User talk:TarnavaA

June 2019[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. To sign, just type the four tildes and nothing else. You can practice in your sandbox. - Mr X 🖋 12:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen water refs[edit]

I am looking at various reviews (LeBaron 2019, Zhang 2018, Tan 2019, Zheng 2016, Iida 2016, Shen 2014, Ohta 2014). Consistently, these are long on mechanisms and results from animal trials - often describing inhalation, iv and oral - but very short on reviewing human trials. In the mentions of the latter, scattered across many disease indications (dementia, sports performance, radiation therapy side effects, cardio/metabolic disease, etc., see Ohta's Figure 4), so there is no opportunity to see multiple trials for the same condition(s). I may have time to revamp the entire article, but it will be along the lines and with the references I've just listed. I agree that the non-science refs in the current version of the article should be removed, or at least balanced by non-science sources that find more promise for the topic. The real issue is 'too soon.' Until larger clinical trials in a few of the more promising treatment or prevention diseases are published, the Wikipedia article should reflect just that. David notMD (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the comment that references to oral is likely in reference to hydrogen water orally consumed, as opposed to topically. One of the issues is the rodent studies have shown replication work and crossover with similar benefits across the various administration methods. Some replication work in humans, such as on rheumatoid arthritis, showed that both high concentration water and saline worked in a similar fashion. Water has more published human work than either inhalation or saline. As for 'true" replicative work, I would say the large range of potential applications combined with the almost non existent industry funding (public funded grants and teams) has lead to more new model designs than aims to replicate. Every public team wants their method and target to be the most profound, so they can increase citations. That isn't an excuse, just an observation. I think we both agree that the science is too green to make claims on definitive benefits in humans, except perhaps on athletic performance and (soon) on metabolic conditions as a promising adjucant therapy (unpublished larger scale trials are completed replicating smaller scale work) TarnavaA (talk)TarnavaA

Key issue here is that Wikipedia editors who focus on medicine/health topics live by WP:MEDRS, meaning no in vitro refs, no animal refs, no individual clinical trials, and a strong preference for systematic reviews and meta-analyses over narrative reviews that briefly describe individual trials. David notMD (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I wasn't clamouring for a large article on wiki on the subject, I recognize it is still quite green. That said, an article was made and brought to my attention and narrative reviews, including comprehensive reviews such as Ohno 2015 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4610055/) are of higher validity than the fox news article, etc. There is another review, lead author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_L._Nicolson here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291557157_Clinical_Effects_of_Hydrogen_Administration_From_Animal_and_Human_Diseases_to_Exercise_Medicine

however it is in a low quality journal and not the best work, in my opinion (it is more positive than much of the others). TarnavaA (talk)TarnavaA

changed the entire article[edit]

I changed the entire article, including refs. Let's see how other editors respond. David notMD (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

appreciated, I will keep passing on relevant info to the talk page and ping you and MrX with it, etc, as it comes up (when relevant to the wiki rules on sourcing). hopefully others jump in to help as it progresses. TarnavaA (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)TarnavaA[reply]

(So far) no one has completely reversed my radical re-write. I am traveling for a few days, may get back to flesh out a bit more detail from the refs I added when I get home. However, also working on getting Red yeast rice to Good Article. David notMD (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

appreciated. I cannot imagine anyone will have any major issues with what you wrote.. As far as I am aware the next review article will be available in full in September (it is pre press right now). TarnavaA (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)TarnavaA[reply]

COI[edit]

It seems very likely that you are Alex Tarnava, of Drink HRW. Is that the case? Guy (Help!) 01:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and much more, my IP is utilized by 50+ brands industry wide. hence my statement of a COI and no edits on my part. Doesn’t mean I’m not well versed in the research. As a note David Not MD’s rewrite used no primary articles and was all reviews. Your rewrite uses poorly researched pop media articles. TarnavaA (talk)TarnavaA

See motivated reasoning. Guy (Help!) 01:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read my talk page you’d see I flat out state I have COI on this topic. I also was upfront with the other reviewers from my first post on this talk page, and referenced my COI numerous times. You changed an article citing numerous reviews- which are held far higher than pop media articles, to write an article solely based off said pop media articles. You then cited ‘primary articles’ as the reason when they were not primary articles but reviews. What is your motivation? TarnavaA (talk)TarnavaA

Also, please do not patronize me as if I do not know what motivated reasoning is. If you’re actually interested in my actual thoughts on the subject, and why I encourage skepticism from both outside and within the field, I have an article on it here:

https://drinkhrw.com/blogs/news/hydrogen-and-skepticism

TarnavaA (talk)TarnavaA

Ref listing[edit]

Listing refs at a Talk page of an article that do not meet WP:MEDRS because the refs in question are for individual clinical trials - some dealing with inhaled or topical or intravenous hydrogen - could mislead editors into incorporating those refs into the article. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD (talk · contribs) I have them broken down into which are in water, etc (it is actually marked on the list I posted). I was trying to mitigate incorrect perceptions. There is early replicative work, and much of the work is supportive if not completely replicative. There are also hundreds of studies in animals to date.

"very little work has been done in animals. A few articles have been published on the topic, but the clinical literature is sparse and what has been published covers many conditions, but not multiple trials of any one condition." TarnavaA (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)TarnavaA[reply]