User talk:Doc James/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Autoreviewer

Hi, Jmh649. I noticed the recent mistaken speedy deletion tag you received back on November 11. Considering your lengthy edit history, referenced articles and understanding of policy, sending your articles through new page patrol seems unnecessary. I have added the autoreviewer rights for you. Cheers. CactusWriter | needles 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. The people over at reviewing are rather fast :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hypothermia move

I'll post on the talk page. Exxolon (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

swine flu, and Dec. 3 WHO press conference

Hi Doc James,

Today's WHO press conference with Keiji Fukuda is now available. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/swineflupressbriefings/en/index.html

Cool Nerd (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the message James! I hope to continue to improve wikipedia, most likely in the area of cars and car safety. I began college majoring in mechanical engineering in hopes of going into automotive safety, but now have realized engineering really isn't my thing. Hobby-wise though, automotive safety and technology fascinates me! Thanks again. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutonomousCars09 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiEd

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Plastikspork's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

tuberculosis article -- why delete important published clinical work?

If peer-reviewed science cannot be included in wikipedia, we have lost the value of the project. Was my entry too lengthy? If so, it can be shortened.Infinitesimus (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete well-known ASers

We are working on proper citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.20.43 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My edits

Actaully I do understand how the rules work here, so don't try and tell me I don't. And don't tell me those were legitimate needed citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.95.247 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach

I really wanted Mizabot to archive the "Contrasting Rorschach with other tests" to discourage further offtopic chat that was more about the topic rather than about the article. Would you consider leaving it at 10 days long enough for that thread to age off? Gigs (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sure do not care either way.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Gigs (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to answer a question left on the Agaricus blazei Page

"Agaricus blazei may up-regulate the immune system" does this mean it causes inflammatory bowel disease, dermatitis, and multiple sclerosis? Should it not be consumed by people with organ transplants for fear of increased rates of rejection?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Other mushrooms may also up-regulate the immune system according to published research. Shiitake is one mushroom that comes to mind. Since Shiitake does not cause inflammatory bowel disease, dermatitis, or multiple sclerosis, it is unlikely that ABM does so. However, this has not been proven. Jatlas (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Jatlas (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I was being sarcastic. What I see here is the conclusion draw ( that these mushrooms are great for year health ) and then evidence collected and interpreted to support this conclusion. If up regulating the immune system is good the mushroom does it. It down regulating the immune system is good than the muchroom does that too. A lot of the Alternative medications now use the term immunomodulated ( up when up is good down when down is good ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the idiotic claim that "more immune activity is always good" is common throughout AltMed advertising. "Activity" is not the same as clinically useful activity, and increased activity can be deadly.
I'd remove any such claims about ABM unless they're supported by truly excellent secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I know it is just the twisting of language to get around the FDA. I have a freind who runs a company that sells alternative medication and am used to the patter used to seperate people from their money in exchange for snake oil and false hope.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Doc medicinal mushrooms are "snake oil" that is why Cancer Research UK published reports on the subject. That is why many major research institutions in the US are currently studying this topic (City of Hope, Sloan-Kettering, etc.)[1]

There is a difference between recommending something that does not have evidence that it is effective ( snake oil ) and studying something that is not known to be effective ( research ). Cheers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will find out the answers in the future. Thanks for your insights doc. Jatlas (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I hope you have not found my comments to frustrating. The research just is not there to support the consumption of these substances based on health claims. I eat them cause they taste good, my wife by the way is Japanese so I am well aware of what is consumed in Japan :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No your comments are valuable. I wrote much of the page pretty much throwing all the research out there for people to deal with. I figured it would be edited and improved with time. I know what you are saying. Mushrooms are not drugs (like the page might suggest). However I deeply believe they are more than just food and may offer other benefits (much more research is need to confirm this). Anyways... take care and drop me a note anytime. Jatlas (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"A guy's book"

It's a well referenced book, but if you want we can just do with the underlying research or what's aval in PubMed. The underlying mechanism is cells that are "saturated" with saturated fat (and hydroginated oils) are insulin resistant; the fat blocks the receptor. I did discuss the information, and please join discussion before deleting material discussed.Zinbarg (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just the pub med research. Discuss on the DM talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I just looked again at what you deleted. MUCH more than cited by the book in differect sections of the article. Why did you remove all? Especially when it's already been discussed! Why didn't you participate in the discussion. Please add your input to the existing (last) discussion.Zinbarg (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Is Jmh649 a puppet for Doc James?Zinbarg (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If cure is what you are refering to it has been moved to the subpage of management. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could read the book? He cites reseach finding saturated fat basically blocks cell insulin receptors. He also cites research finding fewer mitochondria in those relatively high fat content cells. I couldn't find access to either study on the web, but I'll provide the exact sources. I would like to add that research (not the book) to several parts of the article.Zinbarg (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the book. It is a bit concerning if you cannot find the studies though? Pubmed has most stuff. If you give me more info I could look. Jmh649 is my account Doc James is the user name for said account. Only one account though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

and cannot cure the HIV infection

You are better educated than to try to deceive readers. Why add the comment that acupuncture cannot cure? who ever said it could? who ever said anything could cure HIV/AIDS? come on. don't mislead. Infinitesimus (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not add that bit. Was there before and therefore do not feel able to take credit for it. :-) Google does give 4.4 million hits when you type in HIV cure though. I am not sure how saying there is no cure is misleading? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, thought you had written the "no cure" bit. Of course we know the current situation re cure, but attaching the words "no cure" to acupuncture, herbs, drugs, or anything at all is inappropriate, since no one was specifically claiming (in this case) that acupuncture or home remedies were a cure. The paper cited was about helping with peripheral neuropathy, and it pointed out that hot baths were most successful. I hate misleading editorial additions. Thanks.--Infinitesimus (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC
Just a comment. I recently read a study (NYT I think) that found acupuncture is effective, but it doesn't really matter where you put the needles!Zinbarg (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GWS Additions

I saw your comments and additions over at Gulf War Syndrome and would like to expand on them, although I don’t feel I am well qualified enough to do so. Would you mind looking into these a bit further? Thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I responded to your question at my talk page. Hope it helps, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Favor

Hi there, I often see you around toxicology related articles and would like to thank you for improving them. I was just wondering if I could ask you a favor? I’ve been tinkering away at carbon monoxide poisoning for a while and would appreciate perhaps you having a look at it (if you have time) and giving me your opinion or suggestions for improving it? (or editing any of my sloppy mistakes) I was going to send it to GA soon but having another set of eyes look at it would help improve the article I think. Anyway any help would be appreciated. – Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Would be happy too. Just saw three cases last night levels of 15, 16 , and 17 carboxy HB.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I appreciate it. My access to Sciencedirect doesn't let me access PMID 16567227 / Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, What was the gist of it? Was it just talking about it mimicking the flu? Mr Bungle | talk 02:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Got the paper, thanks :). Mr Bungle | talk 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Diet

Is a total mess.Zinbarg (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly which page you are referring too. But yes lots of pages are a mess.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

I didn't understand what you were referring to in your recent contribution to Talk:Quackwatch, but since it included material that is repeatedly used to attack Barrett in violation of BLP, I removed it. If there's important information that I removed, how about excluding any quotations? --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just wanting to emphasis that this user who is going around promoting chiropractors is also infringing on copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Since the editor in question hasn't edited the article since, and had a detailed discussion about the problems with his edits, I don't see any reason to bring it up now on the article talk page. If he's made similar copyright violations in his edits, his talk page would be a good place to start a discussion on them. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
He continues on other pages. But thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If so, then the editor needs to be notified and a discussion should be started on having him blocked for such behavior. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Self harm

I moved the page and now there is a boat load of clean up that needs to be done. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Guerillero (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Self harm

'Re-posting from Talk:Self-injury#Self injury or self harm due to lack of action.: I just re-read the second part and am annoyed by the characterisation contained, as it is not related to the article but is simply derogatory, having been one of the friends who was only called when they were trying not to take/do anything. I have seen the other type of behaviour too and it is not related to self harm, but to attention seeking and is a different area that is closer related to people flash a scar and tell every one about their 'suicide attempt'. Most people who actually intend it tell no-one before and very few or none, after. --Natet/c 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nate. I am not sure what you are referring too? That some people self harm for attention and that some do it to relieve emptiness? I do agree that we have both groups. I however disagree that it is not related to self harm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The point was that you incorrectly characterised is as the norm to degrade an opposing argument. Also if you read the article it explicitly points out in paragraph two of this section, that doing so is less common and so comments conforming to the stereotype were not only inaccurate and offensive, but also imply you had not read the article. When said above "I have seen the other type of behaviour too and it is not related to self harm" I meant that it is not related to the psychology behind self harm discussed in the article. --Natet/c 09:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
People who take excessively quantities of pills do so more often as self harm than as a suicide attempt. That was my point. Just as most people who cut there wrist do so as self harm rather than as a suicide attempt. I admit I was crass just to make the point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for alt-text help

Osteitis Fibrosis Cystica.jpg

Is there any way you could drop by Osteitis fibrosa cystica and add alt-text for this histology image? I'm trying to satisfy a few FAR/Peer Review requests, and have no idea what would be expected for such an image. Strombollii (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just describe what it looks like. I havn't look into a microscope since medical school so am not really any good at it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Haha alright. Should I describe what is actually seen? (for instance, fibrosis or intrabecular tunnels) Or just essentially describe the forms and important discrepancies, void of medical terminology? Strombollii (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yah that's right. Green stuff, brown stuff, circles etc.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

If you have a moment, could I get your input regarding acronyms in the list of cutaneous conditions? Thanks again for all your help! ---kilbad (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Windbuchencom.jpg Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair trade

If you want to summarize criticism on Fair Trade, please mention better articulated and better documented arguments against Fair Trade - such as the argument by the Adam Smith Institute for example that says that Fair Trade encourages overproduction. The sentence about Fair Trade premium really doesn't mean anything (as I've explained before). Vincentl (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Breast Cancer

I thought the other two images were a bit graphic. While we are very much in need of pictures that describe the topic well, those images do not represent what breast cancer looks like for most women. Unless we want to go for a shock and awe effect, we'd be better off finding different images. Gobonobo T C 18:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Bell's palsy, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm referring to where you wrote "Corticosteroids have been found to [improve] outcomes [while] anti-viral drugs have not." If you can provide a reliable source for that kind of claim and write it in a more factual and verifiable manner, then you may add it back to the page.
-Garrett W. { } 09:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked your revert and you simply reverted an uncited text version to the previous uncited text version. If you feel the previous uncited text version was correct you should provide a source rather than misusing the Twinkle tool. You may also want to read WP:DTTR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your revert Garret,[2]. Doc James's change was representing the sourced article body. Your revert was not. If you have a good source you can revert me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
What sourced article?
-Garrett W. { } 20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey LG thanks for that well I am away from a decent computer. Garrett if you read the treatment section you will see that I have added a number of recent papers which support what I wrote. Please read the article. One does not need to ref the lead. Would also appreciate if you cross out what you wrote above. ThanksDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. *facepalm* Please forgive me – I didn't think to read the treatment section, and I guess I didn't realize the lead was merely a summary of the rest of the article.
-Garrett W. { } 04:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
ThanksDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Will look at the medical ones Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor, is there a default decision for GA reassessments? You have closed some of them because of inactivity. I am not in a rush. In fact, the longer it stays open, the more I can improve the article. I work on the article in question about 2-3 times a week, not daily or hourly. It seems that few people comment on the GA reassessment page so one user can conceivable fail them...leading to sad and demoralized editors! Of course, the assessor might not have a mission to fail articles, which is good!

I have read certain articles, don't remember which. Anyway, in some of them, the editor that guards or owns it hates experts and deems expert opinion as no better, probably worse, than the non-expert. I hope you don't come across that. Happy New Year! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I primarily nominate articles for GA reassessment that I do not think currently meet GA criteria. It seems that standards were easier years back. For articles that are being actively editted I shall leave open the GAR for a substancial period of time. Being here sufficiently long have come accross nearly everything :-)
Which article in particular are you refering too BTW? One can continue improving an article even when it is delisted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not too hard to figure out (Nokian Tyres) since the GA reassessment page has few articles. I prefer to work on it before it is delisted. It is discouraging to work on a delisted article (maybe like trying to work on a person who is not too sick rather than a person who is already blue in the face????) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PTSD article - proposed edits table (talk page) updated

James, in about 10 minutes or less I will have finished updating my "proposed edits" table, which I have created to elicit reaction BEFORE I make significant planned changes. I'm currently adding four new proposed edits. The first two concern edits you made some weeks ago. I invite you to criticize my thinking, if you wish. (I want to come out of the starting gate looking good, if I come out at all, which is very likely).TomCloyd (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I have already wished you a happy new year via email but shall do the same on wikipedia. I wish you and your family a Happy New Year. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks and the same to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Cancer treatment split

Thanks for moving the cancer treatment section of the cancer page into a new article. I was mulling over possibly renaming it "Cancer treatment," but now am not so sure. Any thoughts? Btw, I've been the primary (sole?) editor of the War on Cancer article for the past year or so, expanding it, tracking its history and latest developments. Kind of an interesting blend of science and society. I'd welcome any feedback you may have on it. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure just arrived home and will have a look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypertrichosis

Greetings DocJames: The semester has closed and thus deadlines for reaching GA on the AP Biology Project have come to an end. Can I assume that they fell short of their Goal for GA? It was a dreadfully challenging topic; although I was most impressed with their tenacity. As stated on the talk page - it is challenging to write an article on a symptom. However, comparing the original to the final product - I can't help but be pleased. My only concern is that they may have inserted mis-information. My expertise is limited; despite the fact that I fully intended to read and attempt to verify every line. Our goal is to improve - irregardless of GA; if that has not been the case please inform. Many thanks for keeping the GA open for so long; your critiques are always thorough and as last years students can attest - GA from you is very much the real deal. Thank you for your time and energy. Cheers JimmyButler (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is substantially improved but does not yet meet GA criteria. I do agree that this was a difficult topic. Working on named diseases ( like gout or anaphylaxis ) I think would be easier than trying to work with a symptoms or a human body system as diseases are more likely to be smaller defined topics. Anyway many thanks for the efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, DyslexicCrayon here, thanks for editing my upload to Self-harm :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DyslexicCrayon (talkcontribs) 08:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Links

That`s your opinion.andycjp (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And mine. --John (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

doc?

Please stop harrassing me.andycjp (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Have responded on your talk page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

that

is your opinion.andycjp (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are drugs like Codeine listed then there should absolutely be Hydromorphone, Hydrocodone, Oxycodone etc. etc. My addition did nothing but expand on the subject. As for the notes it is important to clarify that those with an asterisk are just the more commonly abused drugs. A drug like Fentanyl is much stronger than Morphine but less common to come by. Thats extremely relevant to a person who is about to take it with no knowledge of the drug. I dont understand how you can take something off of that page when it boosts awareness. Are you having a shitty day? Is that it? Sorry but SWIM just OD'd last night and this information would have been extremely useful had he known beforehand. Just because there are other Benzo's that can cause you to OD that arent listed there doesnt mean you should take away from the other categories. It means you should add to them. Thats the point of wikipedia. Balance isnt exactly the name of the game.

Get your head out of you arse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.157.249 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not attempting to create a complete list of possible opiates one can OD on. That can be done an the page pertaining to opiate overdose.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

chemo (taxotere) and zomata

my is Salvatore Simeti, I am living in the USA. I will be coming to Milan Italy on March 2. I am looking for a hospital who does chemo therapy

can you be of assistance to me. I see San Raffaele Hospital in Milan Has a oncology department. Do they give chemo. My doctor will give me a perscription for this treatment.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

my e-mail address is rosa28lisa@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.18 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am in Canada. Best of luck. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

Thanks for cleaning up the medical research section Transcendental Meditation. If you have any energy left, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health could also use some attention.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it just describes there approach to health and does not make unfounded health claims there is no worries. Will stick with just the one for now I think :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me just echo Will's comment that your edits to the medical research material on the TM-related articles has improved them immeasurably. Thanks for bringing your attention to this matter. Fladrif (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I may not fully understand what qualifies as a health claim, but I'd have thought that things like this qualify:

  • Studies have suggested a positive correlation between the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique and various health-related behaviors and physiological parameters[20] including decreased cigarette smoking,[21] decreased alcohol use,[21] decreased anxiety,[22] decreased insomnia,[23] reduction of high cholesterol,[24] improvement in lung function for patients with asthma,[25] and an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age".[26] Reduced illness and medical expenditures[27] and decreased outpatient visits have also been observed in TM practitioners.[27] It may also have an effect on a variety of disorders, including ADHD, pain, diabetes, and congestive heart failure.[28][29][30]
  • The MVAH practitioner uses pulse diagnosis (also known in Sanskrit as "nadi vigyan")[32][33] to determine the levels of imbalance and impurities in the patient and offer recommendations related to herbal preparations,[34] diet, daily and seasonal routines, exercise, and physiological purification.[35] Procedures that strengthen digestion and proper nutrient absorption are also given importance.[11] Proponents claim that the pulse can be used to detect “imbalances at early stages when there may be no other clinical signs and when mild forms of intervention may suffice”.[15][33]
  • Preliminary research suggests that these mulitmodal therapies, when used in concert with one another, may be effective in reducing cholesterol, reducing fat soluble toxins and creating an improved sense of well being.[44][45][46][47][48][49]
  • At Ohio State University, MAK-4 and MAK-5 were studied individually and together and were shown to be "highly effective against breast cancer" according to Christine Horner in her book, Waking the Warrior Goddess. Horner, who sells Ayurvedic remedies on her website, but not Maharishi Amrit Kalash or any Maharishi Ayurveda products,[74] goes on to say that MAK is "an effective anti-aging supplement" and "alleviates the horrendous side effects of chemotherapy".[75]
  • A study in 1996 by Sharma and researchers at Ohio State University showed that Maharishi Amrit Kalash-4 (MAK-4) had antioxidant properties, as assessed by inhibition of low-density lipoprotein oxidation, both in vitro and in rabbits. The results indicated that MAK-4 may yield increased antioxidant protection in the brain, and may therefore be useful in preventing or treating free radical-induced neurological disorders.[80]
  • A double-blinded randomized controlled trial involving 167 subjects found that the Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology was effective in reducing pain and stiffness in arthritic subjects. Those in the treatment group also had improved range of motion. One hundred percent relief of symptoms was the most commonly reported category of improvement due to treatment. Overall, the results were highly significant. Analysis of subcategories found significant results for the treatment of peripheral arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.[115]

That's not to say it's your responsibility to fix this stuff. I just hope we can get that article up to MEDRS standards as well.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely and fixed the page to match.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TM research

If you're editing TM research, please realize much of what is currently there is non-compliant, non-Indepdendet sources, much of it performed or penned by TM-related individuals. I'm noticing in some cases the studies author list is truncated in the ref section to conceal conflicted authors.
Also the Anderson/Univ. of Kentucky studies are TM sponsored counter studies, to try to drown out the damning conclusions of the Ospina-Bond/Univ. of Alberta study on meditation, which was devastating to decades of TM Org "research". Both Anderson studies have financial ties to the TM Org, at least one is performed with TM Org affiliates and the last one uses "health education" to tease some numbers from the use of poor controls (i.e. they were not compared to a similar person, eyes closed twice a day, with similar expectancy from a course, etc.). The use of poor controls has been known to adversely effect TM research outcomes for decades, but it's still being used by TM advocates and TM Org affiliates. Both the Anderson studies were massively disseminated by the TM Org to media outlets and the web for months.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks will take that into account.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Let me inform you of WP:ANI#Dispute at Naturopathy. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks will comment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TM dispute

The discussion is ongoing here Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Tense. Your comments / views would be appreciated. As this seems to be an ongoing issue further measures may be required.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look later today. From a quick scan, it looks like the edit warring has stopped, and there's a heated discussion on the talk page. Might want to be cautious about making accusations of vandalism, vandalism is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Unless there's clear-cut evidence of a deliberate attempt to compromise WP, such accusations can backfire on the accuser as being incivility, personal attacks or attempts to game the system.
Another continual problem on those article talk pages are the constant comments about other editors having a COI, these should be handled per Wikipedia:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest, taking the concerns to user talk pages, filing an RFC, a Mediation Request, or even an Request for Arbitration, which I think has been suggested by many of the contributors on the TM articles, including those being accused of having a COI.
Personally, I have no desire to engage in the TM dispute from a content perspective, but if there are any other specific behavioral or procedural issues you're concerned about, let me know. I have your talk page watchlisted, so please respond here so we can keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Dreadstar 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes thanks having someone look into COI would be a good idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)