User talk:DoctorBiochemistry

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reposting my contribution so many times. I do not understand why a section about the scientific basis of nucleoside therapy, citing papers from PubMed, is constantly being removed and tagged as not reliable material. The description given of nucleoside therapy is based on scientific literature, and does not deserve censorship.

Since this is a high profile case as other users have pointed out, it seems relevant for Wikipedia to add a section describing the scientific aspects behind this controversial case.

Comparing papers published in EMBO MOLECULAR MEDICINE and PNAS with CRYSTALBALL evidences is totally inappropiate.

Sorry also for not answering messages, I am still a newbie about wikipedia usage. Thanks.

As asked before, please sign your posts. If you don't know what that means, please ask.

You are not asking authentic questions about the content, and I will not answer fake questions. I am happy to explain if you will authentically ask and listen. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorBiochemistry. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing.

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our

I have edited previously other wikipedia biomedical articles using my IP, but I am not used to manage the "user" profile interface and wikipedia protocols, sorry if that creates misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, replying now. Thanks very much for your answer. I accept that you have no COI.

Based on what you have wrote above, I want to make sure are aware of issues with advocacy in Wikipedia.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see

WP:NOTADVOCACY

. "What Wikipedia is Not" is something very essential to the very guts of this place. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to kind of skip over the whole process of learning how Wikipedia works, and trying to drive their content into Wikipedia.

Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely

WP:MEDMOS

. It takes time to learn all this!

If you had slowed down, and read the messages above carefully, you would have found clear guidance about how to edit about health in Wikipedia. Likewise if you had asked real questions, instead of accusing ones, you would have gotten these answers as well. We are all happy to help new editors learn.

But this happens! I hope you will use your break to read

WP:MEDMOS and get more grounded. And please, just slow down. Everybody is new at some point, but you need to learn to walk before you can run. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Jytdog. I was shocked when my post was massively deleted amd then I was asked if I am related to Bambino Jesu (!!), almost made me laugh if the case was not so dramatic. When people looks for information about nucleosides with respect to this treatment and specific case, a encyclopedia should state very clearly that nucleosides are not drugs, but endogenous biomolecules, and rather fall in the category of dietary supplements or vitamins (not even of insulin). There is also a lot of misinformation about the permeability of the blood-brain barrier for nucleosides circulating in the press and the mass media. A encyclopedia should also inform that there are specific transporters for these biomolecules. I don't see that as advocacy but as debunking non-scientific misinformation with state-of-the-art biochemical knowledge. I can rewrite the section to conform to Wikipedia standards, and move part of the hard scientific content to an specific article. Is that right? Is there any problem citing the legal summary of the High Court, which is public?DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you are engaging with Wikipedia's mission, nor the strategies (the policies and guidelines) through which we realize the mission. You have made it clear that the Charlie Gard case is very important to you, and you want to inform the public about the validity of nucleoside therapy. Trying to do that here is not OK - -Wikipedia not a platform for advocacy. As long as your personal mission is more important to you than Wikipedia's mission, you are going to keep making bad edits, and others will keep reverting them.

And no, the high court documents are not a MEDRS source. You must engage with and follow MEDRS if you want to edit content about health. It is not optional. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and you addressed me as some kind of "moderator". I am an editor, just like you. The only "authority" i have is that i have been around a while and understand how Wikipedia works. Please see

WP:CLUE (a very important little essay) Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Jytdog. I do not pretend to "advocate" or inform about the "validity" of such a therapy. State that nucleosides are biomolecules and not drugs is just science, not advocacy. The media is totally missinforming about this issue, talking about "designed" drugs, which is plainly wrong in scientific terms. Nucleosides are metabolites. I do not advocate for Charlie Gard's case but for scientific truth. I think the best proposal I heard about this is to create a separate section on the nucleoside therapy following wikipedia standards.DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying; you do not appear to understand Wikipedia yet. Calling unproven approaches to improving health a "therapy" is exactly what we do not do here; there is no "nucleoside therapy" as far as I know. But it would be interesting to see if you could write a well sourced article about that, using MEDRS sources and summarizing them per NPOV. I suggest you do that via

WP:AFC. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the clarification. I did not add any unsourced paragraph, I had references (secondary and primary ones) for each one of the three paragraphs, but they were sistematically deleted by other users. I understand secondary references are reviews, and in fact the in vitro and in vivo studies I was citing were referenced in the main review cited. Does that make these references more acceptable? One question, I was also citing the summary of the case, that as of today, is the only reliable source mentioning the effects of this treatment on humans. It was made public by the same Hospital where this case happened. I also cited an article from the "Washington Post" about the first publicly known human patient. Is it acceptable to cite legal sources? --DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this diff of your most recent addition: the paragraphs beginning "In the first decision taken ..." and "In spite of the scientific evidences ...". Do you agree that they were wholly unsourced, or not?

Of the four medical sources you added: Garone 2014, Pontarin 2012, Jordheim 2013, Parkinson 2011, the first is a study in mice, the second a study in vitro, the third a review of "compounds that are currently in preclinical or clinical development", and the fourth summarises "emerging evidence of other transporter families with demonstrated or potential roles in the transport of nucleosides and their derivatives in the brain." You just don't have any reliable reviews that confirm the action of nucleoside therapy in treating MDDS – which is hardly surprising, given the rarity of the condition – and it is therefore inappropriate to discuss a potential or possible biomedical action such as that in Wikipedia. It might be possibly acceptable to discuss such research directions in a section entitled Research in the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article, but you would have to make it clear that there is no good quality evidence available at present (and possibly may never be).

As for using legal sources to support biomedical claims, no, they don't have authority to do that. Just as you wouldn't want a surgeon presiding over a trial, you wouldn't want a judge performing brain surgery, would you? Courts make decisions based on evidence, and it's that source of the evidence that needs to be considered in writing Wikipedia articles that relate to medicine. A court may reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities; we set a far higher standard here when it comes to sourcing biomedical claims. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for clarification. For your information, there are already reviews referencing all the primary sources, but they were also removed from my edits. Of course legal claims do not support biomedical science but I think can be pertinent as citations in this article, while nucleoside therapy, etc deserves a separate article. I will try to do both complying wikipedia standards. BTW it seems that in this sad case a judge is actually evaluating scientific evidence, which is sort of worrying as you mentionDoctorBiochemistry (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe that straight out of your block you're back at it on this article, inserting content which makes no mention of the Charlie Gard case, drawn in part from unreliable sources. Please read our

Alex, take a look at the sources, all of them are medical reviews, secondary sources that compply with WP:RS. It is pertinent to explain what this therapy is about, and what are the approved applications.

The first one I clicked on was merely a "Commentary" piece and I notice a lot of old material too (we prefer material < 5 years old). But that is not the point. This article is on the Charlie Gard case: it should not include sources that are not directly related to that case. In general if you find yourself wanting to use a source that does not even mention "Charlie Gard", think again (the exception is for some very limited contextual information summarizing our main article on MDS according to the princple of

talk) 11:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

(Add) Also despite your assertion that all your sources "are medical reviews" they obviously aren't since in this edit[1] your include (for example) an RCT, lay press (WaPo) and a patent. Do you have any conflict of interest with regard to nucleoside supplementation/therapy that you need to declare?

talk) 12:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Alex, I have no COI, I have been asked that before. I work on a different research area. Where do you see a commentary? The two main references for nucleoside therapy are in-depth reviews in Biochimica Biophysica Acta and Drug Dicovery Today: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000527281500050X and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644613001906 which mostly publish reviews. Why do you want to remove these two reliable sources? Furthermore, it is not correct to say there are no treatments, there are many supplements and drugs approved for mitochondrial diseases in general (as ref1 explains)DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored a few sentences and updated one review for a more recent one, please check before removing.DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is a "Commentary". You have completely ignored what I wrote and have resumed edit-warring. I shall leave it to others to see if they can resolve this situation.

talk) 14:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Alex, I removed that "commentary" reference and changed it for a more recent review, check again. I also changed the phrasing. Let me know if you find a problem with the current versionDoctorBiochemistry (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) as I asked you to above. It explictly warns people against Promoting your medical theories (and) approaches and your editing is here is very inappropriate, along exactly those lines. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to restore this content again without discussing again, I will again take you to the edit warring board and this time you will be blocked for much longer.