Talk:Soluble cell adhesion molecules

Cleanup and expansion

I've started rephrasing the over-technical verbatim dumps from abstracts.

This seems a very narrow view of one angle on sCAMs. There's far more interest in them than merely atherogenesis: for instance, prediction of general cardiovascular risk [1], as a prognostic marker for inflammation in heart attack survivors and carcinoma ... possible roles in endometriosis, Chagas' Disease, dermatitis, late-life depression, neural repair process, etc. Interesting stuff. Gordonofcartoon 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have provided succinct, mainstream references that show practical research applications of soluble CAMs that involve nutrient research in common nutrients or possible mechanisms of deficiency related to common medical problems in a mere sentence without even any commentary. I think examples with commonly familiar conditions, diseases, and/or recognizable substances are likely to be more intelligible to normal WP readers than a dry technical tome speaking in a speculative abstract. Please feel to add your own V RS references to expand the article.

As for "soapboxing vitamins", there was no recommendation or advocacy about any nutrient, disease or medical conclusion; furthermore, I am not aware of FNB's classification of fish oil as a vitamin. If one actually reads the references, one can see that a particular vitamin tested failed to "improve" the sVCAM biomarker in one paper - so much for my "advocacy", although I did need to improve the sentence that the reference supported to show that.

Also it appears my interest and thinking here may have other fellow travellers. In case you missed it, from Newsweek's coverage, "...Sunday afternoon, Grove is unleashing a scathing critique of the [US] nation's biomedical establishment"[2], Grove's "commentary" appearing in JAMA, where one of the things he criticized was lack of development or use of (or familiarity with) biomarkers. But like his EE competitors, I wouldn't be surprised if medicine just tried to flip off or smooth over Grove too, since he is just some rich ChemE...--TheNautilus 05:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add any comments, here. It is hard to collaborate with undiscussed, unilateral deletionism.--TheNautilus 12:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to collaborate with SPA POV pushers. Your sole interest on Wikipedia is in adding material supportive of vitamin C / orthomolecular /supplemental therapies. Every time you do so is an example of WP:SOAP. Furthermore, sCAMs are pertinent to a huge number of situations, and it's undue weight to add cherry-picked examples of application to a particular minority-interest field without evidence that this is generally viewed as a notable aspect of sCAM study. Gordonofcartoon 13:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have limited time. The (pseudo)skeptical errors and 4th hand scientific misrepresentations so hawkishly present at WP have taken more time than I like to think about, to straighten out facts toward something that reflects current, WP:V Science, not biased attitudes from highly misinformed, -ing editors that are pushing their obsolete and inaccurate innuendos on subjects they don't even have a good grounding on the historical and scientific facts. That is not "Soap", it is WP:V toward building a factual encyclopedia, where persistent bias, misrepresentations and flat errors abound on the vitamin C topic, ditto orthomed, at "QW-WP", where many editors, who should know better, even think that QW is a reliable scientific source. I have presumed you might have the interest to fill out some of those other "huge situations". Here I did not "cherry pick" the examples, I simply added those that I have come across in reading that I thought were interesting, and certainly would welcome *improvements". Orthomed has more interest in biomarkers than your run of the mill medical office - Pauling and Hoffer, orthomed founders, were active in biomarker research and mechanism long before many WP editors here were even a sparkle in their parents' wine glass. So the interest here is natural. Again, I would encourage you to help *add* content to move away from "stub class" rather than just complain about *my* science interests.--TheNautilus 09:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've read that particular lecture before. The general consensus, here and in the outside world, is that the orthomolecular view of things is a minority one. You are not straightening anything out by trying to write it into some more central role here. Gordonofcartoon 12:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Facts are not a view, they are facts. The orthomed area happens to be one where a lot of people and professionals simply have not looked hard enough, past popularized, long running rumors, distortions and innuendos to find the *actual* facts. I have. Again WP:V should trump the literal superstitions of the crowd, the "problem" that some editors have is that I can deliver the V RS *facts* that assualt their ill-informed basis of "knowledge". Since I grew up with the public parts of the story, I often know exactly when & where the those rumors started, how difficult it used to be to assemble and check them out, where the underlying "facts" have changed (corrected or the lying part exposed), and how many people came to uncritically accept blatantly misrepresented & false information. I think that I am correct to insist that factual errors not go uncorrected in an encyclopedia where *facts* should not be misrepresented again by an often distorted majority here with provably misinformed POV, who simply have taken repeated rumors from *now recognized* biased (or in some cases, fraudulent) sources for granted as facts.

As for this article, one sentence with several references, is not a central role. Again, it appears to me that other editors simply have not caught up on their part filling out content on those "huge situations", which should be easy if the other examples are so numerous.--TheNautilus 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have.

If you're coming to a different conclusion than the usual one, then it's original research. Even if the general view were wrong, we are obliged to represent the predominant one as predominant. I'm an atheist, but don't go around trying to rewrite all the religious articles to reflect my viewpoint. Gordonofcartoon 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You are headed offtopic and insinuating a number of aspersions, when all I have added is a statement that links the use of sCAMs in nutrient science and related research, as well as to just disease and diagnostics research. No OR there.--TheNautilus 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)