User talk:DoctorBiochemistry

Charlie Gard treatment controversy
Please don't remove an unresolved maintenance template in that article. It is still difficult to navigate just by its two section headers. Blue sphere  16:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of section headings
Why did you remove them? Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also read WP:LEAD Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!


Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
 * The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!

July 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Charlie Gard treatment controversy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Charlie Gard treatment controversy‎, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with a scientific section and references being removed?
Sorry for reposting my contribution so many times. I do not understand why a section about the scientific basis of nucleoside therapy, citing papers from PubMed, is constantly being removed and tagged as not reliable material. The description given of nucleoside therapy is based on scientific literature, and does not deserve censorship.

Since this is a high profile case as other users have pointed out, it seems relevant for Wikipedia to add a section describing the scientific aspects behind this controversial case.

Comparing papers published in EMBO MOLECULAR MEDICINE and PNAS with CRYSTALBALL evidences is totally inappropiate.

Sorry also for not answering messages, I am still a newbie about wikipedia usage. Thanks.
 * As asked before, please sign your posts. If you don't know what that means, please ask.
 * You are not asking authentic questions about the content, and I will not answer fake questions. I am happy to explain if you will authentically ask and listen. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi DoctorBiochemistry. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are all about Charlie Gard treatment controversy, and based on the edits it would appear that you might have some connection with the people at Bambino Gesu Hospital who have been involved in public advocacy, as well as appealing to the English courts, to treat this child. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, DoctorBiochemistry. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with the hospital or the Gard case, directly or through a third party? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi moderator/ Jytdog (talk)


 * I am an MD-PhD doing biomedical research in a unrelated field, and absolutely not connected to the Bambino Jesu Hospital, Columbia University or Vall d'Hebron Hospital, which are the three research centers where nucleoside therapy is being applied to human patients, as far as I understood from the legal summary of the case published by Great Ormond Street Hospital. I have ZERO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. My only compromise is scientific truth and accuracy. I am not even a religious person, pro-life or whatever that can create a conflict of interest. I am just a research scientist with a critical mind.


 * I have published and reviewed papers in high-impact peer-reviewed journals (Nature Communications, Nature, Cancer Cell and others) and thus I know how peer-review and COI works.


 * After reading the massive amount of non-fundamented opinions and scientific misinformation about the topic of nucleoside therapy during the last days, I felt compelled to write a specific scientific section about this. I have read very carefully the summary of the case and the relevant scientific literature, and this is what I reference in the section (the two key papers about nucleoside therapy as well as others discussing the Blood-brain barrier permeability to nucleosides, which were the two main issues discussed from a strictly biochemical point of view in the summary). I have also read the letter published by Bambibo Jesus Hospital, which references the same 2012 PNAS paper (Pontarin et al, from Padova University) as well as unpublished data. I have to say this letter is very precise and accurate scientifically, and does not seem biased at all (it references material published up to 5 years ago).


 * I do not consider appropiate for wikipedia to remove these relevant scientific references and sources from this article, which contribute with scientifically accurate information to explain a medical and ethic controversy.


 * Both the isolated references and the entire section have been removed constantly today, arguing the sources were not reliable. This seems an act of (worrying) scientific censorship. I am also afraid other users can have a COI with other involved parts here (Great Ormond Hospital?).


 * The material directly related to Charlie Gard's case comes from the High Court summary made public by Great Ormond Street Hospital. All the information referenced is publicly available, so there are no privacy concerns either.


 * I have edited previously other wikipedia biomedical articles using my IP, but I am not used to manage the "user" profile interface and wikipedia protocols, sorry if that creates misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying!  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, replying now. Thanks very much for your answer.  I accept that you have no COI.
 * Based on what you have wrote above, I want to make sure are aware of issues with advocacy in Wikipedia.
 * There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy. Please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY.  "What Wikipedia is Not" is something very essential to the very guts of this place.  People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to kind of skip over the whole process of learning how Wikipedia works, and trying to drive their content into Wikipedia.


 * Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. As RexxS notes below, the sources you brought were not OK per MEDRS, and the content you generated based on them, are not how we write about health here in Wikipedia, as described some in WP:MEDMOS.  It takes time to learn all this!


 * If you had slowed down, and read the messages above carefully, you would have found clear guidance about how to edit about health in Wikipedia. Likewise if you had asked real questions, instead of accusing ones, you would have gotten these answers as well.   We are all happy to help new editors learn.


 * But this happens! I hope you will use your break to read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS and get more grounded.  And please, just slow down.  Everybody is new at some point, but you need to learn to walk before you can run. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jytdog. I was shocked when my post was massively deleted amd then I was asked if I am related to Bambino Jesu (!!), almost made me laugh if the case was not so dramatic. When people looks for information about nucleosides with respect to this treatment and specific case, a encyclopedia should state very clearly that nucleosides are not drugs, but endogenous biomolecules, and rather fall in the category of dietary supplements or vitamins (not even of insulin). There is also a lot of misinformation about the permeability of the blood-brain barrier for nucleosides circulating in the press and the mass media. A encyclopedia should also inform that there are specific transporters for these biomolecules. I don't see that as advocacy but as debunking non-scientific misinformation with state-of-the-art biochemical knowledge. I can rewrite the section to conform to Wikipedia standards, and move part of the hard scientific content to an specific article. Is that right? Is there any problem citing the legal summary of the High Court, which is public?DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that you are engaging with Wikipedia's mission, nor the strategies (the policies and guidelines) through which we realize the mission. You have made it clear that the Charlie Gard case is very important to you, and you want to inform the public about the validity of nucleoside therapy.   Trying to do that here is not OK - -Wikipedia not a platform for advocacy.  As long as your personal mission is more important to you than Wikipedia's mission, you are going to keep making bad edits, and others will keep reverting them.
 * And no, the high court documents are not a MEDRS source. You must engage with and follow MEDRS if you want to edit content about health.  It is not optional. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * and you addressed me as some kind of "moderator". I am an editor, just like you. The only "authority" i have is that i have been around a while and understand how Wikipedia works. Please see  WP:CLUE (a very important little essay) Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog. I do not pretend to "advocate" or inform about the "validity" of such a therapy. State that nucleosides are biomolecules and not drugs is just science, not advocacy. The media is totally missinforming about this issue, talking about "designed" drugs, which is plainly wrong in scientific terms. Nucleosides are metabolites. I do not advocate for Charlie Gard's case but for scientific truth. I think the best proposal I heard about this is to create a separate section on the nucleoside therapy following wikipedia standards.DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying; you do not appear to understand Wikipedia yet. Calling unproven approaches to improving health a "therapy" is exactly what we do not do here; there is no "nucleoside therapy" as far as I know.   But it would be interesting to see if you could write a well sourced article about that, using MEDRS sources and summarizing them per NPOV.  I suggest you do that via WP:AFC. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS
You asked at Articles for deletion/Charlie Gard treatment controversy why your contributions to the article had been repeatedly deleted. Primarily, it was because two of the three paragraphs you added were entirely unsourced, and the other paragraph made biomedical claims based on a single study on mice. That is utterly unacceptable for a serious encyclopedia. If you don't understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary one, please read through WP:MEDRS thoroughly, and try to understand why we insist on high-quality secondary sources for any claim of a biomedical nature. Simply being indexed in PubMed does not make a source secondary, or even necessarily high-quality. In addition, studies in animals are not reliable indicators of effects in humans, and should never be used to support claims or inferences that the effect may occur in humans. I hope this answers your questions, but if not, feel free to reply here, and I'll try to clarify further. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I did not add any unsourced paragraph, I had references (secondary and primary ones) for each one of the three paragraphs, but they were sistematically deleted by other users. I understand secondary references are reviews, and in fact the in vitro and in vivo studies I was citing were referenced in the main review cited. Does that make these references more acceptable? One question, I was also citing the summary of the case, that as of today, is the only reliable source mentioning the effects of this treatment on humans. It was made public by the same Hospital where this case happened. I also cited an article from the "Washington Post" about the first publicly known human patient. Is it acceptable to cite legal sources? --DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at this diff of your most recent addition: the paragraphs beginning "In the first decision taken ..." and "In spite of the scientific evidences ...". Do you agree that they were wholly unsourced, or not?
 * Of the four medical sources you added: Garone 2014, Pontarin 2012, Jordheim 2013, Parkinson 2011, the first is a study in mice, the second a study in vitro, the third a review of "compounds that are currently in preclinical or clinical development", and the fourth summarises "emerging evidence of other transporter families with demonstrated or potential roles in the transport of nucleosides and their derivatives in the brain." You just don't have any reliable reviews that confirm the action of nucleoside therapy in treating MDDS – which is hardly surprising, given the rarity of the condition – and it is therefore inappropriate to discuss a potential or possible biomedical action such as that in Wikipedia. It might be possibly acceptable to discuss such research directions in a section entitled Research in the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article, but you would have to make it clear that there is no good quality evidence available at present (and possibly may never be).
 * As for using legal sources to support biomedical claims, no, they don't have authority to do that. Just as you wouldn't want a surgeon presiding over a trial, you wouldn't want a judge performing brain surgery, would you? Courts make decisions based on evidence, and it's that source of the evidence that needs to be considered in writing Wikipedia articles that relate to medicine. A court may reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities; we set a far higher standard here when it comes to sourcing biomedical claims. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for clarification. For your information, there are already reviews referencing all the primary sources, but they were also removed from my edits. Of course legal claims do not support biomedical science but I think can be pertinent as citations in this article, while nucleoside therapy, etc deserves a separate article. I will try to do both complying wikipedia standards. BTW it seems that in this sad case a judge is actually evaluating scientific evidence, which is sort of worrying as you mentionDoctorBiochemistry (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for clarification. For your information, there are already reviews referencing all the primary sources, but they were also removed from my edits. Of course legal claims do not support biomedical science but I think can be pertinent as citations in this article, while nucleoside therapy, etc deserves a separate article. I will try to do both complying wikipedia standards. BTW it seems that in this sad case a judge is actually evaluating scientific evidence, which is sort of worrying as you mentionDoctorBiochemistry (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Charlie Gard treatment controversy
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

More problems
I can hardly believe that straight out of your block you're back at it on this article, inserting content which makes no mention of the Charlie Gard case, drawn in part from unreliable sources. Please read our WP:NOR policy. This is not the place for novel content speculating about therapies. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Alex, take a look at the sources, all of them are medical reviews, secondary sources that compply with WP:RS. It is pertinent to explain what this therapy is about, and what are the approved applications.
 * The first one I clicked on was merely a "Commentary" piece and I notice a lot of old material too (we prefer material < 5 years old). But that is not the point. This article is on the Charlie Gard case: it should not include sources that are not directly related to that case. In general if you find yourself wanting to use a source that does not even mention "Charlie Gard", think again (the exception is for some very limited contextual information summarizing our main article on MDS according to the princple of WP:SYNC). This is a very high-profile and controversial article and must be edited with care and respect for the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (Add) Also despite your assertion that all your sources "are medical reviews" they obviously aren't since in this edit your include (for example) an RCT, lay press (WaPo) and a patent. Do you have any conflict of interest with regard to nucleoside supplementation/therapy that you need to declare? Alexbrn (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex, I have no COI, I have been asked that before. I work on a different research area. Where do you see a commentary? The two main references for nucleoside therapy are in-depth reviews in Biochimica Biophysica Acta and Drug Dicovery Today: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000527281500050X and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644613001906 which mostly publish reviews. Why do you want to remove these two reliable sources? Furthermore, it is not correct to say there are no treatments, there are many supplements and drugs approved for mitochondrial diseases in general (as ref1 explains)DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored a few sentences and updated one review for a more recent one, please check before removing.DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * this is a "Commentary". You have completely ignored what I wrote and have resumed edit-warring. I shall leave it to others to see if they can resolve this situation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex, I removed that "commentary" reference and changed it for a more recent review, check again. I also changed the phrasing. Let me know if you find a problem with the current versionDoctorBiochemistry (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read Conflicts of interest (medicine) as I asked you to above. It explictly warns people against Promoting your medical theories (and) approaches and your editing is here is very inappropriate, along exactly those lines. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring notice
If you try to restore this content again without discussing again, I will again take you to the edit warring board and this time you will be blocked for much longer.

Your recent editing history at Charlie Gard treatment controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, let's try to solve without blockings and in an objective way. I am sourcing medical reviews and keeping a neutral tone. You are including unsourced affirmations, such as "had been used in babies only a few times and had shown little to no efficacy". The summary of the Court explains that there are children and adults receiving the treatment in several countries, with some benefits. I do not say anything about efficacy, but you do. What is the problem to explain that nucleotides are used as dietary supplements, which is correct, but are not approved for this specific use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs)


 * You have been told this many times, and you continue to ignore it. Listen -   we discuss article content on the article talk page.  The talk page is here: Talk:Charlie Gard treatment controversy.  (and again - please take your failure to find that page by now, as very clear signs that a) you don't know what you are doing in Wikipedia, and b) you are unable to hear what people are very clearly telling you about how to behave here. Please also note that c) you have already been blocked once for behaving badly.   If you are a scientist, this is objective behavioral evidence that you are way too passionate about this topic and you are making a mess of yourself.)
 * and again sign your posts!  This is an essential and basic behavior in WP, and that you consistently fail to do this, is yet another sign to other editors that you do not know what you are doing, and don't actually care.  Signing posts is as basic here, as "please" and "thank you" and knocking before you enter a closed door are, in the real world.  Stop violating these basic behavioral norms. Slow down!   Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * actually you continued to revert after I gave you the notice above, which should not have even been necessary as you were just blocked for doing this, to try to teach you that this behavior is not acceptable. You learned nothing from your block and are continuing to be disruptive.  I am going to file a case at EWN again.  Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring, as you did at Charlie Gard treatment controversy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nucleoside bypass therapy has been accepted
 Nucleoside bypass therapy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  23:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.