User talk:Doc James/Archive 105

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doc James. 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 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

Happy New Year! I'm repeating here the reply below to your brief request for citation on the Down Syndrome page.

Sorry, I thought I included an auto-reference to the original hard cover edition of The Panda's Thumb: 978-0393013801

The full citation should wind up reading: 1941-2002., Gould, Stephen Jay, (1980-01-01). The Panda's Thumb : More Reflections in Natural History. Norton. pp. 167–68. ISBN 9780393013801. OCLC 781219337.

Sorry if my Wiki skills weren't up to posting that correctly. If you don't have a copy of the book handy to check my citation, you should be able to see it in full text on Google Books here, where it allows to expand out from snippet view.

[1]

The point citation is to page 167-168, where Gould writes in 1980 that the term "Mongoloid" is still in common use in the United States and, after some equivocation, coming down in favor of replacing the term with "Down's Syndrome". The text you restored says the older terminology was abandoned in the early 1970's, and I believe this citation forms a valid basis for my revision, which I urge you to restore.

Kindly also restore the references to Dr. Cookshank. The text you restored does what I consider to be a serious disservice to Dr. Down, by attributing to Down the racism that was only injected into Down's terminology 70 years later by Dr. Crookshank. Happy New Year. Sprucegrouse (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Sprucegrouse (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks User:Sprucegrouse will look further when I wake up. No disservice was meant to Dr. Down. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way we say "it is now considered unacceptable and is no longer in common use" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What ref supported "Down was aware that they were not "real Mongols", and indeed inferred "the unity of the human species" from his observation that a disease process could result in the children of Caucasian parents presenting with facial features similar to those of another race. "

The quotations are directly from Down's 1866 article cited in note 109 of the current version, but are also paraphrased on page 166 of Gould's Panda's Thumb, which I sent you a link to earlier.

Okay see it and will add. How is this[2]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Per this text "In 1921 F.G. Crookshank proposed that Down syndrome resulted from mixture of "Mongol blood" with European in the wake of the Mongol invasions, a false claim repeated for many decades." why are we using a 1924 book review?

With all due respect, that is not mere book review. It is an abstract from the journal nature. But if you'd like a more contemporary scholarly source, a book by Professor Keevak published recently by Princeton University Press devoted contained and extensive discussion in Chapter Four of Crookshanks' books. (The 1931 edition was really a different book with the same title. https://www.worldcat.org/title/becoming-yellow-a-short-history-of-racial-thinking/oclc/713342093 Happy to cite this as well if you like. (pp. 117-20)

Sure what does the text from that book support? I am only able to see page 120. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Doc:

The text form Professor Keevak's book supports the basic point of my original changes, which is that while Down's name for his now-eponymous syndrome was an error, the whole thing took a really unfortunate turn for the worse seventy years later, when later authors, Crookshank in particular, decided that the syndrome wasn't what we'd now call a mutation, but was literally the result of interbreeding of Asians (such as the Mongol invaders, but also the Huns) with "pure" Europeans.

Below is a long an excerpt from Keevak, that supported my original revisions, from pp. 177ff. I have no intention of burdening the Down Syndrome article with anything but the briefest allusion to this ridiculous claptrap, and include it at length here only in response to your request for more information. Down was obviously wrong to associate his syndrome with race in any way, but as you can see, in the hands of later authors his misnomer blossomed into something really ugly, much more ugly than anything we should pin on Down. That's really Gould's point: that while Down was wrong about his classification scheme, there was no malice in it either.

If the Wikipedia article is going to have a section on the history of the name of the syndrome, as I think it should, I think it's best to allude briefly to the fact that Dr. Down's original name for it was a misnomer and (as Gould notes) part of a broader attempt on his part to create a typology of idiocy paralleling the supposed races of man, but also to note, equally briefly, that the whole misguided notion took a sharp turn for the worse at the hands of subsequent authors in the 1920s and 1930s. (My classmates were students of Gould's at Harvard in the 1970s and I studied with his student Robert Trivers, and while Wikipedia is not about recording personal communications and experiences, I can can inform you here that remote echoes of Crookshank were still infecting discussions of all this into the 1980s.) I think that citations to university press books and popular books by distinguished scholars like Professor Gould (he headed Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology, as well as being a bestselling author) certainly meet Wikipedia's standards for authoritative sources; I'm not trying to record my own opinions or experiences here. I'm just trying to correct what I see as a misleading section of the article using reliable, respected sources.

I remain stupefied that Crookshank's book got that good review in Nature, but that was cited in Wikipedia before I got here. Keevak doesn't deal with that review at all, and implies that Crookshank was only taken seriously by laymen, not the profession.

Here is Keevak:

"many scholars remained convinced that the disease must have some sort of anthropological significance. One of the most notorious was Dr. F. G. Crookshank, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and author of numerous papers on topics ranging from migraine and influenza to venereal disease and flatulence. He was best known as a maverick leader in attempts to combine medicine and psychology, particularly the individual psychology of Alfred Adler, along with a strong dose of eugenics, literary modernism, and Nietzschean philosophy of the will, all much in vogue during the interwar years in Europe. In 1924 he created a sensation with his The Mongol in Our Midst: A Study of Man and His Three Faces, a short novelistic treatment of just over one hundred pages in which he took atavistic ideas about “Mongolism” to a whole new level. 40 He agreed that Down syndrome, which he associated with “white” people only, was an instance of retrogression, but he also argued that each of the “three faces” of humanity (Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid) embodied an array of correspondences that linked them to the three varieties of anthropoid ape: the chimpanzee, the orangutan, and the gorilla. Mongolians were “orangoid.” The three-ape thesis was not new; one of its earliest proponents was zoologist Carl Vogt in 1863, and Darwin had criticized it in The Descent of Man. But by Crookshank’s time it was being revived, especially by the physical anthropologist Hermann Klaatsch, who after studying the remains of a prehistoric skeleton found in southern France in 1909 concluded that its bones were entirely different from those of Neanderthal man, and that perhaps early man should be divided between a western group and an eastern one, which he termed “gorilloid” and “orangoid,” respectively. Indeed the two types might represent different species, their differences extending even to the brain. 41 in which he consistently differentiated “the Chinese brain” from the European one, concluding that while the former had progressed from the level of the apes it was still far smaller than its Western counterpart. In a series of subsequent studies he repeatedly contended that Chinese bodies were both fundamentally “primitive” and entirely distinct from self-described European norms, and in 1924 his fullest statement on the subject determined that the “yellow race” represented an entirely separate branch of humanity that, in short, had “sprouted from the same root” as the orangutan. 43 Crookshank did not mention Kurz’s work at first, yet when The Mongol in Our Midst went into a second edition in 1925, Kurz was credited with having “establish[ ed] in the most convincing manner the strictest homology between the Chinese and the orang brains.” The love affair was mutual: Kurz became Crookshank’s German translator in 1928, and in Crookshank’s third edition Kurz was one of the most frequently cited authors. 44 Yet what set Crookshank apart from his German colleagues was the way he allied their notions of a “primitive” “Eastern” “orangoid” man to Down’s concept of the ethnic classification of “Mongoloid idiots.” The result was a grand edifice of absurd allegations about the orangutan, the racial Mongolian, and the “Mongoloid,” all of whom were said to share a variety of homologies that demanded further investigation. “orangoid” man to Down’s concept of the ethnic classification of “Mongoloid idiots.” The result was a grand edifice of absurd allegations about the orangutan, the racial Mongolian, and the “Mongoloid,” all of whom were said to share a variety of homologies that demanded further investigation.

"Might this be the result of genetic influence, proving that in Europe’s distant past there had been a substantial infusion of Mongolian blood? How else might one explain the “range of Mongolian or semi-Mongolian types amongst our native Cockneys”? (figure 14). 45 The book created what one reviewer called “a pleasant furor, especially among laymen,” although responses from the scientific and medical communities were much more muted. But they, too, often seemed to support at least some of Crookshank’s assertions, particularly about the reality of the “lower races.” A reviewer in the 1925 Archives of Pediatrics objected to the idea that Down syndrome was proof of Mongolian blood and explained patients’ cross-legged posture as a natural result of the looseness of their leg and hip joints, yet this reviewer still agreed that “the individual in his embryonic development recapitulates the phases through which he passed in the history of the race in its evolution from lower to higher forms.” Some saw through the claptrap at once, among them the geneticist Lionel Penrose, who would soon begin groundbreaking studies on Down syndrome, demonstrating that its source was not racial at all."

Keevak, Michael (2011-04-18). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (p. 118). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Keevak, Michael (2011-04-18). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (pp. 117-118). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Keevak, Michael (2011-04-18). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (pp. 117-118). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Keevak, Michael (2011-04-18). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (p. 117). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Keevak, Michael (2011-04-18). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (pp. 116-117). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Keevak, Michael (2011-04-18). Becoming Yellow: A Short History of Racial Thinking (p. 116). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. Sprucegrouse (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we mentioned Crookshank at all before you added them in this edit [3]

With the Keevak source rather than the early 1900s book review happy to re add.

What part supports "a false claim repeated for many decades."? The text says "the 1925 Archives of Pediatrics objected to the idea that Down syndrome was proof of Mongolian blood" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What ref supported "This manifestation of scientific racism was not thoroughly discredited until the trisomy 21 discovery in 1959 discussed above." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This was simply meant to refer readers back to the previous section. Delete this sentence if you want to. It's hard to prove a negative. Or, we could simply state it positively, it's obvious that the trisomy 21 discovery discredited Crookshank, and we can cite Professor Keevak for that.

Okay page 120 supports and added here[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Page 167 says "Down's theory for trisomy 21 lost its rationale-even within Down's invalid racist system" which seems to attribute some of the racism to Down at least.[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You make a fair point here. But I'm not trying to whitewash Down's reputation completely. If you read his 4-page paper you can see that the whole point of it was to map various kinds of "idiocy" in is Caucasian patients to characteristics of "lower" races. But as Gould points out, he was still a "liberal" by the standards of his day. But, here again, I really don't care about this sentence. It's a paraphrase from Gould, and I leave it up to you whether to include it here or not. Maybe it's best to leave it out, for a variety of reasons.Sprucegrouse (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take a bit of time to review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Kindly explain your insistence that terms like Mongoloid Idiocy and Mongoloidism continued to be used until the early 1970s, when the Steven J. Gould source you just posted to the Down Syndrome article makes it abundantly clear that the decision whether or not to abandon such terms was still the subject of genuine debate and equivocation on his part in 1980. Sprucegrouse (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This source says "until very recent years the genetically determined condition now known as Downs had been know for about a century as mongolism or mongolian imbecility"[6]

But agree we have newer sources that say "As shown in the figure, use of the term “mongolism” diminished progressively and disappeared in the early 1980s"[7] so happy to change to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Have been busy in real life, as I'm sure you have as well, but appreciate your patience and attention to this.Sprucegrouse (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no word “pre-hypertension”in JAC8 guidelines. Treatment should be initiated when blood pressure is 150/90 mm Hg or higher in adults 60 years and older, or 140/90 mm Hg or higher in adults younger than 60 years.In patients with hypertension and diabetes, treatment should be initiated when blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg or higher.I think BethNaught strongly opposing jac8 ,so reverted my edits in talk page of hypertension.Please see talk page history. I am so surprised for this reverts by BethNaught Dr Priyanka MD,(49.203.108.60 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)),Asst professor ,Cardiology ,MGIMS

Will look again at the JNC8 and update the classification.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi James, I just did my first "undid revision", on the hysterectomy article. Someone inserted a spam website into a reference. I did not want to click on the website, in case it was a virus. Is there anything else that needs to be done to monitor this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterectomy

Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JenOttawa excellent edit. Have blocked the account in question as agree they are adding spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a little nervous. :) JenOttawa (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice the TFD, the {{Multicol}} family is being replaced by {{col-begin}}. Your userpage is one of the few holdouts still using it. Feel free to either change the templates to something different or subst the existing ones (they're all wrappers anyway). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks User:Primefac for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, not sure if you'd be interested in contributing personally or not, but some WikiProject Cannabis members are organizing a 420 collaboration in April. I know some people hear 'cannabis' and immediately envision lazy stoners, but I'd like to get as much community buy-in for this collaboration as possible so we can improve many Wikipedia articles. My hope is that you and Wiki Project Med will support our efforts, especially by improving articles related to medical marijuana and health. I'll be pinging other Wiki Project Med board members and participants for help, too, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A bunch of use keep and work on cannabis related articles. A fair bit of cleanup is needed. There has been a fair bit of editing in the area by people who are just fans or have a COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some work by "med" editors on cannabis-related articles, and I agree that a lot of cleanup is needed, hence the invitation for project support. Do feel free to swing by the collaboration page if you'd like to share support, concerns, identify articles needing creation or improvement, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

I am new on Wikipedia and I have tried to create a Wikipedia page for 'Crocin' (Brand of Paracetamol)but you have redirected to generic. I have noticed that the 'Tylenol' is also brand name of 'Paracetamol' but there is a Wikipedia page for this brand. It is not redirecting to generic.

Crocin and Tylenol, both are brand names. If the page exist for 'Tylenol' then I think we also create for 'Crocin'. Also I have used the good sources in my article. Please help me to create the page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Wildnet (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There are very few brands that need an independent page and Crocin is not one of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We have already found you using socks[8]. I imagine you are paid by this company? I am not seeing where you have disclosed this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Doctor James, You've made a reference to the impact factor of journals and have pointed journal-data.com. I looked at the website. It does not have a contact page, about page, or privacy policy. It does not explain its methodology or where it gets its data. I also looked up the domain registration, which is anonymous. Can you provide some proof as to the website's credibility? Thanks in advance. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to "Dermato-Endocrinology" I imagine?

Another ref that says no impact factor[9]

You have a ref that says it has one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tylenol. Since you had some involvement with the Tylenol redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In the Autism article, you recently changed "Autism a complex disorder resulting from the combination of genetic and environmental factors" to "Autism is believed to be due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors". The reference asserts that it is due to the combination. Would you be comfortable with deleting "believed to be"? I am not aware of any disagreement about both genetic and environmental factors being involved. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI: This user's sandbox still contains some problematic content in its edit history. Shearonink (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

When I read some of the articles on Autism, they appeared to me to be somewhat US-centric. I felt that they should contain some information about UK practice where it differs from the US. For example, "The DISCO is now increasingly used in the National Health Service (NHS) to assess adults with a possible ASD."^[1] "The DISCO also evaluates a range of subtypes of the autism spectrum".^[1] I presume this includes classic autistic disorder. How would you suggest UK practice should be expanded where it appears to differ from the US? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The request was to use review articles rather than primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

references I used were:

Miller, Shira. "Dr.". A Testosterone Therapy Alternative for Men with Low Testosterone Levels. Retrieved 9 January 2017.

Shabsigh, Ahmad; Kang, Young; Shabsign, Ridwan; Gonzalez, Mark; Liberson, Gary; Fisch, Harry; Goluboff, Erik (September 2005). "Clomiphene Citrate Effects on Testosterone/Estrogen Ratio in Male Hypogonadism". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2 (5): 716–721. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00075.x.

Nieschlag, volume editor, Eberhard Nieschlag, Hermann M. Behre, Susan; Behre, Hermann M.; Nieschlag, Susan (2009). Andrology : male reproductive health and dysfunction (3rd ed. ed.). Berlin: Springer. p. 459. ISBN 978-3-540-78354-1.

Niederberger, Craig. "MD FACS". How Clomid Works in Men. Retrieved 9 January 2017.

Guay, A T; Jacobson, J; Perez, J B; Hodge, M B; Velasquez, E (June 2003). "Clomiphene increases free testosterone levels in men with both secondary hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction: who does and does not benefit?". International Journal of Impotence Research. 15 (3): 156–165. doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3900981.

2 of them are links to medical doctor pages who explain how this treatment works to a layman. 2 of them are peer reviewed articles 1 is a book about andrology

even if the first two do not seem to reach the standards they allow laymen to understand how this treatment works. and if you look closer those references are followed by another type of reference.

the fact that Hypothalamic Disease (HD) is in the majority of the cases not detected even by trained medics is very symptomatic. patients end up with prozac, viagra etc. to treat the first symptoms and cardiovascular disease at a later stage. last month I visited a friend's father in a hospital whose leg was amputated after years of untreated HD. my father was lucky. his diabetes could be reversed as well as BEH, osteoporosis and many other symptoms (thanks to Clomid + Anastrozole).

so I wonder why a simple and more and more popular treatment what cost the patient less than 15 USD a month is still so feared...

so in summary: backed my contribution my Medical Book (Springer) and peer reviewed articles from The Journal of Sexual Medicine, and International Journal of Impotence Research. I can provide more if is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studzinski.daniel (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a primary source[10]

This is a block[11]

The request was to use recent high quality review articles and other secondary sources.

I left the review article you used[12]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should merge the articles on:

• Ringer's lactate

and

• Ringer's solution

before we translate them. Scandinavia almost universally uses Ringer's acetate, and I'm pretty sure the same is true for Germany. AR is used in entirely the same way as LR — apart from that AR is okay in both severe sepsis and liver failure. There are no good reviews on the differences, and the few studies that have been performed are mostly inconclusive. I think it would be best to just have everything under one article so that we don't translate information that is inapplicable to certain countries. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:CFCF Ringer's solution is a different solution with warnings not to confuse the two in the BNF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Buffered Ringer then? That way AR and LR could redirect to it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

So AR and LR are used the same well Ringer's solution is not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point — while Ringer's colloquially refers to AR here, I forgot about the unbuffered solution since it's almost never used (it's actually not even available). I don't know exactly how the situation is internationally beyond the anglosphere which uses LR, Scandinavia that uses AR and Germany which I think uses both. I'll remove the merge tags for now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

They say plan RS is still avaliable in the UK as of 2015. I had never heard of the stuff before working on the article. Its existence appears to be a medical error waiting to happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd, seeing as there shouldn't be that much use for it over just NaCl. Maybe in TURP bleeding to avoid hypernatremi/hypocalemia... It seems that in some third world countries Ringerfundin is used with some form of Malic acid instead of lactate or acetate. I'm having difficulies finding reliable sources though. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yah these are hard articles to right. So many names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think I gave the review undue weight, how would you prefer I modify it for inclusion? The review again was here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20184717. Jmg873 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The review was published in a journal with an impact factor of zero. I do not think we should be giving it any weight. Please continue this on the articles talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Re. your reversion of my edit for Acceptance_and_commitment_therapy on grounds that it needed a better citation. Could you tell me why the current citation isn't sufficient? AFAICT it fulfils WP:REF criteria. Thanks. --gilgongo (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This does not look like a sufficient source to me [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, but given my reading of WP:REF, I need an explanation of why you think it's not sufficient, rather than simply your opinion. This will help myself and others in citing similar material. --gilgongo (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MEDRS? One of the the criteria do you feel this fits? IMO it fits none of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The source I give is a tertiary one that is not being used to debunk anything in the article. Moreover, I am as able to judge the quality of the references in the article as you are: they appear in biomedical journals and print publications written by professors in the field. I fail to see how any of that contravenes WP:MEDRS. I have added information to a Wikipedia article in good faith in order to expand it. In removing it, you need to explain why. --gilgongo (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a review article in a high quality journal. Not a major medical textbook. Not a position statement from a major national or international healthcare organization.

Anyway I have requested you further opinions here [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a drastically disabled former research librarian -- MS in information science, half a PhD in library management, 22 yrs in the field. What I can contribute here is limited, but the quality is solid.

To current appearance, your message appears meant to justify Petergstrom's unwarranted deletion of my text of the findings found here http://insight.jci.org/articles/view/89376 and discussed in "plain English" in Medscape (a professional online service) here http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/874434 . If this material is indeed the point, please note that critics of the reality of this disorder tend to complain of lack of objective evidence while ignoring the objective evidence that does exist and creating/perpetuating a prejudice of female neurosis. The introduction to the article subtly but effectively reflects that bias, and has for many years. Thus, presentation of objective evidence is appropriate and necessary to correct bias. I've waited patiently for others to do it. Either no one has, or biased editors control the page, a not uncommon phenomenon in wikipedia.

In general, assertions of substandard sourcing ought to be require proof. Sources for which there are wikipedia pages whose content verifies acceptable quality cannot in good faith be treated as substandard unless substantiation is provided. Lack of substantiation may indicate unconscious bias.

If, of course, the point is that the formatting of my text's reference did not meet your satisfaction, you always have the option, as a skilled wikipedia user, to improve that. It would be a more constructive contribution.

Thank you for your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qassander (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem was not the formating of the source, it was that the source was a simple primary study. We are looking for review articles and other high quality secondary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As a sufferer from NANIPER, I wanted to let you know that after the split away from Rhinitis, Nonallergic_rhinitis is missing a lot of useful information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinitis#Nonallergic_rhinitis. A user who lands directly on the Nonallergic_rhinitis from a search won't know to look for the other information in the Rhinitis article. -- Dandv 13:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about this[15] User:Dandv? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good short-term band-aid. Would it constitute further improvement to move more of the Non-allergic section of Rhinitis into Nonallergic_rhinitis? -- Dandv 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yah I think that would be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a progound question, How and Why is this "Dr Jeff", writing anything about chiropractic or chiropractic practice? He is only an MD not a DC. His writings mimic those medics of years past with the attitude of prejudice since all he has to say is the same old rhetoric as the old "closed minded" did for nearly a hundred years with little success. Why is it nessessry to continue the attack to mislead the public that only medics and big pharma have the answers which any one knows is the furthest thing from the truth. That more and more families are being helped improve their health and maintain their health with chiropractic then ever before and it's mainly because of the broken medical model of health that they themselves created. How many drug addicts have they created? How many killed by MDs in hospitals yearly with the right medications and the correct surgeries, I could be wrong but I beleave the number to be around 400,000 plus by the medical community ststments alone! So shouldn't those who oversee Wikipedia content at least consider contacting a college or University such as Sherman College of Chiropractic or Life University to have a D.C., Doctor of Chiropractic explaining what it is and what we do etc. to the public? I don't see you having a dentist giving difintions of what an eye doctor is or does. I'm Simply asking for a fair and level playing field. He, and I could be wrong but, seems to be, an apparently biased MD who wants to continues the old medics methods of prejudice to moline a great profession that has helped millions regain there health after medicine failed. I guess not much has changed in his world. I feel badly for his patients. Though I don't expect this will be addressed, I did feel it should at least be sent.

I look forward to your reply. Jett Gurman, DC Dr. Jett (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about using the best avaliable sources, not about the background of the editors in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for comments and guidance concerning the adding of sources to health articles. I appreciate you taking the time inform me of the differences in the types of sources to use in those articles, Have a great day! CBS527^Talk 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to qualify this statement in drug articles by specifying what it is effective for. Anesthetics like propofol do not merit a blanket safety statement like that and I strongly oppose your revisions to articles like that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Propofol is the most effective and safe for the purpose for which it is used. None of the medicines, like all medicines are perfectly safe. I am working to get the WHO to release their definition of essential medicines under an open license. They were happy with the "most effective and safe" that we drafted together as an alternative until we can get the formal legal stuff in place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prazepine and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imipramine are different chemicals but lots of drugs websites list them as the same. At some point did they get confused in medical circles?? Prazepine seems to never been actually used, and someone keeps trying to edit it AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes the side chain comes off the ring structure on the opposite side.

No idea why people are getting them confused. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been working with images as I normally do, and I found a good one for impetigo and changed the infobox image at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Impetigo & Impetigo to what I recall as a more typical case. However the case I replaced as well as the gallery in the main article Impetigo is not in the translations. To me it seems straight-forward to add galleries on all articles where images are important (infectious diseases, skin conditions, anatomy). I could rather quickly add some images with captions that can later just be used for the translations. Do you think that would be a good idea? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Carl I agree that is a much more typical case :-) Yes having a gallery in the signs and symptoms sections of derm conditions is something I support. Having those end up in the translation is also a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this [16]? I adjusted a bit, but I prefer you to look at it more deeply, now I do not have more time.

Also, your opinion about this [17]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)