User talk:CrunchyChewy

You have been blocked from editing for for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Vertebroplasty article
Let's try to resolve this vertebroplasty issue. Firstly, I work for a medical device company that sells materials for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, so I have an indepth knowledge of the procedures and their drawbacks. However, I am not editing this on behalf of the company and I think I'm editing fairly. I want to present a balanced article, in compliance with WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. It's something I think we're both trying to reach.

The NEJM articles are very important articles and present excellent, previously-unknown knowledge and information to practitioners, patients, and device makers. I think those points are accurately conveyed in the article. However, there are some questions about the studies, including those from nearly all of the organizations that represent physicians who perform the procedures. I think those questions should be included as well, and not just in passing.

In addition, there are other studies that are important as well, including the VERTOS II and FREE studies (the latter of which isn't yet mentioned). Although in theory they are not as solid as the NEJM articles, they also don't have a lot of the flaws the NEJM articles have. While their limitations, such as the unblinded nature, should be (and are) presented, the studies are both significant and were solid RCTs.

I think we can work together to come to a resolution. We can even go through each section one-by-one if you think it'd help. heat_fan1 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To point out the obvious your financial stake in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty makes you a biased source, even if you honestly believe your edits. Numerous psychological studies have demonstrated that having a vested interest in an outcome has a profound influence on one's decision making despite the subject's honest insistence to the contrary.  I on the other hand have nothing to gain or lose in the matter beyond a desire that people and patients get an honest accounting of the medical evidence.


 * As I've said before the NEJM articles support rather than refute the results of the VERTOS II as well as the FREE study. The NEJM article only refutes the conclusions drawn from the results of the other studies.


 * I actually feel that the article as it exists is too conciliatory to the procedures. I, however, am not the lord of Wikipedia.  There are established procedures for addressing disputes in articles and I suggest that you pursue one of those routes, though you run the risk that a moderator who is disinterested in the results will rule against your position.CrunchyChewy (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This message is an attempt at following the dispute procedures. Obviously you don't want to work this out so I'll have to go to the next step.  And restating my bias is a nice touch.  I want to present facts that are being left out.  Opinions can be biased; facts, such as that medical professionals question the NEJM articles, are verifiable, indisputable, and should be included. heat_fan1 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Refs
Do we have a ref which states "The benefit noted in the blinded trials could be entirely explained by the placebo effect, therefore casting doubt on the benefit of the procedure for these other subgroups."? If so can you please provide it. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is the two NEJM blinded trials that are already cited numerous times. The patients in both the placebo and the experimental groups each had substantial and similar improvement.  The results of the blinded trials fully support the results of the unblinded trials; the blinded trials simply refuted the conclusions that were previously drawn from the results of the unblinded trials.CrunchyChewy (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I know this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from these two blinded trials. But do any secondary sources draw this conclusion? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and I agree but for a controversial topic like this we need to attribute even the obvious to another source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)