User talk:QRS

Damaging remarks by QRS to atack Noel Gray's patents

This is what QRS said of Noel Gray's patent;

"The patent is a nonsense patent; citing it is damaging to the article's subject and to Wikipedia, hence the ref. should be deleted.QRS 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QRS (talk • contribs)"

This is a medically uninformed comment. The first Noel Gray patent has been cited over 62 times in other patents and is the first pacemaker patent to identify the damaging effects caused by pacemaker imposed left bundle branch block. (XYZ)

..... No argument about "the first patent". Comments: 1)The possible fact the patent has been cited "over 62 times" is hardly an argument in defence of the patent. It simply means a patent, even a nonsense patent has been issued. 2) The clinical implications of pacing to only the right ventricle was obvious to any cardiologist of the time. The problem was not "identification", it was finding a solution. 3) The patent was issued because it was novel: a requirement for issue of any patent, but it was a "nonsense patent" because it was totally impractical in requiring lodging an artificial pacemaker between the apex of the heart and the diaphragm. This is impossible as both are in constant and irregular motion. Moreover, access to the region of the diapragm and apical heart would require major surgery, absolutely unacceptable when the minor procedure of pervenous electrode insertion was in long proven use. Further nonsense in the patent's claims is "the surface areas" "forming capacitance electrodes". Could user XYZ give any evidence of use of this patent ? QRS (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) The lack of knowledge of cadiology is stagering. The use of RVA pacing was a practical one and all practitioners from 1965 onwards after Lagergren identified use of the diagnostic catheter electrode for pacing was widely accepted. It was accepted because the alternative of general aneasthetic for direct implant of electrodes onto the outside of the heart was more fraut with risks than this procedure. The positioning of the electrode for optimal pacing was largely overlooked because of this fact. Now studies show the deleterious effect from RVA pacing can cause the development of heart failure and death. (Look it up David study) Now it is understood by the profession that optimal pacing sites are needed but the industry is reluctant to accept this fact. Studies that pace the apex of the left ventricle and right ventricle have shown that this pacing modalits is superior to rva LV free wall pacing (Look it up Frias and Skadsberg for a start) To attack the positioning of electrodes on the cardiac apex for the reasons above is to ignore the fact that cardiac volume varies little between systoly and diastoly, remember we have aclosed system here. Volune stays the same! I suggest that QRS do some remedial work to update himself on current thinking on cardiac physiology and pacing. XYZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.111.2 (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffcoat pacemaker

Could you please give published refferences to Jeffcoat's pacemaker research with you and reveal the kind of pacemaker this was? The Sun newspaper of November 1963 calls the pacemaker "Princes radio heart" is this the pacemaker? Educated reader

I take it from the absence of comment that the QRS alias is not prepared to come-clean regarding the great dillusion about the involvement of Nocks and Hume in the developement of a R/F coupled partially implanatble pacemaker. It is not ludacrous to explore the feasibility of making an implantable pacemaker using torch batteries in 1953! (verisatitom)

A warm welcome from Bottesiηi

Hello, QRS, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Happy editing! -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I'm on wikibreak right now

Invitation to CLINMED

I've noticed that you've been editing medicine related articles -- from your contributions. We have a place where the medically minded people hang out: WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". You are invited to join or just browse the talk page, which is also known as the doctors' mess.

From your user page, I've noted that you're a retired cardio-thoracic surgeon. It would be great if you could overhaul the CABG article and make it into a good article, like hepatorenal syndrome, Helicobacter pylori.

If you have the time, you're welcome to start a project on cardiothoracic surgery or cell biology-- like the subprojects in nephrology, GI, medical genetics.

We love to see referencing (policy: WP:REF). If you're looking for info on how to do references see WP:CLINMED/Writing_medical_articles. I look forward to more of your edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! Nephron T|C 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that's important is... you should be having fun. If you don't feel like writing about cardio-thoracic surgery you don't have to.

You ought to fix your signature:

Goto --> 'my preferences' (at top of page) --> 'User profile' (tab) --> 'Signature' (entry box):

Enter the following (or something... more creative):

[[User:QRS|QRS]] <small>[[User_talk:QRS| T]]|[[Special:Contributions/QRS|C]]</small>

Your signature will then appear as:

QRS T|C

It is convienent if one can click on the signature... :)

Feel free to ask any other questions you may have. Other helpful people... and actual doctors (I'm a med student) are User:Samir (The Scope) and User:Jfdwolff. Nephron T|C 05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another welcome

Hi QRS, good to see you around the wiki. Hope you stop by WP:CLINMED when you get a chance. We'd love to have you on board. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 09:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Noel Gray.jpg - copyright issues

Hi - you uploaded Image:Noel Gray.jpg to Commons claiming that you made the picture. Could I please confirm that you photographed Gray and this is your own personal copy. If you scanned the image from a book that is a breach of copyright. It has been claimed that a copyright breach has occurred and I need to clarify. Thanks --Matilda ^talk 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your response - I will delete the image on Commons. Do the same issues apply to Image:Geoff 2004.JPG? I note that it has been tagged as not having sufficient information on its copyright status.

Also in your issues with the edit summaries by the anon editor who is apparently Gray's son, are there some edits you want permanently deleted because they pass the threshold for offensiveness? I think the poor chap has problems and to me the edit summaries reflect on him as author not on anybody else but I am not close at all to the subject. Regards Matilda ^talk 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the image licensing for the picture of Geoffrey Wickham. I see no evidence in any of your edits that you have breached wikipedia policy :-) Regards --Matilda ^talk 02:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gray articles

No problems. Thanks in return for your work on the pacemaker articles. I stumbled across the Noel Desmond Gray and Telectronics pages after the AfD from last year which resulted in keep but cleanup. The articles are in fair shape but in need of more sources (doesn't everything?) I'm surprised at the persistence of our IP friend, but the removal of his personal attacks takes a minute a day at best. Euryalus (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

Publish an article to the journal.
Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
Join the editorial board.
Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
- Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
Technical work like template designing for the journal.
Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]