User talk:Doc James/Archive 97

Archive 90

←

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Hello

Thanks for your advice regarding adding information. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayne J98 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please remove or alter the image of self-harm on page for Borderline personality disorder

This image accurately depicts self-harm and is useful to a friend or family member looking for signs that their loved is suffers from borderline. However, this page is also accessed by people attempting to understand their mental illness and therefore seek help for it. That image can cause a major setback for a person doing their best to understand and work to improve their mental health. I implore you to remove the image entirely or replace it with another representation of self-harm. For example, an image of hair pulling with bald spots would be less triggering or trigger fewer people. An image that would be truly helpful is that of somebody using a self-harm substitute. Popular methods suggested by therapists include drawing red lines with a marker on the area that is typically cut, snapping a rubber band on the wrist, or holding onto an ice cube to create pain from numbness. Such as image would have a dual benefit of depicting of self-harm while showing a person who may engage in those acts a less destructive outlet for the urge. A picture of healed wounds would achieve the goal of showing the result of self-harm without presenting the trigger of fresh blood, which is often a goal for engaging in cutting. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangehappyeyes (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think we are going with an image of healing cuttings. I will get a better one if I come across it. Have you seen evidence to support the triggering you mention?

I am see that the same justification could be used to remove images from cannabis, alcohol, cocaine, heroine, etc. And am not support of it generally as we are an informational source rather than a patient guide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding "triggering" images, I think the policy WP:NOTCENSORED would apply here, in as much as the words "triggering" and "offensive" appear to be interchangeable in this context. - Brianhe (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hypodipsia

Hello Doc James,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hypodipsia for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Adipsia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks User:Ubiquity. All we needed was a redirect :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

• Editorial: Wikipedia policy suppresses sharing of information

• News and notes: Foundation presents results of harassment research, plans for automated identification; Wikiconference submissions open

• In the media: Paid editing service announced; Commercial exploitation of free images; Wikipedia as a crystal ball; Librarians to counter systemic bias

• Obituary: Kevin Gorman, who took on Wikipedia's gender gap and undisclosed paid advocacy, dies at 24

• Traffic report: Summer of Pokémon, Trump, and Hillary

• Featured content: Women and Hawaii

• Recent research: Easier navigation via better wikilinks

• Blog: All-new notifications page helps Wikimedians focus on what matters most

• Technology report: User script report (January to July 2016, part 1)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Women's health

Thanks James. Greetings from Halifax. It was badly needed, and if considered holistically, is a vast topic. very much work in progress. We can discuss further on the project talk page.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Corneal ulcer‎

Corneal ulcer‎ doesn't have any source, but it is a helpful article, apparently written by an eye surgeon (User:EyeMD). I have added an "unreferenced" tag, is that all we should do? k18s (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Needs references agree. We also have Corneal abrasion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Formatting Refs: 05 August 2016

Thanks for your advice regarding "Formatting Refs". I have edited all scientific references by entering the pmid or doi in the the pop-up journal citation window. I hope that everything is fine within the article now. In case I have overlooked anything I would be thankful for further guidance. Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (talk) 17:05, 05 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes that looks better. We should also just be using review articles per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Children of War

Vandalism

Hi, I am the producer & the director of the film 'Children of War'. Why are you going on deleting the changes made by my team to the page? Do I need to prove to you how many awards this film has won or that I know Subhash K Jha personally who has allowed me to use his review anyway I see fit? What is it that you want exactly and how are you associated to this movie to be able to make these edits and then force our hand to stay them. This is just hampering the attention that the film is getting and I see no reason why you would want to sabotage it. What seems to be the problem here? Mrityunjay Devvrat Childrenofwar2014 (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Replied to a {{Help me}} on user's talk page and posted a {{Welcome-COI}}. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Details were on the talk page of one of the IP accounts your team was using [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Keratoconus, crosslinking

Hello! regarding the FDA approval for crosslinking and corneal ectasia following refractive surgery, I have found this document on FDA. it mentions "recent major changes" in July 2016 for "indications and usage", "PHOTREXA VISCOUS and PHOTREXA are photoenhancers indicated for use with the KXL System in corneal collagen cross-linking for the treatment of progressive keratoconus (1.1) and corneal ectasia following refractive surgery (1.2)". about the linked photos on keratoconus I have already contacted them, I am thinking of changing the article's lead image with one of those. for now I have added their link to the external links section. k18s (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

FDA source is much better thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

circumcision article

Hi. You have not replied to my comments criticising your involvement in the circumcision article. In short you have reverted recent edits using sources which were not secondary sources as inadmissable. Only you have left other parts of the article which also use sources which are not secondary sources either, showing bias.Tyreric (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Both the sources you are claiming are not secondary sources, infact are secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Odd sort of Vandalism...

Hi, I had a report at OTRS (2016080710005321) about the page Gonorrhea. If one starts from the mobile main page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) and then enters gono - and pause, you get Gonorrhea plus "sexually transmitted infection by close contact with Melissa Orme" as the top suggestion. I cannot work out where it comes from. Since you are a frequent editor there, I wonder have you seen that in the past, in the article? I'm suspecting the mobile search has not updated the first line of the page for a long time...! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ronhjones for the heads up. Looking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay so the search engine pulls details from Wikidata. Thus it is vandalism to Wikidata that caused the issue.

Edits happened Aug 3, 2016[2] and because Wikidata is poorly watched it simply was not picked up.

I have corrected it now.[3]

While I review the 3000 most read medical articles on WP on a daily bases I just do not have the bandwidth to add Wikidata to my list.

Not sure if they have a cluebot like system running there Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I did not know where that phase came from - I could not find it in a year's revisions of the page! Learn something new every day. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries :-) It concerns me some that there is more and more stuff on EN WP that admins here are not able to protect as one either needs to be Wikidata admin, Commons admin, or Meta admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The use of sertraline in generalized anxiety disorder

Hello, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.177.87 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yesterday I made an edit to the sertraline page adding generalized anxiety disorder as a medical condition for which sertraline (and other SSRI's [are]) is used. There are many scientific papers that support its use in GAD, so I would like to know why you decided to remove my edit if that is possible.

Thanks, Arthur 83.134.177.87 (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes the request was for you to use one of those review articles on the topic as a reference. It was not in the reference currently used to support that content. WP:MEDHOW will explain how to use references on WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay added with a ref here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Trials in humans started 2 years ago and there are now documented cases of successful treatment in the news...

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/14664556.Woman_first_in_the_country_to_have_new_treatment_for_lung_disease/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.59.250 (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So we are now waiting for proper evidence per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Dyslexia GA

getting reverted [5] on the article, they seem to want to leave:

• unreferenced text[6]
• non-MEDRS[7][8]

any help is appreciated, thanks as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• • [9]James, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • User:Ozzie10aaaa are there any reviews of these fonts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

will look --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

[10]..will therefore look for other sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Smythe, Ian (2007). Dyslexia in the Digital Age: Making IT Work. A&C Black. p. 123. ISBN 9780826438836.
• Brunswick, Nicola (2012). Supporting Dyslexic Adults in Higher Education and the Workplace. John Wiley & Sons. p. 191. ISBN 9780470974780.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hum. So primary sources might be the best we have wrt fonts. Neither of those is a major medical textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Kannangara, Chathurika S. (24 December 2015). "From Languishing Dyslexia to Thriving Dyslexia: Developing a New Conceptual Approach to Working with People with Dyslexia". Frontiers in Psychology. 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01976. ISSN 1664-1078. Retrieved 10 August 2016.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)..though not a review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I guess in the absence of good sources we can tentatively touch on lower quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• and there is this[11] originally when Dyslexia was taken to GA it was Dolfrog [12]who approached me, he did indicate he had several collections , but I haven't found what we're looking for--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• [13] requested at WP library for another part of text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

IORT Wikipage

Hello DocJames,

Thanks for your feedback on the IORT Wikipedia page. I was wondering if you might be able to review the text I added (and you edited out) under "Medical Uses" to let me know how I might improve it. If it's easier, I can send you the text (or you can find it below). Thanks.

Best, Writerjr

Extended content

Breast cancer[edit] ... In one of the largest published studies so far using electron IORT to treat breast cancer, researchers found that after treating 574 patients with full-dose IOERT with 21 [Gy], at a median follow-up of 20 months, there was an in-breast tumor recurrence rate of only 1.05%. With 5.8 years of median follow-up, IOERT appears to have a subset of low-risk women for whom IOERT is acceptable. Colorectal Cancer Over the past 30 years, treatment of locally advanced colorectal cancer has evolved, particularly in the area of local control – stopping the spread of cancer from the tumor site. IOERT shows promising results. When combined with preoperative external beam irradiation plus chemotherapy and maximal surgical resection, IOERT may be a successful component in the treatment of high-risk patients with locally advanced primary or locally recurrent cancers. Gynecological Cancer Studies suggest that electron IORT may play an important and useful role in the treatment of patients with locally advanced and recurrent gynecologic cancers, especially for patients with locally recurrent cancer after treatment for their primary lesion. Further research into radiation doses and how to best combine IOERT with other interventions will help to define the sequencing of treatment and the patients who would most benefit from receiving electron IORT, as part of the multimodality treatment of this disease. Head and Neck Cancer Head and neck cancers are often difficult to treat and have a high rate of recurrence or metastasis. IOERT is an effective means of treating locally advanced or recurrent head and neck cancers. Furthermore, research shows that a boost given by IORT reduces the ability for surviving tumor cells to replicate, creating extra time for healing of the surgical wound before EBRT is administered. Pancreatic Cancer In the U.S., pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death, even though there has been a slight improvement in mortality rates in recent years. Although the optimal treatment plan remains debated, a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy is favored in the U.S. As part of a multimodality treatment, IOERT appears to reduce local recurrence when combined with EBRT, chemoradiation, and surgical resection. Soft Tissue Sarcomas Soft tissue sarcomas can be effectively treated by electron IORT, which appears to be gaining acceptance as the current practice for sarcomas in combination with EBRT (preferably preoperative) and maximal resection. Used together, IOERT and EBRT appear to be improving local control, and this method is being refined so that it can effectively be used in combination with other interventions if indicated. In studies regarding the delivery of therapeutic radiation in the limb-sparing approach to extremity soft tissue sarcomas, electron IORT has been called ‘precision radiotherapy’ by some, because the treating physician has direct visualization of the tumor or surgical cavity and can manually exclude normal tissue from the field.

The request was to us high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Most of what you used were primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit on insomnia

Thanks for letting me know that Wikipedia does not use the word "suffer." I'm happy to have that word taken out, but the sentence as it stands is now ungrammatical. I'm going back and fixing the grammar. Thank you. Bertandherb (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Diagram

Hi James, I finally got around to making a new middle ear ossicles diagram as the lead image we had before from Blaustein medical had significant anatomic errors. Let me know your thoughts and if there are any articles that come to mind for you as in need of diagrams/imaging. Ies (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect will do Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Move reverted.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Anxiety has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. bd2412 T 13:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Doc James. When you moved Anxiety to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Anxiety" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User:R'n'B You will actually notice that I was fixing a bunch of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library

Could you please tell me about the Wikipeida Library? Tom (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The expert is User:Ocaasi Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

MergeHistory: Intrastromal corneal ring segment

Hello, sorry for asking this here but I couldn't find the right place for this request. Intrastromal corneal ring segments' contents has been moved to Intrastromal corneal ring segment by cut and paste by User:Lostraven and the page's history is lost. could you please merge their history. thank you. k18s (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User:K18s done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review of Heart

I see you've been working on Heart a bit. In case you missed it, I'm currently reviewing the article for GA at Talk:Heart/GA1, and your input would be greatly appreciated. More eyes are better for vital article GA reviews. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jclemens will do. I mostly work on leads of articles to get them ready for translation into other languages but will follow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

The content used is the official citation of the subject taken from his website (http://www.ishaqoloyede.com.ng/biography.php). The url you cited actually copied from this site. I have caused an email granting license for free use to be sent to Wikipedia. you will also note that there is no copyright notice/symbol on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taofika (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay we next need to address the COI issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Language book

Thank you. I responded to your message on my talk page. Please advise and undelete.LeonidaBishop1 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to try again?LeonidaBishop1 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Roger Hodgman

Hi Doc James, I thought I had parahprased enough when I created this article but can do more so. Is there a way to get the content back you deleted so I can reword it? (sorry, I've never had this process) Boneymau (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Boneymau email me and I will send it to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Have done Boneymau (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:NewlyPlaceSubprapubic.jpg

Could you clarify the caption on this photo? It looks like it is going into an arm; how does the tube get to the bladder?73.81.146.33 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What a disappointment. When I saw the file name, I was hoping for something much hotter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. How about mentioning that the view is between blue drapes. What is the green?73.81.146.219 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The green is another drap. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a cooperative patient, a view showing the navel and some pubic hair would be more useful!73.81.146.219 (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure will do the next time I place one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This got me too--I thought the green drape was a guy's shirtsleeve! Brianhe (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a Canadian ER. We do not get color coding here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

I stated the origin with the template in the talk of the article, which is enough. Actually it should have been written also in the object. When I copied the name to be sure to paste it right, the interface froze, pasting the previous copied snippet and for some reason saving it. And then when it defrosted I found it already saved with a weird from [[| type =. Still copyright was declared in Talk:Vapniarka concentration camp and the intention is stated here. I cannot do much more if the interface freezes and saves stuff (about freezing, it does so often recently.)--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes thanks :-) That works User:Alexmar983 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Naltrexone

Hi Doc James,

I have attempted to update the Naltrexone page several times in the past week. At first, my citation was incorrect. However, once it was correct, you told me the source was too old despite the fact that it contains relevant information. That article was the first one that proved that naltrexone is effective in treating alcohol dependence. Subsequently, dozens of studies have replicated the findings of this initial article.

I can cite a review article in the "Alcoholism" section.

However, I want to edit the "Controversies" section in which I will need to cite the 1992 article to explain how naltrexone is still not used often despite the findings that are almost 25 years old.

I'd appreciate your feedback on this.

Thanks, KeithB13 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Keith B

We tend to use secondary sources from the last 5 to 10 years per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I wanted to apologize for being rude to you the other day at Talk:ADHD. My rudeness was unwarranted since I know that even though we disagreed on the interpretation of the source, you were only acting in good faith; so, I'm sorry for acting that way toward you. I was rather irritated at the time due to an issue outside of WP. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Seppi333 no worries. Thanks for stopping by, I appreciate it. I know we are both trying to do what is best :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

• News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses

• Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica

• In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising

• Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks

• Traffic report: Olympic views

• Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)

• Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

high-quality reliable sources

The Journal of clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM) is a high-quality reliable source (Official Journal of the Endocrine Society). The paper added as reference is a peer-reviewed paper showing for the first time the mechanism underlying the toxicity of amiodarone in thyroid.

It is not a review nor a position statement; but many other references in the page are not reviews or position statements, but "just" peer-reviewed papers as the one added as reference: #5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.145.196.84 (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes so we should be replacing those other ones with reviews not adding more primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyway replaced with a major textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries User:DocOfSoc. Hope all is well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mobetron Wiki page edits

Hi Doc James,

This is writerjr. I am a professional medical writer and have been contracted by the company. I have been authorized to use the Mobetron pictures directly by the company (IntraOp) which owns the copyright.

Also, did you have any suggestions for editing the material that I had published under "Medical Uses" on the IORT wikipage?

Thanks.

Best, writerjr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writer jr (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Writer jr You need to email OTRS with the permission and the permission needs to come from the company itself.

Also per WP:COI you need to declare the company that is paying you for the editing on your talk page. You also need to be very careful about promotional writing and you need to use review articles per WP:MEDRS

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

coi/spa?

[14]and [15] it seems rather obvious (though I know COI is becoming difficult to handle/maybe add Template:COI?),,,thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• they are editing as minor edits which is not the case--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Have been following this for some time. Not sure this is COI but the editing is a little strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App/Banner translated to Spanish

Take a look: [16]

I have added the two banners to my user's page ;-) --BallenaBlanca (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And a little promotion: [17] --BallenaBlanca (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Very nice. Thanks User:BallenaBlanca Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

high-quality reliable sources as references for health

Dear Doc James,

thank you for your talk. I am new to Wikipedia and your advise on high quality references is very welcome.

Is there anything in a posts so far that has caught your eye as being of concern- if so please let me know as I would like to add contributions in the spirit of Wikipedia.

I was hoping to add content for Research into CFS so I will read your recommended reading before doing so and may seek a little advice from time to time. I am I right in thinking that references to one or more research trials on a subject conducted by major universities or research facilities are not adequate. If so then I would not be able to add content for significant research into M.E

many thanks

C7762 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:C7762 sounds good. It is a controversial topic and therefore to get content to stick you will need to support it with high quality secondary sources. Ping me if you wish further advice :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sulfite-molybdenum theory of morning sickness

Why did you take down my recent edit on the Morning Sickness entry as "unsupported"? Did you read the paper it cites? Diet evidence from around the world substantiates that foods high in molybdenum-containing foods correlate with lower morning sickness. Recent research has shown that endogenous hydrogen sulfide is crucial to angiogenesis and to a healthy pregnancy, and sulfite is a catabolite of hydrogen sulfide. Sulfite compounds put on salad bars used to regularly result in ER visits due to many symptoms, including nausea, until they were banned as an additive to most fresh vegetables. Sulfite breakdown to sulfate requires ingestion of sufficient molybdenum, part of the enzyme sulfite oxidase. This is a new theory, but it is sound and well-supported, if you read the underlying paper. There are no clinical trials because it is new. Let women decide for themselves whether to avoid sulfites and take a prenatal vitamin with molybdenum. I know from personal, recent experience that this method works to alleviate morning sickness.

71.56.230.140 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Catherine Taylor

Medical hypothesis is not a sufficient source for Wikipedia content. It is not pubmed indexed.[18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses is PubMed indexed

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Med+Hypotheses%22[jour]

71.56.230.140 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Catherine Taylor

Yes other articles are. We do not accept it generally as a reference here though.

Per "Still others, such as Medical Hypotheses, publish speculative proposals that are not reliable sources for biomedical topics."[19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is reliable for biomedical topics is irrelevant for something in a section entitled alternative medicine. "Alternative therapies lack such scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved or impossible to prove." 71.56.230.140 (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Catherine Taylor

Med Hypotheses before 2010 and Med Hypotheses now are two different journals

Science is not only for those who can fund trials. There is a place for well-supported hypotheses, and that is Medical Hypotheses. I ask you to reconsider. At least, please read the paper before dismissing its premise so glibly. 71.56.230.140 (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Catherine Taylor

Before we should make recommendations we should wait for the RCTs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine is that which is not proven by RCTs. That is why I put my edit under that section.

71.56.230.140 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Catherine Taylor

Not really the definition of alt med. A fair number of alt med treatments have been subjected to RCTs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia's page on alternative medicine. If anything, my theory is CAM, not alternative medicine.71.56.230.140 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC) Catherine Taylor