User talk:Sciencewatcher

 '''[ Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.]'''

CFS/ME page
Hi, some of us in the M.E. community are collecting citations to use to back up altering the article. Since we have M.E., this might take a little while, but we have plenty of valid references to justify removing the recommendation to use GET and CBT to treat M.E./CFS. We're not sure how to put the citations in place properly. (Example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855350) and (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/216572185_Reporting_of_Harms_Associated_with_Graded_Exercise_Therapy_and_Cognitive_Behavioural_Therapy_in_Myalgic_EncephalomyelitisChronic_Fatigue_Syndrome) Any help we could get in correcting the article would be welcomed. The current information is dangerous to persons who are looking for legitimate ways to manage their condition. --wingedwolfpsion (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2015 (EST)


 * Hi. First of all, let me say that my main motivation in editing the CFS page is to help CFS patients. (I use the term CFS instead of ME, as ME is an incorrect etiology).
 * Second, you do need to read the WP:MEDRS and WP:RS pages. You can't just replace studies with your own. The studies you replaced were higher quality than the ones you added. Just because you don't like a study doesn't mean you can remove it. Also, just because two studies seem to contradict each other doesn't mean you can just remove the other one either. Your edits are going to get reverted, so I would recommend you revert them yourself and make better edits. Also, I think the studies you referenced are already in the articles.
 * Third, your studies don't actually contradict the ones we have, based on my understanding of CFS. CBT and GET are effective, just not very effective because they are based on a flawed etiology. That's just my opinion, so I can't add it to the article (and you can't add your opinions either). The key to being a good wikipedia editor is to just edit based on the sources, even if they contradict your personal opinion. (Sometimes you might find that you need to alter your opinions based on the evidence, and not the other way round!)
 * Fourth, I think you need to study CFS in more detail yourself, and not just rely on the stuff posted on patient forums (which unfortunately is mostly pseudoscientific crap). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Third, your studies don't actually contradict the ones we have, based on my understanding of CFS. CBT and GET are effective, just not very effective because they are based on a flawed etiology. That's just my opinion, so I can't add it to the article (and you can't add your opinions either). The key to being a good wikipedia editor is to just edit based on the sources, even if they contradict your personal opinion. (Sometimes you might find that you need to alter your opinions based on the evidence, and not the other way round!)
 * Fourth, I think you need to study CFS in more detail yourself, and not just rely on the stuff posted on patient forums (which unfortunately is mostly pseudoscientific crap). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fourth, I think you need to study CFS in more detail yourself, and not just rely on the stuff posted on patient forums (which unfortunately is mostly pseudoscientific crap). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of "sciencewatcher" are you?
I have a masters in library science and more than ten years studying the psychiatric literature as a Medical Library Chief with Columbia University. You keep taking my posts off various articles, and I want to know your credentials. I'm considered an expert in a court of law. Are you? I'm hoping there is another level up where we can get some arbitration here. Your science in this case is biased, in my opinion, by lack of personal experience with MCS, CFS, and Environmental Illness in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kd3qc (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to request for dialog
I left the previous message for you more than an fortnight ago. Please respond to a request for dialog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.62.184 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Leaky Gut Syndrome
You stated that you believe I was misrepresenting the sources I posted @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_gut_syndrome. I believe that the burden of proof should rest with you, but I'll assume you're not a troll and give you some rationale behind my edits/additions. By the way, I'm a graduate student studying bioinformatics who is being sincere in trying to update this horrifically outdated section. Seriously, most of the sources are roughly a decade old and are of super poor quality. You should really be taking offense to the cynical boneheads who don't keep up with recent literature.

Leaky Gut: MY FIX
(original) - source: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/leaky-gut-syndrome/Pages/Introduction.aspx There is some concern that the promotion of the contentious "leaky gut syndrome" diagnosis is a dishonest ploy designed to make money from the sale of supposed remedies for it.

(errors in this original statement) nowhere in the reference does it say 'dishonest' or 'ploy' or 'sale' or 'money' or anything to do with these terms. It makes clear that some people are promoting remedies that haven't been tested, but nothing else.

(my edit) There is concern that some promoters of the "leaky gut syndrome" diagnosis have used the recent publicity of the condition to make money from the sale of unproven remedies.

(my rationale) I tried to do service to the opinion of the original author by providing their perspective, which I probably shouldn't have done as 'sales' were in no way articulated in the reference.

On another note the link to this governmentally provided general overview actually includes a section that explains what causes a 'leaky' gut -- "In some circumstances, this barrier can become less effective and "leaky", although this in itself is not generally thought to be sufficient to cause serious problems." So, seriously, based on this alone, how on earth could I be misinterpreting the literature.

(my addition) While some of the dietary changes suggested for “leaky gut syndrome” (such as a low FODMAP diet) can help people with conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), the diet change seems to work irrespective of the presence of a “leaky” gut.

(my rationale) It's taken directly from the flipping source with a super slight edit to fit in with the previous text.

Leaky Gut: MY ADDITIONS
This is up to you to explain.

(my addition) There is clinical evidence that the deregulation of the zonulin pathway and/or inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways (IO&NS) are associated with leaky gut and are accompanied by conditions such as autoimmune disease and chronic fatigue syndrome.

(references)

--- self explanatory, really, as NORMALIZATION OF LEAKY GET...IS ACCOMPANIED BY A CLINICAL IMPROVEMENT...seriously dude. Normalization of leaky gut in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is accompanied by a clinical improvement: effects of age, duration of illness and the translocation of LPS from gram-negative bacteria. http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/19112401

--- the quote says it all, IO&NS pathways are induced by ... increased translocation of LPS from gram-bacteria (LEAKY GUT) Inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress pathways underpinning chronic fatigue, somatization and psychosomatic symptoms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22109896 "These IO&NS pathways are induced by a number of trigger factors, for example psychological stress, strenuous exercise, viral infections and an increased translocation of LPS from gram-bacteria (leaky gut)."

--- this is a REVIEW that end with the quote below, solidifying my case completely as it's in the context of reviewing LEAKY GUT. Leaky gut and autoimmune diseases. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19127706 "Both animal models and recent clinical evidence support this new paradigm and provide the rationale for innovative approaches to prevent and treat autoimmune diseases."


 * Just because a reference uses the term 'leaky gut' doesn't mean that leaky gut actually exists. The references you give don't show that leaky gut exists, never mind that it can be cured. Also, if you want to discuss further, I would recommend doing it on the article talk page (so that other editors of the article can see the discussion). --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher... I would like to engage in more dialog about the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Page
I've moved the discussion to the MCS talk page and replied there. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

High-fructose corn syrup
Please look at the dispute resolution noticeboard and indicate whether you are willing to take part in moderated discussion of the content dispute about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Aerotoxic Syndrome
Have tried talking on this one but obviously Editor ASC is being primed by industry. Also the references that are in the revisions I make are valid and current where as the revisions you keep switching back to are old and out of date. (cannot type 4 tildes sorry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.15.141 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your edits are failing WP:MEDRS. You can't use a newpaper or similar for medical claims. Saying that the current references are "old" isn't a valid argument. You need sources that fulfill MEDRS. If you think there is a problem with the page, I would recommend posting on the dispute resolution noticeboard or similar. Reverting isn't a good solution, as you'll just get blocked. You can click the icon beside bold and italics (at the top left of the edit box) to insert your signature. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

High fructose corn syrup
You asked me to look at High fructose corn syrup. I see that User:Jytdog is rewriting the article. I don't see any discussion on the article talk page. Do you disagree with his changes to the article? If so, the BRD process is that you may revert the article back to the last version before his rewrite and ask him to discuss. (He is being bold, you may revert, you and he may then discuss.) User:Jytdog is an experienced editor who is familiar with the BRD process and should be willing to discuss rather than edit-warring. If you and he disagree on the talk page, then you can use a dispute resolution process. (You declined to use dispute resolution with an IP.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It was the ip editor I was concerned about, as he/she was just reverting my changes and breaking multiple wikipedia policies. I was just hoping to get some more editors involved so that it wasn't just an ongoing edit war between me and the ip editor. However Jytdog is now involved, so that should be sufficient for now. Thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific reason why you declined to participate in dispute resolution with the IP and then asked me to look at the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably the same reasons that you had for doing the same :)
 * Actually, I think the article doesn't really need dispute resolution, just another editor to look at it (which we now have). --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i was watching your struggle with the IP editor and just didn't have time to get involved. thank goodness for holidays.  five hours of work and i think the article is in OK shape now.  thanks for holding down the fort, sciencewatcher, and sorry for not getting involved earlier. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to do this -- it's much appreciated. The article looks much better now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI on Aerotoxic Syndrome
You didn't provide diffs of the disruptive edits by the IP. Please provide diffs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry about that. Don't really have time to do that right now as I have more important things to do right now, just trying to help out as best I can by reporting it in the few mins I have. And I thought it was pretty easy to see what's happening by looking at the edit history. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Patient preferences
It's pretty much like this.


 * ME patients prefer to be called ME patients and not CFS patients.
 * CFS patients are unhappy with the name CFS but it's not known what they would generally prefer.

Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian (CFS)
Not everything that appears in The Guardian is notable. This is about one scientist making an unsubstantiated claim and therefore carries no weight. It was later discovered that there existed a single letter, with a relatively innocent content, from one person. It's against Wikipedia policy to portray an entire patient group as militant for it. The Jolly Bard (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This should probably be discussed on the CFS talk page. Do you have a reference for that "one letter"? There have been lots of other instances of death threats, etc., so it doesn't make sense to dismiss it (we discuss it elsewhere in the article I think). We're not saying the entire patient group is militant, just a small bunch of nutters. Also see the talk page of the Simon Wessely article, where this is discussed as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed on many forums. The Guardian does not identify a small bunch or even one person, which is reason enough to dismiss it. First of all to protect the scientist, in fact. WP policy on living persons requires that. I'll have a look at the Simon Wessely page though. Thanks, The Jolly Bard (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you're very wrong. Just because they don't mention the people isn't reason to dismiss it. We assume that reliable sources aren't making shit up. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Extreme statements require extreme reliability, which is lacking. The article in The Guardian is biased because the other side wasn't allowed a voice. The Jolly Bard (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBT and GMC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

VLCD
This is one of the few cures not involving pharmaceuticals but diet management to reduce or eliminate IBS-D. It is quite obvious with basic biochemistry and microbiology why this strategy would work. Every GI doc knows this as well as microbiologists. The logic is solid and it is working in many patients. There are other studies that have similar results (I can get more, but I feel they would be undone because of some technicality with a link to why it was undone). Weigh out the cost-benefit analysis here - otherwise, I would suspect big Pharma is against this strategy as they would have no leverage and no profits if this strategy is known for being effective. We need a healthy dose of skepticism, but too much may be counterproductive. Sticking to academic rules and dogma has historically slowed science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NulliusinverbaC4URSelf (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, so we have to follow certain rules. If you have a good review then feel free to add it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Snow job at Aerotoxic Syndrome
I am thinking it is time for me to leave Wikipedia. I have spent hundreds of hours trying to remove or modify OR/POV edits by COI editors, but now they have dumped an ENORMOUS list of supposedly "peer reviewed" articles which they claim support their views about this alleged syndrome. Most of the alleged "new science" on that list is impossible for me to access. That means there is no way I can spend a few hundred more hours checking out each one, even if I did have that such free time to waste, on a project for which Wiki Admins will not support.

The last COI revision was so infested with irrelevant weasel word statements, which were not notable or germane, combined with citation links that did not rise to the required WP:MEDRS standards required for medical claims, that the only feasible solution was to revert on repeated vandalism grounds.

But, I got no support from Admins; I was just accused of violating the 3rr rule, which does NOT apply when repeated vandalism tactics are used over and over again. In this article, that vandalism has repeatedly taken the form of removing valid statements and links and replacing them with irrelevant and/or invalid and improper OR/POV statements, which are not supported at all, or if they are, with citations which do not qualify on WP:MEDRS grounds.

If Wiki Admins do not care if that article is reduced to just another COI Agenda Spam article, then why should I care? I cannot come up with a rational answer to that question, so nothing more for me to do. Thanks for all the help you gave in the past. Sadly, it seems Admins don't give a damn, so both our efforts appear to have been a waste of time. EditorASC (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you're using the wrong tactic. It might be better just to post on the reliable sources noticeboard (or similar) and get some outside editors to take a look. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is happening now. Some Admins are specifically requesting other editors that have worked on the Aerotoxic Syndrome article, to give their views too.  Hope you can find the time to comment there. EditorASC (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Gluten-related disorders
Moved to article talk page.

Camelford water pollution incident‎
I am not overly concerned with your reversion at Camelford water pollution incident‎, I was simply trying to make it more understandable within a proper scientific envelope. Aluminium sulphate dissolved in water exerts a dissociation pH of around 3.5. This is confirmed by the infobox at Aluminium sulfate. The text refers to "As the aluminium sulphate broke down it produced several tonnes of sulphuric acid....". Well no it didn't. The sulphate ion reacted with metals in the pipework and brought those into solution. It is inaccurate to say that " sulphuric acid" was produced. Sulphate ions were present and hydrogen ions were present and as a consequence so were copper and zinc ions from the pipework. It seemed to me that it was simpler to describe aluminium sulphate as an acidic salt, which it is, as the product of a strong acid and a weak base. My mistake was probably calling it an acid salt which it isn't. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 17:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the wikipedia page, aluminium sulphate does turn into "dilute sulfuric acid solution" when water is added. Anyway, all of that is WP:OR...it's best to just stick with whatever the source says. Probably best to discuss further on the article talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Onset" section on the Chronic Fatigue syndrome: Some thoughts
I take your point about the articles I suggested being primary refs - rather than secondary - and not that recent.

The more recent review that’s cited in the current version is in fact reliable and does say the same things as I was saying in my edit, and it cites the same empirical studies. So it would be better to leave it. But the current phrasing is lifted word-for-word from that review, so needs to be either in quotes or rephrased. Also, in the current section, there’s a final statement at the end, which is taken word-for-word from an earlier, poorer quality source (a conference abstract). I suggest omitting that.

I also suggest adding a line from the same reputable source mentioned above about the findings of prospective studies. This approach compensates partially for the problem of recall bias in retrospective studies.

So here’s a suggested rephrase:

It has been estimated that between 25 and 80 percent of adults with CFS report a sudden illness onset, initiated by a flu-like illness or other acute infection. ".[18] In contrast, one population study that identified individuals meeting CFS criteria from a randomly selected population sample found that the majority of cases had a more gradual onset. Such discrepancies may derive from variations between the groups surveyed, as well as different interpretations of the meanings of "acute" and "gradual".[18]

Prospective studies have also examined the proportion of patients with acute, documented infections later develop CFS. 1 to 22 percent of patients with various documented acute infections (which included Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) associated glandular fever, non-EBV-associated glandular fever, Ross River virus, Giardia duodenalis enteritis, parvovirus B19, and Q fever) go on to develop CFS.[18]

--Wilshica (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Wilshica


 * You should post this in the CFS talk page, thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Aerotoxic syndrome
Hi Sciencewatcher:

I tried to submit the ref links but I just don't have a good grasp on the ref protocol or how to make the links. So I am going to have someone else in our group resubmit the entry with the required ref requirements. The information is very good and scientifically backed with extensive documentation for what I entered. I am just not that good at the ref and the tech portion of using Wikipedia. A fellow researcher will be resubmitting later today with what will hopefully be a better-referenced format that will meet all of the admin and scientific community requirements.

Sincerely,

Porter Lafayette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porter Lafayette (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I would recommend you just put a note in the talk page of the article, so people can discuss it first. I don't think that source will satisfy WP:MEDRS. You will need scientific evidence linking bleed air to health effects, which I don't think exists. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

These are some of the links that I wanted to reference. Yet, I could not navigate or understand how to make the ref entries. Let me know if you find any of these acceptable for the topics discussed.

http://aerotoxic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Abou-Donia-Organophosphorus-ester-induced-chronic-neurotoxicity.pdf

https://dibs.duke.edu/scholars/mohamed-abou-donia

http://www.timvanbeveren.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/33_Abou-Donia_Interview-Kopie.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557235

https://www.welt.de/bin/case-study-130712813.pdf

http://aerotoxic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2003AugOPICNAEH2003.pdf

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8c17e0fd-5056-8059-7674-17888368e4c9

http://bleedfree.eu/documentation/w-z/prof-chris-winder-†/

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_07/AERO_Q407_article2.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893907000658

http://bleedfree.eu/documentation/a/airbus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porter Lafayette (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are better posting this info at the Aerotoxic talk page. However, looking at it, I don't see anything actually proving the Aerotoxic syndrome exists. The single pubmed-indexed study you have just shows elevated antibodies, but that could be from anything. Even stress will increase antibodies. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

GcMAF
Thank you for re-instating my post. I appreciate your efforts in maintaining the rules. I just didn't know how to add references earlier. Like you said, it's not so hard. Thanks again. I am focused only on editing the GcMAF page since I follow this subject with great interest. The anti-cancer societies mentioned in the original post were more interested in discrediting Dr. Yamamoto than looking and understanding the importance of his discovery. (Throwing the baby out with the bath water.) His science is solid and confirmed. The immune system does produce GcMAF under certain conditions for a specific purpose. Science now has the obligation to pursue this discovery to wherever it leads. Those with conflicts of interest should not be allowed to malign this science. Right? -


 * Sorry, I didn't realise you had added refs. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.234.40 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

isketch
Apparently this was already nominated for deletion but the result was keep, so I can't speedy it and I don't feel strongly enough to do an AfD nomination - but let me know if you do. Deb (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like the discussion was over 10 years ago, and all the reasons for keeping it don't apply any more. It looks like it can't be proposed for deletion because of the previous proposal. Just thought I'd mention it because you deleted the paint chat article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It can't be speedied, it can't be proposed, but it can be nominated. Deb (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Leaky Gut Syndrome
Hey Sciencewatcher. Did you read what I added before you deleted it? Did you actually search the research papers I mentioned that you will get if you search Leaky Gut Syndrome on Nature, Google Scholar, Pubmed? Do you have any idea of what repercussions would take place due to your corrupt thinking and character. Are you anti-human? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKapoor (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Current western medicine based on big pharma and corrupt industrialists and governments that are increasing toxins in environment and all living species on earth leading to chronic diseases of all sorts will come to an end soon. Not to worry. Truth about real pseudoscience will be out in no time to everybody soon. Outcome of Karma is inevitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKapoor (talk • contribs) 05:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Your modified reversion of my CFS edit
Good spot on the missing in - that makes perfect sense. Springnuts (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

“CFS” article title change to “ME/CFS”?
Hi sciencewatcher, I was reviewing the earlier discussion on the potential article name change and saw that you concluded that the title of “the article should probably be changed to [‘ME/CFS’].” I admired your commitment to the Wikipedia guidelines here despite the fact that you think that on the merits the title should remain ‘CFS.’ Shows that you’re principled (and the opposite of hypocritical). Since a formal request for a “move” has been made, at link below, I’d ask that you “cast your vote” (I realize it’s not exactly a “vote” in the usual sense…) there as to whether you “Support” or “Oppose.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Requested_move_15_April_2023

Also, Im curious what you meant by there’s “no evidence of inflammation or encephalitis (Neuroinflammation is something different)”? I understand that Neuroinflammation is not synonymous with encephalitis, but since you (seem to clearly) acknowledge evidence of Neuroinflammation, why do you say there’s no evidence of inflammation? Thanks for your time.

Your comment in previous thread: “While there is indeed still no evidence of inflammation or encephalitis (neuroinflammation is something different), still all the high quality sources now use the term ME/CFS. It is indeed because patients prefer that (incorrect) term, but still, that is the term that is now used, so the article should probably be changed to it. I would suggest going down one of the arbitration routes if there is still disagreement on this talk page. sciencewatcher (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)” JustinReilly (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just wording. What I meant was there is evidence of neuroinflammatory cytokines (which also happens during mental stress and anxiety). There is no evidence of swelling, which is what most people think of as inflammation. The term neuroinflammation is just confusing. sciencewatcher (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. Didn’t know cytokines were produced during mental stress and anxiety. I’ve read a ton of papers over the years that mention or discuss cytokines in ME and this was never mentioned. Many didn’t discuss the significance as science papers usually like to stick strictly to facts. But those that did seemed to generally feel that these were significant findings that could explain many of the symptoms and the severity of them in many patients. Do you know if the levels are greater in ME than in mental stress and anxiety, or if there are other differences (or similarities) and their significance- off the top of your head.
 * Also, what say you about my initial query? do you still agree that technically the title should be changed and if so, do you mind indicating “Support” on the Talk page if warranted? Cheers, J. JustinReilly (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Great work diligently removing pseudoscience from Wikipedia.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey
I know you've been around a lot, but I don't ever remember seeing you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style, or to let people know about disputes. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Lightning Process
Hey! You seem to be pushing extremely hard for this against logic, reason, and all RS. And you call its inventor, familiarly, "Phil'. Have you got a WP:COI you need to declare? Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If you had a look at my recent edits it would be pretty obvious that I'm *not* pushing hard for this topic, and I don't have a COI. Just because I point out some of your factual errors doesn't mean I somehow have a COI. How on earth could you think that when I put a warning on someone else's page about a COI? Anyone who edits that article (or even reads it) should know that the inventor is Phil. Weird. sciencewatcher (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, but I've spent 17 years editing wikipedia, and almost every edit has been on a contentious topic. sciencewatcher (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)