Talk:Wiley protocol

Either rewrite this page or drop it
The references are 10-12 years old and a significant portion of it incorrect. There has never been a single person to come forward and claim to be "harmed" by the Wiley Protocol. To refer to it as "controversial" is pointless. All BHRT i8s controversial, HRT is controversialThe Wiley Protocol has grown for over a dozen years. Rosenthal's paper that the clinical trial was "unethical" is nonsense. There was no clinical trial. There never has been a cincal trial of any BHRT or any compounded product for that matter. The ingredients are FDA-approved. Wiley has published in peer-reviewed journals about the standardization of the Wiley Protocol, among other medical topics. The article doesn't even reference her book, Sex, Lies and Medicine that started the Wiley Protocol. Wiley was never involved with Suzanne Somers in any way and is not now. In the article, the word "unproven" is used. In a formal sense, that is true. But 15 years of experience without adverse effect deserves a little more than "unproven." Now the page for Orch-OR, a controversial and completely unproven hypothesis, never use the word unproven once, because it's proposed by Roger Penrose. Neil Raden (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Neil Raden (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

New comments
It's time, now that 2 1/2 years have passed, to make to some changes to this article. In particular, the phrase "lack of qualifications" is derogatory and not at all accurate. I would prefer it say "lack of a medical degree." 2nd paragraph, "lacking proof" - all BHRT lacks proof. In fact many FDA approved protocols lack "proof," they merely exhibit some statistical indication, but later problems are common, such as Pfizer's problems with oral contraceptives, Zoloft, etc. Also on 2nd paragraph, Rosenthal's contention that Wiley's clinical trial was "unethical" - this is no clinical trial, never was. There were IRB's for trials (Rosenthal got that wrong too), but no trials were started. If an editor will work with me on this and other issues, I will provide material here, but not edit the article directly because I am COI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nraden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added lack of medical and clinical qualifications to lead. If all BHRT lacks proof, then so does the WP, and it's accurate, but I've specified "lack of safety or efficacy".  The FDA licenses medication when it is demonstrated as effective for a specific indication, the fact that rare side effects turn up in postmarketing surveillance is irrelevant to that efficacy and doesn't somehow justify the WP's lack of efficacy or safety data (see false dilemma - flaws in one thing do not automatically validate an unrelated thing, both are right or wrong completely independent of each other).
 * If you want to suggest any change, you need to provide sources. Rosenthal is published in a medical journal - highly reliable.  I've also removed the patent claim - please provide a citation and I will replace it.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Rosenthal, there is indeed a very strong rebuttal, published in the journal Menopause. Not sure how to source it as it is by subscription. How do you get around that on Wikipedia? 68.35.76.9 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the patent source Neil Raden (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, every ingredient in the Wiley Protocol compounds is FDA-approved. No additional approval is needed. I still don't understand why you are so hostile to this subject. You could have just asked me for the patent source instead of removing the entry first. Neil Raden (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Estradiol, FDA approved
 * Progesterone, FDA approved
 * Testosterone, FDA approved Neil Raden (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you give me the citation information (year, author(s), article title, volume, issue, pages, PMID would be the most helpful) I should be able to get the article.
 * Everything is based on what can be verified in reliable sources. If a source criticizes it for being unproven, that's what the article says.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the reference to the rebuttal of Rosenthal in the journal Menopause - http://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/Citation/2009/16010/To_the_Editor.36.aspx Thanks for making the changes so far. Neil Raden (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The worst part of the article is this phrase "potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives." No sources. There are no conflicts of interest, that is a criticism from ten years ago. Today, Wiley provides only packaging material (syringes, bags, labels and packet inserts) to the compounding pharmacies (about 100 at present). This is no royalty or kickback. The vast amount of revenue from the Wiley Protocol goes to pharmacies and physicians. Pharmacies purchase the other materials from sources specified in their contracts, and there is no financial activity between those suppliers and Wiley. It's a squeaky clean operation. Unless you can source something to the contrary, I would suggest you remove this right away. The entire relationship between Wiley, doctors and pharmacies is clear and above board. Neil Raden (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is T.S. Wiley's SWORN TESTIMONY to the US Senate not a reliable source? It seems to me that her sworn testimony, where she is articulate about her approach and quite critical of mainstream medicine, more compelling than some doctor with no credentials in this field (Erika Schwartz) who uses her husband's connection to the NYT to trade on Suzanne Somers' notoriety and get published in the newspaper. Seems like a real lack of balance to me. Neil Raden (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here;s an example. Much of the criticism of the WP is based on the conclusions of the Women's Health Initiative (which has itself come under attack.) Wiley states in her testimony, "The failure of the WHI trial is partially due to the lack of understanding of the biology of the reproductive and menopausal state as well as, the indiscriminant choice of study subjects without well defined entry criteria, such as on the average enrolling subjects 12 to 15 years into menopause, creates unfathomable noise for the outcome." Is this not equivalent to Rosenthal's ethical concerns? A published criticism of a trial? Neil Raden (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A letter to the editor is a reliable source only for the opinion of the letter's author. Wiley's sworn testimony is similarly just reliable as a source about her own opinion.  In the case of actual experts, those opinions can be worth including, but given Wiley's lack of actual quantification and expertise in a relevant area (a degree in anthropology and three scientific papers), it's a dubious inclusion.  Wiley giving sworn testimony doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her an expert - nor does being articulate.  Wiley giving testimony before congress is not the same thing as appearing in a peer reviewed journal, and if I saw Wiley's opinion on the WHI page, I would remove it as a fringe expert not worth including.  The Wiley protocol is a fringe theory of a fringe theory that is regarded as dubious by the medical establishment.  That's where the due weight should fall, irrespective the failings of Erika Schwartz's page.
 * The lead section has no sources, they are in the body. The financial COI is discussed in Rosenthal, 2008.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully request another editor's opinion. I believe you are irretrievably biased based on nothing more than the above paragraph. Neil Raden (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Go nuts, WP:DR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I went back and reread the the New York Times article. There were quotes from Wiley, in the same "reliable source" you use to defame her, but scant reference to them in the wikipedia article. Also, there are many non-anonymous people on YouTube discussing their positive results with the WP (as opposed the anonymous "some women have experienced significant side effects while following the protocol and have stopped using it, and that the dosages used are too high and not physiologic", including at lest a half dozen MD's validating her approach and commending her scholarship. This is supposed to be a Wikipedia article. Every outrageous opinion you cite can be disputed, but you make no attempt at balance. Why not rearrange this article to arguments for the WP and arguments against and let the reader decide instead of deciding for them? The WP has been around for a dozen years, no one has died and the "controversy" is over. I know you will ignore all of this, but I insert these comments for the record for when you are blocked from further edits of this article, hopefully. Neil Raden (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiley's latest peer-reviewed paper, this one in a Physics journal, and she is the PI Neil Raden (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:PSTS, that's a primary source, indeed a theoretical paper. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It goes to establish her qualifications as a researcher, which you consistently denigrate. Neil Raden (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And your complaint that she has no clinical qualifications, how can you prove that, where is your source (that isn't 5-7 years old?) She works directly with the doctors following the progress of patients. She trains doctors and created a clinical practice guideline manual. I defy you to prove otherwise, Now take it out. Neil Raden (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC

This article has so many errors in it, I don't know where to start, There is also a Wiley Protocol for Men, women's testosterone, melatonin and thyroid, all transdermal preparations, and a cortisol replacement. There is also a patented anti-aging cream, also transdermal and dispensed by prescription only, as are the others with the exception of melatonin. There has never been any controversy about any of these except the women's protocol, and hat controversy dates to 2005 and I believe 2007. There is a 400 page clinical practice guide for the doctors compiled from a dozen years of clinical experience (of the doctors), a rigorous program of testing of the preparations for purity and consistency that the licensed pharmacies must adhere to quarterly, as well as testing of the compounding techs to ensure they do not absorb any of the materials. These are all contractual obligations. The wo-day seminar concentrates on topics of endocrinology and her research that lead to the creation of the protocols and the second day lead mostly by doctors teaching clincal practice, a course so packed with material that it is certified for 17 CME's (Continuing Medical Education), 75% of a doctor's annual requirement. So in addition to all of the (dated) controversy, it migtt be a good idea to actually explain what the WP is and the how the program works. All adverse reactions are reported to Julie Taguchi MD and there have been no serious ones in 12 years. There have been cases where people haven't done well, that's medicine. Not every one responds the same, Some are non-compliant (the protocol takes some work to follow) or they've added supplements that interfere with the protocol, which carries a warning: "WARNING: Herbs, Supplements and some Prescription Drugs may diminish the effectiveness of this treatment," as well as detailed packet inserts on use, etc. So I guess you could still say it's "potentially dangerous," but there is no evidence of it. Neil Raden (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the controversies regarding T.S. Wiley and the Wiley Protocol has been resolved to my knowledge. The mere passage of time does not constitute resolution. If there are any reliable sources that the community should know about, please bring them forth. Debv (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a publicly available copy of the letter by Dr. Taguchi? What is its citation information?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the PubMed link for Taguchi's letter: . Rosenthal's reply to Taguchi appears in the same issue. There was an additional comment on Rosenthal's article in the following issue: . Your best bet is probably a university library. They're available for download but under strict terms and at a cost of $50 each (that's per-letter). Debv (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having given Dr. Taguchi's LTTE a read, as well as Rosenthal's reply, I don't see anything urgently crying to be integrated. Whenever a back-and-forth like this happens, I rarely see value in adding more information.  I'll re-read the LTTE and reply in a bit but as of right now nothing strikes me as requiring an update based on this info.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's time to re-edit this entire page. Most of the information is either incorrect or 10 years old. Doctors have patients who have been on the protocol for 10 years without incident. The "controversy" was always speculative or simply wrong. The growth of the Wiley Protocol continues and all of the projected side-effects and dangers failed to appear. Wiley herself has been appearing at medical conferences as a speaker (genomics and ASCO) and continues to publish in peer=reviewed journals, many of which have been blocked by a biased here. Neil Raden (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)nraden

New Research
"The basic science from this study supports the evidence we have from clinical trials such as the French E3N trial, which shows that the choice so (sic) estrogen and progestogen and the mode of de/livery is important in reducing any risk of breast cancer possibly associated with long term HRT"" What HRT is controversial now? The whole premise of Wiley 15 years ago was that the method of HRT was key. No please re-write this biased and wholly incorrect article. Neil Raden (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote this four and a half years ago. This statement is completely wrong, and no one has fixed it. I can't I'm COI

. ago. Neil Raden (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

New Information
Comments from editors say that there is no source for my contention that calling the WP controversial is incorrect. All BHRT is controversial, and your own Wikipedia page confirms it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioidentical_hormone_replacement_therapy In addition WLU has steadfastly refused to allow anything confirming about Wiley, even to the point of not allowing her peer-reviewed papers to appear on the site (what id more original source than that?) Here are eight of them.https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2049161421_Teresa_S_Wiley If someone doesn't respond to these oversights I'll have to publish them myself Neil Raden (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)