User talk:CrunchyChewy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Vertebroplasty. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

CrunchyChewy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Please read all of my edit summary comments on the Vertebroplasty article over the past two to three days. Please also read the recent discussion page changes. I have responded extensively to all of user:Vertebralcompressionfractures' changes. I have also responded to his sock puppet Wordstir. Do you feel that he has been honest? Also right now the page is left in advertisement form - at the very least it should be reverted.

Decline reason:

Discussions do not trump the edit war that has been occurring. Both you and vertebroplasty have been blocked for 24 hrs for edit-warring. It takes 2 to edit war, and although you did the corret thing by reporting the issues, you actually did it after you had clearly violated the policy yourself. I recommend both of you remain blocked while admins further investigate the allegations provided. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Promotion-only account has been indef'd, WP:EW can be considered to have been valid attempts to prevent promotional edits.

Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Vertebroplasty article[edit]

Let's try to resolve this vertebroplasty issue. Firstly, I work for a medical device company that sells materials for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, so I have an indepth knowledge of the procedures and their drawbacks. However, I am not editing this on behalf of the company and I think I'm editing fairly. I want to present a balanced article, in compliance with WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. It's something I think we're both trying to reach.

The NEJM articles are very important articles and present excellent, previously-unknown knowledge and information to practitioners, patients, and device makers. I think those points are accurately conveyed in the article. However, there are some questions about the studies, including those from nearly all of the organizations that represent physicians who perform the procedures. I think those questions should be included as well, and not just in passing.

In addition, there are other studies that are important as well, including the VERTOS II and FREE studies (the latter of which isn't yet mentioned). Although in theory they are not as solid as the NEJM articles, they also don't have a lot of the flaws the NEJM articles have. While their limitations, such as the unblinded nature, should be (and are) presented, the studies are both significant and were solid RCTs.

I think we can work together to come to a resolution. We can even go through each section one-by-one if you think it'd help. heat_fan1 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To point out the obvious your financial stake in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty makes you a biased source, even if you honestly believe your edits. Numerous psychological studies have demonstrated that having a vested interest in an outcome has a profound influence on one's decision making despite the subject's honest insistence to the contrary. I on the other hand have nothing to gain or lose in the matter beyond a desire that people and patients get an honest accounting of the medical evidence.
As I've said before the NEJM articles support rather than refute the results of the VERTOS II as well as the FREE study. The NEJM article only refutes the conclusions drawn from the results of the other studies.
I actually feel that the article as it exists is too conciliatory to the procedures. I, however, am not the lord of Wikipedia. There are established procedures for addressing disputes in articles and I suggest that you pursue one of those routes, though you run the risk that a moderator who is disinterested in the results will rule against your position.CrunchyChewy (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This message is an attempt at following the dispute procedures. Obviously you don't want to work this out so I'll have to go to the next step. And restating my bias is a nice touch. I want to present facts that are being left out. Opinions can be biased; facts, such as that medical professionals question the NEJM articles, are verifiable, indisputable, and should be included. heat_fan1 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Do we have a ref which states "The benefit noted in the blinded trials could be entirely explained by the placebo effect, therefore casting doubt on the benefit of the procedure for these other subgroups."? If so can you please provide it. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is the two NEJM blinded trials that are already cited numerous times. The patients in both the placebo and the experimental groups each had substantial and similar improvement. The results of the blinded trials fully support the results of the unblinded trials; the blinded trials simply refuted the conclusions that were previously drawn from the results of the unblinded trials.CrunchyChewy (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from these two blinded trials. But do any secondary sources draw this conclusion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes and I agree but for a controversial topic like this we need to attribute even the obvious to another source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)