User talk:Garrondo/Archive 3

Recent edits at A.D.
I'm not sure they've had a large impact either way. Please see the recent discussion with this user before making any reverts.LeadSongDog come howl 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Wicks's edits at Parkinson's Disease
Hi -- I've been looking over his changes, and although the way he is going about this is very obnoxious, my impression is that overall the changes he has made are a pretty substantial improvement. Do you think you might be open to biting the bullet and accepting them? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at Alzheimer's disease
Your edit didn't seem to be what the summary said. Did I miss something? LeadSongDog come howl 05:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

CCSVI and MS
Hola otra vez, Garrondo

¿Has leido algo sobre CCSVI y su relación con la EM? Parece una teoría interesante sobre el origen de la enfermedad. Juansempere (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your hard work in making the Alzheimer's disease article a valuable resource of information. I greatly appreciate your hard work. Remember (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis
I redefined multiple sclerosis because I am convinced that the definition is not correct. Chaudhuri and Behan wrote an article: Multiple sclerosis is not an autoimmune disease.' (2004, Arch Neurol) Clear enough, I suppose. It seems to me dangerous remaining believing that MS is an autoimmune disease. This way of thinking was not that succesfull, I believe. New theories must be explored. That of shortness of UV radiation in childhood seems to me very promising.

Michel soete (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again Multiple sclerosis
How following to fit in an autoimmune theory as the cause of multiple sclerosis?

A number of studies have used MTI to investigate the time course of lesion development. They have shown that at least a subset of MS lesions develop against the background of tissue changes in the normal appearing white matter the latter being a steady decrease of MTR in the respective region occurring upto 24 months before Gd enhancement becomes 4647 (Symms e.a. (2004) A review of structural magnetic resonance neuroimaging.) MTI is magetization transfer imaging. When I changed the definition it was my intention to avoid a discussion about the cause of MS, autoimmunity as a cause reaching in this decade a level of more than controversial. At best but unlikely, MS will be split in more than one entity from wich one of them will have an autoimmune cause but as far as now is known MS is clearly not an autoimmune disease in general.

Michel soete (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Queria nada mas agradecerte por las revisiones que le hiciste a MS - muy balanceadas y correctas. Si solo todos los usuarios de wikipedia fueran asi. And I learned SO MUCH from your "what I found--> how I left it" links. Thanks so much. --Cpt ricard (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, thanks. It makes sense!  And as you stated, it's important to maintain focus on what's important - I got carried away focusing on the possibilities but not on the article.  Spot on.  Thanks!--Cpt ricard (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content
I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanish or science pictures
Am not sure whether Cajal.PNG is a legitimate Commons hosting (would have to know its country of origin to check the local copyright law), but it would definitely be OK as a local en:wiki hosting per the pre-1923 rule. Are those compression artifacts on his jacket? Btw you might find the following interesting; I could get more files of similar material. If you use Skype, would like to bring you into chat. :)  Durova 375 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CCSVI and MS again
Hola! Many thanks for your excellent work in cleaning up my efforts at Multiple sclerosis. I am truly humbled by your ability to find the right phase each time. All the very best --RexxS (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointer
Hi -- let me give you a pointer to Talk:Attention, which involves you. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fix to Running of the Bulls
I must have missed that in revision of Running of the Bulls. Bob98133 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Alzheimers disease
Hi. 5 of the pharmacueticals/brand names got tagged today as "not in citation given". I've checked all 5. As far as I can ascertain the first four are in the citation given. The fifth one, memantine, does seem to have lost some of it's brand names. I thought I'd mention it to you as the main contributor in case I'm missing something somewhere. I've also raised it with the tagger. Fainites barley scribs 21:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first four tags have now been removed. Fainites barley scribs 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on Phineas Gage
I'm wondering if you can take a look at Phineas Gage which has changed a lot in the last year. I'd appreciate comments or criticisms. (I've asked Delldot and some others as well.) Thanks! EEng (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis
You know, the language in Multiple sclerosis is very academic and would be difficult for a non-specialist to understand.

Sometimes that's the only way to explain things, but the introduction in particular should be clear to a layman.

The Lancet writes in that academic style, when they're writing for doctors, but even The Lancet doesn't write like that when they're writing for laymen.

One of the readers we can expect to get frequently is a patient who has just been given a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, and turns to Wikipedia for information. Somebody like that needs a clear answer of what MS is and how it is going to change their life.

I'm not a big fan of the Flesch index but if you used the Flesch index, this introduction wouldn't score too well. --Nbauman (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where in the summary does it say, "There is no cure, but many drugs can slow the progression and treat acute attacks."? --Nbauman (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "There is no known cure for MS. Treatments attempt to return function after an attack, prevent new attacks, and prevent disability."


 * First of all, that sentence is at the end of a long introduction. Send of all, the language in the entire introduction is too difficult for ordinary people. They'll have a hard time getting through it. Language like "Treatments attempt to return function after an attack" is too complicated.


 * When I worked for a publisher of science magazines, my editors told me that you have to get to the point in the introductory sentence, because if people don't understand clearly what you're saying in the first sentence, they won't get to the end of the first paragraph.


 * The "order" that you followed in the text leaves the most important information -- the prognosis and treatment -- for the end. That may be acceptable for certain kinds of academic writing, but medical editors routinely rewrite text like that to state the most important information at the beginning. Even The Lancet does that. An article is written like a fractal -- summarizing the article in a headline, summarizing it again in the introductory sentence, and summarizing it again in the introductory paragraphs.


 * I talk to high school students, social workers, nurses, teachers, patients, and all the kinds of non-specialists who are likely to read Wikipedia, and I tried to get a sense of the kind of language they understand and don't understand. I think this introduction is too difficult for most people to understand. --Nbauman (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative note on my home page on your revert of my edit of the MS article. Good feedback! MeekMark (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking in
Have been kept busier than expected trying to fix the help so I thought I'd pop in to say hi! In case you missed it your hard work on the HD article is making it to the front page - it is scheduled to appear on the 27th :) Don't forget to give me a shout if you need help with 'owt - hopefully I'll be back to med articles in the not too distant future ... Lee&there4;V (talk  • contribs) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Got an opinion?
I've long been sceptical about claims that sub-thermal (low power) electromagnetic radiation might be causing (gliomas, lymphomas, AD, MS, etc) but I recently came across a paper in the physics literature that make me wonder if the connection might be real-but-rare instead. If there's someone else you think might be better suited to comment please let them know. I'd value some feedback if you have the time:


 * Leif G. Salford, Henrietta Nittby, Arne Brun, Gustav GrafstrÄom, Lars Malmgren, Marianne Sommarin, Jacob Eberhardt, Bengt Widegren and Bertil R. R. Persson "The Mammalian Brain in the Electromagnetic Fields Designed by Man-with Special Reference to Blood-Brain Barrier Function, Neuronal Damage and Possible Physical Mechanisms" Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, No. 173, pp. 283-309 2008

I've only seen the preprint, not the published version, but I found some aspects particularly intriguing. The mathematics of soliton wave propagation were quite obscure until recent years when they came into vogue for use in the fibre-optic/laser communications field. Additionally recent nanotechnology work focussing on DNA as a very special physical material {capable of both self-assembly and electrical conduction) has also lead to a much better understanding of its material properties. This paper's assertion that soliton wave propagation at a specific frequency along DNA strands is key to conserving energy in the natural RNA transcription process was a real eye-opener to me. If correct might could explain a great deal.

Regards, User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

typo in your reply?
Hi Garrondo - just leaving a message at User:BSW-RMHs page - your comment there has the line 'that high quality editing brings high quality editing'.. thought you meant 'reviewing' brings 'editing' but not sure so loathe to change myself. see you in a bit .. Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Our old friend Gage
Hey Garrondo, do you know today is the 150th anniversary of the death of our pal Phineas Gage? Take a look at -- it might interest you. EEng (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) (P.S. We still have much to discuss about the article, and I never finished responding to your comments, but I will. So busy!  Cheers!)

Bold cuts on bedbug - thanks!
There's a Wikibook in the How-To aspects of this verbose, redundant article. Thanks for cutting so mercilessly. I'm mostly trying to add (and improve) citations, while trimming here and there. It really helps to not have to find (or worse, fail to find) some RS for every little folk-wisdom claim and tidbit of advice, especially when these are offered in such a windy, declamatory style. Yakushima (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin
Hey Garrondo any interest in being nominated for adminship? We could use some more people with mops around WP:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay drop me a note anytime. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

CCVSI
I mostly agree with the removal of the text referenced to Ogawa as it seem to be WP:OR. As the user added in good faith we should discuss it on the talk page.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think I added something on that aswell. He created some of the equipment to measure this new condition. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would need an email address if you want me to send you a copy of the paper.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * CCVSI was first announced on television. And continues to be pushed via press conference rather than via scientific channels.  It is thus a bit of a medical controversy due to that fact alone.  Here is part of the text: • Diagnostics: It’s not clear that sonographers were blinded to each patient’s status in the published studies, and ultrasonography appears to be not only operator-dependent, but may require a proprietary machine in which Dr. Zamboni was said to have a commercial interest. “The type of machine is very important for determining certain structures,” Dr. Zivadinov told the news conference. “The deep cerebral structures are very difficult to determine if not (performed) with some sont-size:125%"


 * align="left"| Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Edit of Bedbugs/Global resurgence
Did you read the source article? Bill Clinton was mentioned in it, yet your reason for removing the reference (which illustrates the concept that bedbugs are afflicting the rich and in this case powerful) is that it wasn't sourced. PLEASE READ THE REFERENCE BEFORE OPERATING SO ARBITRARILY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI
JFW | T@lk  23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninoof, et al., on bedbug
At bedbugs, I've moved non-WP:NOTHOW-violating info to other sections, and deleted "Elimination and control" as too much of a temptation to newbies. See new subject on the Talk page. Your vigiliance (I have to go to sleep; I live in Tokyo) would be appreciated, since I'm sure Ninanoof (who I've already warned about WP:NOTHOW) will be incensed, and might try to revert my changes. Consider leaving a note on her talk page. Thanks for your good work on this article. Yakushima (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, with some prompting, Ninanoof did start using references -- but almost entirely to one "How-to" guide from U.C. Davis. This person is essentially duplicating the information available at that site. Yakushima (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Brain cell illustration
You may be interested in this discussion. Anthony (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

CoQ10 and Parkinson's
Hi Garrondo, You reverted my addition to Parkinson's disease with (" Posterior secondary sources say otherwise and prevail per WP:MEDRS) (undo) " Could you possibly point me at the later sources/studies please. Do they show the 2002 study was faulty ? Rod57 (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification on my talk page. Sadly the PD article doesn't seem to link to the NICE guidelines so I haven't read them, but the quote you give seems to support and even justify my addition rather than oppose it. Can you say what problems they found with the 2002 study ? Rod57 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Garrondo ! I see you been beavering away at the Parkinson's article - are you building up to a GAC ? When you do you can count me in, in the meantime is there any Lee type efforts I could apply to help? Lee&there4;V (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tiff
Can tiff images be used on Wikipedia? That is the format a donation of images is being given in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI and multiple sclerosis.
Hello! My name is Tom Peterson. I am a 64 year old male from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, who has multiple sclerosis. As a sufferer from this disease, it is very important to me that the right information is given out to people regarding CCSVI. As of this moment, no Canadians are permitted to have an angioplasty to cure their CCSVI. Canadian citizens must go outside the country to be treated.

I am very glad that you are interested in the problem of eliminating or at least decreasing the symptoms of MS. I do not believe that the current information displayed is correct, or current.

I am in too much pain right now to talk much further. What I need you to know is that a group of Canadians is challenging the government of one of our provinces for the right to have a venous angioplasty to cure our CCSVI, and to have this treatment made available to all Canadian citizens under Medicare, which is our government funded health care system.

There is NO need for CCSVI and MS to be linked so that a person can have a venous angioplasty. As such, there is little downside and a great upside to having the procedure. I would ask that you make this fact known to anyone to whom you think this information may be pertinent.

Thank you.

Keep up the good work!

Tom ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trp274500 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Garrondo, are you going to attend the CCSVI conference in Glasgow on the 29th of October? If you do, I would like to meet with you in person. If I may be helpful in any way in the UK, I would be very happy to help (for example, to pick you up from the airport if you fly to some airport in the South as I will be most likely driving up North). Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagging primary sources
Hi Garondo, At this edit you comment that we don't need to indicate primary sources. While there is no explicit requirement to so flag the citations, I've found that it is often wise to do so. Without some such indication it is all too easy for the inline text to lose track of the primary/secondary distinction. For an extreme case, see Medicinal mushrooms and its talkpage. The major editor there has, despite being advised against it, made extensive use of primary sources for medical assertions even when reviews are available. By simply adding (primary source) inside the reftags it keeps this visible to reviewers. This allows reviewers to more readily check that the in-text assertions are phrased in such a way so as to help readers understand the kind of sources they are based upon. I'd actually like to see this eventually automated, so that Citation bot (or another) could check PubMed to see if refs bear the XML tag for publication-type="Review" and tweak instances  accordingly. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak
Dear Garrondo, I look forward to working with you to see if this article can be promoted to FA. I sincerely appreciate all your help and feedback. Basket of Puppies 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies 07:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)