User talk:Jytdog/Archive 5

Withdrawn drugs table
Hej Jytdog, Im writing a chapter for a book on drug attrition and would like to reproduce your nice table of withdrawn drugs, attributed to your wiki page. Its a very good compilation that I don't think appears anywhere else in quite such a nice and up to date format. Under the creative commons licence i think that is allowed, but I thought I would write to you as author to make sure you would be happy with that Andy  --Andrewspringsteen (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewspringsteen (talk • contribs) 10:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - lots of people worked on that! Glad you find it useful.  Wikipedia strives to be reliable but we sometimes fail, so I recommend you verify everything there using the sources provided.  Copyright on Wikipedia is discussed here  - you are free to reproduce it under those terms.    I appreciate the courtesy of you asking me personally. and of course I agree. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to see
My response at User:Lgkkitkat, here,, regarding his planned editing of Synth Biol. Cheers. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Canola Reduced Lung Function
I dont really get it I can find tons of medical links that I think satisfy the requirements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canola#Reduced_lung_function

Why cant you just help me find a link rather than just blocking me?

This all just turning into a pain in the ass - Im simply trying to help people, are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamhead (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a conversation for the Canola talk page, where I already replied to you. I am very sorry that Wikipedia can be a bit complicated - because we are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, over the years Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines to provide a foundation for rational converation, and these policies and guidelines do govern how we operate.  And for anything health related, a single research study like this is not a reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude, Im begging you here, the best way to teach someone is by example - show me how to do find the citation that you are happy with, this paper is being cited all over the place. In the time you have beat me up you could have just googled it and shown me how you want it. I mean everyone is referring to this as a medical journal and that's my original ref:  http://respiratory-research.com/   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamhead (talk • contribs) 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am happy to help, but you have to help me, help you. I pointed you to WP:MEDRS.  If you read it, you will see that it says "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them)."   So the best thing to do is wait a bit until a "review" article is published that talks about this study, and puts it into perspective.  I did check, and nobody has discussed this study in a review yet.  It should be just a few months, I imagine... Can you tell me why it is so important to you to get this content into Wikipedia? I am curious! Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Im starting to understanding the reserved and special meanings of the words "Research" vs "Reviews" and "Primary source" etc now, so I feel like they have more context. When they are just thrown at you their importance and differentiation isnt clear to laymen like myself.

This helped me :

http://respiratory-research.com/about#publication

But wouldnt you agree that this website IS a journal - albeit an open journal?

Finally, if you look at my edit history you will see that I rarely contribute. Im a busy guy and Ive just took some time out here to share something, Im simply trying to get something done and move on with my todo lists - strike while the iron is hot, Ive got no capacity to put this on a backburner and pick it up later. It's not my hobby!

http://respiratory-research.com/about#publication — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamhead (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am VERY sorry for all the jargony bullshit. Most people don't care enough to actually try to figure out what the hell is going on - I appreciate you sticking with it and being decent about it!  Let me try to explain a little more...  some key ideas.  1) Biology is crazy.  We are still scrabbling around in the dark trying to figure out a lot of really basic stuff.  Example - everybody knows that Alzheimers is a terrible disease, and we have spent gobs of money trying to figure out what causes it.  I am sure you know that.  Well, one of the bad actors is a piece of a protein -- the piece is called "A beta" and the whole protein is called "APP".  Well, with all the gazillions of dollars we have spent, we still do not know what APP does is normal brains, and we still don't understand why the A beta piece gets cut out of it.  That is crazy, right?   It starts to make some sense, if you realize that we have no way (really!) of looking inside a living human being's skull and seeing in detail  - way down at the cell level - what is going on.  Serious problem!  Anyway, we are scrabbling around in the dark.  Humans are really, really complicated biological things.  So much going on.  You have heard this joke maybe?  A guy is crawling around at night under a streetlight, looking for something. Another guy comes by and says whats up, and the crawling guy says he is looking for his keys. The other guy helps for a few minutes, then says, "they're not here.. where do you think you lost them?  Guy says "oh, over there in that alley."  Helper guys says "WTF?"  Looking guy says -- "well the light was better over here!"    And... this is what biology science is like.  People do research in mice, or in cells in petri dishes, or they cut up dead people.  None of these are very much what it is like with living human beings.  We call these "models".  And while we are making progress, our answers are still pretty crappy, pretty fragmentary.  Another thing people do, is studies like the one you are interested in.  This is a study of a lot of living people, where you measure a bunch of things, and you try to find correlations.  In this case, they found correlations between high levels of one kind of Vitamin E (gamma tocopherol) and lung disease.   But correlations are dangerous.  Example -- a study found that college kids who sleep in their clothes, tend to wake up with headaches.   What does this mean?  Does wearing clothes while you sleep, make you sleep badly, or maybe cut off blood to your head or something?  Well...the study didn't measure how much beer people drank the night before!   Right?!  Now it all makes sense.  In this case, the beer drinking is what we call a "confounder", and suddenly we can see, the correlation we saw before, is really meaningless.   Likewise, if you look at other studies of this Vitamin E thing, you can see that food with high levels of gamma tocopherol also have high levels of other stuff - bad fats, for example.  But that paper doesn't about bad fats at all.  So while it is tempting to say that the correlation means there is causation, this is a very dangerous thing to assume (see correlation does not mean causation if you want to dig into that whole thing more).  Anyway... so biology scientists publish research all the time.  Boatloads and boatloads of papers -- these are "primary sources."   They are very unreliable for a bunch of reasons - mostly what I said above, but for other reasons too.   Now from time to time, scientists sit down and read a bunch of research papers, and they think about it, and they they write what we call "reviews", where they try to fit everything together into a story that makes sense.   These are "secondary sources", and these are more reliable.  There are different kinds of reviews -- some of there are kind of impressionistic, where a senior scientist in a field sits back and reflects.  Others are hardcore, and actually do statistics and analyze and criticize the papers they are pulling together.  That latter kind - systematic, critical reviews - are by far the most valuable - both for us at Wikipedia, and for anybody trying to understand what the hell is going on.  This is what WP:MEDRS talks about.  We should base Wikipedia articles on these critical reviews, mostly.  Also, from time to time, big scientific or medical organizations come out with statements on important issues - the American Medical Association, the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control... organizations like that.  When they make statements, you can trust those are true as well, and those statements also make great sources for Wikipedia.  SO  - with regard to Vitamin E/gamma tocopheral and allergy & lung disease - when folks start saying in review articles  (or when the AMA comes out and says) that folks should avoid canola oil because the vitamin E in it promotes allergy and messes up your lungs - that is when this information should appear in Wikipedia.  We want to give reliable information to the public.  Not scare them with the latest alarmist news article about a "primary" research paper - which may or may not be true.  I hope that makes sense.  This was very long, hope you were able to hang in there. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Boom, and there it is, I finally have a three dimensional understanding of the guidelines and why they exist. Ive always found it easier to learn by example and I think your examples here are powerful. I struggled to infer the rationale and risks being addressed in WP:MEDRS. I'd hate to see you have to spend that time explaining this again, so perhaps we can bring some of this stuff that helps laymen like myself to the WP:MEDRS page? Id recommend a "Simple explanation" section that doesn't rely on previous knowledge of the terms and explains them with examples pretty much as above. What do you think? Happy to help author/edit that if you think there is value

Gamhead (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thak you for taking the time with this User. If you tidy up the foregoing, I;ll look back to it. It could be a short essay on the matter, without the WP: this and WP: that so often appearing, that a new user might feel helpful. And I would be gald to collaborate (in the brick and mortar sense of the word). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, given the amount of pop science that gets thrown out by news sources these days, seems like we - the laymen - are required to be increasingly savvy. Somewhere in all this is a great opportunity to increase the awareness of the populous about how to improve their critical thinking in this regard. Shame that this will only reach those who have an impetus to edit wiki, but it's something.

Gamhead (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Kudos, Jytdog. That explanation ought to be an essay somewhere. It's way easier to follow than MEDRS.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you all for your kind words! I was just trying to answer Gamhead's real question (god I love real questions - they make good things happen). I just re-read it.  Many typos, and places where I lost my thread (where the hell is 2 and 3?) and things I didn't say... I am taking it that the plain language and the examples are helpful and will keep that, but will fix the holes, eliminate the profanity.. then we can see what to do with it...  thanks again for the kind words!  I will also produce a super condensed version for ~potential~ inclusion in MEDRS if folks there are open to it (once it exists). Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 on the praise! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Brand names
I do not have a concern with listing brand names outside the lead at the end. They should be reffed though  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * hmm OK. i didn't really think my deletion would fly... it is mostly a spam magnet but making people source would be better.... i guess one place to put the garbage is better than everywhere. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The China Study
The 'unattributed' material on/from the book the China Study that is the actual focus of the book rather than the earlier work so far cited under this section has been restored and amended to clarify that it is sourced from the book that is the subject of this section, as well as providing critique rather than hiding what this book is actually about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmwpowers (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Helpful shortcuts & templates
Helpful stuff: – S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTFEED
 * WP:ASPERSIONS
 * Thanks for the advice! Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Imatinib Synthesis
What are you doing? Why can i not add synthesis details? I have a chemistry degree, why am I not allowed to make contribution. This is winding me up. I need to take another hot bath to try and relax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.20.95 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I stated my reason in my edit note.  The figure is WP:OR and to the extent it is based on anything, it is based on a primary source.  We source content from secondary sources.  I believe you are likely the same as  and the edits you have made to Imatinib‎ suffer from the same problems that have been discussed with that user.  A random synthesis is not encylopedic information. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Look it is from here see:


 * http://www.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/groups/leighton/gm/20080702-TJH-Process.pdf


 * It's my hard-work gone into that. This is a selfish piss-take that I don't get a decent salary for my contribution.


 * I didn't say that blowing-off the enemies face would be a piss-take. or blowing up the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.20.95 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, so it is WP:COPYVIO from there. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that it's not a copyright violation unless he literally cut and pasted the entire figure, because the details of the synthetic route are facts, and you cannot copyright facts. It is also generally held that chemical structures are not covered by copyright, for very similar reason.


 * Nonetheless, as a PhD organic chemist, I strongly disagree with the addition of chemical synthesis routes to drug articles on Wikipedia. This is a general intereste encyclopedia, and synthetic routes are neither of interest nor comprehensible to 99% of our readers. I oppose adding the route here, and will likely begin deleting them as a matter of course as I encounter them. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * did you look at slide 31? Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't compare side by side, if its a simple cut and paste its verboten as the design of the presentation but not the information itself is protected. In any case, typical academic argument, I support removal.  Also removed some apparent vandalism by this editor on the Desmosterol article.  IP block may be needed.  Formerly 98 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks! this is such a shame. the guy could be so useful. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please check out this likely conflict of interest/ sock puppet evidence and possibly block user?
I strongly believe that employees of Advisorshares, fund.com and/or Arrow Invesment Advisors are editing the “Advisorsshares” and "Fund.com" Wikipedia pages. First of all, Advisorshares and Arrow Invesment Advisors are both based in Maryland and there have been an unusual amount of ip edits in the history sections that come from near both firms headquarters in Maryland according to Wikipeida’s suggested geotag sites. In fact one edit on the Fund.com page from March 20, 2014 the ip address 71.178.252.123 traced back to ARROW INVESTMENT ADVISORS using the WHOIS tool. Other IP address from around the firms’ headquarters in Bethesda Maryland, include: 50.242.249.233, 70.192.219.184, 96.231.135.99, 75.103.6.172, 96.231.154.15, 72.83.136.15

An account with the username “AdvisorShares” made an edit before it was banned on Feb. 14, 2014. There’s a large possibility that this was a paid employee of Advisorshares trying to put an ‘official’ entry, which is just firm marketing material. This account was quickly blocked by IronGargoyle.

These two usernames seem to be sock puppets of the same user (probably an Advisorshares or fund.com employee): UserNameUnderContruction which edited the “Advisorshares” page and “ETFinvestor” which edited the Fund.com page. They deleted basically the same sentence on May 26 and May 27 respectively. On the Advisorshares history it took away 331 bytes in the history and on the fund.com page it took away 337 bytes. Other possible sock puppets of this same user include, Babylon1894 and Jigsaw574.

UserNameUnderConstruction has been warned twice on their talk page that if they are a paid employee of a company whose page they are editing, they need to declare it. Both times they avoid answering if they are a paid employee or representative and claim that other users can’t make such assumptions. UserNameUnderConstruction has twice accused use "Sargdub" of being a sockpupppet of ETFCanadian on the talk pages of Advisorshares and fund.com, even though Sargdub has been a user since 2010 and is from New Zealand.Tempaccount45 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * obviously I stalk this page, and I mistakenly removed the above post. I do hope I haven't caused too much bother. I'll try not to let it happen again. Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion from another stalker, perhaps reporting this to WP:SPI would be the best way to proceed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The OP's account has been indeffed here. Am archiving this.  Wierd. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello sir
I do apologize if you got on the wrong end of my grumpy stick. I actually just read your user page and your pov expressed - I liked it and related somewhat. At heart I am a wikipedia idealist believe it or not. Thanks for your help! SAS81 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't write that remark to me - you wrote it to everybody! I just don't like watching people take on such a seriously wrong cognitive set, even in a heated discussion.  You gotta keep your head on straight.   For what it is worth you should go strike it - leaving something like that can seriously come back to bite you.  I am glad you took pleasure from my description. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * donzo. thank you for your patience. SAS81 (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually Jytdog I do owe you an apology. I realized I misread this comment of yours " I understand that others have interacted with you in a battleground-y way -- I was trying to teach you."" So - I do see how I was coming off with a 'hard stance' after you wrote that, and yes, I did take much of what you write as a battleground stance, which I have been dealing with for almost 2 months on a daily basis. So, I will politely ask you - what am I doing that is 'paid advocacy' specifically? Can you give me an example? Can you explain the difference between Paid Advocacy, advocacy, and Wikipedia GLAM projects? What do I have wrong? I can only clarify my intentions, and have read WP Policy extensively and work really hard to stay within them. If you believe I am missing something, kindly advise. i've posted this on my talk page and struck out my previous comment. SAS81 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I warned you that I am blunt in one of my first advice-y posts to you. Clarity is immensely important, and I sacrifice niceness for clarity all the time.  Unfortunately people sometimes stop listening because they are taking what i am saying as attack or accusation, when all i am doing, is trying to be clear.  If you have the patience, can I suggest that you please take the time to go back and carefully read what i wrote on your page, remembering that I am trying to help you and teach you?  I grant it is a lot, but I tried very hard to be concise and to make it all count.   I will come back and respond to your questions above (which I take as authentic!) but not til tonight. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia
Hello there,

I received a message today that you have reverted me on the Wikipedia-conflict-of-interest topic; may I ask if you can explain to me your reasoning for doing this? I'm afraid that keeping those links in may serve to bias the article from a Wikipedian point of view, as Wikipedians are wont to do, because the proposals primarily point out the merits and demerits of allow conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia rather than leaving the outside reader to judge it for hisself/herself. The proposals by nature are non-neutral, and including them in the article would violate Wikipedia's spirit of "No original research" and "Neutral Point of View". Cheers, --TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree and would be happy to discuss! May I copy your content to the article Talk page, and respond there? Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure! You may copy any part of my message as you wish. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

LinkedIn COI edit
Hi Jytdog, I've really appreciated your help and responsiveness concerning my COI edit request for LinkedIn. It took me a few days to respond, but I've worked up a new draft of the proposed section and would hugely appreciate if you had a chance to take a look at it. Thank you so much for working on this with me. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
Are two references enough? Dan Watts (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent undo at MEDRS
Hello Jytdog. When reverting here, I'm not clear whether you were aware that the edit you undid was basically a clean-up of a concept which was introduced here (along with some other changes, which had already been already "reverted"). Or maybe I've missed something? As I also hinted in my edit summary, I agree that talk would be good there. Best wishes, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * nope, I don't understand what you are saying. Your edit appears to me to be completely unrelated to the prior edit about citing full source with or without a source behind a paywall.  Guidelines shouldn't be changed without discussion on the Talk page, in any case.  I might agree with you but please discuss it first. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please look again at this diff (by ) again. If you scroll down, you should see the change I was trying to "clean-up" (or interpret/contextualize) was the change from"Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources; however, they normally contain previous-work sections that are secondary sources (these sections are often incomplete" to"Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources; however, they normally contain sections that place their research in the context of previous work. These sections may be considered secondary sources for the purpose of this guideline, but note that these sections are often incomplete" Right now, that change still stands. Adding: Perhaps I should also clarify that I came to your user talk page rather than the article one because I suspected you may not have spotted that change. The current wording seems to me to imply that such content may be considered an acceptable secondary source under certain circumstances. Since no-one else had immediately reverted, and given that the question has been discussed before, I inferred (perhaps mistakenly) that there was probably some consensus for this. At the same time, I felt the wording and positioning needed some clean-up to avoid unintended interpretations. Hence my edit. (Fwiw, I don't have strong feelings on this, though I would tend to support a flexible approach in such situations.)  86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * MEDRS is a community-wide guideline - this is not between you and me. Feel free to copy this entire thread to Talk:MEDRS. Thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I will make no substantial response here. I will at Talk:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, agree. Could I ask you though to copy the salient bits, as I wouldn't want to make an unintelligible mess. Or if you prefer, I'll just start a new section to summarize the question - better perhaps? Or maybe you'd perefer to do that? Thanks, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

i'll just copy the whole thing - it is all typical talk page discussion. if that is OK with you. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * To save everyone unnecessary time and effort, would you let me try? If you don't like what I can do, please feel free to copy everything. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * knock yourself out! you already have permission to copy anything i wrote there  Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

RightBackAtyja
Hey Jytdog, I just have little understanding of the workings of the deeper layers of Wikipedia. I haven't, even after a decade, taken the time to learn the entire programming language. That's too time consuming. If I need to redesign a page, I do research on the code of well-designed similar pages. So actually, I don't even know how to find the conversation you're talking about, but I would love to continue it if you reconnect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleroinferno (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * i replied on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

COI
Thanks - every time someone mentions me as an example worth following, it gives me a little feel-good encouragement. I think within a year or two, I'll be the primary source of new GAs on company pages and I don't know any other paid corporate editors churning out GAs. That's pretty neat when you think about our best corporate pages (rather than our worst) being churned out by a paid editor, not just anecdotally, but at-scale. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Thank you for being so transparent. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh, there are apparently some people who do not feel I am transparent enough. Back when COI+ was being discussed, I was saying what is needed is a certification-type situation that required a nomination and consensus comparable to RFA (but maybe not so harsh).  CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are not as transparent as I thought! :) I have ~some~ familiarity with your work and watched your comments on the discussions about paid editing and found the work and reasoning generally reasonable, and every time I have looked you taken great pains to be transparent, but I haven't closely followed everything you do. How do you and the Donovan people differ? Them disinviting you was a surprise to see!  Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They won't let me join unless I disclose my real-name and employer and I don't care to. The new Terms of Use have this problem too (see here). Considering some of the participants have Wikipedia articles written by me, it's pretty much out of the question. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OH. Wow. Thanks for explaining. The ToU doesn't really take self-employed paid editors into account, does it. That basically obligates you to out yourself. I see how that is hard. I am sympathetic to you but on the other hand i think there are trade-offs everywhere you go, and I could see being self-employed as worth the self-outing.... but I certainly see why you don't care to. Why are you talking about articles you did in the past? The ToU and the Donovan pledge are all forward-looking, aren't they?Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really a trade-off; just a sacrifice with no upside. I think the issue would remain even if I was employed by someone else. Earlier in my contribution history I did disclose my real identity and I got harassing messages on Twitter. I don't really want Waggener Edstrom (one of the signers) to know that I'm the one that brought their page up to GA, after they removed well-sourced criticisms and added promotion - or for the PRSA to know I replaced their link-bait version of their article with a controversial one. It's not like anyone is going to bother me about creating GA articles with a COI, because I did not out myself in the process. It's more or less a minor technicality in that the TOU are not well-worded and representative of some deeper issues that are mostly the community's fault. CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I meant the trade-off in a world with the current ToU where you work for someone else and don't have to disclose your identity or you work for yourself, and you do have to disclose your identity. I do sympathize with having to out yourself, a LOT. there a lot of assholes in WP and i value my anonymity for sure! Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yah, I hadn't thought of that, the TOU doesn't require a real-name, so if you work for a bigger company, you can disclose an employer with less outing. "there are a lot of ass holes" ha, yah, on the internet, or in the world really.


 * Anyways, if you ever have time to chip in on an article where I have a COI, let me know. I am constantly asking (read harassing) editors for help/collaboration, because I work on such a large number of articles in a COI role and require a non-COI collaborator on each one for Bright Line(ish) reasons. People are constantly retiring or being banned faster than I can find editors that enjoy popping into random articles and it usually takes a while for editors to learn that I'm actually reasonable to work with. CorporateM (Talk) 03:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you know, but just a reminder
There are a very limited number of exceptions to the WP:3RR brightline, and I don't see anything at Biochemistry that clearly qualifies your edits into one of those exceptions. In those situations, it's probably best practice to get assistance via WP:AN3 for repeated insertion of contested or problematic material. —C.Fred (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think we got home.  Newbie user, angry one. Rare!  But I appreciate the warning - you are right.  Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Pings
I was following the discussion so I was aware of your most recent post, which pinged me and other users. However, the ping itself did not work. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know. that is wierd: according to Notifications the template i used when i made the edit should provide notifications.... Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I recall reading somewhere that those pings only work at the start of a post. I think you came up with a good idea and I hope it flies. I don't see how it can't, really, as it is commonsensical, it meets the guideline requirement, and it has stern warnings against harassment. I am going back to work tomorrow, and to ensure that I am not distracted by Wikipedia I make it a practice to not even use the same browser, so I will be completely incommunicado for a few days. Not neglecting the discussion or snubbing anybody, just blissfully unaware of it! Addendum: for the sake of absolute completeness you should add User:Davidwr, who posted at Good luck and thanks again for your good work. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  21:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Notifications are supposed to work any time the user: or user_talk: page is linked to directly or by some other means such as a template, provided that the recipient has his preferences set to get them AND there is a ~ somewhere in the post. I'm not sure if the signature can be anywhere, if it has to be a the end, or if there is some other restriction (e.g. anywhere AFTER the link to the user: or user_talk: page). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, I hope you don't mind my using your name in vain above. I think that you are acting commendably by your disclosure, both the one on your page and in the COI talk page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My page? I didn't disclose my COI on my user or user-talk page.  Oh, you must mean the page in which I have a COI in (including related discussion pages).  That's not "my" page, that's an article page.  I didn't create it, and in the 7+ years I've been here I've made very few edits to it (although I did make a HUGE copyvio-enforcement rollback undoing years of others' work).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 World Music Awards
Thanks so much for your cleanup on this; you walked into a WP:COI minefield where I've been trying to fend off the WMA organizers for weeks over their removal of the negative issues. I've placed a request on WP:RFP to hopefully get them off the page.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it was your posting on COIN that made me look at it, so thanks for posting there. i don't know that i would have gone for COIN myself as much as WP:NPOVN, but you made a reasonable case about the location of the IP address.  in any case, it that was an ugly mess. its on my watchlist now.  Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

a question
Hey. You reverted my edit on Tryptophan. You probably had a good reason. What is to not be considered a primary source and what is? My understanding is that reviews are preferred over case studies. But is it a best practice to revert all material that is sourced by a case study? Thanks. makeswell (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking to me! I self-reverted... will take this up back at the tryptophan article later.. don't have time to go further on this now... thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Novozymes
Hi. Hope all is well. I provided the requested info on the Novozymes talk page; what do you think? Many thanks. Best, Fred at Novozymes (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. Sorry have been hammered at work and wiki-time has been on higher-level stuff.  will try to come back to the Novozymes article soon! Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I just want to assure that the article moves into compliance with Wikipedia rules and guidelines as soon as possible - and I obviously stand available to support re that in any way possible. As a well-respected company, we just can't live with the current state, including outdated basic info and the tag - the latter obviously self-inflicted from errors we made in the past. Thanks. Best, Fred at Novozymes (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar - Thanks for your clear thinking
That is very kind of you. thank you! Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I will always be thankful for a helping hand
Hi Jytdog,

I read your user page and we couldn't have a more similar philosophy, but with different motivations and different approaches. I share my professional background as that is what most people would view as my COI, whereas that pales in comparison to the four generations of known mental illness in my family, including myself and my three adult children. That is my true COI.

While I have the interest and skill to edit wiki, I do not have the time nor the temperament. Something about suffering fools combined with bipolar I and ptsd. I've actually been at my best behavior, I'm usually a bull in the china shop ;/ Instead of disrupting the mood here, as posted elsewhere, I will simply pay or encourage someone else to do the editing. I am not frustrated at all, it is just that wiki is a small part of what I am trying to do and the wiki editing is time-consuming to do well.

To wit, I would share with you the following analysis of the ketamine page and its dynamics:

1. Ketamine is a generic drug competing with patented or in development drugs. One one side of the postings you have over $30 billion of patented pharmaceutical sales. I would not be surprised at all if they spend over $1 million per year for editing the ketamine page. There is no such resource on the other side.

2. While completely understanding the need for referenced sources, that creates a very uneven playing field in the case of a generic drug. Here are the barriers: • The FDA is largely funded directly by drug companies, not tax dollars, and has been since the 1990's. They are not a source of unbiased information when it is a generic vs. patented question. • The medical journal contributors and editors are largely funded by pharma. Great when it is two competing drug companies fighting out their positions, not so great when one of the drugs is generic. • The research conducted by the government on ketamine has been withheld from the public but shared with drug companies.

3. The facts on the ground are that ketamine treatment for emotional illnesses is taking off, no matter what happens at wiki or anywhere else other than in the patients' own minds. The real question for wiki is how that dynamic is going to unfold with regard to wiki. Is it going to be one where the best available, properly vetted information has helped people make informed decisions in a time of rapid change, or is it going to represent a vestige of the past that readers will recognize as propaganda.

Thanks as always. Geraldwgaines (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I hear you all around. btw, the way we think around here, your clinic could give you a financial interest if you make money from it, and we call that a COI; your family history and emotional interest in getting better psych drugs to market is what could drive you to be "advocate" - WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI are related in that each drives editors to be not-neutral (and neutrality is a policy) but their motivations are different.    Responding to each point that you raise above:
 * there are examples of academics repurposing drugs (e.g. WP:EMSAM) but generally you need to partner with a company to really get the new purpose widely used... and it is notable that the NIH will often fund clinical trials of things like this.
 * Sorry, we just see this differently - I don't agree with pretty much anything here. I know that repurposing plays are very difficult to get funded (getting NCEs developed is very difficult too) but it is one thing to discuss intrinsic problems, and another to veer off into conspiracy theorizing. I just don't view the latter as productive.  I am curious though -  what is your evidence on the last point, that the FDA itself did research on ketamine that they haven't published?
 * I have said elsewhere you are new here and don't understand how things work here yet. This is written from a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and how it functions. I am sorry you feel that way but it is based on a misunderstanding.


 * BTW, what do you think of this recent review on ketamine in depression, from the UK's NHS? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3952483/


 * Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there
I see that my name was unfortunately mentioned on Jimbo's page. Just wanted to let you know that I generally respect your editing and only wish that we held more similar points of view. Gandydancer (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gandy it was very, very kind of you to take the time and effort to say this. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome. I just now had time to very briefly read the thread.  I'm not sure if I should make some sort of post to say that I have no problem with you (or whatever--what exactly would I say to such an odd accusation?) or just let it be rather than bring attention to it.  What do you think?  Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * extra double kind of you.  i walked away.... with respect to me, i would say just let it lie rather than feed it.  if it ever gets brought up, you could decide at that time what you would want to do.  with respect to your name being deployed, of course do as you see fit!  thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel I'm between a rock and a hard place... The edit does piss me off but like you I don't want to bring attention to it and risk expanding an off topic discussion.  Hopefully most people will consider the source...  Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * i hear you. i am sorry your name was used that way - just ugly. i am sorry.  above you asked how you might respond... if it ends up getting under your skin and responding would relieve that, something like "I don't want to expand this off-topic discussion, but use of my name in this way has been bothering me. I just want to clarify that while jytdog and i often find ourselves on different sides of issues, (I generally haven't felt treated badly by him, especially not in any gender-based way) (he has generally treated me respectfully) (he generally doesn't edit in the "male aggressive" way that is the subject of concern in these discussions)."  In my response I was tempted to expand the drama and point out the irony of V's remark but I decided not to go there... Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, killed three birds with one stone: I'm not a dope.  You're not a jerk.  Oh the irony of it all.  I pray that he will just drop it.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

ditto. that was elegantly done! and btw you are not a "difficult editor" in my mind. there are editors who storm in and are aggressive and are unable or unwilling to really talk, and who can get pretty mean/accusatory. Those are the ones I had in mind. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"Evil"
In this post are you talking about the "Acupuncture Today" article? That article talks about one doctor that does acupuncture in combination with surgery, then concludes that eastern medicine should be used together with modern medicine. Why do you view that as "evil"? I ask because you have been promoting a more balanced approach at project med, but then you give this highly slanted reading of one article that is in a newsletter meant to be read by practitioners (I bring that up because you say you "violently" disagree and that the article is meant for cancer patients). "Acupuncture Today" is basically a vehicle for supply companies to advertise to acupuncturists - it is not an academic journal and does not represent the profession to the public. Even if it did, the article does not recommend foregoing conventional medical care. Herbxue (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am talking about this article. will respond more below, just inserting this here. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see: "The time immediately after surgery is an important window of opportunity, according to Dr. Fuda, to intervene with acupuncture and 'jump-start' the immune system into antagonism toward any remaining cancerous cells." That is textbook quackery of the worst (yes, "evil") kind: preying on the vulnerable to make money by spouting BS. Here in the UK, anybody publicising that message would be committing a criminal offense and could find themselves in prison. Rightly, in my view. In all these conversation around acu*, it's those making money from it who seem blind to the quackery. Fancy that! Alexbrn talk 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I am posted this because I really don't want you (Jytdog) to feel burned out and stop the work you have been doing to bring more NPOV to these articles. I cannot post at the article itself right now, and I think your approach is really valuable and important (even if we disagree about the value of TCM). I just read the article differently than you did, and you should know that acupuncturists in the west are trained specifically to not recommend foregoing conventional care. If you read the article to the end, you can see the recommendation is to use acupuncture and conventional care together. (Alexbrn, read the whole article. A quote from one doctor does not equal the opinion or approach of the article's author, much less whole profession.) Herbxue (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read the whole thing. The ending peroration has: "the acupuncture war on cancer is alive and well through new ways of thinking, new research and new technology". Sigh. Sometimes I think the endarkenment might actually happen - usually after spending some time editing altmed articles on WP! ;-) Alexbrn talk 08:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, well, I did not come here to defend the author, there's more than one cringe-worthy phrase in that article! And I did say the publication is basically a vehicle for advertisements to acupuncturists. But still, at least she shows the good sense to say a combination of alt and conventional is best for the patient (although she implies that "advancements" are equal on both sides, which is not the case). My point is, even with the naiveté, the article does not recommend foregoing conventional care, and as such, I don't think it deserves a label as strong as "evil". Herbxue (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, taking money off a cancer patient in return for fraudulently providing useless "medical" services is evil alright (this phenomenon is not just limited to acupuncture of course: there's a whole cast of villains out there). Alexbrn talk 08:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another . Couldn't have put it better myself. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't think you understand clinical practice very much. Acupuncturists are very clear with patients about what they can and cannot help with. I actually treat cancer patients quite a bit, and get good results for improving appetite, sleep, reducing nausea and diarrhea, reducing tingling/numbness from chemo, improving salivary flow post radiation, and alleviating pain. I do not tell people I cure cancer. None of my students would ever tell anybody this.


 * You know who else does not claim to cure cancer? Oncologists. You know why? Because there are select few types of cancer that respond predictably to conventional care. One of the oncologists I followed as part of my training at one of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America summed it up perfectly: "The disease humbles us". Humbled by the challenge cancer presents him with, he is happy to have the support of other kinds of practitioners, if only to alleviate some of the suffering of his patients. You, in your arrogance, decide to paint in broad strokes and say it is charlatanism, but you are not even remotely aware of what we (both MD's and alt med practitioners) are trying to do and how much of a difference we are making. Herbxue (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ – the only person who has used the phrase "cure cancer" is you. I think the claim in the article in question is that somehow acupuncture "jump starts" the immune system and so can reduce the chance of recurrence. That is quackery - a very pure form of it since the value proposition is the lie "I can reduce the chance you'll die if you pay me for my services". I am sure a lot of acupuncturists that make such claims are making a difference, but sadly only to their own bank accounts. I am also sure acu* also has a number of mostly harmless applications which, for all I know, you confine yourself to. That's fine, but no reason to be soft/defensive about blatant quackery that other acupuncturists evidently engage in. Alexbrn talk 10:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point, and thank you for not making personal assumptions. To be fair though many oncologists recommend dietary changes and supplements for the possible benefits of aiding the immune system, even when the evidence is not solid - for example the integrative medicine team at Northwestern University health systems regularly prescribes astragalus and ganoderma supplements based on promising in vitro studies and limited in vivo evidence. Sometimes an intervention presents possible or likely benefits and limited risks, and doctors are willing to go for it because they make the clinical judgement that the possible benefit outweighs the risk (and cost). Acupuncture is such an intervention. The fact that the intervention is not proven by systematic reviews is not enough for the oncologist's to consider it to be a waste of time or money.

It is true, however, that many acupuncturists make vaguely-worded claims about what their treatments can do, and that is a problem. It is a problem that acupuncture colleges have been keenly aware of, and college accreditation rules in the US continue to change because of it (guidelines have increasingly emphasized bioscience training, including ACAOM's most recent "First Professional Doctorate" standards of accreditation).Herbxue (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks everybody for coming here and talking, more or less civilly. Herbxue I realize that my outburst was probably shocking.  Thanks for explaining how you read the article.  I see that (I really do)  you read it as having some cringe-worthy things, but primarily as talking about research and calling for closer cooperation and learning.  And I hear you that this is a trade rag (all fields have them).    The really key thing I needed to know from A1, is what he would say "no" to.  In a really tough debate, one of the key things is establishing trust - "OK, if I let you in, how far will you push me?  If I give you an inch, will you take a mile?"  Hence, the bright line discussion.   Back to the article... Places where you cringed, I did too, and more.   But here is the core of what I see... the article is written in plain language, that the public can understand, and as I noted, appeared in the first page of google results when I searched "cancer acupuncture".  The article has a strong thrust that acu should be front line therapy for cancer in the West, today.  And the part that really galled me - the (to me) very clear suggestion from the stories about Dr. Fuda, that going with medical treatment is a bad choice.  Really pointed up by the desperate comment at the end.   There is much I can forgive in the article,  but the thing I cannot forgive is the call to forego medical treatment in favor of acu, today.   I was glad that A1 acknowledged that this is "not mainstream" but his bolded denial that the call to forgo medical treatment is out of bounds (i.e. quackery), was a deal breaker. To use softy language, I would need a safe space in which to work with him, and this refusal means that there is no safe space.  To use more business-oriented negotiation language, we would need to establish a clear field in which to work, and an agreement on what is "in" and "out" of that field - on its boundaries, and there is clearly no agreement on that.  I could not continue to stand with him if he cannot call quackery, quackery. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation. I agree, people in healthcare should be more careful with what they say in the public realm, to avoid creating false expectations. There are many people in acupuncture that have a lack of competence and/or an excess of naive hope, I was just surprised at the strong wording as I don't think the article promoted avoiding chemo. Herbxue (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply
Since someone replied to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias before I had the chance to do so, and since there is already a discussion here, I figured out I might as well post my response on this page.


 * 1. Mind-body therapies do have an effect on the immune system

This is discussed extensively in Chapter 38 of Goldman's Cecil Medicine and other medical reference works. For a recent meta-analysis, see PMID 24988414 in PLOS ONE.

It also regulates the balance between Th1 and Th2 cells. I'm going to assume in good faith that you do have a working knowledge of how these systems work. This mechanism is particularly convincing when you take into account the fact that acupuncture may prevent an increase of Interleukin 4, thereby supressing the serum level of Immunoglobulin E. The first thing that comes to my mind is that acupuncture would probably have some sort of an effect on people with allergic diseases, and the most recent review suggest that it does lead to a positive outcome as an "evidence-based therapy for allergy relief".
 * 2. Acupuncture enhances the activtiy of natural killer cells

For a detailed review on acupuncture's immunomodulatory mechanisms, see Acupuncture and immune modulation (2010) in Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic and Clinical.

It is also important to note that acupuncture is by no means the only mind-body therapy that can modulate the immune system. According to a review titled Molecular Mechanisms of Meditation (2013) in the journal Molecular Neurobiology, a whole range of interleukins are "definitely affected" by meditation, producing a beneficial effect in autoimmune disorders and breast cancer. The tumor necrosis factor alpha may be increased by meditation.


 * 3. We don't know if acupuncture has an effect on cancerous tumors (if any at all)

According to NCI, almost all clinical studies on the effects of acupuncture on cancer are focused on symptom management rather than the disease itself. The only thing we can say about acupuncture as a treatment for cancer is "we don't know if it has any effect at all".


 * 4. Using acupuncture as a sole treatment for cancer, rather than a supplementary therapy, is fringe

I have never read anything about acupuncture being used as a cure for cancer, rather than a supplmentary therapy, in the medical literature.

If it is promoted by someone as a form of cancer treatment, it will not be in accordance with current medical guidelines. An unproven treatment, however, is not equivalent to a pseudoscientific treatment.


 * 5. Our immune system is (theoretically) able to stop a tumor from growing

Cancer immunosurveillance is a process by which an organism's immune system recognizes transformed cells in order to inhibit the growth of neoplastic tissue. However, it is not always effective. Via immunoediting, cancerous cells can escape detection and resist destruction by the immune system.

Although some studies have found that acupuncture may show an anti-cancer effect by influencing the immune system, I would not place much significance on these findings (by Chinese researchers) until they are confirmed by other research groups. Just to be clear: That acupuncture article is fringe, it is quackery, but it is definitely not pseudoscientific.


 * 6. Which of the following is the greater evil - Promoting a treatment or denying someone a treatment?

When it comes to cancer treatment, we are often stuck between a hard rock and brick wall. In an ideal world, it would be great if we could have a magical wonder pill that can cure all sorts of ailments and diseases. Unfortunately, this is reality. And nothing is harsher than the prospect of facing imminent death and losing everything due to an untreatable disease.

I could put down a long list of reasons as to why chemotherapy doesn't work as expected: Sometimes, the cancer cell interacts with the drug and renders it ineffective. Often, the drug fails to even enter the cells. Even for a radically "successful" drug such as Imatinib, almost a third (!) of all treated patients either do not respond to the drug or experience deterioraton after an initial response. The situation is even more bleak for less successful drugs.

Let's take lung cancer as an example, since you made a reference to the comment at the bottom of that acupuncture site. The patient is reported to be suffering from 4th stage lung cancer and the cancerous cells have spread to other parts of the body. To put it in blunt words: There is no cure. The tumor is too advanced to be treated.

Will alternative medicine help this patient? This is an important question because mainstream therapy is only good enough to relieve the symptoms at this stage. Chemotherapy is not a curative option.


 * 7. TCM increases survival rate of lung cancer patients

Moving away from acupuncture to TCM at large, let's stick to lung cancer and take a look at the evidence produced by systematic reviews and meta-analyses:

a) In 2006, a meta-analysis in Journal of Clinical Oncology concluded that "Astragalus-based Chinese herbal medicine may increase effectiveness of platinum-based chemotherapy when combined with chemotherapy."

b) In 2013, a meta-analysis in PLOS ONE concluded that " Compared to using CT (chemotherapy) alone, CHM (Chinese herbal medicine) combined with CT significantly increase one-year survival rate.

c) In June 2014, a systematic review in Anti-Cancer Drugs concluded that there were "strong antilung cancer effects both in cells and in animal models." Furthermore, meta-analysis of TCM showed that it may "enhance the tumor response and prolong the survival rate".

It appears that the initiation of apoptosis pathways is a very common anti-tumor mechanism of these herbal compounds. To the extent that TCM has been shown to improve survival rates and may inhibit the growth of cancerous tumors, I think its fair to say that these "quack fighters" are not just evil, but also cruel and inhumane, because they're esentially denying cancer patients an effective and plausible treatment.


 * 8. Acupuncture (probably) works for a number of conditions

It may or may not work for cancer, but here's a small selection (only circulatory system considered) of what we do know from reviews, but aren't found in Wikipedia's acupuncture article:


 * "Although plagued by methodological shortcomings, these studies support acupuncture as an effective treatment for AF, paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and symptomatic premature ventricular contraction" from Review of Complementary and Alternative Medical Treatment of Arrhythmias in American Journal of Cardiology, 2013


 * "These preliminary data need to be validated in a larger population, but suggest a potential role of acupuncture in the treatment of AF (Atrial fibrillation)" from Role of the Autonomic Nervous System in Modulating Cardiac Arrhythmias in Circulation Research, 2014.


 * "In cardiovascular care, there are three areas for which acupuncture has been explored: anginal pain, hypertension, and arrhythmias. The rationale for using acupuncture to treat myocardial ischemia, hypertension, and arrhythmias stems from its ability to inhibit autonomic sympathetic outflow." from Hurst's the Heart, 13th edition, Chapter 115, Page 2435


 * "Acupuncture may also increase heart rate variability." from Goldman's Cecil Medicine, 24th edition, Chapter 38, Page 180


 * 9. We only have an incomplete picture of how acupuncture works

But this is also true for many conventional medications. Take Wikipedia's article on Paracetamol, for example. It is described as one of the "most important medication needed in a basic health system", but the article acknowledges later that "the mechanism of action of paracetamol is not completely understood". Should we label paracetamol "pseudoscientific" just because of that? No, because there is still a great deal about it that we do know.

The American Heart Association has recently released a scientific statement about many alternative therapies. When it comes to the mechanism of acupuncture, this is what it says:

"In the manual form of acupuncture, the mechanism of effect appears to be through sensory mechanoreceptor and nociceptor stimulation induced by connective tissues being wound around the needle and activated by mechanotransduction. In the case of electroacupuncture, the effects appear to additionally involve the stimulation of peripheral nerve fibers, including vagal afferents, that in turn activate central opioid (and other) receptors or anti-inflammatory reflex pathways. Reflex increases in sympathetic activity may also be reduced by electroacupuncture. The role of mechanoreceptor stimulation in the BP reductions in animal models is supported by the ability to attenuate this effect by gadolinium, which blocks stretch-activated channels. Both forms of acupuncture have similar central nervous system effects, although electroacupuncture tends to have a greater intensity of effect as determined by functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in humans." (PMID 23608661)

(There is no mention about the placebo effect or anything like that)


 * 10. I am grateful for the work that "quack fighters" do

But I feel that you are fighting the wrong battles, at the wrong time, against the wrong people.


 * I have been accused of sockpupperty, although this is the only account I ever use to edit


 * I have been accused of being a "professional acupuncturist", although I have never touched an acupuncture needle in my entire life


 * I have been accused of being a TCM advocate, although my only aim is to advocate hard science based on what I believe is an accurate reflection of what I've read in the medical literature


 * I have seen actual patients with acu needles stuck in their face in a modern Western hospital, and I feel that this should be reflected in our article on Acupuncture. Of course, we shouldn't base our article on my personal observations, but we do have to conform with the consensus of authoritative medical textbooks such as Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine and the scientific statements of health authorities such as the American Heart Association.

I would like to invite you, Jytdog, to discuss the 10 points that I've highlighted in bold. I rarely invest so much time in such discussions with "quack fighters", because the discussion always ends in circles. However, I believe that you are a rare exception and so, far, it's worth my time to discuss with you and I hope we can continue doing so.

Looking forward to your reply,

-A1candidate (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is quite a bit to respond to. Before I honor your request for a response, would you please answer two questions for me?    Namely -- do you understand my reaction over at the systematic bias page?  If yes, would you please respond directly to  the concern I was raising there?  If you don't understand, would you please ask for clarification?  Thanks very much! Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Having taken a second look at your posts, I think I may have a rough idea of what your concern is about: You are afraid that if quack fighters stop fighting quack, I'll fill the article with speculative and unvalidated uses of acupuncture. Is that right?


 * If that is your concern, this is what I have to say:


 * 11. Rather than classify a treatment as strictly "proven" or completely "unproven", it is better to view the levels of evidence on a continuum


 * In the case of acupucture, this would mean that using it to treat chronic pain, migraine, cancer fatigue, hot flashes, etc, would be near the "proven" end of the continuum, while using it to treat cancer and other reported uses such as surgical anesthesia would be near the "unproven" end of the continuum.


 * Perhaps this may help to explain why I'm still a bit hesitant to label acupuncture treatment for cancer as complete quackery. It is, for the most part, quackery, and it belongs to the "unproven" end of the continuum, but this does not mean that it is completely unproven. The fact is that:


 * a) There are case reports of tumor regression after treatment with acupuncture


 * b) There is a primary study about the successful treatment of benign tumors with acupuncture


 * c) There is a recent meta-analysis claiming that acupoint stimulation has strong immunomodulatory effect for lung cancer patients, although it was published in an alternative medicine journal with a mediocre impact factor.


 * Again, this does not mean that acupuncture for cancer treatment is anywhere near the "proven" continuum, but I'm against using the completely unproven label (i.e. complete quackery). It is, of course, mostly unproven and therefore should not be recommended as a treatment for cancer.


 * As for treatments placed near the middle of the continuum, this would consist of acupuncture as a treatment for atrial fibrillation, arrhythmias, etc. There is some amount of evidence for its efficacy but just not as much as we would like to have. (See point no. 8 in bold)


 * 12. For the purpose of editing Wikipedia, anything that isn't near the "proven" continuum does not need to be mentioned


 * We are not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. If someone conducts a review and finds no evidence for acupunture as a treatment for Ebola virus disease, we are not going to include these findings in our article, unless there is some logical reason to do so.


 * There may be some exceptions, such as when the ineffective treatment is widely used for a particular ailment or when something of WP:Notability needs to be included, but just because a review was conducted does not mean its findings have to be indiscriminately stored on Wikipedia.


 * If I could topic ban all "quack" fighters and make my a single edit for acupuncture, the first thing I would do is to delete every treatment indication that isn't near the "proven" continuum and isn't notable enough to be mentioned. Treatment indications that are in the middle of the "proven-unproven" continuum are a special case and should only be included if their mechanism of action is clear.


 * 13. Every health claim that doesn't comply with WP:MEDRS should be deleted


 * I don't care how notable a "quack" fighter is. If he doesn't publish his claims in a reputable journal or textbook, we are not going to include it. Self-publishing blogs such as Quackwatch and personal websites of "quack" fighters are not suitable sources. There is no formal peer review, none of the articles are indexed in scientific databases, and some of these "quack" blogs found in the acupuncture article explicitly state that "Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials." (wtf!?). These blogs do not even meet WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS.


 * If I could topic ban all "quack" fighters and make my a second edit for acupuncture, I would remove all these sources that do not meet WP:MEDRS for the sake of Wikipedia's dignity. The same applies to alternative medicine journals with low impact factor. Unfortunately, QG just loves to cite them so I guess they won't be removed anytime soon.


 * If "quack" fighters still care about MEDRS, you can be assured that this is what I intend to uphold. I have removed non-MEDRS compliant newspaper articles that promote acupuncture in the past, and I will continue to do so.


 * I hope I have addressed your concerns, Jytdog. If I missed anything, please clarify. -A1candidate (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * boy you like to write! So,  you have identified a concern behind my concern, yes.  What I was hoping for minimally, (a) was that you would acknowledge that using acupuncture as a treatment for cancer is way out of the mainstream.  You did that.  What I hoped for reaching a bit higher, (b) was that you would at least see how offensive the effort to persuade cancer patients to forgo conventional treatment in favor of acupuncture, is to me (and would certainly be to those to the "right" of me) (this is about empathy!).  What I hoped for a bit higher yet, (c) was that you would say that it is unethical to recommend a cancer patient forgo medical treatment for acupuncture (as Herbxue does above).  What I hoped for maximally, (d) was that you would say it is downright bad and quackery to do that.  Clearly (d) is not going to happen.  Can you see (b)?  What about (c)?  With those answered, I will turn and answer your questions.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A
 * It is way out of mainstream and definitely fringe.
 * B
 * I can understand why this seems to be so offensive to you. You view "Dr. Fuda" as a quack who is guilty of quackery. I view him as a human being who is innocent until proven guilty.
 * C
 * It depends on whether "Dr. Fuda" is being honest about his abilities. The problem is that I only have access to a single Internet source about him. If I could search "Dr. Fuda's" records and conduct interviews with those who accepted his services, and also contact the surviving family members of the those who passed away, I think I would be able to make a much better judgement about this person. Unfortunately, I don't have the information that I need so I'm only left with the choice of assuming good faith based on what I know about the proven, probable, or plausible effects of acupuncture.
 * D
 * Again, it depends. Until you can provide evidence that "Dr. Fuda" deliberately harmed or tricked his patients and grossly overstated his own abilities, I'm going to have to avoid passing a judgement because I believe in hard evidence rather than soft suspicions.


 * As for quackery, I'll repeat what I said in point 11: Using acupuncture to treat cancer is, for the most part, quackery, because it belongs to the "unproven" end of the continuum, but this does not mean that it is completely unproven (refer to the reasons I listed there).


 * I would describe this as partial quackery if you insist that I use the word "quackery". Personally, I would avoid such an ambiguous term. I consider "Dr. Fuda's" therapy to be a largely unproven treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.


 * -A1candidate (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very, very much. I just want to say that the thing that bothered me, was what the author of the article was up to, and her use of stories about Dr Fuda to try to persuade cancer patients to use acu, not conventional medicine.  I am pooped for tonight, but will start responding to you in the morning.  Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, turned out to be a busy week, but here we are. I guess I want to start out by saying that I find the way you are coming at me to be pretty... "guy". I have been trying to tell you my emotional reaction to that article, and instead of giving any indication that you heard me, you have come at me with a wall of text and logic that completely misses the point. Again - the point was that the author of that piece was trying to persuade people to use acu instead of medicine.

Since we agree that the use of acu as a primary treatment for cancer is not mainstream, I have no idea why you present a wall of text and points about why it ~might~ work. I don't intend to collaborate with you or any pro-acu people on uses of acu that are not mainstream. You will find me dead opposed, should you try to add content making health claims for acu along these lines.

All that said.

Point 1. If you think the following is something to crow about, you and I do not live on the same planet (from PLoS PMID 24988414): " For inflammatory measures, after 7 to 16 weeks of mind-body intervention, there was a moderate effect on reduction of C-reactive protein (effect size [ES], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 1.12), a small but not statistically significant reduction of interleukin-6 (ES, 0.35; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.75), and negligible effect on tumor necrosis factor-α (ES, 0.21; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.58). For anti-viral related immune and enumerative measures, there were negligible effects on CD4 counts (ES, 0.15; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.34) and natural killer cell counts (ES, 0.12, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.45). Some evidence indicated mind-body therapies increase immune responses to vaccination." If that were a drug, the company would walk away from it.

Point 2. My library doesn't have access to the 2014 review you cite, so I cannot comment on that now. The fact that you said that acu actually has an effect on natural killer cells and other components of the cellular immune system, when what we have are hypotheses that acu may somehow effect them, is sloppy thinking that I have little tolerance for. ..... in fact, I am done responding.

That you would come here and lay this kind of evidence stretching, POV-pushing bullshit on me, means we have no reasonable space for cooperation. To find the messy middle means that we stick close to the evidence, not exaggerate either way, and above all, think and write with nuance. And what you wrote in #2 is unambiguously bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming that my input is welcome:


 * CRP is a marker of inflammation. Please name a drug that can reduce its serum concentration without major adverse effects.


 * Acu increases NK cells is a fact. Acu kills cancer by increasing NK cells is a hypothesis. Since you're fond of citing CAM journals, see this 2014 meta-analysis: "A number of studies have demonstrated that acupuncture is a strong immunomodulator of NK cells in animals and human. Upregulation of NK cells may contribute to the antitumor effect in cancer patients ."


 * Have you read the first review article that I showed you? (honest question) -A1candidate (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read that review, yes. That you are claiming that acu is actually an effective immunomodulator  - and broadly speaking at that - puts you in an alternate reality.   If you were saying something more reality-based, like the few poor studies we have are suggestive that some specific acu treatments might be immunomodulatory - and isn't that wild since we have no idea how sticking needles shallowly in someone's skin could do something so systemic and complex -- we would be living in the same world enough to work together.  But you come here are push harder.   !   Please  - I am staying way way way away from anything TCM related; there is no middle ground to be had.  But you have increased my sympathy for the quack-fighters by leaps and bounds. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources you located
How did you track down the sources you listed on the talk page at SSRI discontinuation syndrome? Is a subscription to online service required? Alatari (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The NIH has a wonderful index of biomedical journal articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.  On pubmed, you can also filter the results (see the column on the very left side of the page) ... so you can do a search for "antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and then click on Reviews in the column on the left, and you will get a bunch of articles that are very likely to be MEDRS-compliant.    On pubmed, there is also a filter on the left for "free full text" so you can find just reviews that are publicly accessible.  Happy!  But many of the best and most current reviews will be behind a paywall and will fall out if you limit your search to "Free full text".  I work for a university so I can get to them.  If you check out WP:WikiProject Medicine you will find that some journals have offered free access to Wikipedia editors. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll check the WP:WikiProject Medicine for getting editor free access. It would have cut my work down from a frustrating 7 hours of searching last night. Congratulations on working for a university, I'm envious.   Alatari (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * it is lucky indeed. i try whenever I can to use the "Free full text" of which there are more and more and more. makes things go much better when everybody can see the source. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the Credo account what you were referring to? Yes, I try to make sure every source I add links straight to the page number and exact passage so that readers and editors can verify the validity of our work.  ^Alatari (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * that is one of them! A list of resources is here...  this too!.  I thought project med had this easier to find... you could ask there if there is anything else.. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * and JSTOR this too! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How much weekly editing time would be required before I can be considered a responsible account holder for these resources? It would be irresponsible for me to secure one and go inactive. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

i do not know. you should ask over there! (i haven't had to request access, although I might have to one of these days!) Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Monsanto
You reverted all my edits to Monsanto. Please clarify your positions. All my changes were cited to reliable sources and provide relevant and new information.

Amytecko (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi I would be very happy to talk about this. As per WP:BRD, please discuss your proposed changes on the Talk page of the Monsanto and I will respond there.  Thanks for talking!  Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DuPont
Discussion opened on talk page. But in any event why did you blindly revert my edit, in the process removing links to a director who wasn't listed before?--ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "blindly" but I will be happy to discuss on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Atrazine
Regarding your reverting of "Kloas study published in the journal Toxicological Sciences in 2009 concluded that" to "The paper concluded", you explained that "we don't need to attribute in this way." Who is we? This article covers a very contentious subject from different and opposing points of view. It is an excellent debate. When reading it dates and authors of certain articles and reports should be in the main text, not just in the footnotes and references. Kloas' study was in 2009 in Toxicological Sciences, Hayes study was in the same journal in 2010. Names, dates, academic journals and page numbers do need to be attributed - in some cases just in the footnotes and references but in other cases in the text itself to provide chronology, etc - to make arguments robust.oceanflynn 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * replied on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the late reply
at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. -A1candidate (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * not at all. thanks for continuing the conversation. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please check talk page
Hello Jytdog, please check the talk page of ZMapp, i think we could improve the production section further. Also the paper cited (MB-003) refers to a modified magnifection procedure, not pharming. Please reply over there. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Virus Disease
Hello Jytdog, I see that you and several others changed the opening paragraph of the Ebola Virus Disease, causing a few inconsistencies. The reference name=CDC2014Out needs to be left at the end of the first paragraph, because otherwise there is no citation for the typical incubation period. Also all references I have seen do not say that the bleeding starts after other symptoms have stared; if the temporal order you have reverted to is true, you or somebody else needs to support it with a citation.--Gciriani (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't touch that part of the lead. Discussion belongs on the Talk page of the article in any case, so everybody can see it. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had compared revisions incorrectly. I reposted the argument above in the Opening paragraph talk for Ebola--Gciriani (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * no problem, fast moving article! Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, let me know why the WHO go-ahead for untested drugs was reverted by you - it should be in the main article, IMHO. Huhshyeh (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Huhshyeh
 * please discuss on the article's Talk page. high level note for you --  nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body - please do not drop content in the lead of any article, without checking to see if it is in the body (and if it is not, put it there first, then step back and review the whole article, and decide if it really belongs in the lead or not).  thanks. (btw I will not discuss further here) Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: the CDC
See the talk page and my previous edit summaries on this subject, or CDC official: "All must get involved in Ebola fight" from one of Liberia's premier periodicals: it's the Congress for Democratic Change, Liberia's largest minority political party. For anyone reading Liberian publications, it's very confusing why the CDC would make any comments beyond generic stuff such as "all must get involved in Ebola fight" or comments on the Electoral Commission's proposal to postpone this year's Senate elections due to the epidemic. Of course I understand that this is much more than just Liberia, but nobody suffers from using the full name, and for anyone not familiar with anything called "CDC", it helps because they don't have to scroll up to the intro to learn what "CDC" means. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Throughout all this, it's frustrated me that most editors seem to be writing just for foreign audiences, using just foreign sources and in near-total ignorance of local sources and perspectives.  Of course I'm not surprised; it's more of "a pity it's this way".  I've basically been trying to ensure that Liberian sources are used extensively on Liberian matters (I've worked a bunch with Liberian publications in real life) and trying to ensure that the article doesn't sound awkward for Liberian readers, and I just wish that we could get someone who's familiar with sources from Sierra Leone, Guinea, and surrounding countries, so that we could rely on those sources and reword things that would sound weird in English in those countries.  Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Organic farming
You deleted information about a recent high-quality meta-analysis with the edit summary that it's already discussed in the article. I don't see that it's cited in the references and at first glance I can't see where it's discussed in the article. Would you please tell me where? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * please bring to article Talk page where i will be happy to discuss. why bring it here? (real question) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's a simple question. You said the material was already in the article, and I couldn't find it. I was simply hoping you'd point me to it. Nothing to discuss, really. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

arthritis
Hi Jytdog,

I just noticed your edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthritis&curid=1776&diff=621547014&oldid=621546607

Why did you remove the conclusions I've included in this section? There is (IMHO) no copyright issues with bringing conclusions from academic papers, when giving them exact citations (if the cite bot were to work).

Cheers, Tal Galili (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please bring to the article Talk page - I will happily respond there. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. :) Tal Galili (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision to Regulatory Capture - ACNC
Hello, I saw your revision to Regulatory Capture and noted your comments indicating that you believed that the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission are incompetent rather than captured. Notwithstanding that I cited a quotation from an Australian Senator, this was just used as an example to underpin the evidence in the rest of the section. The evidence I cited provides strong support to conclude that the ACNC (Set up to Regulate the Charity Sector and "maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in charities through increased accountability and transparency") is captured by the Charity Sector and advances the interests of it, rather than regulates it.

I note that the definition of Regulatory Capture indicates that it is a form of government failure and would argue that failure is akin to incompetence. In this case, the regulator has failed to regulate and is captured by the Charity Sector in Australia.

I believe that the evidence i cited is stronger (or as strong) than the World Trade organisation (International Examples), which relies on the opinion of an academic and of the Food and Drug Administration and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency US examples.

I also did not include that the Australian government has now legislated to repeal the ACNC as this information is included in the ACNC wikipedia entry.

I'd be grateful for your feedback and hope we can reach some consensus.

Umpo apisdn (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We should have this conversation on the article Talk page. Will you please copy your comment there?  If so I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Novozymes
Just following up re the Novozymes article; have you had a chance to look at the info I provided further to your request? Many thanks. Best, Fred at Novozymes (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)