a very small section called "potential benefits". We could argue about any other unproven therapy in the same manner. MartinezMD (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Though, personnally, I wonder if it is 100% unproven given the amount of evidence in medical litterature of people in very extreme condition being cured while they were on the point of dying or being amputated, with all other treatments having failed, I agree with you that it needs prudent wording similar to what is found in the article cannabis: "A 2017 review found only limited evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis in relieving chronic pain in several conditions.[23] Another review found tentative evidence for use of cannabis in treating peripheral neuropathy, but little evidence of benefit for other types of long term pain.[24]". I guess there has been some fight on the subject of cannabis too. Riffstilde (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Responding to Riffstilde's comment at 14:34; this ref from the American Society of Microbiologie is a blog and not MEDRS. Content about medical use is biomedical information. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Riffstilde please note the sourcing at Cannabis - "a 2017 review"... "another review" - these are MEDRS refs. What MEDRS calls for is not hard to understand. Please engage with it. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Jytdog, this ref from the American Society of Microbiologie was a reply to Bongomatic. I take this opportunity to quote MDRS: "Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources." The fact that Phage Therapy is widely used in Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland and is being introduced in Belgium and France, and that it is being used in the US under FDA emergency exemption [21 CFR 56.104(c)] is not biomedical information according to What is not biomedical information: it is regulatory status and societal information.
- I will follow your guidance and try an edit similar to "a 2017 review" ... "another review" - supported by MEDRS refs. Thanks. Riffstilde (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- You need a review article that includes valid statistics - e.g. adding phage therapy had x% improvement in outcome, or days to cure, or reduced mortality, etc. Too much out there is case reports, anecdotes, stories, etc. It is a good theory; the issue is does it actually work. Look for that type of information. MartinezMD (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks MartinezMD. At this stage we have 2 topics of discussion:
- Can we open a Phage Therapy section within 'Treatment', on the sole factual basis that Phage Therapy is being used in eastern countries to treat patients on a broad scale and more recently in a limited way in a few other western countries under the shield of the Helsinki Convention and of the FDA emergency exemption ?
- What sources are acceptable to support the claim that Phage Therapy can be considered as a treatment under American standards ?
- So maybe it is better to close this discussion and open 2 different discussions? Any objections ? Riffstilde (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks MartinezMD. At this stage we have 2 topics of discussion:
- You need a review article that includes valid statistics - e.g. adding phage therapy had x% improvement in outcome, or days to cure, or reduced mortality, etc. Too much out there is case reports, anecdotes, stories, etc. It is a good theory; the issue is does it actually work. Look for that type of information. MartinezMD (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Riffstilde please note the sourcing at Cannabis - "a 2017 review"... "another review" - these are MEDRS refs. What MEDRS calls for is not hard to understand. Please engage with it. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- The biggest issue is making sure to separate the fact that it is being used vs. whether it actually work. The article on phage therapy has serious issues with undue weight and lack of reliable information - large sections on its use and implementation with a very small section called "potential benefits". We could argue about any other unproven therapy in the same manner. MartinezMD (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. The question here is to focus on Wikipedia guidelines. It seems : the fact that Phage Therapy is used as a treatment in other countries is non-medical information (it is not a medical claim) and as such does not depend on WP:MEDRS. Anyway, what about this ref from the American Society of Microbiologie ? Riffstilde (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think we need two discussions. They are both the same. This is an article on MRSA, not phage therapy. So the issue of inclusion is one of undue weight versus general notability with medical assertions requiring proper references. It is perfectly acceptable to state that phage therapy is being used in some parts of the world, but as a treatment it has not been proven reliable. The article on phage therapy itself does not show proven benefit, and that's an entire article. It would seem to be promising, but it has not been demonstrated as yet. Unless there is stronger evidence, one or two sentences is all I think appropriate, not a section. MartinezMD (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- It does not appear to me that the claim that it is being used in some parts of the world is adequately sourced to avoid undue weight even for such a muted claim. There is lots of quackery in the world and "treatments" used for a variety of conditions. Without reliable sources in medical journals as to the prevalence of such treatments (i.e., approved therapy or widely-recognized off-label use), this would be hard to distinguish. Not to suggest that phage therapy is actually quackery (which is not my view—rather, it's that it has not (yet?) proven therapeutically valuable). I would think the reference to its use as treatment should be eliminated based on current sourcing. Bongomatic 05:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks; I will try to supply here sourcing supporting the fact that PT is used as an MRSA official treatment in a number of countries, including 2 in the EU, such as Poland, Cszech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia, Russia. That's a population about the size of the US.
- Primary sources that PT is used , with phagics targeting MRSA :
- Poland: Hirzfeld Institute and phage department with a list of their publications on bacteriophages ;
- Cszech Rep.: Bohemia Pharm and Stafal ;
- Slovakia: Stafal ;
- Ukraine: Farmex Group LLC for NeoProbioKear Inc., Canada and Piofag ;
- Georgia: George Eliava Institute, its collection of S. aureus, and its Staphylococcal bacteriophage ;
- Georgia: Biochimpharm and its Phagestaph
- Russia: Microgen - the only major drug company in the business and its Staph phage.
- All these products are registered in their countries and the registration info is available from the pages I listed for most products. They are available in pharmacies for instance here in Russia or here and here in Ukraine.
- A few Russian publications are available on Microgen website here and (thanks Google Translate) can also be read in english.
- Now a very intersesting piece of news from Science First Hand. It mentions that: "Bacteriophages are currently produced in Russia on an unprecedented scale, like nowhere else in the world. Bacteriophages are manufactured as high-grade drugs, and the consumption of these antibacterial agents in Russia is more than 1 billion packs per year". Doesn't Phage Therapy deserve a section "Treatments not available in the US"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffstilde (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Riffstilde (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion no. For it to be a section it needs to be proven effective. There is a lot of use but that doesn't mean it works. I'll give you an example; look at Acute bronchitis. Treatments such as ibuprofen, cough syrups, etc. are widely used, maybe more than any other remedy, but they do not get their own section. They got a sentence each. MartinezMD (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is not even trying to engage with MEDRS. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Phage therapy is about bacteriophages, virus that kill bacteria, so it is not about treating symptoms but about treating the bacterial infection itself. The fact that it is used in many countries to treat people is a social fact, not a medical claim. I hope that according to wikipedia guidelines we can work toward a consensus. This means finding a way to express that (1) PT is used as a treatment in some part of the world and (2) you can add also what you feel needed to express that you feel PT has no proven medical value and state why with appropriate references. Riffstilde (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. The burden of proof is to establish effectiveness if you want a section. You can't place the burden to prove a negative. Using your logic every single bacterial infection article would warrant a phage therapy section. You can set up an RFC, but I don't think you'll get any different answers from the reviewing editors. MartinezMD (talk)
- When it comes, will FDA approval be enough to qualify Phage Therapy as a treatment that can be included in the "Treatment" section? Riffstilde (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would think so, as long as we are discussing FDA-approval and not FDA-cleared which is a totally different issue. We don't even need FDA approval if enough reliable sources support it, as the FDA is only in the US. FDA approval typically requires a level of proof similar to what we are discussing. The issue remains as to reliable proof of benefit if you want a section, otherwise it is an issue of undue weight as well. MartinezMD (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just to quote Wikipedia here : 'Approved drug. An approved drug is a preparation that has been validated for a therapeutic use by a ruling authority of a government. In the United States, the FDA approves drugs. Before a drug can be prescribed, it must undergo the FDA's approval process.' Riffstilde (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would think so, as long as we are discussing FDA-approval and not FDA-cleared which is a totally different issue. We don't even need FDA approval if enough reliable sources support it, as the FDA is only in the US. FDA approval typically requires a level of proof similar to what we are discussing. The issue remains as to reliable proof of benefit if you want a section, otherwise it is an issue of undue weight as well. MartinezMD (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- When it comes, will FDA approval be enough to qualify Phage Therapy as a treatment that can be included in the "Treatment" section? Riffstilde (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nope. The burden of proof is to establish effectiveness if you want a section. You can't place the burden to prove a negative. Using your logic every single bacterial infection article would warrant a phage therapy section. You can set up an RFC, but I don't think you'll get any different answers from the reviewing editors. MartinezMD (talk)
- Phage therapy is about bacteriophages, virus that kill bacteria, so it is not about treating symptoms but about treating the bacterial infection itself. The fact that it is used in many countries to treat people is a social fact, not a medical claim. I hope that according to wikipedia guidelines we can work toward a consensus. This means finding a way to express that (1) PT is used as a treatment in some part of the world and (2) you can add also what you feel needed to express that you feel PT has no proven medical value and state why with appropriate references. Riffstilde (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks; I will try to supply here sourcing supporting the fact that PT is used as an MRSA official treatment in a number of countries, including 2 in the EU, such as Poland, Cszech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia, Russia. That's a population about the size of the US.
RfC on Handling of FDA-unapproved medical treatments within a disease article.[edit]
In a disease article, how can we include treatments such as those in the following list of examples:
- treatment not available in the US, not FDA approved ,
- treatment available on an expanded access / compassionate use only basis according to the FDA?
- treatment approved for therapeutic use by a foreign ruling authority of a government
- treatment not proven effective (with a statement that it has not been proven effective)
This RfC is about building a consensus on a way to present such treatments in the present article. Wikipedians are invited to join in, including those from non-medical fields. This RfC is the logical follow up of the discussion that appears just before on Talk:Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus. Riffstilde (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Here are a few thoughts as a start.
Definition of "medical treatment"[edit]
Wikipedia search on “medical treatment” redirects to “therapy”, which is defined as : Therapy (often abbreviated tx, Tx, or Tx) is the attempted remediation of a health problem
On the other hand, WP:biomedical_information indicates the following : Treatment or Management : Look for guidelines from major organizations about what ought to be done; look for systematic reviews to find out which of these recommendations have been proven to work.
This discrepancy shows that the word “treatment” can be understood in two ways:
- a set of medical procedures that aim to improve a patient’s health (“attempted remediation”), or
- a set of medical procedures that are recognized and proved to improve a patient’s health (“guidelines about what ought to be done” & “recommendations that have been proven to work”)
Use of the word “Treatment” and medical claim[edit]
Assuming (2), would make using the word “treatment” a medical claim, since it would mean the procedure is recognized and proved. This would pose serious issues about the possibility of addressing treatments listed above. For instance using the word “treatment” in a statement such as “In China acupuncture is used as a treatment for infertility” would be considered a medical claim / biomedical information, since this statement would be considered as supporting the claim that acupuncture is recognized and proven to work. It would therefore need WP/MEDRS sources to support it. If no such sources were found, the statement would be banned, which seems ridiculous, as it is a matter of fact statement.
Is merely calling something a “treatment” already a medical claim? Can the word “treatment” be used for anything which is not supported by WP:MEDRS sources? In which case, how can we speak of foreign treatments not supported by WP:MEDRS?
Risk of medical professional bias[edit]
Medical professionals may tend to see the ‘Treatment’ section as a description of medical recommendations aligned on FDA guidelines (i.e. a description of treatments that can be legally used in the USA), and not as an encyclopedic presentation of existing medical practices (both US and foreign, effective or not effective, etc…).
Do medical practitioners own medical articles in their field ? Do they qualify to decide what is and what is not a treatment, even when the treatment is a foreign allowed treatment? Can they ban foreign allowed treatments from Wikipedia? For instance on the basis that presenting them and calling them a “treatment” would be a medical claim that needs WP:MEDRS sources support?
Wikipedia medical articles scope[edit]
Is Wikipedia a worldwide encyclopedia or a manual of American medical good practices ?
Should all approved treatments (FDA and foreign) have the same weight?
Should all approved treatments from English speaking countries have the same weight in the English Wikipedia?
Policy[edit]
According to Wikipedia policy, medical claims are subject to WP:MEDRS, but non-medical claims are not. The information that a treatment is allowed only in foreign countries, is an encyclopedic fact, not a biomedical information subject to WP:MEDRS, and according to Biomedical information should not be construed as a subdued medical claim. Otherwise societal facts on foreign medical treatments could no longer appear in Wikipedia medical articles.
Treatments available in other English speaking countries but not in the US[edit]
en.wikipedia.org is not limited to America. It is the English Wikipedia. Medical practices in English speaking countries and in other parts of the world cannot be ignored solely because these medical practices are not approved by the US FDA. One example: English is the official language in Britain and India. How could treatments government-approved in these 2 countries and not in the US be prohibited from being exposed in en.wikipedia.org or be given less weight than US approved treatments?
Treatments only available in non English speaking countries[edit]
WP:MEDRS has inherent limits for foreign treatments when :
- literature is not available in English,
- reviews, secondary and tertiary sources are from foreign journals and publications,
- and are not available in Medline or other essentially English language databases.
Interestingly, all recommended sources of medical information mentioned in WP:MEDRS are in English. What about treatments approved in China with good Chinese medical literature support?
Presentation of FDA unapproved treatments in an article[edit]
Any recommendations on the presentation of such content? Should non FDA approved treatments appear within the ‘Treatment’ section, i.e. as a subsection, or within an additional section at the same level as the ‘Treatment’ section?
What about the wording: ‘FDA non approved treatments’, or ‘treatments not available in the US’, or ‘controversial treatments’, ‘alternative medicine treatment’, etc... (depending on the treatment) ?
Another example: Pain Management[edit]
Pain management article offers a glimpse at what can be done in order to present various kinds of approved/unapproved/unproven treatments.
Writing for the opponent[edit]
In the effort to build a consensus, please consider WP:OPPONENT , the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can. Thank you.
Riffstilde (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Confused. I was summoned here by a bot. I don't know what I'm asked to !vote about (nor where I'm meant to do it). It's offputting to see the US and the FDA mentioned in the list at the top of the RfC. As a reader I'm interested in what treatments are used for MRSA infection, and in whether they work. Sure, the FDA is a reliable source of information, but it's not the only one, and shouldn't be given special status in the question. Maproom (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This RfC is about how the article on MRSA can present treatments that are not officially admitted in the US but are widely used and officially approved in many other developped countries. This issue is raised because all attempts to list Phage Therapy as a treatment are blocked by a couple wikipedians, despite the evidence that Phage Therapy is very widely used by physicians in eastern countries: "Bacteriophages are currently produced in Russia on an unprecedented scale, like nowhere else in the world. Bacteriophages are manufactured as high-grade drugs, and the consumption of these antibacterial agents in Russia is more than 1 billion packs per year". Riffstilde (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - the issue is that we have opposed a section due to the therapy having no proven benefit therefore having undue weight. One or two sentences with a link to the article was not objected. MartinezMD (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for making this clear. Russian/Cszech/Moldavian/Georgian/Slovak/Polish/Ukraine doctors and governmental medical authorities in these countries appear to think diffrently as far as indications and proven benefits. Same for the FDA who allows the compassionate use of Phage Therapy. Anyway is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or a guide of good or bad medical practices ? Why do you let such exotic treatments as TENS, acupuncture and light therapy appear as sections in Pain Management article? You cannot censure information about the bare EXISTENCE of medical practice in foreign countries on the basis that you as an individual do not believe in its efficiency. I don't even want to argue about proven benefit (though there is abundant literature supporting it - how can you deny this? have you researched the subject?) because that's not the point here.
- By the way why don't you just suppress Phage Therapy wiki article? I cite the article: "Phages tend to be more successful than antibiotics where there is a biofilm covered by a polysaccharide layer, which antibiotics typically cannot penetrate. In the West, no therapies are currently authorized for use on humans. Phages are currently being used therapeutically to treat bacterial infections that do not respond to conventional antibiotics, particularly in Russia and Georgia. There is also a phage therapy unit in Wrocław, Poland, established 2005, the only such centre in a European Union country."
- As well, why do you accept a "Treatment" section in Phage Therapy Wikipedia article and refuse a "Treatment" section in MRSA? Riffstilde (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Because there no reliable sources that can be cited to support your position. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please find here a list of sources that bacteriophagics are approved drugs in many countries (scroll down a little to find a list of references by countries) and here about FDA compassionate use. You may want to reread the RfC: it is about presenting treatments that are not officially admitted in the US but are widely used and officially approved in many other developped countries. You are invited to make your choice in the survey below. For instance you may choose to Adopt Proposal 5 and explain that you feel "a therapy should not be listed as treatment if it hasn't been approved in the US, even though it is approved elsewhere", or you may choose Adopt Proposal 1 and suggest a prudent wording such as "a 2017 review found that"... "another review", or you may state that you feel needed to balance favorable/unfavorable statements, etc. Let's just try to find a consensual solution. Thanks. Riffstilde (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because there no reliable sources that can be cited to support your position. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
---------------------------
----- Proposals -----[edit]
---------------------------
These are proposed presentations of sections and subsections. Feel free to add your own proposal. Comments/preference/choice of proposal should be put in the survey section that follows the list of proposals.
Proposal 1
- 6 Treatment
- 6.1 Antibiotics
- 6.2 Phage Therapy
- Phage therapy has been used for years in MRSA in eastern countries ...
Proposal 2
- 6 Treatment
- 6.1 Antibiotics
- 6.2 Phage Therapy (requires FDA emergency exemption)
- Phage therapy has been used for years in MRSA in eastern countries ...
Proposal 3
- 6 Treatment
- 6.1 Antibiotics
- 6.2 Treatments used outside the US
- 6.2.1 Phage Therapy
- Phage therapy has been used for years in MRSA in eastern countries ...
Proposal 4
- 6 Treatment
- 6.1 Antibiotics
- .....
- 7 Phage Therapy
- Phage therapy has been used for years in MRSA in eastern countries ...
Proposal 5
- 6 Treatment
- 6.1 Antibiotics
- .....
- 10 Research
- Phage therapy has been used for years in MRSA in eastern countries and studies are ongoing in western countries.
Proposal 0
Phage Therapy should not be mentioned in MRSA article.
SURVEY[edit]
Please post your preferred proposal and comments here:
Keep Proposal 1. Clear and simple presentation. Riffstilde (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If the sources meet WP:MEDRS then include as in Proposal 1 otherwise, as in Proposal 5 The issue should be clear, if there are sources which qualify as WP:MEDRS, then it should be included in treatment, otherwise it should be included as valuable, but separate information. This RfC is not about whether the FDA is the only source of WP:MEDRS, it is about whether there are WP:MEDRS sources supporting Phage Therapy. Dryfee (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is an incoherent mess. Not a good use of the RfC process per WP:RFC and should be withdrawn. It is also just a continuation of the WP:BLUDGEONing advocacy for phage by this person. And no - we will not use "other" sections to COATRACK medical claims about phage into the page, sourced to the same bad sources that have been presented here all along. Transparently tendentious. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)