User talk:Medical Rights

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 5 albert square (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________

So how much do you get paid for editing Canadian Medical Protective Association and CloudFlare? 108.9.113.171 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLOSURE: I do not get paid anything at all. Your question is illogical. My approach to the CMPA and CloudFlare is investigative journalism, and since this involves criticism (as opposed to corporate vanity advertising), those companies would not pay such a writer. Medical Rights (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________

Guillain-Barre Syndrome – Notable Cases[edit]

This is an encyclopedia, not People magazine. We should not restrict ourselves to celebrities – Hollywood actors, sports stars, musicians, TV anchors, a few politicians – which at present comprise all the Guillain-Barre case reports on Wiki. The only case of real, enduring interest in that list is US President Roosevelt. Your list satisfies a longing to worship celebrities, but that is not enough.

After all, we are working under the heading "Notable Cases," not "Notable People."

"Notable Cases" should include case reports that actually teach something about the disease – information not found elsewhere – and case reports that illuminate how the rare nature of this disease creates an unforseen struggle within the health-care system. This would serve the public interest. Medical Rights (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aloha27 were removed from this Talk Page. Aloha27 contests a reference on the Wiki Guillain-Barre Syndrome page. That would be fine, except that with each post, Aloha27 changes his reasons. When logic is absent, the driving force is often a strong emotion. In this case, that emotion appears to be jealousy. Evidence: Aloha27 says he had Guillain-Barre, though he admits his case was mild, without diagnostic struggle. Aloha27's comments have a distinctly resentful tone when he talks about his case not being notable enough for publication. (He should be glad – all GBS patients wish we could sail through the experience so lightly). Medical Rights (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Ms. Sil's Guillain-Barre Reference

■ Primary reference: The article in question was published in The Medical Post (issue 29(5):32), which journal "gives priority to doctors"; it is their stated mandate. The Medical Post doesn't typically accept patient accounts, but leaves that type of writing to home-style magazines and media reports. Most of those accounts all sound the same, apart from a change of name, job, and city. By contrast, The Medical Post accepts only articles of interest to doctors, which means that article must teach something new, even to doctors.

■ Secondary reference #1: The Saskatoon Star Phoenix newspaper reprinted Ms. Sil's entire article. Reference: What to Do When Doctor Doesn't Know Best, Star Phoenix, Lifestyle cover story, 24 September 1994.

■ Secondary reference #2: In the same edition of the Star Phoenix, in-depth editor Katheryn Warden devoted her column to discussing that piece. Reference: Informed Patients Involved in Medical Decisions, Star Phoenix, page C9, 24 September 1994

■ Shortly, these secondary references will be available online. For independent verification visit a University Library, or any large Public Library, and consult their newspapers stored on micro-fiche.

■ Academic Qualifications: Ms. Sil earned an M.Sc. from the University of British Columbia in the field of Physics (Lasers and Nonlinear Optics).

■ Peer Review: The Medical Post – before publication as it does for any article – vetted at length the medical information from Ms. Sil. As did the journalist Ms. Sil collaborated with at the Star Phoenix.

■ The notable concept in Ms. Sil's article is the role reversal between doctor and patient. Many patients struggle to get diagnosed, but very few do the work themselves, with no medical training. Ms Sil applied for and obtained her own medical chart while she was in the hospital and used that chart to work alongside her doctors. She wrote notes to correct errors in her chart; these were accepted. This had the full blessing of Hospital Administration.

■ Ms. has, on her website Tuum Est, her diagnostic results for Guillain-Barre. Not just word reports, but graphs of Nerve-Conduction Velocity (EMG) tests. There are two sets of graphs, for tests done 3 weeks apart, giving a very clear picture of how the peripheral nerves demyelinate. Since the disease is rare, this would interest doctors (and med students), perhaps most in less advanced countries of the world. Post updated. Medical Rights (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources are Now Online

Ms. Sil's case of Guillain-Barre is supported by secondary sources. We produce these sources which Wiki instructs are important. Tuum Est scanned the original newspaper pages to form electronic JPG or PNG images. Our small scanner size meant we had to separately scan the top and bottom half of each newspaper page. Then we had to make a single document from the two halves. The methods we tried: (a) Concatenate the images in Apple Automator and output the result as a PDF. The result, however, looked very grainy for these old newspaper pages. (b) Then we tried an HTML webpage as a container; the code has a header plus two <img> tags to vertically align the two halves of the newspaper page on a white background. This worked well. You can obtain the individual images by clicking the image on the webpage and choosing "Save As". Medical Rights (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links to the secondary sources, plus the original Medical Post publication:

http://tuum-est.com/autoimmune/guillain-barre/georgena-sil/star-phoenix/informed-patients-involved-in-medical-decisions-newsclip.html

http://tuum-est.com/autoimmune/guillain-barre/georgena-sil/star-phoenix/what-to-do-when-doctor-doesnt-know-best-newsclip.html

http://tuum-est.com/autoimmune/guillain-barre/georgena-sil/star-phoenix/what-to-do-when-doctor-doesnt-know-best-proquest-citation.pdf

http://tuum-est.com/autoimmune/guillain-barre/georgena-sil/medical-post/coming-to-grips-with-guillain-barre-syndrome-newsclip.html

Hold Wikipedia to an Academic Standard

(1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the standard should be academic. On the Guillain-Barre page, the focus should be "Notable Cases" – the section's actual title. The title is not "Notable People." Whether a person is a rock star, football coach, or politician has little to do with whether readers will absorb anything of value from the reference. Stars likely receive better medical care during the acute stage of their disease, because then MDs and nurses are under a media magnifying lens, and don't want to be skewered for mistakes or neglect. Thus media reports of "star" cases may not mirror the average patient's experience. Later on when the media report becomes a simple reference, know this: Doctors are not star-struck and neither are most people searching for medical information. An "interesting case" refers to medical interest; doctors care not a jot about the glamor level of a patient's life.

(2) Perhaps there could be three lists: / Notable Cases (Academic) / Notable People (Stars) / GBS Patients Who Published Books /

(3) JDWolff removed Ms. Sil's reference from the Guillain-Barre page on Wiki. On his personal page, JDWolff says he is a “doctor of acute medicine.” If that is true (and I assume it is), then that places JDWolff in a conflict-of-interest position. Physicians as a group have a reputation for being highly sensitive to criticism – any criticism – of other doctors, of clinical skills, of hospitals. I expect JDWolff is no different. JDWolff should not be allowed to remove items that criticize health care, without a backup opinion from an objective administrator at Wiki (objective = someone not connected with health care).

(4) Recently, B.C. doctors began a campaign to increase the medical worth and accuracy of Wiki. Source: Wikipedia’s Medical Errors and One Doctor’s Fight to Correct Them (CBC News, 21 August 2014) at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wikipedia-s-medical-errors-and-one-doctor-s-fight-to-correct-them-1.2743268 That news report says: "Studies have shown that, on average, at least 50 per cent (or more) of doctors use Wikipedia in their practice. Heilman says the website is an easy way for physicians to jog their memories. For medical students, Wikipedia is their second most used information source." Therefore, in the public interest Wiki has a duty on medical pages not to be star-struck, or to simplify the topic to pablum. Post updated. Medical Rights (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future of this Topic

Tuum Est has no time for edit wars. Tuum Est opts to begin its own list of Notable Cases with sub-titles such as: Doctors Stricken with GBS, Nurses Stricken with GBS, and Other Notable Cases. The sources are personal accounts published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Physicians, nurses, and other technical people are objective observers during the acute stage of GBS. Such people make incisive observations about symptoms, and about the journey through the health system. Physicians hold such personal accounts in esteem, saying they are highly instructive. (I realize Wikipedia does not grasp this). Tuum Est will include only Notable People whose disease has one or more features of medical interest. Roosevelt would be an example. Medical Rights (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Aloha27: Place your comments either on the Guillain-Barre Talk Page, or on your own Talk Page. Tuum Est prefers an academic tone; thus we have begun compiling our own lists of Notable Cases, as stated quite definitley above. I suppose you could say Tuum Est has outgrown Wikipedia. Medical Rights (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]