Talk:Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi

Side effects?
Are there known or suspected side effects of this procedure? If so, can someone add them? Thanks, 199.212.20.3 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

History section should be specific to MIBI
Currently it's about NM which has its own page. Sven (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)a
 * I totally agree. No information on Alan Davison, who's lab at MIT invented MIBI; Alan was also the first person to undergo a scan. Lab oral history had it that Alan set off the geiger counter in the next room... through a concrete block wall. 50.133.141.130 (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Breast Imaging
changed "There is however, no radiation dose (ionizing or not) that is believed to be completely risk free," to "Since even small doses of ionizing radiation carry some risk of causing cancer...". Nothing is completely risk free, and non-ionizing radiation is irrelevant to 99mTc, which emits ionizing radiation.CharlesHBennett (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The CN parts of the MIBI groups (ligands) to the technetium ion are reversed in direction. Carbon should have four bonds; nitrogen three. Marieum (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Its fine. See isocyanide.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mention of RM Fleming, MD
I have done a copyedit cleanup sweep of the entire article, to improve its clarity and readability. On rereading it, I find the mention of Dr Fleming's conviction and debarment jarring and somewhat distracting from the overall technical focus of the article. The information referenced in the footnote appears to be factual, judicially-determined, and documented, but the real question is how relevant they are to the article.

The recent behavior of User:RM Fleming, MD has not been helpful, including tendencies toward WP:CENSORED, WP:PEACOCK, and outright WP:EDITWARRING. There are clearly WP:COI issues, and his behavior has been far from exemplary. Some of this may be due to his status as a newbie, unfamiliar with established Wikipedia protocols for resolving editorial disputes.

The bulk of what discussion there has been so far, has been developing at User Talk:RM Fleming, MD. As can be seen in my message there, I strongly encouraged him to present his arguments here in the article's Talk section, but as of yet he has not responded to this suggestion. I note that another editor has also urged him to take his particular comments about the article to its Talk page, which is right here.

I propose a possible compromise to improve the readability and effectiveness of the article, without completely censoring and whitewashing an apparently-settled judicial determination that still may be somewhat relevant. I suggest using something like, as described in Help:Footnotes, so that a concise summary of the legal information is available to the reader, but it does not break the logical flow of the main article. I am interested in any alternative proposals by other editors to resolve this dispute in a mutually acceptable way.

I have not been previously involved in the current dispute, other than initially reverting an unexplained deletion/blanking and giving a standard level-1 warning, and then noticing and flagging a possible conflict of interest. My main interest is in improving the quality of this Wikipedia article, without censoring information that may be of interest to some readers. I hope this editorial contention can be resolved in a calm and reasonable manner without undue escalation, and that Dr Fleming can contribute more of his knowledge in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia's goals. Reify-tech (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Reify-tech. I agree with you re the removal of this information. I wouldn't even put it in a footnote. However, the article has a much bigger problem. It is completely contaminated by Fleming's attempts to promote himself on Wikipedia and by implication his medical imaging companies and patents. The three named accounts in the conflict of interest note at the top of this page + 2 IPs which are clearly him (and probably more) have been spamming the article with his research since at least 2009 . They are not newbie mistakes. See also other pages created by one of his earlier accounts which were designed to promote himself and his patents: Richard M. Fleming, Fleming Harrington Redistribution Wash-in Washout, Inflammation and Coronary Artery Disease, Breast Enhanced Scintigraphy Test. The latter is a recreation of Breast enhanced scintigraphy test created by  and speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising. I'm not sure he or his work should even be mentioned in this article, especially considering the dubious publisher of the only remaining reference by him that is left in the article and another recent work by him with an even more dubious publisher. I have asked for advice from WikiProject Pharmacology. I do not have background in this area at all, but the history of this article and the dubious reference is concerning per MEDRS. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, I did not realize how much he has been spamming the article under various aliases. I now see that the COI warning box I placed at the top of the page has been expanded. The subject of the article is very noteworthy and important, but should not be distorted by lopsided promotion of one person who happened to work in the field. I first came to this article because my wife had a diagnostic test using this technology. Reify-tech (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material removed
Per the above discussion, I have removed material from the article which is either unsourced but was added by Fleming or sourced to this book chapter by Fleming which is incompatible with MEDRS. This diff shows the removed material. Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)