User talk:Doc James/Archive 110

Archive 105

←

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

→

Archive 115

Thank you for your change to my information about "Causes" in the article on OCD.

Doc James: I appreciate your catching the incomplete reference I made today to the OCD article. I realize that the reference I made was not to a recognized medical authority, but it was the source of my information about the possible new cure for obsessive-compulsive disorder (with a medication that is already available to cancer patients). Previous information in the article stated that there was known cause of OCD. The reference source I cited was based on information taken from a well-known medical journal, which I mentioned in the text I added. I am not a doctor, so I hope that a more knowledgeable person than I am will follow through on clarifying the amount of progress made through these new German lab results. Thank you so much for your assistance with Wikipedia medical articles.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The research which I mentioned in the text of the Obsessive-compulsive disorder , giving reference to a different, derivative website was originally taken from "Molecular Psychiatry" and was cited in the derivative source. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I offer this deleted information hoping that someone will follow through with updating the article.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note User:Mitzi.humphrey

The text added was"In 2017 a possible cause discovered by German scientists was announced. While previously unknown, a new study published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry has shed light on a potential source in the brain."

And the source was Teen Vogue. We follow WP:MEDRS fairly closely. This is in rodents and it is unclear if it applies to humans. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Mitragyna speciosa problems

It looks like 2 editors, Jytdog and Zefr, are suppressing scientific doubt about evidence of respiratory depression and liver toxicity in kratom use. They do this by wiki-lawyering to remove clearly expressed doubts in the best scientific literature and citing a publication of the DEA, a law enforcement agency, which contains no specific references for a statement on liver toxicity.

In order to proceed, please restore to "Mitragyna speciosa: Revision history", for reference only, this deleted version of the article: 19:55, 29 March 2017‎.

If you have time, as well, please review and restore edits to the article to address my concern about suppressed scientific doubt on respiratory depression and liver toxicity in kratom use.

Thanks, Kolyvansky (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of the issue appears to be copyright issues. You do not appear to have joined the discussion at Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I realize that now, but I put much effort into that version and need those passages to rebuild. Please restore version "19:55, 29 March 2017‎" to "Mitragyna speciosa: Revision history". Thanks, Kolyvansky (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Could email it to you if you turn email on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kolyvansky@gmail.com Kolyvansky (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Another DEA problem

Please check over Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa#15_deaths. I don't think we should cite DEA's unsupported claims as scientific truth. Citing them as claims by the DEA is OK. Thanks, Kolyvansky (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Hypertension edit

I had edited it. Added a reference from The American Journal of Medicine. It is a medline and Pubmed indexed journal, so it is a completely reliable source. Kindly allow this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.37.110 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:1.186.37.110 do you have a PMID? I am not seeing it. Also it is not a review article. We have better sources on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a review article only. The pmid is 28373112. Kindly make the necessary changes. Thanks.1.186.37.110 (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Adverse vs Side Effects

I read your edit summary on the Ketorolac article and thought I would let you know that there is a distinct difference between adverse and side effects according to my sources. Not withstanding, medical terminology may not be the same everywhere (Canada, UK, Australia). According to my sources side effects are common and can be expected when taking a medication. Other side effects are relatively uncommon, but still are manifested in <1% of those taking the medication. Adverse effects, on the other hand are uncommon but are more serious consequences such as organ damage or hypersentivities (not allergies), or adverse effects are dependent upon genetic influences. The point being - readers can know when they read the article that side effects are expected, but not as serious or common as adverse effects. Readers probably appreciate the distinction and the chances of having a side effect vs. a serious adverse effect.

Best Regards,

Barbara Page

should be back soon--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Per the WP:MEDMOS here[1] we use one OR the other.

They are similar enough that one is enough IMO. Treatment and management have slightly different meanings but we still use only one. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism tests

Hi James, I hope that all is well with you. When I come across insertions such as these, do I need to report them somewhere? It is a strange act of vandalism, do you think that a person is just "testing" to see how wikipedia works? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_age&action=history Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's what Wikipedia calls a test edit. You can make a judgment call: unless it appears to be intended maliciously, you can simply revert it as you did. Alternatively, you can go to the user's talk page, and leave a standardized message. You would use the month and year (example: April 2017) as the section header, and then use a template from Template:uw-v or Template:uw-t. As you can see, the level-1 template is quite gentle. But it's not something to report unless it becomes very repeated after warnings (in which case the place to report it would be WP:AIV). I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example of what it looks like: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Tryptofish:. This is useful information. JenOttawa (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:JenOttawa and User:Tryptofish. Yup simple vandalism. Apologies, this last week I was at a ski hut where they did not let me use the satellite Internet :-( I will not book such a hut again... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Omega-3 edits

Doc James - I have been making changes to the Omega-3 entry (and to a lesser extent to Fish oil). I know these entries have been prone to heated debate in the past, so trying to tread cautiously. I added "Citation needed" in a few spots where I have appropriate references but have not yet had the time to internalize the content. Intend to get back to those. On the issue of COI, as a consultant to the dietary supplement industry I have clients that sell omega-3 products. None have ever asked and none are aware that I edit Wikipedia entries. My intentions are to make changes for clarity, resting on science-based evidence and NPOV. David notMD (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Doc James is away, i've no doubt he'll respond ASAP(though you've done quite a few edits on[3])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please ask him to look at Omega-3 Talk. There is a new ref - the new AHA guidelines - that is above my pay grade to interpret and incorporate. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Am looking and will reply on the talk page... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Adjust"

This [4] edit is not "adjusting" the text as your summary describes. It is in fact reverting it. It would be considerate if you could comment on the talk page or GA review (as you may know you have reverted this change, requested in the active GA review, with the summary "adjust"). Will await discussion on talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:LT910001 have commented here[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sildenafil and Central Serous Retinopathy (blurry vision)

Doc James,

 Thank you for the feedback on my Central Serous Retinopathy edit/addition on the correlation of Sildenafil (and other phosphodiesterase 5 medications) with blurry vision due to CSR.  I should have quoted my source (there are many in this regard).

  I'll go back in soonest and re-add that with full documentation.

Appreciate the assist.

Cheers,

Dr. Matthew Rings, MD US Navy, Ophthalmology Naval Aerospace Medical Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrings (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Docrings. Appreciate it. Also please see WP:MEDRS with respect to sources.

This ref says "Because sildenafil can increase ocular cGMP concentrations via inhibition of PDE type 6,1 33 57 67 77 86 87 88 91 95 106 can produce transient visual abnormalities" [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Peritoneal dialysis

Doctor, you are well informed and possessed of a reasonable wit. In all prior cases, I have immediately accepted your modifications or rollbacks as correct. Do you really think the reference is clearly stating things when it claims "sodium, chloride, and hydrogen carbonate", or do you think that this is an oxford comma situation where there is a misleading comma? Surely the intent is that there are two anions and a shared cation. The literal interpretation of the quote you gave would have metallic sodium as a component of a dialysis solution - something that would likely be immediately fatal.

I have always deferred to you in the past, but perhaps listing the individual components (regardless of the reference) is a clearer and more correct path. Please consider rolling back your rollback Riventree (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Riventree when it says "sodium" it is referring to "sodium ions" rather than "metallic sodium". I see the article on sodium as covering both. Same thing for the chloride, it is referring to chloride ions rather than chlorine gas. These can be arrived at in solution by methods other than a sodium chloride solution.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

replying

history of medicine, learning how to add to wikipedia. Happy to take your advice.Whispererr (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Whispererr let me know if you have further questions. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Tocotrienols

FYI - I cut more than half the content of the tocotrienols entry, as so much of it was based on in vitro and animal work. Other cuts for repetition. I left some content in the health effects section, but even that is all based on primary work (individual clinical trials), and for stroke or radiation protection, no human work at all. A recent review concluded that more research needed for any claims for health benefits. (PMID:27792171). A radical but logical edit would be to remove all the content on health effects and replace it with a sentence that there have been interesting preliminary clinical studies for health effects, but a review concluded that more research is needed in all areas. I am willing to make this next step, but would like your opinion first. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't delete content because it was based on in vitro or animal studies as long as they are sourced to reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Q - The refs in question were primary in vitro and animal, not reviews that included in vitro and animal. But thanks for reminder on W policy. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am seeing the trimming of a lot of old primary sources such as [7] and [8] which is excellent. Yes we can keep research based conclusions based on animals as long as they are from reviews. Human based review of course are preferable. Thanks User:David notMD for your work :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

David notMD, I usually try to find reviews to replace primary sources rather than wholesale delete everything. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree QuG. I have done further updating based on reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

All - Those are the same reviews I was seeing, and am content with leaving this where we are now and going back to my day job. David notMD (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Slaphead listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slaphead. Since you had some involvement with the Slaphead redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Need some advice re OTRS ticket

Any chance you could take a look at ticket:2017032010018835? For privacy reasons I'll not summarize but I think it'll be obvious why am asking you. (I do see that you are on vacation so if you cannot respond, that's okay.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick just got back and happy to take a look. What que is that in? Unfortunately I still only have access to one que. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It is in info-en. You have access (as of 2 minutes ago).--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Perfect User:Sphilbrick. I will update the page in question and then reply to the individual in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes things do work out. --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick Have adjusted the article in question Eosinophilic cellulitis to address the concerns raised. Thanks for pinging me :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive work you did to the article and for your response to the reader who made the query. Working in OTRS has its ups and downs, sometimes feeling like clearing the Augean stables, but on occasion, something like this happens and I feel uplifted. Thanks for making my day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

3D printer use in transplant

Please advise on best place to add the use of 3D printer in transplant. Just been on wiki learning. History of medicine is my interest.Whispyhistory (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Whispyhistory was User:Whisperer. (She forgot her login.) I'm with her now at an editathon. She's new, of you're able to help her with what she's trying to do. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Whispyhistory and User:Bondegezou Sure let me look :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

So could go here Organ transplantation but we need a proper secondary source. There are a number such as this review article and this one Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, James. (Sorry for brief message earlier: hectic editathon. You know what it's like.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries User:Bondegezou. Will be around for a bit if you have more Qs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I will research further then let you know. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Whispyhistory (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Bickerstaff's encephalitis

Should this be renamed Bickerstaff's brainstem encephalitis? Googling shows most articles by that name.
encephalitis.info Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

as indicated above he'll respond ASAP.....[9]seems somewhat divided--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: On Pubmed, putting it in quotes w/ hit count: "Bickerstaff's brainstem encephalitis" returns 103 hits, "Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis" (no "'s") 63 hits, "Bickerstaff's encephalitis" 21 hits and w/o "Bickerstaff's" "brainstem encephalitis" 435 hits. Maybe just "Brainstem encephalitis"? No idea. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hum. I am not sure User:Jim1138. Orpha.net uses "Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis"[10]

Maybe start a move request? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Argh! Started to add a move request, lots of text then my browser crashed. Would you recommend the suggested move to "Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis" (no "'s")? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 looked more closely. Agree should be renamed and made the move :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I notice that on http://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/OC_Exp.php?lng=en&Expert=79138, while the heading of the return is "Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis", in the disease definition box, it's "Bickerstaff's brainstem encephalitis" (with the 's) Thank you so much for moving the page! Jim1138 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That page also uses "Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis" Do you want it moved to 's? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether to merge Patient_participation with Shared_decision_making

Two days ago I added to a multiple-year-long discussion, and have not received any resonance yet. Here is my addition at the bottom of this page.

Would you care to comment on the idea? How could one establish consensus without waiting indefinitely?

My angle is whether to add policy issues to any merger of Patient_participation with Shared-decision-making.

Thanks for your recent notification in another matter. Seniorexpat (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Seniorexpat Looks like there is consensus to merge per "There is support for a merge of these articles. There is not agreement on the name - both "shared decision-making" and "patient participation" are favored."

I think you can be bold and simple merge the two. I would merge to the broader concept. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished.

I was a little hesitant to come back so soon but a reader claims that arteries and veins have been mislabeled. Another agent responded, literally as I was in the middle of typing this, but I noticed you are the most recent editor to have edited the article some hoping you can take a look. ticket:2017041110027582 --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree that the image is mislabeled. Have ping the person who created it[11] as I am not good at editing svgs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem fixed[12] :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail links

Hi Doc, you asked a while ago about how MastCell generated the list of all WP:MED-tagged articles citing the Daily Fail. I just realised, MastCell had already answered that question here. I've added that link to the original list.

Pinging JenOttawa, Ozzie10aaaa and CFCF.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful User:Adrian J. Hunter thanks. User:Ladsgroup can you generate a list for us based on the above script? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

great!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa and Adrian J. Hunter: Have fun Ladsgroup^overleg 14:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

interesting[13]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Referencing CME

Hi DocJames, thank you for referring me to the guidelines on referencing which appears to focus on published peer reviewed articles. Im a medical writer working in hepatology with access to professional congress material put forth yearly by a reputable medical association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and I'm interested in sharing specialized information coming out of their CME events which are in the form of multimedia presentations accessible to registered users on their portal. I understand the reference must be verifiable, so would that be possible by providing you a reviewer access to the portal? There are other educational items located there that I could also reference such as abstracts, guidelines, eposters etc. Thanks for your feedback, Angelakumar (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Angelakumar typically we stick with review articles rather than CME courses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Osteoarthritis

Dear James: I wrote a line on this article. I thank you for improving my reference. On the other hand, you should not have moved this line from Medication to Alternative medicine because the new reference says "prescription glucosamine sulfate and/or chondroitin sulfate".

Syncerely yours. Adelpine (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion of glucosamine WRT OA should all occur together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail at MMR vaccine controversy

Regarding this edit, I agree that it's not a reliable source and support its removal, but what about The Sydney Morning Herald (name="norrie") which you also removed? DMacks (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:DMacks thanks. I removed that one by mistake. Will be more careful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! No worries. DMacks (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sujok Therapy nominated for Deletion

Dear Dr. James, It is correct that Sujok therapy has only one cited reference in Pubmed However, this method is vastly explored and used only by medical doctors in Russia, as a matter of fact it is part of the services suggested by the medical system. Many people use Sujok therapy throughout the world. It should appear in Wikipedia. I saw you deleted the section regarding the research of this method. Perhaps there is another way to present the current situation of Sujok therapy. Here are some links to the research translated to english, I know it is not Pubmed, but we can not ignore the work. It is not promotional...I can add more. Sujok for Hypertension Impaired menstrual function Pashut2000 (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like bunches of medical claims without support from high quality references.

What is your relationship to the topic in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail links

While I agree that it's a good idea not to rely on the DM, might I suggest that you look for alternative sources rather than deleting the cited material outright? Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the material. Some of it adds nothing.

Look at this one for example[14]. We have a Cochrane review, what is with the dailymail?

When it comes to the DM, no reference is better. At least people than know that the content is poorly supported. A blue reference give the allusion of support. (paid editors often add refs that do not support content for this effect) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And if you're going to remove a DM ref, but not the content (see diff), could you please try to find an alternative, or add a {{cn}} tag. Thank you (I've fixed that one, by the way). Edwardx (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure will do so going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

finasteride

I've made good faith edits to the finasteride article that attempt to accurately describe the current scientific consensus. These were undone by jytdog who claims that these most recent edits I made are the same as previous edits, which is not correct.

I've made suggestions on the talk page which have been ignored.

For controversial stuff often one needs to get consensus point by point. Suggestions need to be well defined and well referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete hypervitaminosis E?

D - In my opinion the entries for hypervitaminosis A and D are appropriate, but the entry for hypervitaminosis E should be deleted. The information is covered within the vitamin E entry. People searching for information on vitamin E are very, very unlikely to start with hypervitaminosis. I tried adding it to the AFD list, but may not have gotten that right - it showed up in red. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You have not formatted the request properly.

But why not an article on the condition? It is covered in Goldfranks[15] It is a well defined condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Checking a ref

Hi Doc James. If you have a moment, would you mind assessing whether the source cited in this addition meets WP:MEDREF? Im afraid it's above my pay grade. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a small "Sixty HIV-infected men on HAART" study. So no not MEDRS compliant.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted. Thanks! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Censoring found at HPV Vaccine page

"Doc" James,

Wiki notes you were the last editor of record for the HPV Vaccine page, 11 hours ago. I assume you are not a medical professional, but correct me if wrong.

I completed an editing session 3 hours before your edit. The corrections I provided to the entry were wrongfully removed, since they met Wiki's guidelines and were made in the public's interest.

The removal of these corrections indicates a probable enormous conflict of interest affecting readers of Wiki, which look for correct and current information.

As you should be aware, Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil has led to numerous legal suits filed against the company in several countries. Legal suits are also ongoing in the US at Vaccine court. Plaintiff's have won and are winning.

Since internationally escalating adverse events to the vaccine have proved a causal link from it to autoimmunity, death, blood clots, paralysis, and more, scientists are pointing to a toxic aluminum ingredient, which Merck apparently increased in its latest version called Gardasil 9.

Furthermore, the refs I provided (and was to add today) prove young women in India, France, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Columbia and the US are walking testamonies to the criminally incomplete, false and misleading information promoted in the entry before I corrected it.

Why were these same medically irresponsible falsehoods added again? As you may not know, they are a basis of Merck's criminal charges in France, as ruled by a Judge there. In the US, the Vaccine court effectively concurs, despite the provision that drug manufacturers cannot be sued directly.

Additionally, a Merck researcher has publicly debunked the company's beneficial vaccine claims a few years ago.

Therefore, an archived version of the corrections must be reinserted in the entry. If you are responsible for deleting the corrections, I suggest you remove yourself from reviewing medical entries.

The lives at stake are more valuable than the financial profits of a corporation that directly benefits from a Wiki fluff piece, curiously repromoting misinformation that's been found responsible for criminal negligence.

I will look again later for the corrections, so as to add additional information. I will escalate this issue if it's not resolved.

72.143.230.163 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Susan

We do not use the popular press for medical content per WP:MEDRS. You need to use high quality review articles published by major medical journals.

Court cases do not show what "Adverse effects are present Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

can you help

hello Doc James on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing there is a audio clip there that I find questionable. The content says Teenagers begin to lose the ability to hear high-pitched sounds.[12] By the age of 25, most adults cannot hear this 10-second audio clip at a frequency of 17.4. But I am over 50 and can hear it, I was going to remove it but the page is apparently the page is protected so only people with accounts who have had it for a little while can edit it so since I am new and just created this account I can not I was wondering if you maybe can take a look at it. I originally went on live chat and someone there said to ask you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userdoctor (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Userdoctor recommend you post on the talk page to start with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ok also so you do not have any opinion on the clip?

Not yet :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I will try and start a discussion on the talk page later but if possible could you maybe review the clip and see if it is acceptable because I have doubts pleasure talking with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userdoctor (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I will need to test on a couple of computers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ok and for what it is worth I did test it on my desktop and my laptop even put made the sound on both of them as low as possible to still can hear it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userdoctor (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Foundation and paid editing

Doc, per our exchange re that letter, I just wanted to bring to your attention the "update" contained in the Advertising Age coverage of the Smallbones letter.[16] I found it extremely weak, mealy mouthed and generally pretty dismaying. I read that and said to myself "if they don't give a shit about this problem, why should I?" Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree it could be stronger. They are acknowledging that we are a self governing community (which is good). I imagine that they will support community lead efforts (we just need to indicate how they can support us). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Atkins Diet Edit

Regardless of your opinion of the Atkins Diet (I don't personally use it), modified versions of the diet are prescribed for various health issues including epilepsy.

My edit removed a piece of opinion which cited a reference which is an opinion piece by an unqualified online blogger. The reference doesn't even link to the online blog website which makes it look like a book reference. I've corrected this page to remove the poorly referenced opinion and in doing so make the article more objective. This information was included in my description of the edit and you've chosen to ignore it and restore the opinion and bad reference.

I've seen Daily Mail references removed on here again and again (I believe rightly so). This behaviour just suggests it's lip service and the low quality status quo will be maintained. I wont bother reverting the edit a 4th time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.250.40 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not heard of the Annals of Internal Medicine called an online blog.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Thanks for your help on Lethal white syndrome. My question is if some scientific journals have licensing that would allow free use of an image of an actual LWS foal — for obvious reasons, it would be near-impossible to get photos any other way but via published veterinary case studies. Can you provide ideas? Or, do you think images would qualify as fair use of any published image? (Some examples: [18], [19], [20], [21]. Any thoughts appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

as indicated above I'm certain he'll respond as soon as possible[22] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Montanabw fair use cannot be used for such images unfortunately. Sometimes one will have success by emailing authors asking them to release either that or another image of the condition under an open license.

Here is a search engine for open access images[23]. One still needs to double check. Unfortunately I see non for Lethal white syndrome. I can ask a family friend who teaches at a vet university if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be great if you could ask; we need more images for the VETMED equine articles, I will check the NIH site for other things, definitely -- thanks for the tip on that. One of my "causes" is trying to educate people about not breeding horses that carry recessive genetic lethals... or at least not breeding them to one another... (This was the first article I ever created on WP -- and then I wrote this (both would benefit from some updating, I see...LOL) . Montanabw^(talk) 03:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Montanabw sent off emails. Will let you know if I hear anything back. Will see if the U of S is interesting in collaborating generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)