User talk:Correctino

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Coconut oil, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. For medical content, WP:MEDRS reviews are needed. The sources you added are preliminary research, and are unencyclopedic. Zefr (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zefr But these articles were from official pages like www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, why aren't they reliable on their own? I didn't claim that they are more (or less) correct than the other articles, but that they are worth mentioning! --Correctino (talk) --Correctino (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)11:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed - the listing service you appear to think is an "official" government source - only creates and lists bibliographic information, explained here. Please take the time to read WP:MEDRS which the encyclopedia requires to support the sources used for medical content. If medicine isn't your area of expertise, then perhaps you shouldn't edit medical content; see WP:CIR. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Zefr. PubMed/MEDLINE only lists journals that meet some standards of scientific quality, at least according to the factsheet. And sometimes a high quality randomized double-blind cross-over interventional trial can have fair standing against reviews based on multiple trials. I doubt that most reviews can detect what trials have been omnitted from publication for whatever reason. But even if the reviewers had the resources to detect publication bias (what seems to be all but impossible without insider knowlegde, isn't it?) they would still be susceptible to systematic errors. In short: quantity doesn't trump quality. One famous non-medical example is the dieselgate scandal where a few tests exposed what hundreds of other tests failed to discover (because of a cheating mechanism that detected test situations). What can go wrong there could go wrong in medicine, too. (In this case the far from controllable human nervous system and differences in genetics and epi-genetics could act as the "cheating devices".) Don't get me wrong, I don't want to say that this has to be the case here, but I doubt your bottom line that only reviews should matter. --Correctino (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DNA-differences for example: There are a lot of studies where intermittent fasting prolonged life in most mice, but there are sub-populations of mice where this regime is detrimental. Imagine now that you are the unlucky mouse who belongs to a sub-population that would be far better off eating at will but follows the "95%-healthy" food regime, because Mousepedia would only mention the majority outcomes? --Correctino (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:MEDREV and view the evidence pyramids in WP:MEDASSESS to clarify what review literature means for medical content in the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Intermittent fasting. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zefr (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your second intervention is not understandable: here it's a review, so the top of the cited WP:MEDASSESS pyramid. And what is meant with "unsoursed"? I did source it. Then when are adverse effects seen in animal studies of no value in human medicine? Of course they are! For many years when a new drug had to be tested in vivo, it was tested on animals first. Perhaps in the near future some experiements with animals can and should be replaced with cell cultures, but a bad reaction in an animal trial is and will still be a red flag for application in humans. Sorry I cannot understand your argumentation nor can condone your style. --Correctino (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time for that this week, but I will come back on that later. --Correctino (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: But one thing is for sure: Paracetamol can cause liver damage in humans, see Paracetamol poisoning. In mice it was observed that fasting increased the damage, according to the review: Fasting of mice: a review You erased my edit, that may be o.k. (man and mouse aren't the same) but where is your article or explanation that refutes or amends this article (like "Despite the findings in study X with mice, in humans fasting didn't increase liver damage according to study Y...")? Then cite it nearby. But you didn't and instead you searched for that warning sign and strong words to make your point. That's not the way of science. No Sir/Madam! --Correctino (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've made a simple search and voila: There is a human study,too: see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7990219 (cited by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014937/#b17) You wronged me! --Correctino (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]