User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2015/May

Persondata RfC
Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lipid hypothesis: Difference between revisions
My edits were accurate and appropriate.

Working as a cardiologist, interventional, non-invasive and especially preventive, to protect self, family & clients, focusing on basic science, not the current dogma of clinical disease medicine, I have long found that most of the public is quite mislead and confused by the NIH initiated focus on cholesterol in the early 1970s (based on costs versus the correct issue: lipoproteins), do not understand that lipid is simply the medical industry's alternative name for fat and do not understand the huge difference between lipoproteins (e.g. LDL particles typically carrying 3,000 to 6,000 fat molecules, phospholipids, cholesterol, triglycerides, and all others), that the ratios of these fat molecules being carried around the body in the extracellular water within the complex protein particles (>100 proteins/particle), varies widely.

Thus LDL-C, a calculated value (not even measured from an individual's blood sample) is a poor surrogate marker for LDL-particle concentrations when total cholesterol is <350 mg/dL (one basis for the NIH choice in the early 1970s), progressively more so at lower levels (the correlation actually tends to reverse) & has extremely low individual reliability, as I have verified daily for over 17 years in my clinical practice, since measured lipoprotein particle concentrations became available at reasonable costs at that time.

Additionally the evidence is a single Apo-B for LDL-particles though ULDL-particles (aka chylomicrons), while HDL-particles are built from 1, 2 or 3 Apo-B proteins per particle, largely correlating to particle size (only the 2 largest size groups correlating with plaque regression).

Because of the difficulty working within wikipedia and end fighting with the group, I have largely abandoned wikipedia in favor of other web ventures, e.g. HealthTap.com, etc. Hope this helps understand [] https://www.google.com/search?q=milton+alvis 18:02 hrs 05/11/2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAlvis (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 May 2015
 * Your edit was this. You added assertions as if they were supported by the existing citations. They were not, so I undid the edit. The source which supports any assertion should be identified in such a way as to make it clear to the reader which source supports which assertion. If you are uncomfortable with the mechanics of editing here, the simple thing to do is simply discuss the proposed edit on the article talkpage. Someone will happily work through it with you or for you. I'll be happy to do it myself, but first I need to know which sources to cite. Wp:CITEMED and wp:MEDRS are the keys to citing and sourcing medical assertions. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl!  18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hidden ref tags
Head Lead. I reference every sentence (hiding some of them if multiple sentence are supported by the same ref). If I do not someone often comes and adds a citation needed tag which is a pain. Also if content is moved around I know which ref supports it. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have guessed, I suppose, but it did seem kind of over the top. If you think it needs to be that way, it should probably have an explanation somewhere for subsequent editors. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)