User talk:UGAcodon


 * }

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
Hi,

There are actually several highly reliable sources that state BHRT is ill-defined. Please review the sources found in the terminology section of the page. If you have e-mail enabled, I can send them to you as PDFs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I would disagree with that as "bioidentical" is not ill defined. It is well defined as "identical chemical structure" to hormones in the human body. There are numerous highly reliable sources. Glad to send them to you if you wish.
 * regards from UGACodon
 * Please note that we do not argue about sources - we verify information without using original research like our own opinions. If you have citations to add to the page, I would suggest first checking the page itself to see if they are already there, and second putting them up on the talk page for other editors to review.  It will save a lot of time in the long run.  "Reliable sources" on wikipedia has a fairly precise meaning, first for general articles there are our guidelines on reliable sources, and second for medical articles the much stricter guidelines for medical sources.  Popular books and webpages are generally not considered reliable for most medical claims.
 * Also note that our policy on neutral point of view also applies. This does not mean the "false neutral" of news sources, which "tell both sides".  This is neutral in terms of the representation of views given their relative prominence in the appropriate (in this case, scholarly) community.  Based on a lot of searching, there are far, far more critical sources of BHRT than there are positive ones.  Many of those sources point out that "bioidentical" isn't actually a useful or meaningful term that is used more for marketing than science or medical practice.  Even worse is "natural" with three separate definitions, each one utterly meaningless in scientific or medical terminology.
 * Also note our talk page guidelines, and the guidance on conversational threading. It makes talk pages much easier to read.  I would also suggest you sign your posts using four tildes ( ~ ).  Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please post only on talk pages. You've posted a message on Atama's user page and a subpage but managed to miss the talk page twice now.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip WLU, do you work for Wyeth? or any synthetic hormone company.It sure looks like you do.UGAcodon (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not ask you if you work for Erika Schwartz, or any of the other famous practitioners who push these drugs on women against the clear consensus of the scholarly community, because I realize that it is a horribly weak and flawed argument. The difference between us is, and has always been, that I can clearly substantiate my edits by reference to high-quality journal articles and many, many many consensus statements from three different countries.  Call it ad hominem or poisoning the well, either logical fallacy is an intellectually lazy way of avoiding having to deal with the actual substance of anothers' argument.  Short of invoking Hitler, it's pretty much the fastest way to lose an argument with someone on a scientific matter.  Bioidentical hormones are better than conventional?  Prove it with sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So you do in fact work for Wyeth or some other synthetic drug maker? Now that is starting to make sense. And no, you do not substantiate your edits.  Most of your junk is either not referenced at all, or attributed to false or deceptive references.  And what we have seen is that you do not deal openly with viewpoints that differ from your party line, no matter how well referenced.  Bioidentical will replace synthetic hormones in a few years, and your anti-bioidentical page will be a laughingstock and an embarassment.  You ask for references to show bioidenticals are better than synthetic counterparts?  There are hundreds.  I posted a few and you erased them. A good place to start is Holtorf's article in Postgraduate Medicine, The Bioidenticval Hormone Debate a compilation of 196 articles proving that bioidenticals are safer and more efficacious than sythetics.  Smart women know this and are demanding their doctors switch them from synthetic to bioidenticals.  Attack articles from medical organizations that serve as mouthpieces for the synthetic hormone industry are no longer credible to the millions of women on bioidentical hormone programs.  The tidal wave has already left the barn. You can't stop it.  UGAcodon (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kent Holtorf, who runs the holtorf medical group, supports his prescribing with testimonials, has published exactly two] peer reviewed papers, who claims bioidentical hormones can cure hot flashes, irritability, insomnia, loss of sex drive, vaginal dryness, dry skin, sagging breasts, depression, decreased memory, decrease the risk of stroke and heart attack by 50%, reduce the risk of broken bones from osteoporosis by 50%, reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s by 80%, reduce the risk of osteoarthritis by 40%, reduced the risk of periodontal disease and tooth loss by 40%, and reduce the risk of colon cancer by 30%, significantly reduce wrinkles and the signs of aging, who invokes the dreaded toxins to explain CFS and fibromyalgia, who doesn't accept insurance, have opted out of medicare and charges $400 per visit?  That Kent Holtorf?  Do you not see a double standard in your insistence that drug companies, who make money off of bioidentical hormones anyway because they produce and sell them as products, are horribly corruptive while Kent Holtorf, who sucks money directly from wealthy consumers, at outrageously inflated prices, making money directly from the promotion of bioidentical molecules, is somehow a knight in shining armour?
 * Yes, clearly the problem is with the drug companies, who are forced to justify their assertions with reference to peer-reviewed research, and not Kent Holtorf, who can make any claim he wants. Clearly.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WLU- this is a misguided rant against Holtorf who is a credentialed and highly respected MD. Why make a personal attack against Holtorf, an author of a review article which has gone through peer review and published in a respected medical journal? The only reason to do so is to advance your own biased viewpoint, which is pro-synthetic hormone industry and anti-bioidentical. Your view is not supported by the medical evidence. Your writing style is sarcastic, abusive, and distorts facts. According to the rules of medical ethics, an author, such as Holtorf, must disclose any financial ties to drug companies. His personal background is not part of the disclosure and not germane to the credibility of the published material.


 * The medical literature supports the claims that BOTH TYPES, BHRT and Synthetic, are effective for these symptoms you list above :"hot flashes, irritability, insomnia, loss of sex drive, vaginal dryness, dry skin" etc, these are well known symptoms of hormonal deficiency which respond to treatment with hormones. The remaining symptoms are less supported, and let’s agree to leave them out for now. The conclusions made by Holtorf’s review article are that Bioidenticals are safer and more effective than synthetic hormones. This is a valid conclusion and supported by many other authors. Please do not provide links to personal or business web sites, as this is not allowed by the WP:rules.


 * The above is an inflammatory statement with a number of untruths and deceptive innuendos. This is America which means a doctor or small business owner is entitled make a profit to stay open for business, and there is wide latitude and permissibility in billing practices. Its the law of supply and demand. The more a doctor is in demand, then fees tend to go up to reflect this. The more highly regarded, and sought after doctors have more patients calling for appointments, and are free to charge higher hourly fees. This is a free country and patients and doctors are at liberty to arrive at fees based on market forced of supply and demand. There is nothing wrong with this as you seemed to imply. .  Regarding insurance, this is another topic.  However, your comment here is also biased. Many people are unhappy with the health insurance industry, for things like cancelling for a pre-existing condition etc.  Doctors and patients are free to work outside the abuses of the health insurance system. This has nothing to do with bioidentical hormones and is a distraction.


 * How much money has Holtorf contributed to medical organizations that write position statement and influence medical opinion? NONE . How much money have the drug companies given? Millions-this is a corrupting influence. It's in their marketing budget. How many sales personnel does Holtorf employ to go around marketing bioidentical hormones to doctors? NONE. The drug industry has thousands of sales people who canvas doctors’ offices for synthetic hormones, influencing and corrupting opinion. How much money did Wyeth Make from Prempro, a synthetic hormone found to cause cancer and heart disease in the WHI? Wyeth made 4 billion a year, money sucked out of innocent victims who trusted the medical system. Wyeth is now in litigation. Compared to the Synthetic Hormone industry, even Jack the Ripper would look good. UGAcodon (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

June, 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard notice
See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See the WP:TPG
Don't edit my talk page unless it's your own comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For your elucidation, you are permitted to remove text from your own talk page, see the talk page guidelines for more information.

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverts
I have reverted your changes to Yanuca, Skenea catenoides, Agbado and Languibonou. You have been putting in external links that are not in keeping with WP:EL for having advertising and offering little beyond what pre-existing sources already contain (such as coord), for statements that were essentially advertising such as "a resort exists on the island", and for using unreliable sources (and saying something is "listed at X" isn't helpful or meaningful). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding random, unsourced factoids to pages. That there is a fairly large dwelling on an island is more than a little pointless.  That a community has a water project is also pointless.  Where is the context?  Why is this information significant?  Where are the references?  How is this information encyclopedic?  Does it contribute to the notability of the page?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing a little stalking are we? According to the "rules" a reference is not required. So I do not understand why you feel it necessary to revert information that there is a dwelling on an otherwise remote and uninhabited island in the middle of nowhere. More irrational behavior? UGAcodon (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the shoddiness of your contributions and poor grasp of the policies, it seems warranted. I don't know what rules you are looking at, but I did link to WP:PROVEIT above.  If you're really concerned with the rules, you may want to consider WP:N.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reflist does not go at the very bottom of the page, and does not go on pages with no footnotes. See WP:GTL.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping
You need to stop forum shopping. The issue is your inability to justify your edits per the policies, guidelines and sources, and your utter failure to accept that your beliefs about BHRT may not be appropriate for wikipedia. Multiple editors have attested to this, consider listening to them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is this: You asked me for the references in the medical literature which support the claim that bioidentical horomones are safer and more effective than synthetics.  I gave them to you. A few are listed above. Instead of discussing these peer reviewed medical references rationally, you ask for a Topic Ban.  I don't think anyone would consider that consensus building behavior. UGAcodon (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont think anyone's beliefs should enter into the discussion. I am showing you peer reviewed medical literature articles (see above) that show beyond any doubt, that bioidentical horomones are safer than synthetics, and you refuse to even look at them or discuss them.  This is not about beliefs, it is about facts on the ground in the medical literature which strongly support this position. Your behavior is not what wikipedia is about in spirit or letter.  I would ask you again to state why you feel these peer reviewed medical literature articles should not be included in the page.  I am trying to build consensus here. UGAcodon (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already been over them, I discussed them at length with Hillinpa and they were rejected for the same reasons. Part of the reason I'm so irritated with this is because I'm not seeing anything new - just a POV-pushing editor who thinks they can "fix" wikipedia when it isn't broken.  Wikipedia is fine, thanks.  The problem is a whole bunch of people think BHRT is the best thing in the world, but none of these people do research, few publish articles, and most are in private practice.  I've read your arguments.  In fact, I've read and refuted them - COI from the publishers, look at these (irrelevant) studies, ignore the many critical sources - many times before.  You're not going to build consensus, any more than Hillinpa, or Riverpa before, built consensus.  This is nothing new, repeated assertions, ignoring the policies, and a single-purpose account trying to "fix" wikipedia.  Nothing has changed, in fact things have gotten worse - the Medical Letter has produced another article critical of BHRT.  So there is yet more evidence that the weight of the article should be on the skeptical side.  Something no POV-pushing account ever seemed to get is that the scholarly consensus is against BHRT.  That's why the wikipedia article is so negative.  Clearly, repeatedly, endlessly, coherently, doctors, scholars, researchers and agencies are against BHRT being anything but regular hormones wrapped up in nonsense and unjustified claims.  Wikipedia doesn't get to ignore sources because one editor is convinced BHRT is the best thing ever.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, WLU, you have ignored the evidence I have presented, and have managed to avoid even a single word about the issue here, which is the proponderance of peer reviewed medical literature which supports the claim that bioidentical homoens are safer and more effective than synthetics.


 * You claim that "the scholarly consensus is against BHRT". I disagree. Which scholarly consensus are you referring to?  There is no scholarly consensus on this issue. The consensus is divided. There are the medical journal articles written by authors with financial ties to the synthetic drug industry. These are opposed to BHRT.  By the way, rhis is not a conspiracy as you have said before.  This is publicly disclosed information on the disclosure section of the each medical article required by code of medial ethics.


 * Alternatively, there are also medical articles written by authors who do NOT have financial ties to the synthetic drug industry. These articles show OBJECTIVE and VERIFIABLE DATA that bioidentical hormones are safer and more effective than synthetics.   Hillinpa and Riverpa tried to reason with you and show you this information, and we know they gave up after requesting mediation.   It is no secret that Use:WLU holds an anti-bioidentical bias, and you are proud to admit that.  Wikipedia isnt about one person's biased opinion.  There are many editors here working together.


 * WLU wrote :"Clearly, repeatedly, endlessly, coherently, doctors, scholars, researchers and agencies are against BHRT being anything but regular hormones wrapped up in nonsense and unjustified claims." This is just so wrong it is incredible. This statement reveals the depths of your ignorance about the real debate here.  There are no "regular hormones' as you seem to assert above.  Look in any biochemistry tectbook and look at what they say about hormones.  All hormones in the human body are BIOIDENTICAL hormones.  There are no synthetic hormones in the human body, unless it is placed there by a pill.  The initial and basic claim made about bioidentical hormones is that these are hormones manufactured by the human body.  Now, lets look at synthetic chemically altered hormones like MPA.  This is a chemically altered version of progesterone that medical studies have shown conclusively without a doubt, cause breast cancer and heart disease, while the human version does not.  Yet you refuse to accept this.  You refuse to look at these medical references.  All the medical references are there for you.  Just ask. These are not "unjustified claimsa" (your wording).   This is peer reviewed medical literature which you refuse to look at and discuss.  That is what I find so incredible that this kind of closed mindedness can exist on Wikipedia, a refusal to look at the evidence.  UGAcodon (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of pure masochistic curiosity, have you read, or are you aware of the contents of references 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55, 57 and 58, plus the side effects listed in 31, in this version of the BHRT page? Have you read these sources? How would you characterize their statements? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I am, which one of the 36 would like to discuss first? Let's get started. Hsve you checked the author disclosures to make sure they have no ties to the synthetic hormone industry, which could bias the article?


 * However, rather than discuss your list of articles which is quite lengthy, why not discuss the articles I already posted on the talk page which support the claim that bioidentical hormones are safer and more effective? I have another 195.  Yep you guessed it. they are listed at the end of the Holtorf article.


 * I noticed there are many non-working links in the reference area. This is one of them that was not included in your list.  Why exclude it? 37.^ a b c d Holtorf K (January 2009). "The bioidentical hormone debate: are bioidentical hormones (estradiol, estriol, and progesterone) safer or more efficacious than commonly used synthetic versions in hormone replacement therapy?" (pdf). Postgrad Med 121 (1): 73–85. doi:10.3810/pgm.2009.01.1949. . http://www.holtorfmed.com/nss-folder/pdf/BHRT-PGM-2009.pdf.


 * This a link to the Holtorf article that is currently working:http://www.bobmehrpharmacies.com/images/_content/bio-identical/The%20Bioidentical%20Hormone%20Debate-%20Ken%20Holtorf%20MD.pdf


 * The Holtorf article is a review article published in the peer reviewed medial literature diting 196 studies which show that bioidentical hormones are safer and more effective. Post Graduate Medicine is a Main steam physician's publication.


 * To be fair. let's take one article from your list of 36 and one from my list of 196 and dicuss them both.UGAcodon (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Medroxyprogesterone. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)