Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 159
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 155 | ← | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | → | Archive 165 |
Pooling study on low carb diets
As
- It's novel research (Conclusion: "Our study suggests ...") and so not MEDRS. For the topic in question, low-carb dieting, there is ample secondary sourcing. talk) 10:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have found two other studies that touch on the long-term effects. The problem is that so far most meta-studies focus on RCTs and thus cannot come up with conclusions about the long-term effects. That is why I think the above mentioned pooling study of prospective studies is in this case an appropriate source for the long-term effects and in line with MEDRS, which allows primary sources if there are no secondary sources available. CarlFromVienna (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't use unreliable sources. MEDRS does not "allow primary sources if there are no secondary sources available" - that would open the door to a whole flood of crap. The new (secondary) sources are Nutrients and Plos ONE journals, neither of which is great. talk) 10:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't use unreliable sources. MEDRS does not "allow primary sources if there are no secondary sources available" - that would open the door to a whole flood of crap. The new (secondary) sources are Nutrients and Plos ONE journals, neither of which is great.
- I have found two other studies that touch on the long-term effects. The problem is that so far most meta-studies focus on RCTs and thus cannot come up with conclusions about the long-term effects. That is why I think the above mentioned pooling study of prospective studies is in this case an appropriate source for the long-term effects and in line with MEDRS, which allows primary sources if there are no secondary sources available. CarlFromVienna (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- If this is a Pooled analysis, then it's a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's not what is described in that Wikipedia article, since it is not drawing on "studies" but drawing directly on data to arrive at a novel analysis. talk) 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks WAID, I wasn‘t sure, if this counts as secondary source. Alex, drawing exactly from the data is what pooling analysis do. The difference to a meta-analysis is that the subgroups/studies/datasets are not weighted. CarlFromVienna (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, especially since the piece is not simply a "pooled analysis" anyway but "a population-based cohort study and pooling of prospective studies" and seems entirely novel. Are pooled analyses sometimes categorized as reviews by publishers/PUBMED? This one isn't. talk) 18:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, especially since the piece is not simply a "pooled analysis" anyway but "a population-based cohort study and pooling of prospective studies" and seems entirely novel. Are pooled analyses sometimes categorized as reviews by publishers/PUBMED? This one isn't.
- It's not what is described in that Wikipedia article, since it is not drawing on "studies" but drawing directly on data to arrive at a novel analysis.
- @WhatamIdoing:, you seem the most experienced, can you please have a look if the study in question matches the criteria of MEDRS? CarlFromVienna (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- From the paper, the authors say "we prospectively examined the relation between LCD and all-cause and cause-specific (CVD, stroke, and cancer) mortality in a large and nationally representative US cohort." They also claim they aim to do a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of other research, and indeed there is a section discussion the work of others. But the main thrust of the paper - and what you want to include - is their novel statistical analysis (which is heavily caveated, BTW, in a way which your proposal edit does not relay).
- That said, they do say their findings are "somewhat" in alignment with the existing literature, which seems to make their claims unexceptional. talk) 18:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- A pooled analysis is a secondary source. The problem on wiki is that "secondary" is not another way to spell "good" source, but it's too often mistaken for being a synonym. This could be a secondary source and still not a good source (depending especially on what, exactly, was proposed for the text in the article).
- Carl, the most useful question you could explore is whether this source is truly necessary to support the point. There's been a lot of research on this subject. If this is the only source that supports that claim, then it's WP:UNDUEeven if we thought it was the best source in the world. If it's not – then why bother fighting to get this specific source in?
- (One of these days, Blueboar is going to get tired of me nagging him and will write WP:Let the Wookiee win.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- A pooled analysis is a secondary source. The problem on wiki is that "secondary" is
- As Alex has pointed out, their claims are unexceptional. All health authorities recommend a relatively high carbohydrate intake. It also is a secondary source. Currently the reader is left under the wrong impression that a low-carb diet is heart healthy in the long run. It is needed to balance the short-term weight-loss diets that the Cochrane review in the same section positively reviewed. We had several studies in there about negative long-term effects. This is simply a better and newer source for the statements that have been in the article since long. CarlFromVienna (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Its conclusions are not about "long term effects" of the diet. (One day I must write something about how often Wikipedia fails to control undue implications of causality in its medical content!). Re-reading the source in the cold light of morning I am however going to change my mind and drop my objection to it, so long as we are careful to use the literature review bit and not the novel statistical analysis bit - it's a weird composite of the two. Ideally, I'd prefer a more straightforward source. talk) 06:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good morning from Vienna. In my case the kids got me up early. How would you summarize the literature review part? Drawing from the Discussion, Conclusion and the Low-carbohydrate diet and mortality literature review part I would suggest something like: A 2019 study acknowledges short-term benefits of low-carbohyrdate diets to improve weight, blood-pressure and gluco-lipid parameters. Looking at the long-term effects the study suggest a potentially unfavorable association of low-carbohydrate diets with overall and cause-specific mortality. The authors found a significant association between the low-carbohydrate diet score and cardiovascular disease mortality. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- I realize this style has been spreading, but to the extent that we can, we should follow MEDMOS's advice: Cite sources, don't describe them. Perhaps we could write something closer to "following a low-carb diet for many years is associated with dying from heart disease"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: thanks, I wasn't aware of the style guide. I'll read through it, before I continue. Good, that I came here. In this particular case we have a Cochrane review with 3 RCTs of 18 month duration looking at CVD markers VS prospective cohort studies looking at CVD end points with a follow-up of 6-16 years. Both sources don't contradict each other but rather complement each other. So we have to align the whole section according to the style guide. This could be done by something like "less than 2 years VS for many years". I'll get on it as soon as I've finished reading the style guide. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I realize this style has been spreading, but to the extent that we can, we should follow MEDMOS's advice: Cite sources, don't describe them. Perhaps we could write something closer to "following a low-carb diet for many years is associated with dying from heart disease"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Good morning from Vienna. In my case the kids got me up early. How would you summarize the literature review part? Drawing from the Discussion, Conclusion and the Low-carbohydrate diet and mortality literature review part I would suggest something like: A 2019 study acknowledges short-term benefits of low-carbohyrdate diets to improve weight, blood-pressure and gluco-lipid parameters. Looking at the long-term effects the study suggest a potentially unfavorable association of low-carbohydrate diets with overall and cause-specific mortality. The authors found a significant association between the low-carbohydrate diet score and cardiovascular disease mortality. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Its conclusions are not about "long term effects" of the diet. (One day I must write something about how often Wikipedia fails to control undue implications of causality in its medical content!). Re-reading the source in the cold light of morning I am however going to change my mind and drop my objection to it, so long as we are careful to use the literature review bit and not the novel statistical analysis bit - it's a weird composite of the two. Ideally, I'd prefer a more straightforward source.
- As Alex has pointed out, their claims are unexceptional. All health authorities recommend a relatively high carbohydrate intake. It also is a secondary source. Currently the reader is left under the wrong impression that a low-carb diet is heart healthy in the long run. It is needed to balance the short-term weight-loss diets that the Cochrane review in the same section positively reviewed. We had several studies in there about negative long-term effects. This is simply a better and newer source for the statements that have been in the article since long. CarlFromVienna (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Tubular carcinoma
Could someone with the relevant expertise take a look at the newly-created Tubular carcinoma article? There are obvious issues with the writing ("It also has a good prognosis rate with survival rate being at about 100%"), and I have my doubts about sourcing too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- It took me all of 5 minutes to confirm that claims of a 100% survival rate were dependent on treatment etc, so I've removed them as the utterly misleading and possibly dangerous claims they are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump, why didn't you just add the missing caveat that survival is around 100% "with treatment"? Or just stubbify it to a quick definition and ask for someone here to look it over? I bet you could have done that in less time than it took you to cuss out the author on his talk page. (And you're right: it's dubious to say that it has a "good prognosis", because the prognosis would be more correctly described as "excellent".)
- As it stands, HitroMilanese stuffed the page back in draftspace (a proven-by-research bad approach to getting any article improved), and the creator responded to your actions by having the page speedy-deleted. I don't feel like anyone was helped by any of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why didn't I add a caveat? For a start, I didn't have MEDRS-compliant sources to back it up. And I don't consider myself qualified to make such assertions without such sources. All I could legitimately do was to confirm my suspicions that the (questionable) sources cited didn't support the claim, and remove it. As for the cussing, and the competence or otherwise of the article creator, that is being discussed at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- When you encounter a statement that you know is wrong and you know the correct answer, then it is very unlikely that anyone will complain if you fix it and slap {{medical citation needed}} at the end of it.
- Alternatively, you could also have removed the sentence from the article, ideally explaining in the edit summary that you don't think it was explained quite correctly.
- These are both quick and easy approaches to content you're concerned about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did remove the sentence(s) from the article, as I stated above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I saw this discussion, and decided to try recreating it from sources. This is my first creation in the MEDRS space, so if someone could review it and adjust as needed, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Moving the portion of the discussion relevant to the new article per suggestion, to its talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for creating that. It looks like flat epithelial atypia is another thing Wikipedia should have at least a paragraph about (but maybe part of a larger article?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Moving the portion of the discussion relevant to the new article per suggestion, to its talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why didn't I add a caveat? For a start, I didn't have MEDRS-compliant sources to back it up. And I don't consider myself qualified to make such assertions without such sources. All I could legitimately do was to confirm my suspicions that the (questionable) sources cited didn't support the claim, and remove it. As for the cussing, and the competence or otherwise of the article creator, that is being discussed at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Question for the MEDRS folks: if a paper identifies itself as having performed a "retrospective analysis", does that make it
- Not a MEDRS person, and it may be a secondary source for other reasons, but no, retrospective means they've used data that they had previously collected, not newly collected data e.g. 5 years ago we measured analyte x in serum, these are the results vs prospective - we made the hypothesis then tested x in all the samples that came to us. (Very rough and ready explanation) Red Fiona (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not a MEDRS person, and it may be a secondary source for other reasons, but no, retrospective means they've used data that they had previously collected, not newly collected data e.g. 5 years ago we measured analyte x in serum, these are the results vs prospective - we made the hypothesis then tested x in all the samples that came to us. (Very rough and ready explanation) Red Fiona (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
FA Review: Hippocrates
I have nominated
- thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Need a particular E-book on infectious disease surveillance
Does anyone, by chance, have access to a DRM-free copy of Concepts and Methods in Infectious Disease Surveillance? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have access to it through my hospital. I just checked, and I can read the whole book on my screen but it doesn't let me download it. If you need to look up anything specific I can have a look for you. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, no, there's nothing in particular I need to look up. My company is about to begin co-developing (with BugSeq Bioinformatics) a real-time automated, IVD device-integrated infectious disease reporting system that transmits pertinent results from our IVD tests to any local, national, or international surveillance system that operates on the HL7 standards and tracks pathogens (ID'd via both whole metagenome alignment and assembly methods), their subtypes (ID'd by MLST), and/or their antimicrobial resistances (ID'd by multiple sequence alignment of all AMR genes to all aligned/assembled genomes). We intend to file a provisional patent on our reporting system within a month of filing our full/nonprovisional patent on our IVD device instrumentation and IVD test protocols (i.e., between 15-45 days from now), so I figured I'd just read that book from cover to cover to fill in any knowledge gaps I might have before we iron out the high-level design.
- I don't actually have a problem with paying for the textbook; I just find it really annoying when I can't freely share media that I've paid for with my team when it's subject to DRM restrictions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I just read all this and then realised you were asking for your own business, not Wikipedia article sourcing. This would seem to more an appropriate question for one's social media followers and friends, than WP:MED. -- Colin°Talk 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since when has my personal life not been conflated with Wikipedia? I don't know how you decide what topics to write about on Wikipedia, but virtually all my past editing has stemmed from reading whatever literature topics I was interested in at the time, then writing Wikipedia as a way to WP:RXmerely due to my curiosity about the subject matter, in the absence of a specific intent/purpose to write something on Wikipedia. The fact that I am on Wikibreak and requesting a comprehensive source for the purpose of educating myself on a new subject area is not at all out of character for me and does not mean I won't come back and edit relevant articles. In fact, there's a fairly narrow range of other biomedical topics about which I've read a mountain of pertinent scientific research over the past 1.5 years and, unless those topics somehow lose salience to me in the interim, you can be damn sure I'm going to overhaul a number of Wikipedia articles when I finally have a work-life balance again. Perhaps your motivations are different than mine, but this is exactly the kind of request that would otherwise guide my editing behavior were it not for the fact that I don't have time for editing Wikipedia right now.
- In any event, I ended up buying https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N4RUQVY and https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BM7XVWS, so it's a moot point to discuss. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have no interest in your company or whether you are on wikibreak or how you fill your brain, but I can be sure that next time you ask for access to a resource at WP:MED, you've just ensured the first reaction will be to ignore it. Well done. You explained that the real reason you want a DRM free copy is so that you can break the law and save your company some money instead of buying a copy for each team member in your company. This is illegal, Seppi, and very much not anything that Wikipedia can support editors asking for. Please don't do that again. -- Colin°Talk 12:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Lol. I have hundreds of thousands of dollars; that you think I think $50 is something is laughable, but it's even funnier how butthurt you are over finances, which is something I never even brought up. I'll continue doing as I've always done Colin; you will not change that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have no interest in your company or whether you are on wikibreak or how you fill your brain, but I can be sure that next time you ask for access to a resource at WP:MED, you've just ensured the first reaction will be to ignore it. Well done. You explained that the real reason you want a DRM free copy is so that you can break the law and save your company some money instead of buying a copy for each team member in your company. This is illegal, Seppi, and very much not anything that Wikipedia can support editors asking for. Please don't do that again. -- Colin°Talk 12:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since when has my personal life not been conflated with Wikipedia? I don't know how you decide what topics to write about on Wikipedia, but virtually all my past editing has stemmed from reading whatever literature topics I was interested in at the time, then writing Wikipedia as a way to
- I just read all this and then realised you were asking for your own business, not Wikipedia article sourcing. This would seem to more an appropriate question for one's social media followers and friends, than WP:MED. -- Colin°Talk 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, no, there's nothing in particular I need to look up. My company is about to begin co-developing (with BugSeq Bioinformatics) a real-time automated, IVD device-integrated infectious disease reporting system that transmits pertinent results from our IVD tests to any local, national, or international surveillance system that operates on the
Vaccines at Wikidata
I don't know if anyone's interested in Wikidata, but there seems to be a page at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine/Data models/Vaccines about how to add information correctly about vaccines. It'd be handy to have that expanded and to make other helpful pages for similar subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- [1] ...vaccine information is very important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Rockefeller University edits
WikiProject Medicine members are invited to review my request at Talk:Rockefeller University. I'm proposing to turn a list of discoveries into a narrative (in order to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines recommending the use of prose over bullet points) and add sources to items that currently do not have any. I welcome any suggestions to improve the proposed language. I'm an employee of Rockefeller University so I have a conflict of interest. I am happy to answer questions on the article's talk page. Thanks! KFenzRockefeller (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- you may want to add COI template on your user page, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
See also sections
What are the current thoughts on See also sections? Comments welcome at Minoxidil "See also" section deletion.
A quick search finds previous discussions here including Discouraging see also sections and See also section.
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Four of the five items you removed are named in the navboxes (which are invisible to about half of readers). If they're kept, it might be better to include an explanation of why they're relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Why are they invisible to about half of readers? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Because navboxes are never displayed to people using the mobile site (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoxidil vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoxidil). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Why are they invisible to about half of readers? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Families USA COI edit requests
Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Families USA. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- you may want to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations which is on that articles talk,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Connatal cyst
Hello friends! Long time no see. I bring to you today this small orphan:
- There's an impenetrable article for you. Radiopedia says there are two other names: "coarctation of the lateral ventricles" and "frontal horn cysts".
- It's possible that it belongs in the list at Central nervous system cyst#Originating from the central nervous system tissue (but I'm not sure that's the right section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
References
- PMID 16503391.
UK Biobank study on meat
Please see the section I started on the meat talk-page [2]. The Wikipedia article cites a Biobank study [3] used 475,000 men and women which is an impressive figure but the data came from questionnaires. As I understand it we usually remove primary sources from Wikipedia. The content has been added in the "health" section. In the same section is also a large cohort study. Should we be citing primary sources like this? I think they should be removed but guidance needed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing discussion in village pump: "In general, are animal and in vitro studies acceptable sources to support toxicology statements?"
There is a medical sourcing discussion related to toxicology at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#In_general,_are_animal_and_in_vitro_studies_acceptable_sources_to_support_toxicology_statements?. MarshallKe (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- also posted atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:PCM" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Was alerted to the article and had to clean up a lot of
- There are almost certainly enough reliable sources to discuss suicide and suicide prevention efforts in every country. The main problem will be finding the sources.
- BTW, there is some relatively new advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Suicide and self-harm, and if anyone wants to take it out for a "test drive" on this (or any other) article, please feel free, and let us know what needs to be improved or what additional content might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly a notable topic, given that there have been whole newspaper articles dedicated to it [4] seems to be enough academic sources to write a MEDRS compliant article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
In Ageusia#COVID-19, a case study is linked (n=2). It's from Sep 8 2021, so I assume it was just chance. Can we chuck this, unless there are better sources to replace it with? I'd just do it, but this is a high-interest area at the moment, so expertise welcome. HLHJ (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Primary source in dodgy journal, about as unreliable as it gets - especially for the claim made. talk) 19:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- That would explain why almost no-one has cited it. If it's a dodgy source too... and the editor is probably not experienced at evaluating MEDRS. I've commented it out. HLHJ (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder if it's related conceptually to Smell training. If so, then the mechanism would not be pharmacological; any strongly flavored food could have the same effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- That would explain why almost no-one has cited it. If it's a dodgy source too... and the editor is probably not experienced at evaluating MEDRS. I've commented it out. HLHJ (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review
I have nominated
Relevant discussion: How should we include allegations of China undercounting COVID-19 cases and deaths
You are invited to join in at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
AK-47 (cannabis)
Can some people here check whether the medical advice or information given at
- Well, none of the sources themselves are MEDRS compliant - they seem to be cannabis-dedicated magazines. Nor do they seem to refer to actually MEDRS compliant sources. So I think not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, in a heavily-contest field that's the worst article I've seen this year so far. I have blanked and re-directed.[5] Is it just me, or is it ridiculous to have an article for every stupidly-named cannabis "strain" (more likely, "brand") out there? talk) 12:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- And reverted, obviously. You didn't even leave an edit reason, let alone a good faith discussion, before blanking an hour-old article. Don't worry, strains and brands are different, and one that has won multiple awards is notable. Can you and the whole medical community can throw your anti-cannabis bias in the trash, where it and your prejudiced edits belong. How an experienced editor can think that immediate unexplained blanking is appropriate concerns me more than any new article does. Kingsif (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- How a trivial article entirely based on shit sources touting medical misinformation is worthy of Wikipedia concerns me. This and the DYK just looks spammy to boot. The moronic assumption of bad faith shown by the miscreant here is also a concern. talk) 12:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is just a promotional article, and the AK47 growers will be very happy. I've never tried this strain. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- How a trivial article entirely based on shit sources touting medical misinformation is worthy of Wikipedia concerns me. This and the DYK just looks spammy to boot. The moronic assumption of bad faith shown by the miscreant here is also a concern.
- And reverted, obviously. You didn't even leave an edit reason, let alone a good faith discussion, before blanking an hour-old article. Don't worry, strains and brands are different, and one that has won multiple awards is notable. Can you and the whole medical community can throw your anti-cannabis bias in the trash, where it and your prejudiced edits belong. How an experienced editor can think that immediate unexplained blanking is appropriate concerns me more than any new article does. Kingsif (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Tobacco product pages
I've noticed that smokeless tobacco product pages (e.g. Skoal are written in an NPOV style but excluding any information about addictiveness or carcinogenicity. The consequence is that the pages tend toward product promotion by users and/or tobacco companies. In the case of the Copenhagen brand, there was pushback against including anything about cancer on the talk page (Talk:Copenhagen (tobacco)). Only one product in the Category:Chewing tobacco brands even mentions cancer, and it does so briefly (U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company). A similar problem exists for the numerous smoking tobacco products (e.g. Lucky Strike, which has no mention of cancer causation and only mentions addiction in a reference title). A similar argument could be made for alcoholic beverage products (which are also on the list of IARC group 1 human carcinogens), that they are simple product promotion.
Ideally, I think that the tobacco product pages that do not discuss addition or cancer should be summarily deleted for being product promotion. I don't expect that outcome to be likely. Another possibility would be to require a boilerplate health warning at the top of each of the product pages as a matter of policy. If there could be a policy agreement about this, it would circumvent having to make the same argument on each and every page. THSlone (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Carcinogenicity is not in question (with regard to these articles), however, boilerplate health warning at the top of each of the product page may be too much...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's typical for a "brand" page to include only information that is specific to the brand, and not about the general type of product. One does not expect, e.g., for Strawberries or for Tylenol (brand) to list the side effects of Paracetamol, or for Ford F-Series to contain information about the expected effects of fossil fuel use on human health (which include cancer. I believe that something on the order of 2,000 premature deaths per year in the US alone could be fairly attributed to the air pollution produced by this one brand – and that's just based on how many of them exist, not based on any thing specific to the brand). I'm not sure why tobacco and alcoholic beverages should be treated differently from all other products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, these are not comparable examples, since the example you gave have clear benefits (strawberries: nutrition; Paracetamol: medical risk-benefit analyses have been published; Ford F-Series: benefits of transportation). The benefits of tobacco use are negligible at best. THSlone (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Although I think that tobacco is terrible overall and that alcohol's primary purpose is for cooking (I recommend Marcella Hazan's Penne al Cardinale, if you want a decadent example of this), I understand that some people who use it believe that they're receiving some benefits out of it. That's why we talk about using nicotine and alcohol to "self-medicate". Additionally, there could be some social benefits in some cultures, e.g., the benefits of "fitting in" if smoking is popular in your social circles (or social harms, if you live in a better culture).
- For myself, in my culture, I happen to evaluate the overall picture the same way that you do: it's destructive and ought to be banned. But my POV isn't the only valid one. To use one of the other examples, in my culture, any kid with the money can buy a large tub of paracetamol, no questions asked. In the UK, retail sales a restricted to small packages and limited amounts. This is because that culture totted up their risks and benefits, and concluded that the harms were pretty substantial. They're not wrong. But we put that information Paracetamol, not in every article about every brand that contains paracetamol. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, these are not comparable examples, since the example you gave have clear benefits (strawberries: nutrition; Paracetamol: medical risk-benefit analyses have been published; Ford F-Series: benefits of transportation). The benefits of tobacco use are negligible at best. THSlone (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's typical for a "brand" page to include only information that is specific to the brand, and not about the general type of product. One does not expect, e.g., for
Disagreement at Talk:Artemisinin
Hi all, we have a deadlocked disagreement at Talk:Artemisinin#Cell_differentiation that would benefit from others' opinions. Any thoughts shared would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
MED Welcome and other project templates targeted by Unused templates task force
The Unused Templates Task Force is trying to clean up a large backlog of unused templates. One list is here, where you can see template {{MedWelcome-reg}} currently listed at #1159. This template has been edited by Doc James and other editors. If you wish to save it, either use it on a couple of user talk pages, or move it to Draft space, or a User subpage. If you search that index page for the string 'Medicine', there are six results, including four that are direct subpages of WP:WikiProject Medicine that may be at risk for removal. They would all go through Tfd and are not summarily removed, but you won't necessarily get a notification about it. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathglot, that's been used on hundreds of user talk pages. Why are you calling it "unused"? Do you mean "template that nobody has felt any need to change in the last few months" instead of "unused"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was unclear. What I meant was, "showing up on the list driving the Unused Templates Task Force". One problem with using "what links here" to discover template usage, is that it doesn't see templates that have been subst'ed. I'm not sure how that list was created, or how substed templates are being dealt with, but for better or worse, that template is on the list. Maybe there's another list or test that excludes subst'ed templates from consideration before the Task Force submits a template to Tfd, but I thought I'd better mention it just in case. Mathglot (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've "fixed" this one, as their talk page suggests that they automatically exclude subst:d templates. That should address the one template. As for the rest, theoretically, TFD regulars know that welcome templates are normally subst-only, but mistakes will probably happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was unclear. What I meant was, "showing up on the list driving the Unused Templates Task Force". One problem with using "what links here" to discover template usage, is that it doesn't see templates that have been subst'ed. I'm not sure how that list was created, or how substed templates are being dealt with, but for better or worse, that template is on the list. Maybe there's another list or test that excludes subst'ed templates from consideration before the Task Force submits a template to Tfd, but I thought I'd better mention it just in case. Mathglot (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
MEDRS double check request for Bisphenol A
Over the last few months I've been gradually rewritting Bisphenol A . My background is in chemistry which is good for the bulk of it, but I've finally gotten around to the thorny matter of its health effects. I've done my best, but I would appreciate someone checking my work. There's also a section on its pharmacology that I lack the skills to properly interpret... --Project Osprey (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Great work on this article! I reviewed part of the reference list and commented on the talk page. JenOttawa (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor
There’s been a lot written about the cost of the
- @Thriley, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33331662/ is probably going to be the most useful source for efficacy. Why don't you boldly have a go at improving it, and let us know if you run into problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Thank your for your response. I am more referring to the section "Society and culture". I think an expansion of the paragraph discussing the cost of the drug would be appropriate. I think it should also detail the origins of the funding for the drug and the reasoning for Vertex Pharmaceuticals to charge so much for it. I understand there are severely ill children and adults in countries where Trikafta is currently unavailable whose disease would basically cease progressing if they had access to the drug. Vertex is unwilling to mark the majority of them as compassionate care patients, only ones who are a few steps away from death receive the drug. Thriley (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is more about the costs involved on the article of one of the components: MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is more about the costs involved on the article of one of the components:
- @WhatamIdoing: Thank your for your response. I am more referring to the section "Society and culture". I think an expansion of the paragraph discussing the cost of the drug would be appropriate. I think it should also detail the origins of the funding for the drug and the reasoning for Vertex Pharmaceuticals to charge so much for it. I understand there are severely ill children and adults in countries where Trikafta is currently unavailable whose disease would basically cease progressing if they had access to the drug. Vertex is unwilling to mark the majority of them as compassionate care patients, only ones who are a few steps away from death receive the drug. Thriley (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Capitalization in tooltips in med templates
See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Current_tooltip_capping_practice where some of this project's templates are mentioned as examples where tooltip text is in "dictionary case". The discussion in the enclosing section is converging on a recommendation of "sentence case" for tooltip text. If you care, comment there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
RFC
Flavan-3-ol has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)