User talk:159.196.170.117

June 2024

Hello, I'm Ae245. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Historical negationism seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ae245 (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You are accusing me of bias with your feelings (re: "seems"). Perhaps you should roll back the change you made. 159.196.170.117 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Vitamin C

Medical/health articles require references that meet standards described at WP:MEDRS. Individual clinical trials cannot be used as verification for text, only review, syestematic review or meta-analysis articles. David notMD (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That article cited is important because it has experimental design that overcomes some of the problems (dosing throughout a 24 hour day) of other studies mentioned immediately beforehand. I hope someone better than I at editing articles can use the information. Sorry I thought it was pertinent. The conclusion a reader may make from the meta-analyses could be erroneous. 159.196.170.117 (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Hemila 2013 (PMID 23440782) that trial published in 1999, reporting evidence collected in 1990-91, was excluded from a meta-analysis because it was not randomized nor double-blind. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but it still had a valid experimental control group and had important experimental design advantages over studies that conclude that the null hypothesis is not rejected.

The randomisation was endogenous to the individual participants in both groups and the placebo effect can be controlled for in known effect sizes in the literature.

There should be a Wikipedia page or a separate section on the best evidence even if it does not agree with the overall conclusion of meta studies; these examples of the best contrary evidence are important as they drill down to detail regarding issues like dosing rates and timing and experimental design.

Studies like the one I cited would not be ignored in academic literature review as they are peer reviewed along with the advantages mentioned above.

In the least it should be noted with the observation that such a study ought to be replicated with double blindness and randomisation. 159.196.170.117 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

---