User talk:Robertredfern

A tag has been placed on Nutritionalist, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nutritionalist
Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid you may be under some misapprehension about what Wikipedia is for. Unfortunately, we are not a place to publish new ideas or propose new definitions for words (it is actually fairly common for people to do this, see WP:NEO for the guideline on neologisms). I have proposed the article be deleted from Wikipedia, which it will be in a few days if no one objects. Let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Thanks for the interest in the project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Verbal  chat  21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Please do not insert copyrighted material to Wikipedia, as you did at Serratiopeptidase - It is not permitted, and such text MUST be reverted as soon as it is found. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Serratiopeptidase has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy gabs adds 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Momo san Gespräch 貢献 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Momo san Gespräch 貢献 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 3 days from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Menti  fisto  16:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And also bear in mind that since you didn't respond to a 1-day block earlier this week, if you continue your disruptive editing after this one's finished, you'll probably be blocked permanently. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 16:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you perhaps address how you feel that your edits tallied with our copyright policies? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Robert Redfern makes a living selling this product, which means you have a conflict of interest. You should therefore edit in this area only with more caution and deference to other writers than usual, if you must edit it at all. I also notice that your web site attempted to harvest my email address (and presumably spam me) as soon as I accessed it, which does not incline me to think that you are, for example, a doctor, professor, or university researcher, which is what most people would assume when you say 'expert.' I strongly suggest that you avoid editing in areas in which you have a conflict of interest, and instead, make useful contributions in other areas, like music, sport, or geography. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. I have studies this enzyme and reviewed the studies and uses by doctors for the past eight years. I have written a book on the subject (the only book available on this enzyme). When serrapeptase had its own section my book was used to provide the information. My web site is a forum for the thousands of users and doctors around the world. Those that do go there are generally subscribing for my newsletters. Nobody is forced to subscribe. The information is either plain wrong or unbalanced and if whoever is causing all of these problems will discuss it they will soon realize the amendments I made were corrections. I have to wonder why my innocuous editing are causing so much trouble. Better still I would be more that happy to discuss these amendments with any expert (doctor, professor, or university researcher) on this subject that will help to resolve it. RobertRedfern

Serratiopeptidase commonly known as serrapeptase (also known as, serratiapeptase, serratia peptidase, serratio peptidase, or serrapeptidase) is a proteolytic enzyme isolated from the non-pathogenic enterobacteria Serratia E15 originally found in silkworms. It not extracted from the silkworm for commercial use rather is fermented in tanks using a growth medium. It has been prescribed by doctors in Germany and Japan for over 20 years and has a history of use in Japan and Europe in alternative medicine for pain and inflammation.

Serratiopeptidase (serrapetase) formulations are available over-the-counter in the United States and most other countries.

Studies

Nearly forty studies are listed in PubMed and although some are not of the highest quality required for drug trails a success as an anti inflammatory is indicated.

The following opinion should be deleted as it presents its opinion in a distorted way which can only be taken as intentional. It appears to be a biased organization with a vested interest in distracting users of natural health. It is well know throughout the Internet for it blatantly biased degeneration of every single study ever done for natural health. A simple search can locate these opinions and the distorted writings are clear. It receives its funds mainly from Merck KGaA a frequent law breaker who is the subject of an investigation by the serious Fraud Squad., has been fined countless times by European and North American authorities for fixing studies and deception. Some of these are mentioned in Wikipedia but there are many more known. Interestingly Merk KGaA is never criticized nor is there any negative reviews of it studies on Bandolier.

A systematic review by the evidence-based healthcare medical journal Bandolier stated that "[t]he evidence on serratiopeptidase being effective for anything is not based on a firm foundation of clinical trials."[2]

The review revealed only 34 total publications in medical databases that addressed the efficacy of seratiopeptidase, of which several were found to be animal experiments, personal letters, uncontrolled trials or those with inadequate or nonexistent randomisation. Several of the case reports also indicated adverse reactions to the enzyme without mentioning so in the abstract.[2]

Contrary to anecdotal reports, no studies were found to have ever been conducted on the efficacy of serratiopeptidase as treatment for back pain, heart attack, stroke, or asthma. Of the 10 medical conditions with randomized-evidence studies on file in connection with serratiopeptidase, trial quality was described as "generally poor". According to Bandolier: "Studies were small, outcomes were poorly defined, and in some, different medical conditions were mixed. Five studies were described as double blind: one was completely uninterpretable, three methodologically weak studies were positive, and one trial of apparent high quality was negative. This latter study compared serratiopeptidase, serraprose S or placebo in the treatment of chronic respiratory disease, with about 120 patients per group, and found no significant difference between groups for any outcome." —- Bandolier, "Serratiopeptidase - Finding the Evidence" [2]

[edit] References

1. ^ "Serratiopeptidase (definition)" (HTML). Reference.MD. http://www.reference.md/files/C022/mC022640.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-20. 2. ^ a b c d "Serratiopeptidase: Finding the Evidence" (HTML). Bandolier online edition. http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/alternat/serrapep.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-20.

Blocked
As you have returned to continue the disruptive pattern of editing at a small number of articles which previously led to you being blocked, in order to prevent further disruption I have blocked this account indefinitely. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I find your failure give reasons what is wrong with my contribution an abuse of power. Everything in my contribution is factually correct and am prepared to discuss it on this page. I am not unreasonable but when I see things that are factually incorrect and worse still coming from an organization funded by an organization such as Merk with its criminal record I need this explanation. I look forward to this explanation as fast as your reversing of my edits. Robert Redfern Robertredfern (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)