User talk:Doc James/Archive 57

heading
Hello Doc James, It was some time since i was on Wikipedia and I found some mesages on my page also observed with your helping eye. 1. I have today sent a permission for free use of the 4 pictures on Plasma-Cell Gingivitis page. 2. I need your help with a detail on the Smoker´s melanosis page. I see that "there is no page for Smoker´s melanosis" but för Smoker Melanosis. You will notice the problem, when you go to Google and search for the following subject in Wikipedia and see the following text:

There is no page "Smoker´s melanosis. You may create the page "Smoker´s melanosis", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

Smoker's melanosis Smoker's melanosis is seen with the naked eye as a brown to black pigmentation of ... of individuals with smoker´s melanosis becomes slowly less ... 10 KB (1,559 words) - 15:50, 18 November 2013

Yours sincerely, also wishing you Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! SK10DPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK10DPB (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay created some redirects. This article may be useful for you WP:MEDHOW. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Flavonoids
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you again on your holiday but I'm creating a new table for the flavonoids page in my sandbox comparing the various properties of the different flavonoid compounds and what I wanted to ask you is for some help on some formatting issues. See I'm trying to get the top row in the table "Flavonols" vertically centerred at the left-hand side of the row and an image (namely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FlavonolGen2DACS.svg) in the center of the row and I'm failing miserably at it. Fuse809 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * are you asking about doing something like this?


 *  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I know how to do that. Thanks anyway. I meant without the line between the flavonols and the image. Fuse809 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are asking? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

About Melanoma
Hi, I saw you deleted my corrections on Melanoma topic (about treatment), because I copy-pasted information from resource. I worked on my mistakes and changed the text, so please don't delete it, if it's OK right now. If not, will be happy to receive any recommendations.

Redijs (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Redijs
 * With respect to references please read WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources
Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC) / We do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones. Teaktl17
 * Nothing in WP:MEDRS forbid primary sources (use them with caution ; that's all) and there are already some in that statin article. Why not using primary source to modulate secondary sources or meta-analysis? If it's absolutely impossible so all the work of Popper about falsifiability of scientific theories is pure nonsense. Albert Einstein is reported to have said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." So, a simple study can prove false a temporary paradigm based on consensus or meta-analysis. Don't forget [Galileo]!
 * By the way, cardio-vascular specialists know nothing about cancer or immunology of cancer, like I do.
 * Thank's for indicating me the TRIP database link I didn't know yet but I'm used to [NCI/Pubmed] which I find far better (and not commercial...) Double Vigie (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We specifically do not use primary sources to refute meta analysis or secondary sources. The latter, if good, take into account all the primary evidence and give it due weight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, as I already said, the secondary sources aren't that good since they don't address Natural Killer cells protection against cancer and the fact that statins are immunosuppressive in some way (several convergent studies, no review). Do you know this particular domain? If the answer is no, let me work. TIA Double Vigie (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Have just added 7 meta analysis looking at the subject in question. Looks like if anything they prevent some types of cancer. As Wikipedia editors are not in and of themselves verifiable the content added must be supported entirely by the references they are associated with. We very strongly encourage the use of secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing the correct point. STATINS STRONGLY SUPPRESS IMMUNITY which control cancer and some studies show that pravastatin in the elderly (a point not addressed in most studies and in meta-analysis) is correlated with a cancer augmentation.
 * Hillyard DZ, Cameron AJ, Simvastatin inhibits lymphocyte function in normal subjects and patients with cardiovascular disease. Atherosclerosis. 2004 Aug;175(2):305-13. [...] the in vitro addition of 1 microM simvastatin reduced T-lymphocyte proliferation by 39% [...] NK cell cytotoxicity ex vivo was reduced by 30% (S.D.+/- 33.6%) following oral simvastatin treatment and by 56% (S.D.+/- 24.68%) after the in vitro addition of 1 microM simvastatin. Significant ex vivo reductions in T-cell proliferation and NK cell cytotoxicity were observed in patients with cardiovascular disease on treatment with statins.
 * Also LDLc depression is correlated with cancer. I'm pretty sure you haven't read all the meta-analysis you just add. As you may (not) know, this sort of work is largely paid by Big Pharma as a tool to refute by advance any experimental study that could lift a doubt about their drugs and lessen their profitability. Big Pharma is also heavily scrutinizing Wikipedia.
 * Have you heard or the recent retraction of a study from Seralini, a french researcher, showing that genetically engineered corn NK 603 from Monsanto could lead to cancer? The journal that did that just hired a former Monsanto employee. TRÈS ÉTRANGE.
 * Don't be naive. Unless you work for Big Pharma... And that could be the case. Who knows? ;-{ Double Vigie (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no personal position on whether or not statins cause cancer. We do need to use recent secondary sources. I am happy to look at any which raises concerns about statins for potential addition to the article.
 * Not supportive of adding primary research. Aware of concerns around suppression of data by pharmaceutical companies. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly skeptical. However Cochrane did not find concerns  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Costochondritis
Hi James, any chance you know how to fix the formatting problem in this article's infobox with the ICD10 bit? Also, I'd like to ask you if you'll help me improve the article further. If you have any suggested articles that would be suitable for inclusion in the article, let me know. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Currently working on epilepsy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

JNC 8 is out
Thanks for the heads up. Will revise relevant section over Xmas, first look suggests things just got more confusing, at least worldwide
 * It however is more in line with Cochrane. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Atherosclerosis
Hello Jmh649: I added a citation to a JAMA article that used the term "arteriosclerosis." If that's wrong, please let me know. Hill&#39;s Angel (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We should be using recent secondary sources such as review articles from the last 3 to 5 years per WP:MEDRS. That ref is an old primary source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. Before my edit though, there was no source at all. Which do you think is better? Hill&#39;s Angel (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would be good to find a secondary source that summarizes the content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Pending revisions
Marfan syndrome has pending revisions by an IP editor. They seem OK to me, but I don't know how to "approve" the edits... any ideas? Lesion ( talk ) 23:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Was better before. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fast response. For this example, I think the point the IP was trying to make is that losartan is not the only ARB / Angiotensin II receptor antagonist ?
 * For my future reference, how are pending revision accepted? Lesion  ( talk ) 00:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be at the top of the screen. I have adjusted the wording further to make it more clear. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Refs
Hi, thanks for the message. I usually use the preferred method, but it was just more convenient to copy-paste from another source in this case and I was hoping a bot would parse it into better formatting for me. I really need to commit to memory how the numbers at the end of journal citations translate to volume, issue, etc. mcs (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an autofill button that will do the work for you. If it is not working this page is useful  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Febrile Seizures
I'd ask that you kindly please stop removing the link to the Febrile Seizures Organisation. As you know we are non-profit and have helped thousands of parents find information into this devastating condition. And with no money we have few other means of them finding us than via wikipedia. No-one else has ever complained in the year that it has been there and thousands of parents have thanked us. Your removal of the link denies thousands of parents the peace of mind that the information on our site brings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.37.5 (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not here to advertise your organization. Parents can find you via google. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the previous edits. This is emotional stuff. We cant afford google adwords and all the free google search results are generic local health authority pages. We started the site to finally unify all the world's information and research on FS into one place. So we have editted various sections with where relevant references to our site where we definitively lead the world in information so those links are 100% valid and justified. Our intentions are purely charitable and in 'good faith' and without an outreach of some sort from wikipedia we might as well shut up shop. That would be a very sad day indeed.
 * Sorry but we are not here to promote charities. We are here to write an encyclopedia. If you wish to get high quality health care information out to people than please help us improve the content.
 * A few useful pages WP:MEDHOW, WP:MEDMOS, [[WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

James - We have synthesized hundreds of articles (often conflicting) into a concise summary and definitive resource. We even cleaned up some of the misleading and inaccurate content for the topic. You should be ashamed that you have removed all the detail in the causes section, in general cheery-picking references and have now left a page that is factually inaccurate. Your arrogance to simply wipe out peer reviewed detail when you have no idea about the topic beggars belief. And you continue to remove all references to our site or acknowledge any of our work. Our site is the best reference site for febrile seizures and your continued vendetta against us is an embarrassment to your profession and wikipedia itself. This page is now a testament to your ignorance. Read this article and listen - http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.37.5 (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand that you're frustrated, but we cannot include synthesis unless it has been published in a reliable source. If your team includes experts, then they should submit their work for peer review. If it is published in a suitable reliable source, then it can be considered for citation here. has been acting in accordance with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus (if you're not happy with that, WP might not be the right place for what you want to accomplish). -- Scray (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the cabal continues. You guys should be ashamed. I assure you we are working with all the experts in the field and have numerous published articles to draw upon. But our site is NOT for academic reference, it is for the 20 million, yes 20 million parents today that are living with a child who has seizures. They don't need peer-reviewed citations, they just need accurate advice and support. Which pathetically wikipedia does not now have and they now have no way of finding us. If you want accurate information for your page then I suggest you read our site and see what you can 'synthesize'. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.37.5 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

 * Thanks Cas. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Move request for Nonspiking neurons
Can you please move along with the page history the article Nonspiking neurons to presently non-existent Non-spiking neuron. Reason: Improper hyphenation.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 16:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for HIV/AIDS entry
Hello,

Thanks for relying to my edits suggestion. The studies mentioned are published in Nature and Science, top scientific journals, and attract a lot of attention online. Of note, in the last three years, the role of host innate immunity in HIV pathogenesis has became a main the focus of research in HIV/AIDS biology, as more and more HIV-interacting host proteins are being identified. (Search for HIV and innate immunity, SAMHD1, TREX1, IFI16, etc). However, because this fast developing ares of research, there is no review yet that summarizes these findings. I still think that Wikipedia cannot ignore these important and relevant scientific developments.

A lay language summary of these latest developments may alternatively be found here:

http://www.nature.com/news/cell-suicide-blocker-holds-promise-as-hiv-therapy-1.14422 http://science.kqed.org/quest/2010/12/01/aids-researchers-unlock-cell-death-mystery/ http://www.nature.com/news/cell-suicide-blocker-holds-promise-as-hiv-therapy-1.14422 http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/fvl.10.82

Thank you for considering these edits, and Happy Holidays, Gilad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.167.64 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a review article that discusses this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Interest ?
I am preparing the RFC draft at User:SandyGeorgia/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer; are you interested in writing the "rebuttal" view? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me look. I usually agree with much of what you propose. Not a big fan of this idea though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write onI do not see it as needed as:  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Lot of other sites have content worse than that of Wikipedia and do not contain warning
 * 2) It will clutter up the top of the article (how will this mesh with the new SMS option?)
 * 3) The warning is already at the end of the article
 * 4) There are lot of mistakes in other sites including the Lancet and the Mayo Clinic (which people expect to be accurate)
 * 5) People do not expect Wikipedia to be accurate. I have asked many students if they use Wikipedia and all respond with hesitance as they have all heard from profs how bad it is.
 * 6) If these notices drive away editors and have no effect on readership or usage than it could potentially result in overall harm.


 * Doc, so the RFC can be presented with both the "oppose" and "support" views present at the outset, I'd like it if you would present the opposing view right under my supporting view at User:SandyGeorgia/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. If the RFC is presented with one medical editor defining the supporting view, one defining the opposing view, that's a pretty fair start and will make for a more effective RFC.  And, if the RFC is defeated, the next step will be an RFC for a BLP-style policy that allows for removing uncited medical content.  If you present the opposing view, we're off to a good, friendly start (if you don't, perhaps  will present the opposing view-- his reasoning is similar to yours) If you agree, you could add your view (will launch this thing after the holidays) now, so both will be present on launch -- thusly:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I already aggressively remove wrong content that is either unreffed or poorly reffed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving on to the next step, if this proposal is deleted, the need for a BLP-style shoot-on-sight policy for uncited medical content. Doc, in your case, you are more easily able to "aggressively remove wrong content that is either unreffed or poorly reffed" than some of the rest of us, because you are a trained physician (who incidentally has journal access).  When I see uncited text that looks wrong, I have to hesitate before removing it, and I have to hope I can find free full access to a journal, or that someone else will look in.  I can't just remove text as easily as you can, because on first look, I don't always know if it's accurate.  And, there is at least one active WP:MED member who never saw text she didn't think should be included, so ... a BLP-style policy would more easily allow the non-doctors to remove poorly cited text that may or may not be accurate-- that is, place the burden on the editor adding it to cite it, rather than the editor wanting to remove it to be able to find a journal article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I am of the opinion that we should be pushing our fellow contributors to follow WP:V and WP:RS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Doc James: oppose medical disclaimer
'All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement of a view should be directed to this page's discussion page. Threaded discussion should not be added below; it should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's !vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page, and may be moved there.''' I do not see a medical disclaimer as needed:
 * 1) Many other sites have content worse than that of Wikipedia and do not contain a warning.
 * 2) A disclaimer will clutter the top of the article (how will this mesh with the new text messaging option for getting access to Wikipedia content?).
 * 3) The warning is already at the end of the article.
 * 4) There are mistakes in other sites including the Lancet and the Mayo Clinic (which people expect to be accurate).
 * 5) People do not expect Wikipedia to be accurate. I have asked many students if they use Wikipedia and all respond with hesitance as they have all heard from profs how bad it is.
 * 6) If these notices drive away editors and have no effect on readership / usage then it could potentially result in overall harm.


 * Endorse
 * 1) Your sig here

Launched
... at WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Noodleki
Noodleki's reverted Comics again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Noodleki also copy & pasted en masse from Comics to History of comics, including the entire ref section, even though most of the refs don't apply to "History of comics" (so tons of Harv errors). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes feel free to revert. ANI may be needed. His editing is disruptive. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ciprofloxacin
I agree with your partial undo of my edit, but you introduced a typo. (The first paragraph is cut off). I could fix it but decided to just give you a heads up so that you could finish your edit according to what your original intentions were. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Cough cough
I've been watching the battle royale going on at cough medicine and the disclaimer discussion. I'm happy to jump in and support, if you want, but sometimes I find it's better not to engage with certain wikieditors as they have little desire to build consensus. Either way, I agree with tact you're taking by asking for good evidence. Just say the word if you'd like more help with the point-by-point arguments. Ian Furst (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible disruptive behaviour
I would like to draw your attention towards. This user had left a note on my userpage without including a topic heading or signature. I have doubts to whether there is any validity in what he has said. In response to what I wrote on his talk page he included the text Last week,i found out that from the day of pentecost as recorded in the bible,believers in Christ are filled with the Holy Spirit as though ,the Spirit came upon them as stated in the bible--EB1999 14:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC) which in no way relates to what I had been saying. Keep him in your watch list so that he does not mess with things on Wikipedia.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 11:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They have not really made any edits to articles. Ping me if it continues. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Cipro (again)
You may have already noticed that I have been working on the Cipro article again. Would appreciate your input, especially with regard to the question that I posted on the Talk page. many thanks 98.155.21.76 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay will look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks like I got off pretty easy this time. Any thought on case reports of AEs that are included in review articles? On one hand its hard for me to see any meaningful evidence of causation in any AE seen in less than 50 of 10 million treated patients (and is it important enough to include at that incidence even if it's real?). On the other hand, its being discussed in the review articles. I will have to tackle this issue to finish consolidating and eliminating redundancies in the AE section. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the evidence is high quality than it may warrant a mention. Certain side effects are rare and if they ever occur it is notable. But generally I agree no inclusion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Edit Warring"
In the Adverse Effects section it states that "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction. The Royal Dutch Medical Association's 2010 Viewpoint mentions that 'complications in the area of sexuality" have been reported.'" I added it to the top of the page since it states the first claim and not the second. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The way the article has it now is correct, per WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:LEAD.  04:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for unreffed material. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "unreffed material"? It did have a ref. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theories/Noticeboard
I mentioned your name. See Fringe theories/Noticeboard. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Baaclofen
The use of Baclofen has progressed in France to the point that the national agency which considers the safety of medicines has changed its position and has now recommended unanimously that the drug be given an RTU, a recommendation to use. Here is the discussion: http://baclofene.fr/pdf/CR_CT012013023_Pharmacovigilance.pdf

There are two issues which arise in respect of public health. First, there is he question of whether it should be used by doctors in treating alcoholism, even if it is an off-licence use because of the seriousness of alcoholism. There is also the public health issue which is arising as a result of the now widespread use of the drug by a growing community of people who are self-prescribing and getting advice on internet forums from other self prescribers. They are buying this medication over the internet.

As the drug is now being used by tens of thousands of alcoholics in France alone and is going to be approved for use in France, it is impossible to turn back the clock and stop people finding out about this drug so there is a Catch-22 situation. One cannot ignore the users of this drug and not deal with the issue that the use of the drug is escalating exponentially since 2009. If the argument against doctors prescribing has to do with lack of trials, nevertheless, they have to be made aware that the drug is being used by a growing self prescribin community.

In relation to the prescribing of the drug and the need for trials, the medicine does not require licencing to be prescribed and can be used now. I have correspondence from the General Medical Council in the UK confirming that it is appropriate for doctors to prescribe baclofen in consultation with their patients now as is the case with many off-licence applications of drugs in other areas. I expect the position in respect of off-licence use is the same everywhere. There are forums for baclofen users in France, Germany and the USA. Here is the French site run by doctors in Paris: http://www.baclofene.fr/portal.phpBurdenedwithtruth (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a pubmed index review article that supports this position? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway we are still waiting for you to propose some text you wish to add and to stipulate what refs support it here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Circumcision
"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." is also said more than once in the article as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Get consensus for your changes on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * please see WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT, the lead summarizes the most important points of what's in the body; what the most important points are is determined by the emphasis found in the secondary sources.  13:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I will section edit Cluster headache to avoid ec. Regards, Lesion  ( talk ) 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Hi Doc James. FYI - I revised Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer using your user name. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I reverted-- Jref added a general oppose to the top, which was no different than the general opposes already in the views. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Equianalgesia
Hey there. I wanted to ask if you'd be willing — over the next month or two — to assist me in verifying, referencing, and restandardizing the data contained in this chart. Best, —  C M B J   11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. First issue I see is that it takes up 1.5 widths of my screen. Needs to be narrowed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See if the size looks good now. On the note of restandardization, what're your thoughts on IV/IM morphine as the gold standard? I'm of the mind that PO morphine isn't the most ideal baseline reference value as per the talk page. Alternatively, the charts could be split into two, but I think it's possible to keep them unified with some effort. —  C M B J   22:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Synesthesia
I noticed your recent edits to the article on Synesthesia. I can see you put a lot of hard work into that. I just wanted to ask you about something. The caption under the illustration to the right of the section on "Diagnosis" that starts "2Reaction times" does not make sense to me. Major: The syntax needs to be fixed in order for it to make sense. Minor: "2Reaction" needs a space between "2" and "reaction", and I don't think "reaction" needs to be capitalized.CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that was just some sort of typo -- anyway I fixed it by removing the 2. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like it is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Seizures and X-linked intellectual disability
You may like to have a look at Seizures and X-linked intellectual disability dolfrog (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Methamphetamine
Hi JMH,

I decided to work on meth for GA since it won't take me very long to fix and it gets a lot of traffic. I've added all the sections that I intend to expand or rewrite and re-cite in that article, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at the layout and make any necessary changes or add any relevant new sections. I did intentionally deviate from MEDMOS on two things though:
 * "Neurotoxicity" is in the side effects section instead of the OD section
 * I grouped "Dependence, addiction and withdrawal" together like I did in amphetamine.

Regards,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Layout looks good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assistance!  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this is right up your alley and I'm not 100% sure I paraphrased this correctly, could you take a look at/copyedit Methamphetamine? The page should be ready for GA-review after that. The source is the Desoxyn label: OVERDOSAGE

Manifestations of acute overdosage with methamphetamine include restlessness, tremor, hyperreflexia, rapid respiration, confusion, assaultiveness, hallucinations, panic states, hyperpyrexia, and rhabdomyolysis. Fatigue and depression usually follow the central stimulation. Cardiovascular effects include arrhythmias, hypertension or hypotension, and circulatory collapse. Gastrointestinal symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. Fatal poisoning usually terminates in convulsions and coma.

Consult with a Certified Poison Control Center regarding treatment for up to date guidance and advice. Management of acute methamphetamine intoxication is largely symptomatic and includes gastric evacuation, administration of activated charcoal, and sedation. Experience with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis is inadequate to permit recommendations in this regard.

Acidification of urine increases methamphetamine excretion, but is believed to increase risk of acute renal failure if myoglobinuria is present. Intravenous phentolamine (Regitine*) has been suggested for possible acute, severe hypertension, if this complicates methamphetamine overdosage. Usually a gradual drop in blood pressure will result when sufficient sedation has been achieved. Chlorpromazine has been reported to be useful in decreasing CNS stimulation and sympathomimetic effects. Sorry for bother you again with all these requests! Thanks/Regards,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 02:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would use a recent toxicology textbook (books). Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)