Template:Did you know nominations/Young blood transfusion


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

After multiple discussions on WT:DYK, WT:MED, and this page, consensus has determined that running this will be more trouble than it's worth.

Young blood transfusion

 * ... that the blood of young people may extend your life? Source: "the blood of young animals, infused into the old, has rejuvenating effects" "Human tests suggest young blood cuts cancer and Alzheimer’s risk"
 * ALT1:... that young blood transfusion may make the ageing process reverse? Source: "young blood helps reverse aging"
 * Review: Template:Did you know nominations/Tobias Kratzer

Created by Violetriga (talk). Self-nominated at 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Comment: Will complete a full review in the upcoming days. However, due to the fact that clinical studies have a tendency to contradict each other, I prefer ALT1. Too many variables count when taking lifespan length under consideration. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * just a reminder in case you have forgotten about this. violet/riga [talk] 07:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Review:

1- New: The article was created on May 5 and nominated to DYK within two days. It was published directly (not moved from userspace) and the only thing resembling it that I could find was a tiny mention that BT began with an "interest in eternal life" in the entry for Blood transfusion.

2- Long enough: The article is 7,677 characters long, well above the threshold of 1,500 to be considered long enough.

3- Within policy: The first paragraph of the "Trials on mice" section could use better reference placing, but there are no loose links or lists of references. Nothing has been copy/pasted from any of the sources as far as I could tell; a Google search did not bring back results close enough to be of concern. The piece is neutral, which is difficult in a topic that is -by its nature- full of promotional hype.

4- Hook length: Both of the hooks are under 200 characters.

5- Interesting hook: The idea of rejuvenation is inherently interesting. However, as noted before, I prefer the language of the ALT.

6- Overall: Good to go.

Old School WWC Fan (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Pulled from prep. Significant issues about WP:FRINGE, also article has reasonable maintenance templates. See discussion at WT:DYK. Also significant concerns at WT:MED. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Superseding tick with a more appropriate icon since nomination was pulled from prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So any suggestions on what to do with this? Perhaps a hook that reflects medical skepticism of the topic? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we are nearing a publishable version of the article. Perhaps:
 * ’’’Alt2’’’. ... that ‘’’young blood transfusions’’’ can be bought?
 * Or something similar. violet/riga [talk] 02:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you will get consensus to use the front page of WP to advertise for Ambroisa selling snake oil through an unethical clinical trial. I oppose it. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are creating hooks based on the references, it should be something more in the vein of
 * ALT3 ... that the idea of transfusing the blood of young people is considered to be snake oil by medical professionals? Natureium (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first few would have been horrible... Gah. ALT3 is reasonable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg. This article currently has serious problems of promoting quackery, it would be a terrible idea to boost it via the main page until those issues are well and truly sorted, especially since right now there is active promotion of this bullshit by a commercial entity. As evidence, the first hook cites two positive stories that smell of churnalism, but the article includes Evidence from two large studies in 2017 showed that the transfusion of blood from younger donors to older people was either no different from, or led to worse outcomes than, blood from older donors. At best, no confident statement can be made about efficacy. At worst, it's the usual life extension snake oil (which seems to be the dominant view in the real world). Guy (Help!) 08:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:JzG. This article is far from stable with ongoing significant issues. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)