User talk:Jagra/Archive 1

Herpes zoster - comments from an uninvolved admin.
First, I strongly suggest you see WP:NPOV's undue weight clause and take a look also at WP:RS and WP:V. Second, slow revert wars are unacceptable. JoshuaZ 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, have read your points and learnt, check the pot not just the kettle, as I have not reverted any edit at this time, as the history will show, slow war accussations are out of order.Jagra 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't just show up at an article and revert back to a previous version as you did at H. zoster. Especially do no not do so when there is was a prior consensus not to have your edits and there was concern about NPOV and RS. Such behavior is time consuming and disruptive. JoshuaZ 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please next time check your facts and the article discussion page, as I have been discussing these new proposed edits for some time now. (not a previous version) The question of RS, V and NPov has been dealt with in an agreed Break so that Discussion might ensure, The accussations were not substantiated, quite the reverse in fact, check for yourself. Other than that I am not aware of the consensus you mention? The other recent allegations I have directed to your talk for redress as a concerning pattern seems to be emerging!Jagra
 * And for good measure see this regarding the RS allergations Jagra (talk)

Botanical Science
Hi Jagra,

I decided to wait the fish out while I compiled more references. And I might well complain of vandalism if he continues to revert them. I find the ignorance and vehemence of his charges pretty appalling- if he doesn't understand the information then it is invalid. What are these consensuses that people here are citing? KSVaughan2 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "fish" knows more about medicine than you'll ever know. Having looked over his reversions of Jagra, I find them to be valid.  Keep in mind that others have reverted those edits as well.  If you are so unaware of what "consensus" is, perhaps you might want to do some research on WP policies.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He probably knows more about _Pharmaceutical_ medicine than I but he certainly doesn't come close to what I know about _Botanical_ medicine. Confusing botanical medicine with homeopathy is a rather significant hole in his medical education- akin to not knowing the difference between orthopedic medicine and neurology.  It isn't his area of expertise.  We don't revert his pharmaceutical information, why should he revert information within our area of expertise? Hardly Npov! KSVaughan2 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't confuse Homeopathy with Herbalism. I just think they are both pseudoscience, and therefore not appropriate to medical articles.  Once again, I would suggest you refrain from personal attacks.  And medicine is a science, not based on folklore, rumor, eastern philosophy or anything else but science.  Those botanicals that now contribute to standard medical practice have been analyzed for safety and efficacy in a double-blind clinical trial, not on a GNC sales person.  And I would suggest you read NPOV carefully.  It does not state that all views rate equal time in an article, it says verifiable (with acceptable sources) statements carry much more weight than those that aren't verified.  Orangemarlin 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SCIENCE in MEDICINE
Hi Karen,

I have been busy at the end of the financial year, so was unable to respond sooner. I keep reading that Shingles is a Medical article, when it is really a medical science one, just look at the references! whats the difference? Most uninformed individuals believe that science is the hand-maiden of medicine, but in fact she is but a poor cousin, and it is only in relatively recent times that practitioners have been cajolled into Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines, and then usually by their insurers. The difficulty for practitioners is that in many countries a degree to practice medicine does not qualify them as medical scientists. Many of the techniques used in EBM are in fact science, engineering and mathematics tools. As many medical degrees no longer have mathematics as a core subject, for this reason practitioneers are limited in both their understanding of the science and its proper application. Indeed being a medicical practitioner limits the peer reveiwed journals they can publish in, to those of their true peers. A real scientist both recognises the value of other science disciplines, and indeed the multidisciplinary approach to complex problems. Claiming that someone “knows more about medicine than you'll ever know”( see above) does not in any sense of the language qualify them as an expert in medical science, or give them any authority to limit anothers work. Particually coming from a ‘linguist’ pretending to be able to understand and validate medical science edits! Their real claim to fame is as ‘Administators” in Wiki. keep that perspective, mostly they are technocrats, not scientists like you, and probably can’t understand much of the science.

As to the gold standard of double blind placebo controlled trials, others claim this is a pharmaceutical mantra, see Evidence-Based Medicine (talk) and it produces nonsense if the mathematics are applied incorrectly. I am reminded of a course given by professor David Eddy and reported in an editorial of the BMJ volume 303. He was a surgeon who gave up practice because he could not support scientifically his proceedures and becaame a professor of mathematics. His work led to the conclusion that only 15% of medical interventions then were supported by solid scientific evidence, because only 1% of the articles in medical journals were sound scientifically. His students later reveiwed every medical science article in the vaunted respected peer reveiwed medical journals, for a full year, and found only 30% reached the correct scientific conclusion about their own work, and not always for the right analysis? In polite medical science circles, medical research funded by pharmaceutical companies is considered prima-facia biased, unless proven otherwise. So it seems medicine is anything else but science! So just what weight should we give to so called Verifiable scources? Little wonder then that more than 50% of medical visits are to alternative practitioners, they could probably claim similar verifiable relevance. I don’t want this to give the wrong impression that I am against Western medicine, rather that I am not naïve enough to support its pretensions, or any other alternative, for that matter, without qualification. Western medicine is more largely based upon empirical observation over time, just like in other cultures. It may aspire to be more science validated than other cultures, but to claim it is science based now is both misleading and denialist. I am all for more science in medicine and other alternative disciplines, but cannot support pretensions.

What Evidence-Based Medicine reductionist editors and supporting uninformed administators need to clearly understand is that if the EBM editing stategy is carried out to its logical conclusion then only 15% to 30% of existing medical practices will remain. Or in terms of Wiki, only that percentage of medical/science articles will remain as valid, the rest will likely be reverted. Any other line in the sand drawn on the grounds of rationalism, is just that and not defensable in the name of science. The only real defence to such a practice is lack of funding for the necessary research to obtain EBM evidence.

Where such evidence is available and clear and funding not disproportionate, then EBM should be the standard. However in emerging diseases where the eitology or pathogenesis is not clear, such as in say CFS, PTSD, MS, where funding for research is a real issue, then applying the blowtorch of EBM is both unconscionable and irrational. In such conditions any science findings from whatever discipline is noteworthy and sort by sufferers and their supportors, Wiki is where many look to first. It is the accumulation of such early science, often at the initiation of patient support groups, that can lead to breakthrough understandings, research and eventually evidence. Sure there are a lot of dry gullies but to call this process pseudo-science or fringe science is humbug and misses the point about the article altogether. You will note that I said science findings, not supposistions.

So in the meantime who gets to decide where to draw the line in the sand, how arbitrarily is it drawn, and how consistently is it applied.? Where a discussion between editors is about differences in the arbitrary line location then administators ought to have the common sense to understand their own limitations in interpreting such matters and the consequences of a full EBM editing strategy. Editors that advocate such and even apply it selectively according to their own POV regarding say certain feilds of science, or other practioners are the real threat to the dissemination of knowledge, and the practice is called medical scientism. “Where is the wisdom and where”, the question asked by T.S.Elliot “is knowledge lost in information” is as appropriate here and now as ever.

If the accuser likes to make sweeping generalisations, that no doubt will impress some, but my review of his references found, consumer magazine articles without primary references (not V), out of date opinion reveiws (not RS), and very definate POV, have a read sometime, and post a note there if you as a scientist agree. Consensus has to be on the discussion page of the Article concerned, not on user talk pages. I am still reseaching 'collusion' in regard to this. As to accusations of Fringe Science, I will let the above speak for just what is “fringe”. My Jungian antenna tells me that all is not what it pretends to be.Jagra 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Particually coming from a ‘linguist’ pretending to be able to understand and validate medical science edits!" ROFL.  You should never assume that a person has only one specialty, nor should you assume lack of comprehension or nowledge.  Your basic problem is that you are not a good writer and seem unable to explain why the edits you make have any validity to or bearing on the article.  Simply cutting and pasting references destroys any chance at knowledge by burying the reader in an avalanche of poorly explained factoids pretending to be information.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * you see Jim62 you can make relevant comments, I only just found it thank you, you dont have to make absurd opening statements to get attention. My critisim is that reverting edits with abstruse generalised statements, and not prepared to discuss specifics can leave editors guessing and does not in the end help improve articles. By the way it was a mistake to assume i would comprehend your coded message, is there somewhere in Wiki that defines such abbreviations? Jagra 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jagra! However, your edit was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule groups\.msn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Noted thanks Jagra

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. --Filll 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fill, actually others are reverting my edit without addressing comments on talk page or sensible comment on edit bar,Jagra


 * Are you mad? This edit summary explains precisely what the problem is, "Reverted edits to previous version by User:Hqb. Edits were poorly written, did not make a case for involvement with CFS, and citations were not relevant. What is this?) ". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You might well ask as little of this was ever substantiated like [this one[[User:Jagra|Jagra]]


 * You continue to make highly intelligent comments on this page, suggest you read article discussion page for your answer Jagra
 * Ah, subtle sarcasm, how thoroughly enjoyable.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And then the emjoyment came to an end, for there was no answer, no response, nothing that was not there this morning. Alas, I am now in a funk.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim 62 The answer is on the article talk page, hope you enjoy, morning my time Jagra

CFS research
Hi Jagra ... I only just recently discovered the comment you left on my CFS research page, by accident! Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed reply. We are somewhat stuck on how to improve the content; the article is too large for one page, but I doubt there will be an agreement on split pages. Like you said, the problem with original research is that it depends a lot on what the "researcher" deems appropriate. The same problem exists for published reviews, although some of these have stricter methodology. Furthermore, while Wikipedia has a range of policies to ensure high quality content, controversial subjects like CFS are more subject to POV. As you implied, we need a very general all-encompassing approach to research, which is what I tried to do, but I'm not an expert with evaluating the quality of studies; systematic reviews can be extremely valuable, but unfortunately not many of these have been done for the different issues in CFS. While synthesis of primary sources isn’t appropriate in the CFS article, there are many gaps that could be plugged with a summary of available research on uncertain issues, rather just having nothing and giving the impression that no research has been done. However, it may be easier sticking to the WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies by focusing more on the proposed hypotheses involved rather than summarising research. You sometimes receive criticism regarding your edits and I don't think all of it is warranted; although some of your edits tend to be too big and complex (I understand that it can be difficult to condense the text). While speculating about the implications of research is interesting, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia either and perhaps can only be mentioned when stated by the actual study researchers or relevant parties (as long as it is attributed to them). I think the current discussion you started on the talk page (21st September 2007) will be productive, so I will post there next. You're welcome to email me through my talk page if you want to discuss anything about CFS or your research that you would rather not post here. - Tekaphor (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

End of Tunnel
Jag..thanks for book reference....I tried looking it up on amazon and could not find it....thanks....sno Sno2 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I have a copy and the full title is " The cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Light at the end of the tunnel" author David Eather ISBN 0-646389-02-5 good hunting Jagra

Can not find...!!!...did search amazon and barnes and noble.....do you remember where you got your book....??....thanks have fun....sno Sno2 08:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sno 2, I got mine from the author, book has no publisher listed, I think was self published, regards Jagra

Thanks for letting me know and looking for it....do you remember if he had any cure for it...as I would like to drink a glass of wine every evening.........have fun....sno Sno2 09:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jagra ... I realise that studies into alcohol intolerance are lacking, but if the book mentions any important studies that I could access online I would be interested (even just abstracts). Thanks - Tekaphor 09:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sno2, tried my sources and seems book no longer held by distributor. Regarding wine, my advice is to find non-alcoholic wines, like Ariel made in California, where alcohol is removed in a reverse osmosis process. There was a website, www.nonplonk.com The book does have a treatment for CFS using L-Methionine and Nicotinamide (not Niacin) but to best of my knowledge works only for a small subset. Jagra

Tekaphor, he does have some references in the footnotes, I will run thru them and see if i can PMID them. The book does provide a rational explanation for alcohol and vinegar intolerance in CFS, and ties in with some more recent trials. I think over the weekend I will do a few paragraphs for the discussion page, and you can take it from thereJagra


 * Jagra, thanks for taking the time to clarify this on the CFS talk page. In response, I have another question; did the author mention anything about S-adenosyl-methionine? Although I'm not equating it with methionine, some people take it for poor mood and/or pain relief, but I (anecdotally) suspect it is dangerous for some people with ME/CFS and may actually exacerbate intolerances in the long-term. - Tekaphor 05:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tekaphor, yes he says L-Methionine is converted to SAM but does not suggest it as a supplement? My knowledge is similar to yours CFS patients should be wary, I think it is also involved in the Serotonin pathway? let me check that. Jagra 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes SAMe stimulates the Serotonin and Dopamine pathways. A double edge sword, so yes it will act like antidepressant, improve mood and less pain, however need to monitor cortisol, because I suspect that low cortisol is the mechanism for intolerances. Do you have any data on such? In alcoholics SAMe attenuates liver damage and the leakage of mitochondrial enzymes   Jagra

Extracellular matrix and CFS
I strongly encourage you to look closely the role of the extracellular matrix in ME/CFS. If I had time, that is the area I would be investigating. Here is some suggested reading. (Sorry, I don't have time to get full citations and format active links. With the exception of the last one from Reeves, which I have given the link for, they are all on PubMed. The Reeves quote is interesting, and there is a bunch more gene related work published in the April 2006 edition of Pharmacogenomics.)

Diffusion, perfusion and the exclusion principles in the structural and functional organization of the living cell- reappraisal of the properties of the ‘ground substance’. Wheatley DN, 2003

The metabolic implications of intracellular circulation. Hochachka P, 1999

Biogenesis and organization of extracellular matrix -- HAY 13 (9002)- 281 -- The FASEB Journal

Structure and biological activity of the extracellular matrix. J Mol Med (1998) 76:253–265

Lymphocyte interactions with extracellular matrix. Y Shimizu and S Shaw. The FASEB Journal, Vol 5, 2292-2299, 1991.

"The differentially expressed genes [in CFS patients] represent a small number of pathways,... and among them are extracellular transport, immune system, and cell-surface antigens." William Reeves, IC Epidemiology Task Force Report, DRAFT 12/19/2003 http://www.niddk.nih.gov/fund/other/archived-conferences/2003/ic/TaskForce_Meeting_Report.pdf

Hope this stuff is useful.

Cheers

Bricker 13:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bricker, I will try and find the time to follow up your ideas, as I have a genuine interest in the subject. like you I was impressed with the 2006 CDC findings, for other reasons but were not able to get them up in the Article, it seems at times stagnation is prefered there, I have a number of improvements in mind but are fast forming the impression of wasting my time!!! Have you heard anything about off label use of Lamictral a sodium channel inhibitor in CFS? all the best Jagra


 * Yes, it is a frustrating business. I think the best we can hope for is to keep the more extreme ideological claims out of there, and even that is difficult, given how controversial and fractured the field is. I won't be able to spend any serious time on the article before Feb-March next year, at the earliest.


 * Haven't heard of anything about Lamictral for CFS. The only research I know of relating to sodium channels is and, and the second is a hypothesis paper (though still interesting).


 * Forgot to say I appreciate your efforts on the article. I understand if you get fed up with the often quite vicious and unproductive politics of it and move on.


 * BTW, what is your interest in this disorder? How did you get involved?


 * Catch you later. Bricker 10:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for kind comments, I will persevere a while longer,at least until I get a better handle on unstated agenda's! I was asked to discuss with a friend's GP why several seemingly unrelated treatments were of benefit in CFS, and ended up publishing. Bit like Lamictral treatment now. And your interest?Jagra

Long term patient, seriously annoyed at the way we have been (and still are being) treated by the allegedly neutral, objective, science based medicine.

All the best to your friend. But I have to be honest with you, after a quarter century of researching and trying the more plausible 'treatments' including the officially sanctioned ones, it is clear that nothing reliably produces major improvements, and some of them can make it worse, especially rigid exercise programs that demand patients ignore worsening symptoms -- avoid these like the plague. The only stuff that is of value is pacing activity, peace and quiet, a clean environment, sticking to the blander foods, and a supportive undemanding social group. And these only lessen the load, they are not curative in any sense. Virtually every patient I have talked to says the same. The numbers of patients who achieve anything approaching a full 'recovery' is very low, less than 10%, and it is not clear if they have actually fully recovered as their 'recovered' capacity and lifestyle is usually very different from their pre-onset capacity and lifestyle. Most patients do make significant and sustainable gains over time, independent of any formal treatments.

Currently it is all about modest and not always effective management techniques, and learning to live with it. (There are some 'promising approaches' under investigation, but aren't there always?) Anyone who claims to be able to deliver a cure, or even reliably deliver a major improvement, is ignorant and irresponsible, or possibly a fraud, and your friend would be well advised to stay right away from them. Sorry if this isn't what you and your friend want to hear, but it is the harsh truth at the moment.

I also think many of the comments you made in the SCIENCE in MEDICINE section above about Evidence Based Medicine are valid and particularly relevant to the ME/CFS field.

(And thanks for linking the second paper in my previous comment.)

Regards Bricker 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, A tip from my friend, the best advice and treatment approaches comes from doctors who have CFS themselves (or direct family members with it). (patient support groups often know them) They have had to abandon rhetoric and seek alternatives in order to continue. Add to that if they begin to practice what they relearn they are often targetted by the conservative health bueracracies that control public health spending. Successful treatment is not a defence for they claim to only pay for 'what is generally accepted' and do not fund research thru insurance payments. Of course no funding is made available for publishing and then they are told they have no evidence, catch 22. Still their ideas are worth seeking out. Hope this helps, regards Jagra


 * Jagra, what Bricker said is right on the mark, and I would like to add that when managing the symptoms it would be wise as a general rule to avoid (if possible or practical) the use of any drugs including alcohol and prescription medicines and even herbs. - Tekaphor 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate your comments and generally support them. One should be sceptical when someone suggests otherwise. I listen to many but follow advice from few, and it was one of those sources that asked for my thoughts on it. Have not reached any conclusions, but do not think it has to do with sodium / potassium pump (although this consumes one third of resting energy. best to limit salt and increase fruit in CFS?) more likely effect due to sodium gated calcium channels in neurotransmitter hypo thalamus function??? Hope we can sort out this CFS/ME business soon and get on with Immune dysfunction it should bring out some matters Jagra

Substrate depletion
One last reference before I disappear into my 'real' life for a while (if you have not already seen it). (and check the related articles link on this article as well). This paper discusses why substrate depletion may not be not the direct cause of (normal) fatigue, but instead it is the need to prevent substrate depletion that triggers the CNS to produce a fatigue state and slow or stop the patient's level of activity.

Two possibilities arise from this: CFS patients could have a form of substrate depletion (or some form of substrate dysfunction), and the often extreme fatigue state patients experience could well be protective, although highly distressing, but not inherently pathological. Or the substrate could be okay but the neural system that regulate this protective fatigue state process could be faulty. Both possibilities tie in with the CDC comments Guido reported on the CFS discussion page (ME section).

Cognition loss/sleep loss Musculoskeletal problems Inflammation and infection As a result of these findings, investigators are beginning to consider fatigue as an end product rather than a causal factor of CFS.

Thanks for the tip about finding a doctor who has CFS, or has a loved one who does. Unfortunately there are not any in my area.

Also, thanks Tekaphor for you supportive comments.

Incidentally, I notice that Sciencewatcher hasn't altered, let alone removed, that opening statement in the Onset section of the main article, despite the clear evidence against it. Ahh well, I can't fight that one right now, so it will have to wait a bit.

Catch you both after Xmas. Bricker 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a great reference Bricker and I think does explain fatigue as a consequence rather than a causal symptom. I would like to add that to the discussion, but would like you to do so. Notice from this that muscles from the EFAD (Essential fatty acid deficient) rats fatigued 32% more quickly. I think in CFS it is actual substrate depletion, this is difficult to correct once the D6D enzyme down regulates. However intermittent dietary EFA metabolites keep it twitchy, even sustain the hyper-response. And of course produce varying immune responses. I am having connection problems at present and can't load the Article, often not getting thru at all. Think it probably is the green flush of spring here.  interfering with my tenuous wireless link? Take it easy, you have a real talent for finding clues and make a valuable contribution. Regards Jagra 23:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As to dampening the hyper-response these make interesting read,  PMID 1020483O  and may go to the CNS response mentioned by Bricker above. Also some fish oil N-3 EFA's bypass the D6D, deficiency and may explain the improvements? 1f course one could always try a diet of oysters rich in zinc and N-3 EFA's?. Jagra


 * See also my discussion posting today re carnitine and fatigue sensation, this may be the neuro mechanism involved?. Also in conditions with carnitine /acyl-carnitine problems (such as CFS?) the total amounts and types of dietary oils is important in reducing disease specific intermediates indicates more carbohydrate, low total fat, low saturated fat, low mono-unsaturated fat and more N-6 and N-3 polyunsaturated fats is best?Jagra 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sesame seed improves B-oxidation and increases aldehyde dehydrogenase Possibly because it contains higher amounts of N-3 as well as N-6 essential fatty acids? Jagra


 * Hi Jagra, do you think l-carnitine would enhance the benefits of fish oil? - Tekaphor 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tekaphor, I think it might, particually if other fats are moderated as above. Also it can take 6 to 12 weeks for body substrate changes, but other inflammatory conditions notice short term benefit of fish oil within halh an hour. Carnitine I am told may take several weeks. You will appreciate in this forum I cannot make specific recommendations but I am happy to discuss in terms of the article discussion and published papers. In general in CFS it pays to make general diet changes first and gradually, before doing so a baseline of the current diet should be made. This would entail weighing and measuring everything eaten or drunk in a typical day's diet. Then tabulate all foods into constituate components. This food database is handy to search or download. Total calories, carbohydrate calories, protein calories, total fat calories, and the above reference would suggest amounts of different types of fats, Supplements should be tried one at a time at lower than normal doses to begin. Hope this of help. Jagra


 * This article on Supplements in CFS suggests start with 1/8 to 1/4 of normal dose. Even this one on Pharmacotherapy for CFS says should start drugs, supplements or herbs at a fraction of normal dose because of sensitivity in patients,Jagra


 * If you enable Wikipedia email, I will describe to you my experience with fish oil and other supplements. Alternatively, you could send me your email address through my Wikipedia email. - Tekaphor 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
Address on requests Jagra

Binaural beats
Please note, removal of external links which violate WP:EL do not need prior discussion. If you feel some of the deleted links do not violate the WP:EL, then you should bring up their readdition to the talk page to argue the case. All those I removed were either blogs or commercial links, which are not appropriate external links. Collectonian 02:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit of a generalization, some are university thesis papers others reveiws or by 'knowledgable persons', etc. that do not violate EL Others are there as a result of past consensus, see talk page. , More than prepared to discuss on Talk page, normal courtesy is to give advance notice of such changes and allow time for discussion. maybe we can get some going? Jagra


 * It is not the standard (nor a requirement) to give advance notice of such changes nor to allow time for discussion. Discussion is only required if the changes are disagreed with.  In this case, they have been, hence we are now discussing. :)  I checked the talk page, but I saw no early discussion on any of those links or any sign of a consensus about them. Collectonian 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is now Jagra

CFS Stuff
Hi Jagra

Pardon the delay in responding.

No problems at all with quoting me. Though you might want to put my words in a block quote just to make it clear which bit is yours and which mine.

And thanks for the compliment about finding clues.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Might want to check this out

https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/register?registration=FTNov2007-34

You can get free access to all their journals (and there is a lot of them) until end of November. I am currently working my way through them. (A tip: search for "chronic fatigue", not "chronic fatigue syndrome", you get a bit more chaff, but also a broader and more interesting range of results.)

Two particularly interesting studies (of considerable relevance to the CFS article discussions) that I have found so far are:

Retrospective Measurement of Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Review of Instruments. Hulme PA, 2004. Complete abstract:

"In this comprehensive review of retrospective childhood sexual abuse (CSA) instruments, instruments from studies published between 1986 and 2001 are examined according to administration method, number and specificity of questions, CSA operational definitions, psychometric properties, and the use of scales. It was found that both self-administered and interview instruments range from the vagueness of a single question to the preciseness of multiple, specific questions. Furthermore, the review demonstrated that CSA instruments generally lack standardization. Many are developed for one time use and others modified when reused. Descriptive CSA instruments have been preferred by researchers and primarily used to measure CSA dichotomously. However, little consensus exists as to how to operationally define CSA. One positive trend is the development of scales that measure CSA as an interval-level variable, allowing for more extensive psychometric data to be collected."

''Daily physical activities of patients with chronic pain or fatigue versus asymptomatic controls. A systematic review''. van Weering M, et al, 2007. From the abstract:

"Conclusions: Results reported in the literature with respect to the activity level of patients with chronic pain or fatigue compared with controls were too heterogeneous to give sufficient evidence and were not conclusive."

Some food for thought.

Catch you later.

Bricker 07:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bricker, did get to Sage breifly before the 30th but have been busy dealing with reverting POV warriors catch up later Jagra

Help requested
I'm writing to let you know that on 12/10/07, OrangeMarlin completely removed all of the Talk page posts on the Herpes zoster article and archived them, so they are no longer visible. This was done without any consensus or discussion (or even warning), which is against Wikipedia policy. Also, on the same day, OrangeMarlin nominated the article for Featured Article status. (There is now an offical Wikipedia page page to vote "Support" or "Oppose" the Featured status.) I know the action was against Wikipedia policy, but I don't yet know how to contact Wikipedia about it. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern about the off-handed actions od certain editors, but the earlier history can still be accessed by clicking on 'Archive 1' below the archive symbol, it just can no longer be edited. On the CFS page when the discussion gets quite lomg, some people have problems opening it, so it is archived, less commonly but sometimes without discussion, in my observation usually by an embarrased editor! I can only imagine why in this instance. You could ask the question of how to proceed on the WP:Help desk If you have read the earlier posts you know my concern is the very short time frame of 3 days to begin anti-virals, (as well as those unable to access anti-virala at all) and therefore the need for the Article to address the common problem of what to do then. I notice that the digestive enzyme treatment, well studied in Europe, has since been removed and therefore the Article now fails to address this serious problem, where do I vote? Jagra (talk)


 * As a sequelia thanks for the tip, in checking the Archived material I found one of my postings on the HZ talk page had been vandalised by a sock puppet with fringe science material that supported OM's accusation immediately below. I had to seek admin assistance to correct it here Jagra (talk)

Herpes zoster 72 h
Hi, I posted below at the talk page and am posting it here for you. You are right in that any other time period would have to be qualified but my point is that "if (implying a strict limit) the treatment is started within 72 hours" is not strictly correct according to the cite. Well, OM changed that wording in his reversion and the present wording does not carry the same context, so it is a moot point for now.

The citation[7] in the lead seems to indicate 72 hours is arbitrary. "All of the controlled clinical trials of antiviral therapy have initiated treatment within 72 h of rash onset, an arbitrary inclusion criterion that does not necessarily reflect the cessation of viral replication....Considered together, these data are not inconsistent with there being a benefit from antiviral therapy initiated beyond 72 h after rash onset." Another citation[3] in the antiviral section mentions no time period. The other citation[25] I do not have. Ward20 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ward20 for the information, the first paper is excellent, But it also says "Because patients often do not recognize the significance of their symptoms or because there are delays in scheduling their evaluation, HZ is often not diagnosed this rapidly in clinical practice; obtaining medication can be an additional delay. Thus, patients are often unable to initiate treatment within this narrow window. Unfortunately, because the efficacy of antiviral therapy initiated 4 days after rash onset has not been systematically studied, there is no evidence base for such treatment" which is my point precisely regarding this Wiki Article. The second paper is a reveiw and a bit dated now, and you will find I commented on it in some detail in the HZ talk page Archive. Its primary references are mid to late 90s, but I am sure they will specify trials and  their commencement times before 72 hrs!(By the way this is what OM would call quote mining on both our parts)


 * I can attest personally to the effectiveness of anti-virals within 72 hours, however that is not the issue. It is not just scientific argument but also Government medical policy and economic argument (that differ through out even the developed English speaking world) that an encyclopaedia Article should at least recognise. Did you know that in some developed countries that because of antiviral costs, that the issue of a script requires prior department approvals and that it is illegal for practitioners (under health schemes) to issue scripts otherwise or if they have knowledge of rash commencement prior to 72 hrs before diagnosis, no arbitrary considerations in law. Also there are RS sources that conclude that antiviral treatment is  not economic at all in developing countries? So for just whom is the current Article intended to address, it seems a bit parochial to me? None of this nor the Article yet addresses what to do after 72 hours. Jagra (talk)

CFS
Thank you for the kind words. I do need to take a break to take care of my own issues, but I do hope that I can contribute from time to time Ward20 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)