User talk:JzG/Archive 105

ALS/Cyanobacteria
Hi guy. On the article Talk page, with regard to using a primary source in a health-related topic, you wrote "Actually my view is we should use them *as well*. The Dunlop paper was widely reported, and is plainly reliable, relevant and important."

I am taking this here since this departs from talking about the ALS article per se and is more general. I know you are both busy and experienced, so please forgive me for this. I don't know when the last time was that you took a minute and read MEDRS but please do look at Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and please see the lead of my draft essay, Why MEDRS?, which attempts to explain why WikiProject Medicine tries very hard to keep primary sources out of health-related content. Primary sources in the biomedical literature are generally not reliable for WP. Press releases hyping the findings of primary sources are really not reliable.

The Dunlop paper is a primary source showing in vitro results.

I spend a lot of time dealing with FRINGE content about health, and most times (not this one!) it is added to WP by editors who find some primary sources that support their POV. For example there are a few recent primary sources that show anti-cancer activity for laetrile in vitro. MEDRS' emphasis on secondary sources helps us keep FRINGE content out of WP. I follow it consistently in all my editing.... Do you see what I mean? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand, but this is not the first paper linking ALS to cyanobacteria toxins. I am well aware of XKCD 1217 and the problem of quacks making extravagant claims of cure, this is a completely different kind of in-vitro result, it does not promote a miracle cure, or even a molecule that might one day result in a cure, it is research on the causal mechanisms. I think we probably both have very similar experiences in this area so I am happy to talk about it, but I do see a difference for exactly that reason. Plus it's by Dr. Rachie, which is double awesome :-) Guy (Help!) 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that cartoon! :)  I hear that reasoning, i do!  It is just in the neverending struggle with FRINGE POV-pushers, that kind of subtlety (and it is really not that subtle) about mechanism vs treatment goes out the window and more importantly, is often fuzzy on toxicity issues (for instance, someone could come by and make a huge struggle out of putting UNDUE weight on content from this source, and want to talk about how dangerous cyanobacteria are.. I have been through that on many toxicity related issues (e.g endocrine disruptors, BPA, which remains a nightmare pileup of primary sources) ... and i find it best just to avoid primary sources like the plague.  I appreciate you talking!  Thanks for all your great work here. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally. The difference here is that this is work confirming a plausible causal factor fingered by others in the past, rather than seeking to prove that weed cures cancer. In fact most of the crank cites are valid, just not the inferences that are drawn from them. There are components of amygdalin that may be therapeutically useful in cancer, that is an ocean away from saying that laetrile cures cancer. I am pretty sure we are both on the same page here. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * yep! Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Like the following research perhaps? Atsme ☯  Consult  14:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * that is a primary source. all of wikipedia is meant to be based on secondary sources.  this is especially important for health-related content; please read WP:MEDRS. We do not base health-related content on primary sources like that.  we don't follow the basic science;  the field determines what WP:WEIGHT to give basic science through secondary sources and we report what those secondary sources say.  using primary sources in WP and deciding what weight to give them, is WP:OR.  are you aware of any reviews in the biomedical literature that discuss laetrile as a useful treatment (or even potentially useful treatment) for cancer, that should get even close to equal weight to the many secondary sources that say it is quackery?   Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , please explain each of the following as they relate to your statement above:, and ?  Why are the journals you support (over 30+ years old) that are cited in the article ok to use to label amygdalin quackery but The Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics is not sufficient to cite updated peer reviewed journal content (respecting policy of course) that the substance is still under academic debate? Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics, a publication of Association of Radiation Oncologists of India (AROI), is a peer-reviewed online journal with Quarterly print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.cancerjournal.net.. At the very least, it justifies a topic that is still being researched as you both just confirmed.  Please explain why you believe WP:FRINGE/PS does not apply as follows: Questionable science: Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.? And please don't attack my question rather help me understand your position because based on my interpretation of what I've read, you support a double standard, the outcome of which is contingent upon POV. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will continue to ignore your personal attacks; I do wish you would limit your comments to content and not discuss contributors.
 * You provide three links - two are sources summarizing the state of the field back when laetrile was seriously investigated and found to be both lacking efficacy and harming people. Those are fine sources. I am not aware of any further clinical research that would change the scientific consensus, which is based on the clinical research that was done and is based on not only the articles you cite, but statements by major medical and scientific bodies. The third link is to a search of the indian journal you mention above.  That is a low-impact, open-access journal; you are putting that next to Cancer, for example - one of the highest-impact journals in the field.  I don't  know if you know how rare it is for mainstream scientific journals to actually come out and call something "quackery", Atsme. It is crazy rare. After that, it would take extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim that laetrile for cancer is anything other than quackery.  Something like Cancer or a journal of similar stature, or a major scientific or medical body, to come out and give credence to the use of laetrile to treat cancer.  That may happen one day.  It has not happened yet.  The idea is still very solidly FRINGE, not a "significant minority view." Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are casting aspersions yet again by falsely accusing me of personal attacks like you did above. I ask that you provide the diffs that brought you to such a conclusion. If determined to be PAs, I will apologize. If not, I expect an apology from you. It doesn't surprise me that you consider the two antiquated sources cited for inclusion of negative material as fine sources, but they are still journals, long outdated, and are what you explained to me as being primary sources, therefore WP:OR. If my source is OR, than the two cited sources are also OR. A particular POV has been given UNDUE at Griffin while the author's views are being completely suppressed which is violative of NPOV. Atsme ☯  Consult  16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Christ on a bike, this is getting really really boring. The problem with the source you prefer is that it is a premliminary study in vitro which may or may not result in a useful compound for some component of treatment of some cancers, and it's being used to "counter" the resounding medical consensus that laetrile - a health fraud that has been prosecuted numerous times - is somehow valid. As I pointed out before, I think, even if the paper you prefer turns out to be validated, it will not validate laetrile. If canabinoids have useful properties in treating some aspects of some forms of cancer, that does not mean that smoking weed will have the same effect cancer, and it absolutely does not mean that smoking weed will cure cancer. The Dunlop paper is a confirmation of toher work making a link between certain toxins and a metabolic process that could plausibly trigger ALS. It is not being touted as a miracle cure, so the red flags do not apply. You need to look at the XKCD cartoon I linked.
 * I repeat: studies on cells in a petri dish do not, cannot, and will not change the consensus view of laetrile, formed after clinical trials proved it not to work. In fact, the trajectory of every single cure ever known shows an exponentially declining effect from petri dish to real populations, which is why treatments get withdrawn from time to time, but in this case before the test is even made we know the clinical outcome: the substance does not cure cancer. Whether or not it has any utility as an adjunct treatment or a specific therapy for certain diseases does not change that in any way.
 * And even if it did, which it won't, that absolutely and categorically does not substantiate the claim that the FDA and Big Pharma are suppressing laetrile as a cancer cure. The reaosn it is not approved or used, is because the best evidence shows it does not work. People want to believe it works. They take it despite the evidence that it does not work. Many thousands of people have done this. If it worked, this would show up by now in survival statistics, and it would have been revisited. That has not happened. In fact, people who use alternative cancer cures, die sooner, not later. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well the same damn thing happens when they use chemo and that is an undisputed fact. Regardless, you have missed the point entirely.  The research is there, it is scientific and still under review by academic debate whether you want to admit it or not.  My advice to you is to stop attacking the BLP using contentious material based on 30 yr old research and present it in an encyclopedic fashion, which is nothing like what you do on your online blog.  Learn to separate the two. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a very telling remark.
 * The world of quackery is obsessed with chemo, having failed to notice that the world has changed since the mantra was laid down. They have not noticed that over the years chemo has become a great deal less unpleasant, that doctors often don't use it if it's not indicated (e.g. in non-invasive cancers, or for some oncotype breast cancers), or that some new drugs directly target the cause rather than merely fast-reproducing cells.
 * But the real dishonesty in the claim is that no, people who have conventional cancer therapy - whether or not that includes chemo as either a primary or an adjuvant therapy - do not die in the same way as those who believe quacks and charlatans. Cancer survival rates have doubled since the 1970s thanks to medical advances (not quackery), children with Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with chemo are now cured nine times out of ten, and more than half of all people diagnosed with cancer in the West today will still be alive in five years. Some cancers still have dismal survival rates, others are now so well managed that you're likely to die of something else entirely.
 * All that said, your statement in and of itself tips your hand. You have outed yourself as a believer in anti-medicine conspiracist nonsense. The purpose behind your relentless whitewashing of the Griffin article is now clear.
 * As to the research, you have repeatedly shown that you do not understand what it means, or why it is irrelevant to the laetrile conspiracy theory. I've explained it at length, and you still profess not to understand, so I guess you're in denial. Remember: it is really quite easy to kill cancer cells in a dish. The trick is doing it in a human body, without killing the rest of the body as well. Laetrile is, in point of fact, a form of chemotherapy (the main side-effect being cyanide poisoning), but it's one that's been tested and does not work. Many quacks have made large sums of money pretending otherwise, and most of them have ended up gravitating to Mexico to avoid regulation. Desperate people will pay huge sums for false hope. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This exchange is puzzling. Promotion of amygdalin is obviously quack central, and the conspiracy theory stuff about it is textbook wingnuttery. Our own article on it is pretty good, with sources as strong as one could possibly imagine (i.e. Cochrane/Ernst) ! Alexbrn talk 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea that chemotherapy is uniformly toxic and ineffective, as expressed by Atsme above, is an unfortunate and outdated form of ignorance. It is valid, and even essential, to question the risk/benefit profile of any proposed cancer treatment or chemotherapy, as they can vary from marginal to dramatic depending on the situation. But to argue that chemotherapy is no more effective or useful than laetrile is deeply ignorant, and one hopes that no one would make health decisions on the basis of such a poorly informed viewpoint. MastCell Talk 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why must you cast aspersions and keep trying to discredit me? Jiminy Cricket, Guy, you are not acting in GF. And then you go and say this: ...do not die in the same way as those who believe quacks and charlatans. First of all, dead is dead regardless of how you get there. Secondly, I don't know of anything worse than chemo. Please focus on article content as I have done and stop your PAs against me. Your RS argument at Griffin is based on 25–30+ year old WP:OR, as well as sources that reflect partisan bias and are questionable according to WP:RS, and worst of all, junk sources like Popular Paranoia, the latter of which might as well be Mad Magazine. I know you are a far better editor than what your antics portray. You taught me a great deal about RS, and I will always be thankful for the time you spent helping me. I do not want to be at odds with you on this topic, but my concerns are that you are overlooking important factors in both FRINGEBLP and NPOV.

In addition to serious NPOV issues, we also have the improper sourcing of blanket statements (when sourced at all), the stating of opinions as fact, and SQS to prevent Griffin from promotion to GA. The fact it is still a start-class attack page after nearly 3 months of debate and an RfC that confirmed my position regarding the labels conspiracy theorist and conspiracy theories is testament. What do you think would be the result if I nominated the article now for GA? Look, I know you don't like Natural News - fine, that's your opinion - but your assertions of what Griffin advocates are not properly sourced, if sourced at all, which permits me to use it for demonstration purposes: www.naturalnews.com/012923.html #ixzz3SIMDJy1y]: (my bold for emphasis) His research led him to the conclusion that naturally-occurring Laetrile is indeed an effective treatment for cancer. To my knowledge, Griffin never said it was the cure for cancer as you alleged in the lead. I've asked you numerous times to please source it with inline text attribution. Also, Griffin says he has seen literally thousands of people benefit from treatment with Laetrile. Anecdotal, yes, but treatment and clinical trials have confirmed such cases per RS which I've cited previously. 

I am not (in the past or now) proposing that we give his views undue weight, however according to Fringe_theories: A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. You cannot deny the inclusion of RS material that represents the basis for Griffin's views in his BLP as long as we do so from a NPOV, state such in a dispassionate tone, and comply with Fringe_theories and FRINGE with strict adherence to FRINGEBLP. Your attempts to suppress all mention are what some editors find troubling and consider contrary to NPOV. Continuing my demonstration: He also learned that cancer is a disease linked directly to a deficiency of vitamin B-17 He believes there are links to a deficiency of vitamin B17 not that cancer can be cured by consuming more amygdalin as is incorrectly stated in the lead. However, perhaps the most important and most troubling thing he learned was that Laetrile and its health potential were being kept out of doctors' hands for political – not scientific – reasons. He stated that it had potential, not that it was the end-all cure as what is currently being portrayed in the lead. We need to fix the issues by writing correct passages based on what Griffin actually believes as verifiable in RS including self-published sources. I ask that you please stop allowing your POV on fringe, laetrile and quackery to totally consume this BLP.

In closing, I draw your attention to how Griffin's book The Creature is reflected by a RS from another country where US politics don't play a significant role. Following is an excerpt from the keynote address given by the Attorney-General for Australia at the G-20 Anti-Corruption Roundtable in February 2014: Combating corruption is for all those reasons a critical issue for all governments, and is something that calls for constant vigilance. In his 1994 book on the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American scholar G. Edward Griffin wrote, “To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.”  I believe it was Alxbrn  who commented on my statement that "not all readers agree with that opinion" when he said, "yes but fools and cranks." Atsme ☯  Consult  19:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only one person is discrediting you, and that's yourself. Now go away, you're boring me with your wall of text apologia for whacknuttery. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, that was unabashed fuckwittery from Atsme. As we say in the Amygdalin article: A 2011 systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration found:


 * Alexbrn talk 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, the only remaining question is how long to let this farrago run. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, Guy - you're the one who stated above: There are components of amygdalin that may be therapeutically useful in cancer, that is an ocean away from saying that laetrile cures cancer. I never even came close to saying any such thing - you did.  And you want to castigate me for what?  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Just wanted to add to Alexbrn's comment above from the link he provided for primary sources or WP:OR: Main results: We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review and an additional 6 in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is trolling right? Or do you really not understand that a Cochrane systematic review is about as solid a secondary source as can exist? Its assessment is what we call "expert". As opposed to the amateur flapdoodle of conspiracists. Anyway, I'll go quiet not ... WP:DNFT and all that ... Alexbrn talk 21:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be components of amygdalin that have valid therapeutic uses. I explained, at some length, why that does not validate laetrile. You ignored everything past the b it you liked the look of.
 * Let's try this again.
 * There is primary research, as yet unvalidated, that shows some signs that some component of amygdalin might have a valid therapeutic use. If this is validated - and it has not been as yet - then it still has a long way to go before it reaches anything usable in humans. The vast majority of compounds that show promise at that stage, do not make it to market as a valid drug.
 * But even if it did, it would not validate laetrile. Most drugs start from a natural compound of osme sort, and most of the plants fomr which they are extracted are of limited to no therapeutic value. It would be like finding a therapeutic compound that is present in grapes and claiming that this validates drinking red wine as a cure for disease.
 * And even if it did validate laetrile, which it won't, not least because it's already been tested and shown not to work, it absolutely would not validate Griffin's conspiracy theory or his assertion of the entirely bogus idea that amydgalin is a vitamin, and cancer a disease caused by a deficiency thereof, because that is purest hokum.
 * So even the most unlikely outcome possible from the study you cite could not possibly validate Griffin's case.
 * Add to that his advocacy of AIDS denialism, New World Order, 9/11 "Truth", Jewish conspiracy theories, gun nuttery, chemtrails, FEMA camps and FSM knows what else, and you have a canonical example of the modern American crank. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * guy, were you referring to resveratrol on purpose? :)  GSK has $720M worth of regret over that. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

NUS
Oh, don't get your hopes up. I haven't even started looking for more sources, and it's a topic that invariably makes the news just about every year. It's also not a topic I care to spend time digging through newspaper archives if I can. What I am (fiercely) objecting to is the taking out of material sourced to WP:RS based on no rationale at all. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * which of course did not happen, since the rationale is that the source does not seem to me to be reliable, and you neve bothered to provide any evidence that it is.. Guy (Help!) 06:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for closure but a question
Thank you for closing this RfC, but I do have a question. The Newport Beach California Temple building was determined to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article here. Your closing comment states that "Notable buildings are notable, therefore pose no particular problem.". If the building is notable as agreed upon by consensus, and therefore poses no particular problem, why would it not be listed in the article? Just seeking more clarification on policy. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Entirely fair question, I have clarified. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response and added clarification. Best, Bahooka (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)