User talk:Xasodfuih/Archive 2

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


Do you have a source from the FDA about FQ toxicity. If you look at the ref it doesn't go to anything which is why I do not have that section in the new article. By the way people on FQ have severe infections, people with severe infections die frequently, need to see a true study to say how FQ caused these deaths. By the way I am still adding to the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The footnote reference is rather vague. It looks like the group that recently descended on that article had requested the data from the FDA themselves. I do have a somewhat remote friend working at the FDA, but we haven't spoken in like 6 month; I could ask her for a favor if there's no other way to verify this data, but I'd rather not bother her for something like this.
As for the fate of the WP:CFORK, at some point I expect that "their" article will become a redirect to "yours". A kerfuffle is virtually guaranteed at that point, so we need to be able to say that "your" version doesn't omit important info. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes I know. What I put together was a quick job. It is not comprehensive but at least is based on reviews. Still needs work. By the way I have a copy of PMID 17891121. Email me with the tab on my user page and I can send it to you. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Email sent. As for FDA data: FDA makes available the post-2004 AERS data here (SGML and text format) For older data, you have to ask. Since they have a database and those publicly available files are just queries over time ranges, they just return the output for a certain query, e.g. someone could ask for the reports just for Factive; Here is an example of the data for haldol (printed as a PFD). Almost certainly the FDA won't count the deaths for you. But both the products involved and whether a death occurred have their own SGML fields, so any computer-savvy person can find how many deaths were associated with a given drug practically with no room for error and no need to interpret anything medical. Whether using something like this in a Wikipedia article satisfies WP:OR and WP:V is iffy. At least the intermediary between the FDA and Wikipedia should be noted in the reference, and they should have published these summary numbers, and preferably the whole dataset (it's public domain) somewhere else. So, the ref could look like: <ref> deaths computed by Public Citizen from FDA AERS data on Drug X; link to PC site or give some publication where it appeared.</ref> Sources get rejected as unreliable for less on this wiki, so YMMV on this one. Maybe you should copy this post to WT:MED (feel free to edit it as necessary), and ask for more opinions. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Libby Zion law

Updated DYK query On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Libby Zion law, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fad diet

Bring it to reversal. Will vote / argue to have the decision changed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluorosis pic


I uploaded a new pic of mild fluorosis. It shows what a mild case would look like. Most notable on the upper right central incisor- the white streaks are it. Hope it is useful. - Dozenist talk 01:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Yes we tried. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Hey Xaso I have a pro obesity editor who has come along and tried to water down the obesity page to fit his POV rather than the evidence. If you have any time would appreciate you opinion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation

Xasodfuih, would you consider moving most of your suggestions to the article talk page and concentrate on specific WP:WIAFA issues here. FAC is not the place to discuss the detail of journal articles. The FAC was restarted when it became unwieldy and the same is only going to happen if discussion continues in this manner. BTW: I disagree that WF should be structured like a drug article. Colin°Talk 09:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the applicable rules since you insist on that level of discourse. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Xasodfuih, you completely misinterpret my comments on this talk page. They weren't "adversarial", I didn't "disagree that this article has anything to do with pharmaceuticals" and didn't blame you for the FAC restart.
If you want your FAC comments to be read by others (avoiding TL;DR), and to allow space for others to review the article, it helps to keep the FAC comments to the point. In a similar way to how you wrote your follow-on comment, mention each WIAFA criterion it fails on and then briefly indicate how it fails. Detailed advice on how to improve the structure should be presented and discussed on the article talk page. The only aspect of that that is relevant to FAC is whether there is consensus that it must follow a certain MOS standard, and whether that standard applies. You go into great detail about one issue (GI hypersensitivity). Do you think FAC is the place to argue the scientific merits of primary studies?
Secondly, you have used the FAC page to make personal comments about "some editors", "long term editors of this article" and then me in particular. If you have a problem with me, my talk page is the place. Please stick to discussing the content of the article at FAC. Thanks. Colin°Talk 14:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If the NRC report is a primary study to you, then we don't have much left to talk about. I've seen how you interact with other editors (on Schizophrenia to be more precise), and you are escalating disputes unnecessarily, when a literature search and some rewording are better than edit wars. Assume we've agreed to disagree on my FAC commenting style. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"the info on that is non-existant due to the lack of well controlled studies", "Based on a table of primary studies, only one of which was at 5ppm, the rest being well above that, the[y] guestimated 1% prevalence at that level." Which part of that is not a [second-hand] discussion on primary studies? As for Schizophrenia, your "literature search" has made the article worse, but I'll comment over there. Colin°Talk 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the lack of consensus on how to go about that and the other issues I've raised in the last round, and the marginal importance of the yet-to-be-solved issues, I've voted support. Squabbling over the last 5% of the article isn't worth the exponential increase in communication effort. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've changed that paragraph on schizophrenia to use reviews per WP:MEDRS, and while at it did the same for the remainder of the section. Thanks for catching that. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the WP:FAC instructions; using the hide templates is discouraged at FAC as they cause the archives to exceed template limits. More common is for FAC to remain focused on specific issues and examples relating to WP:WIAFA, with longer commentary placed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you (both) for the reminder. I'll keep my votes short in the future. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteochondritis dissecans

I had replied to your comment on the lede, asking for clarification, however you never returned. In the mean time, another reviewer's concerns helped me build a vastly improved lede. Your comments/suggestions/criticism would be much appreciated. Thanks for reviewing! FoodPuma 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New questions

I have posted some new questions regarding medical procedures and, if avaliable, wanted to know if you would leave some comments there? kilbad (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your views

...are welcome at WT:RFA#Badgers and bullies and pricks, oh my! (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

specific delusions schizophrenia

Hi Xasodfuih,

how long does the question of synthesised sources tag have to be on:

I don't think there are any synthesised ideas.

Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC) (forgot to log in).

I think the entire section is a bit off-topic in that article. I posted a notice about the merge proposal on WT:MED. Hopefully that will get more editors involved so consensus can be formed. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help

Hi Xasodfuih,

thanks for the help. I've rewritten Retinal's lede—a new word for me—and moved the scariest stuff out of it. Wikipedia provides abundant evidence that good ledes are hard to write. J G Campbell (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi there

You mentioned some difficulties in describing the industrial synthesis of this compound. Would you like me to help? Perhaps you can tell me where you found your info? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I'm not ignoring you, but I need to get the book again (returned it); it was in (Sittig's 3rd ed. p. 47); paracetamol synthesis was not in Ullmann's last time I checked. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I found the book at my local library. You're saying page 47 of 3rd ed? It'll take a while, but I'll go get it. I'll let you know when I do. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Negative air ionization therapy

Note your work at the above page. Please note there is also study at Portsmouth Council UK. Please note existence of page Air ioniser also. I'd welcome your thoughts about improvement of the subject's treatment, linking etc. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the study in Portsmouth that you mentioned above. Negative air ionization therapy mentions all studies I was able to find in pubmed. The Columbia faculty that did the two RCTs on SAD made it pretty clear that commercially available stuff don't produce enough ions; whether he's just saying this because he might be involved in patenting new stuff, I don't know—it happens at times in academia. For now I don't see a reason to merge the two articles, and they are already linked to each other. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Seen this?[1] I also think there is no need to merge, but there is a need to co-ordinate and link to comp med subjects. The Leeds study is a better replication of the Portsmouth experiment, which was not controlled. Point is; there may be benefits from air-purification and better oxygen uptake that go beyond SAD. Redheylin (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note use of conventional commercial ionisers. Redheylin (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
What density/flow of ions works for SAD and what works for killing bacteria may be very different. Unless you have numbers to show they are the same, I don't see why this the Portsmouth study on pathogen needs to be mentioned in negative air ionization therapy. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI: there's another paper (not clear if it's reporting the same study) from more or less the same group on the bactericidal mechanism of action here. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well. the paper you cited last (thanks) has the data
All the ion exposure experiments were undertaken under ambient room conditions. All seven bacterial species were exposed to negative air ions (with an electrode potential of -10 kV) for periods of 5, 10 and 15 minutes, with five replicates taken on each occasion. The process was then repeated for samples exposed to positive ions, with an electrode potential of +10 kV.
-Would you say that the phrase "Negative air ionization therapy" refers ONLY to SAD treatments? This is not clear in either article. I'd say that the mechanism HAS to be different, which makes me wonder whether any studies reflect upon the generalities of ionisation and the healthy environment, and how such general reflections should be incorporated.
For somewhat different reasons I'd draw your attention to Ionized bracelet. Also we have two different spellings of ionis/ze and no redirects. Do you want to take care of this?Redheylin (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
"Would you say that the phrase "Negative air ionization therapy" refers ONLY to SAD treatments?" Bactericidal action in the air is not therapy; it's not referred as such by the authors anyway. Also, there's no easy way to calculate the ion flow or density from the voltage (at least I don't know how to do it). As for ionized bracelet, that is clearly pseudoscience and unrelated as the effect on the air is negligible. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
pseudoscience - yes, I thought you ought to know. The density of ion flow would depend upon a measurement outside the ioniser practically, though no doubt tricks can be done with the inverse square law, since air-flow matters. What it shakes down to is; what kind of measure is given in the SAD studies? (*negative air ionization at high flow rate (93 minutes, 4.5x1014 ions/second); or 5) ionization at low flow rate (93 minutes, 1.7x1011 ions/second*) I take your point re. use of the word "therapy", though I'd not swear it's not been associated with domestic units. There may be room for a little cross-clarification here. Redheylin (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hum I see the problem** For a start the times are an order bigger, then they do not say how they calculated. But they do say it would be hard to get the same rate from an ordinary device. Have to stick it up your nose, I suppose. Do you want positively to avoid comparisons with other claimed health benefits? Is this "subjective feeling of summer" the only mechanism? Redheylin (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New FAC/FAR delegates

Since you are the one who broached the subject, see the discussion here. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard and soft drugs

Please undo this redirect and discuss it. There is an active discussion on improving the article on the talk page, and your redirect goes against a deletion discussion that was had in December. The article needs improving (a lot), but I don't agree with a redirect. The topic is notable, even if the current content is not encyclopedic. The concepts of hard and soft drugs exist outside of Dutch law. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You can undo it yourself if you disagree. Better: replace the content with (1) sourced definitions for hard/soft (not WP:OR as they were before I redirected), and (2) examples given in context, i.e. not WP:SYNT. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From Talk:Major depressive disorder...

Hi Xasodfuih, I just wanted to let you know that I felt very uncomfortable with the tone of some of your comments toward me, e.g. "(hint:..." and "...take that discussion there". These are somewhat condescending, at least in context and the way that I read them, and seemed unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps that was not your intention, and if that's the case then there's no problem. I just thought you should know how this was perceived by me. --Scray (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you it wasn't meant to be disrespectful, just expedient in order to keep the discussion focused. If you are disputing a guideline, such as the recommended use of metaanalyses by WP:MEDRS, you should really take the discussion to the guideline's talk page. Compared to your friend OM calling me an idiot and CAM POV pusher, I think I was quite restrained. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't dispute the guideline. I dispute giving any tool undue weight; the use of any tool, no matter how good a tool, can result in poor results. It is unwise to simply accept all meta-analysis as revealed truth - and that is exactly why I used the word simply in my original statement - that meta-analyses are not simply the best form of evidence. This is not a dispute regarding a guideline, which is why I found your dismissal so off-putting. Evaluating literature involves more than naming the methods used. --Scray (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I misunderstood your objection then. Am all for carefully reading what studies a metaanalysis included, what caveats they gave in their discussion section, what criticism they received in other publications etc. Most of the meaningful discussion on the article's talk page was actually centred around these issues. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you think I'm pushing Omega3's, see Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive_4#Omega_3.27s where I excluded a review because I thought it was biased towards Omega3's, and my edits there on that issue, which resulted in the current text: "A 2003 review of four randomized controlled trials of EPA (an omega-3 fatty acid) vs. placebo as adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia found that two of the trials detected a significant improvement on positive and negative symptoms, and suggested that EPA may be an effective adjunct to antipsychotics.[119] The most recent meta-analysis (2006) failed however to find a significant effect.[120] A 2007 review found that studies of omega-3 fatty acids in schizophrenia, despite being mostly of high quality, have produced inconsistent results and small effect sizes of doubtful clinical significance.[121]" The last two sources are the same I used in the MDD article, but they do have a different conclusion for MDD. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments regarding your report. Also in the future please do your best to discuss problems with those you're in conflict on the talk page and avoid reverts as otherwise you're simply contributing to the dispute. Thanks. Nja247 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


I have renominated the benzodiazepine article now after following your suggestions on the benzodiazepine good article review page Talk:Benzodiazepine/GA1. I have removed the majority of the primary sources and replaced them with secondary sources, review articles and meta-analysis papers. If you don't have the time to review it then not to worry. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

early psychosis

I have removed NPOV tag after

  • reword of lead section
  • additional references in lead section
  • added three good RCTs showing better results compared to TAU at 18 months
  • reword clincal outcome section

would welcome your edits and comments Earlypsychosis (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)