Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 17

Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans
I added a couple photos of this condition. Would some of you be willing to help me beef this article up? ---kilbad (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Poppers
I think the article should be tagged for this project. The lede seems POV in that these are largely untested and unregulated chemicals used recreationally and known to cause medical problems yet the article seems to glow about how harmless they are. Thoughts? -- Banj e b oi   19:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been a cesspit for awhile. I abandoned it a year or two ago after a proliferation of warring single-purpose accounts depressed me. It would probably be worthwhile to revisit it. MastCell Talk 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ONe of those SPA's was, IMHO, Hank Wilson who seems to have been a lone activist trying to collect and distribute the scientific studies he found. He died last year at some point. The others have every appearance of selling the stuff. -- Banj e  b oi   03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The recreational drug pages along with sex topics are some of Wikipedias most visited. They are also the most heavily vandalized.  Both fall under WP:MED!  Are we not lucky?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hank Wilson passed away at the end of 2008, and I do remember hearing that he had held on to the causation of poppers with AIDS/KS long after that was abandoned. Here's a bibliography attributed to him. I don't see anything in the article covering poppers use and increased STD risk due to vasodilation, although there is material on tie to increased high-risk behavior and on use with Viagra. With respect to the pages popularity, I've been working under the assumption that flagged revisions would eventually wind their to way to a lot of med articles at some point for that reason. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just done a bit of a rewrite of the article to resolve poor sourcing and POV issues. Mastcell has also helped improve the article as well. Hopefully the major concerns with the article have been resolved now and fingers crossed the SPA's don't return. Optigan13 with regard to KS the most recent review seems to give weight to poppers being associated with kaposi's sarcoma but a more recent study found no association. It seems the literature is devided on the issue although the volume and quality of the research into poppers is seriously lacking.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any reason the article uses that title rather than merging to the more formal alkyl nitrites? Smack is a dab page linked to Heroin, e.g. LeadSongDog come howl 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A merge may help ease the promotional SPA issues and get the focus on the chemical aspects. -- Banj e  b oi   21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NAME I think that poppers is the right name for the article as it is most commonly known under this name by lay people. Poppers also gets more pubmed hits in the academic literature. A similar controversy has previously been discussed with regard to the heroin article and whether it should be renamed to diamorphine.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ecstasy disambiguates to MDMA and on pubmed, "amyl nitrite" gets four times the hits of "poppers". LeadSongDog come howl 06:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the information is easily accessible - like ensuring poppers is prominently in the lede - I think it would be fine. -- Banj e  b oi   06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry guys I must have gotten confused, amyl nitrite does indeed get more hits in pubmed. I would be happy if poppers is merged into amyl nitrite.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Juice Plus
This article has been held hostage by a very lengthy (since 2006) edit war mostly between two editors, TraceyR (believer) and Rhode Island Red (skeptic). This situation is untenable and the deadlock can probably only be broken with consistent input from more editors, especially nutrionists and other interested medical personnel. More eyes please. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Book-class

 * Alright I went ahead and implemented the book-class for the project. You currently have 4 medicine-related books, such as Book:Prostate. All books can be found in Category:Book-Class medicine articles. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious..
..are there any lipid metabolism disorders that may present as a mild case of diabetes that is aggravated by lipid intake? Or any case of diabetes? -- C opper K ettle  16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we mean the same thing when we say "lipid metabolism disorder"? I think of a purely genetic problem (i.e., enzyme mutation).  There are all kinds of much more common things that are "aggravated" by "lipid intake" in some people, e.g., pancreatitis, gall bladder problems, hepatitis...  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean the rare species, so to speak. Enzyme mutations and such that sprang up as a strange form of diabetes, possibly with strange neurological side-effects, that vanish when lipid intake drops. -- C opper K ettle  04:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter is, I have this kind of strange diabetes for 10 years that stubbornly refuses to develop into a full-blown form and is marked as "MODY diabetes (?)" (sic, with a question mark) on my medical card. Personally endocrinologists say to me that they havent met the disease with such course as mine; some say "this is not diabetes". Sugar load test keeps telling it is diabetes, but with diet the glycated haemo stays normal. For 10 years. And it is aggravated by lipid intake, it seems to me. Excessive lipid\caloric intake leads to strange feelings (left hand numbness, dizzyness, dizziness while performing cognitive tasks) and.. dry mouth without the increase in blood sugar. Also I have keratoconus, and normal\high lipid\caloric intake seems to lead both to increased days of "sore throat" and "cloudy cornea" (that requires topical steroids), so I keep at unnaturally low levels of calories and lipids for years. -- C opper K ettle  04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Maturity onset diabetes of the young. --Arcadian (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know about it, but doubt that any type of it is so strange. I'll look once more though.. through each type more closely.. but still.-- C opper K ettle  05:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you're far better off dealing with a professional who can look over your whole history than to let a bunch of strangers try to guide you. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you send me an email address via my user account will sent you a copy of the uptodate on "Classification of diabetes mellitus and genetic diabetic syndromes". Would be great to have someone interested in improving the diabetes pages on Wikipedia.  They are still a bit of a mess.  Did a bit of work on them but could use some more. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm planning to just now for a meeting with a specialist, WhatamI; was just curious. Thank you, Jmh, I'll contact you shortly. Best regards, -- C opper K ettle  06:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Images from 1902 paper
Can images from a 1902 derm paper be uploaded onto Wikipedia as far as copyright goes? See User_talk:Kilbad for more details regarding this question. ---kilbad (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look to me that there's a problem. The copyright in the US is likely to have expired at the end of 1997, and I've replied in more detail at your talk page. --RexxS (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion nomination of Template:Abuse
Listing this here to get more eyes on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns regarding this section of the TMJ syndrome article
Hey all, I decided to raise this concern here because the contributors to this WikiProject would probably have the most experience dealing with articles that inch too close to crossing the line between articles on medical topics and giving medical advice. I invite you to take a look at this section of the TMJ syndrome article and comment about what you think. To me, it seems like a "how-to" guide to treating a medical condition, which is basically giving medical advice, right? However, I'm a little too inexperienced in this area to be bold and just remove or rewrite the whole section, so I was hoping for ideas. The talk page of the article itself is pretty much dead, so I brought this issue here instead of there. I will, however, link to this discussion there, so interested contributors can make their way here. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have deleted it. Written the way it was and being uncited I don't think keeping and rewriting it was an option. In future in such circumstances I would encourage you to WP:BEBOLD. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  06:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Symphysis pubis dysfunction
The article contains some dubious and unsourced medical information as well as peacock terminology. More eyes please. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy regarding citation of disease synonyms
Are there policies out there regarding how disease synonyms are cited? I think when a disease synonym is included in an article, it should have it's own citation so someone can verify where it has come from. When there are multiple synonyms, I think they should each be associated with their own citation, even if they all come from the same source. The reason being that if someone comes along and adds an additional synonym, the sources of the previous ones are not confused. Any thoughts? ---kilbad (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the impulse, but it makes the text less readable, which is highly undesirable. Additionally, alternate names are usually presented in the first sentence, and citations are gently deprecated for the entire lead section, particularly for non-controversial statements.
 * Inline citations are actually required for only a remarkably small set of facts:
 * Direct quotations
 * Contentious statements about living people
 * Facts whose accuracy is disputable ("challenged or likely to be challenged")
 * Statistics (defined broadly)
 * Opinions that need to be attributed to a source
 * That's the whole list, and making it very slightly harder to vandalize the alternate names for a disease isn't on the list.
 * In my experience, it's usually quite easy to verify alternate names, and adding a source tag won't prevent anyone from incorrectly copying an existing source tag over to newly added names. I really don't think that you'd be gaining much with that practice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Kilbad's proposal. On many articles, the primary arguments about article content derive from differing underlying assumptions about whether or not two different terms actually refer to the same condition. The best way to resolve these disputes is to provide unambiguous provenance for the assertion of equivalence. --Arcadian (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with WAID. If something is problematic or disputed, ask for a citation; otherwise, it makes no sense to have to cite that synonyms for Tourette syndrome are Tourette's, TS and GTS, for example.  Current policy already covers this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a slightly different suggestion. If there are alternate names that may be contentious, then that fact, in itself is interesting. Only in the cases where there disputable alternates, I'd recommend a short section immediately after the lead entitled Naming, or similar, which would be the best place to describe alternate names – and any contention – and cite the sources. The lead would then contain those alternates as part of its function of summarising the rest of the (cited) article. That would have the dual advantage of keeping the lead concise and free of cites, and drawing attention to the issue of alternate names. Although this is not prescribed in WP:MEDMOS, it's a common enough tactic elsewhere in wikipedia to make it worth consideration. --RexxS (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Names might also be reasonably discussed in a history section, and could be appropriately cited in that case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Zidovudine
Additional eyes are needed at Zidovudine, where a strongly opinionated editor with a block history on the article is stating that cancer is a side effect of AZT. The source is a California website. I don't feel that this satisfies our sourcing requirements for medicine, nor do I think it's appropriate to include a paragraph about the purported carcinogenicity of a substance partially responsible for the reduction in AIDS-related cancers. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree read through lexidrugs and they do not mention cancer as a side effect. Would need good primary research or a review to support something like this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The influence of antiretroviral therapy in general (and NNRTIs in particular) on the incidence of cancer is a fascinating topic. While HAART leads to clear declines in most AIDS-defining malignancies, the data are much more conflicting and unclear with regard to non-AIDS-defining malignancies. The page on zidovudine is probably not the place to cover this, since no one uses zidovudine in isolation - probably more appropriate for the page on HAART. The editor in question,, is a relentless promoter of AIDS denialism on various and sundry pages, from zidovudine through Paul Gann, and they're not above anything from misrepresenting refs to actual socking. The focus on zidovudine (as if it were still 1993) is typical AIDS-denialist stuff, but despite the unpromising provenance of these edits, it's something we should probably look into covering a bit more deeply. Several recent high-quality papers and reviews are available, which I will collect as time permits. MastCell Talk 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Uptodate makes mention of Dyslipidemia, Glucose intolerance/diabetes mellitus, Coronary artery disease, Lipodystrophy, Peripheral neuropathy, Lactic acidosis, Hepatic, renal, and bone marrow toxicity, Bone disorders as long term complications of treatment but does not comment on cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This paper comes out and says they are not associated Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although AZT and other NRTIs are much more specific for the viral polymerase, they do have some affinity for cellular polymerases. One could certainly envision a possible mechanism for carcinogenesis. However, NRTI-mediated increase in cancer incidence has not yet been established in humans. Until more research is done, I don't see a reason to include carcinogenicity speculation in the Zidovudine article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews
Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews. AN/I discussion of relevance to this project. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force
Would some of you be willing to proofread the WP:DERM dermatology task force pages? I want to get more dermatologists involved, and would like the project pages looking as professional as possible. Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Article in French
I have a pdf article in French that I would like to use as a source for a dermatology-related article. Is there anyone that could help me translate it? ---kilbad (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Google is a good place to start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be able to find a French-English translator through Translation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I could help, if you want. Don't know much about dermatology, though! --Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I always use for all my translation needs. It is not perfect obviously but it serves me well.Calaka (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tympanosclerosis
Anyone willing to review? Start, C or B? Just finished writing. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to :) Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat  22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox symptom
The emedicine tags do not seem to work in this infobox. Trying to set them up for limp and unable. Anyone know why? Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ eMedicine website structure got changed some time ago. Infobox Disease had correctly working code allowing for old style topic/number referencing and newer 'article'/number approaches (as well as search lists results), but Infobox Symptom was not coded correctly - now rectified David Ruben Talk 02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New categories
There are a few dermatology-related categories under discussion at: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions. As always, feedback is appreciated! ---kilbad (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Spinal disc herniation
A self-identified chiropractor (see the edit summary) keeps adding chiropractic and spinal decompression to the article. Spinal manipulation is usually considered a relative contraindication for this condition and spinal decompression machines are the subject of FDA confiscation and prosecution because of the claims made for them in connection with the treatment of this condition. I'm not sure what to do and would rather not get in an edit war with this person. More eyes on the situation please. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The anon is in Canada, where the US FDA's actions are pretty much irrelevant.
 * However, it sounds like this topic should be covered in the article, e.g., with a really stellar scientific source that directly says that spinal manipulation is relatively contraindicated (particularly in serious cases). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi gang! You're absolutely spot on, What'! I'm pretty sure Brangifer will be able to find such a reference, or more.  I suggest that the anonymous Canadian Chiropractor should be invited to present the volumes of references that he or she promised in the edit summary s/he made. A particular treatment modality should not be added without references.  I think it'd be better to tag Chiro Rx as  or at least unsourced and flag the information for removal from the article if suitable references are not provided.  At the same time, valid reasons not to opt for a particular course of treatment, properly cited, should also be provided in the interests of  having a balanced POV in the article.  And by valid reasons, I echo What' in saying that just because the FDA does it is not valid in the global sense - that's just the decision of one committee in one country, after all.  However, stating their reasons and the evidence behind them would be valid! Cheers, Matto paedia  Have a yarn  00:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Me again, I've taken the liberty of tagging the chiro entry in the treatment section as dubious and needing citation. I've written to BR and "Anon Chiro IP Editor" to request some justification for the entry too.  <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn  01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken a crack at improving that section. Take a look. More refs are always welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to see sources/quotes that say that a disc herniation is a relative contraindication for SMT, as a google search turns up only one source, which states the opposite - "Manipulation does not appear to be contraindicated for patients with bulging discs or herniation..." I have added some sources to the relevant article talk page to move things along. DigitalC (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of uncited content
This IP is removing uncited content some of it correct just unreferenced. Not sure if I should revert? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If he's removing useful content, it's probably worth reverting and explaining to the IP that strict sourcing is only really required in BLPs. Whilst we always want sources, sometimes it's just not possible and uncited facts can just be given the "citation needed" tag. I assume the IP is doing so in good faith. Anyway, I'd revert the stuff that is likely to be true and unsourced (not patently false), explain, and then either tag the facts as citation needed, or find a source yourself. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I left a note for the anon and updated the docs at Template:Fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the IP editor reverts your note... May be worth while watching to see if the advice was heeded or not. <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn  00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:TALK permits editors to remove messages from their own talk pages; it is taken as evidence that the user has actually read the message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs I reviewed showed that the editor was removing uncited content that has been tagged for a long period of time, and not fixed. If you want to revert the edit and provide a source for the information, that is fine. Reverting the removal of unsourced content goes against WP:V: "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace" "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" Both the fact tags and the removal of the content are example of challenges to the material. Remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. It would be better if the IP editor would search for a source for the information, rather than just remove the challenged information, but then again, no editor has come forward with a source for quite awhile. DigitalC (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue is now also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. DigitalC (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with image
I have a PDF with a fiqure from 1903 that I would like to use on wikipedia. I wanted to know if someone could help me extract the image from the PDF and clean the image up (removing any grain, etc)? Regardless, thank you all for the help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can try for you, I've sent you an email. --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A new ambitious user
User:Immunize (contribs) has been creating new unreferenced medical articles and has been making unreferenced additions to existing medical articles. I have been trying to get this user to cite sources, but he is reluctant to take my advice. Also, the user's grammar and punctuation need help. I simply cannot keep up with this user's edits and I also am nowhere near an expert in the topics in which he is contributing. Can someone take a look at this person's edits? Regards, PDCook (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes looks like he / she could be a very good contributor if he / she referenced what they wrote. Will look into it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the contributor's work comes from Emedicine. Is that a reliable source? It looks like the articles there are written by MDs or PhDs and sources are cited. PDCook (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is sort of reliable but is not a preferred reference source. But to reference the actual research / review or a more stable source such as a text book. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently emedicine is preferred over actual text books. ---kilbad (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see were it says this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious. Sorry... ---kilbad (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I cited Emedicine in a few of Immunize's articles, as it is better than nothing. I found a couple of primary articles and reviews, but most were in journals my University did not have an online subscription to, so I figured it was better off left to someone who can read them deal with. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still cleaning up a lot of this user's issues. He doesn't really listen to my warnings very well. Can someone else please give him some advice? I fear this may end up on ANI if it doesn't get better. PDCook (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious copyright violations, see this comment. Many of this user's contributions may need to be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies.However,I still do not understand how much a contribution has to be in your own words.If you respond,do it on your own talk page after posting a talkback template on my user.Thank you.Immunize (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Why have you not responded? Immunize (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Vertebral artery dissection
In spite of the fact that chiropractic high cervical neck manipulation has been strongly associated with VAD, strokes, and deaths, a recent addition on that subject was reverted. I have to agree that the German study isn't the best one because its language/translation is confusing and it includes numerous examples not performed by chiropractors. It does, quite correctly, show that the technique itself, not the practitioner, is problematic. It is only noted so often in connection with chiropractic because they perform most cervical neck manipulations.

The article is merely a stub and needs development. This was the only mention of chiropractic, which is the most common cause of VAD in persons under 45 years of age, with a 500% increased risk of VAD among those who have visited a chiropractor within 1 week of the VBA. A California study found a 600% increased risk.

I have collected a number of sources in this somewhat sensationalistic blog entry. Rather than gettting bogged down in my rhetoric (except the short introduction, which should be read), look carefully at the sources and see if some of them can be used to develop the subject. More here:


 * Edzard Ernst, Spinal manipulation: Its safety is uncertain CMAJ • January 8, 2002; 166 (1)


 * Stephen Barrett, Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes

More eyes needed. The stub needs to be developed, and cervical manipulation needs be mentioned as an important risk factor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted the addition of that source as it was blatantly misleading the statistics reported in the article, and I have a problem with the reliability of a source that misrepresents its own facts in the abstract. Rather than reading Ernst from 2002, or such biased sources as Barrett, I would suggest reading the interdiscipinary studies performed by the World Health Organization Bone and Joint Decade Task Force (2000-2010):
 * Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study "VBA stroke is a very rare event in the population. The increased risks of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic and PCP visits is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke. We found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care."
 * Clinical Practice Implications of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Long read.)
 * Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study "At the ecological level, the increase in VBA stroke does not seem to be associated with an increase in the rate of chiropractic utilization."
 * Bone and Joint Decade webpage, with link to executive summary
 * There is good, peer-reviewed science available on this, and no need to refer to blogs or articles that misrepresent their data. DigitalC (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see we share the concern about that one source. As to your other comment, obviously no blogs would be used. It's just a collection of sources that could be used, and Barrett's article also lists many reliable sources. Here are even more sources.


 * Spinal manipulation research


 * Obviously the use of chiropractic sources will usually tend to emphasize only one side of the debate, or even whitewash the situation. For example, the two chiropractic sources mentioned above (Cassidy and Boyle), are often used to trump myriad other sources, which is a very biased method of protecting the profession and stopping investigation of this subject. Patient safety is ignored by this approach. The degree of denial is incredible. Every time this subject has been broached and attempted here at Wikipedia it is immediately attacked by chiropractors and their advocates. Deletionism is a favorite ploy. In this case you had a legitimate excuse, but when better sources are used, I'm wondering what your reaction will be.


 * There is a debate. Of that there is no doubt, and that debate can be documented using RS, and that should be included in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that describing the World Health Organization Bone and Joint Decade Task Force studies as "chiropractic sources" to be disenguously misleading. These were not "chiropractic sources", but rather interdisciplinary sources.
 * "The multidisciplinary, international Task Force led by Prof Scott Haldeman from the University of California in Irvine and in L.A., involved more than 50 researchers based in 9 countries and represented 14 different clinical and scientific disciplines in 8 universities. The group assembled the best international research data on neck pain and related disorders – specifically more than 31,000 research citations with subsequent analysis of over 1,000 studies – making this monumental document one of the most extensive reports on the subject of neck pain ever developed, and offering the most current expert perspective on the evidence related to the treatment of neck pain.".
 * It is true that Cassidy was originally trained as a chiropractor, but it is equally true that he also holds a Ph.D and a Dr. Med Sc. It is also true that he is a Professor of Epidemiology with the Department of Public Health Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. To simply cast off these sources because a chiropractor was involved is bad logic and bad science.
 * Boyle on the otherhand, is not a chiropractor. She has a M.Sc and a Ph.D. Other researchers involved include Pierre Cote, who has a chiropractic degree, but also a Ph.D. and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. How about Yaohua He, who is an MD, Ph.D, or Frank Silver MD, FRCPC? You discount their involvement in this massive project when you descripe these articles as "chiropractic sources". DigitalC (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I only mentioned two names, not the World Health Organization Bone and Joint Decade Task Force, but you're right, Haldeman is also a chiropractor ( second third generation IIRC ) and uses his MD to give chiropractic good press. My point is that one can't blindly accept a source. The researchers also have their biases, and whenever chiropractors are involved, or, like Haldeman, lead the study, it will usually favor chiropractic.


 * BTW, some of the data in the Cassidy study doesn't back up his editorializing conclusions. His conclusions are unrelated to much of the other data which could easily explain away his conclusions. He has lots of statistics in there which he doesn't use to soften his conclusions.


 * The Cassidy data shows that in this population patients are 7-8 times more likely to have consulted a primary care MD than a chiropractor over the time intervals for any reason, as demonstrated by the fact that in the 3164 control cases (no VAD) 29.9% of cases had seen a doctor within the previous month while only 4% consulted chiropractors.


 * This doesn't seem to have been allowed for anywhere in his conclusions. These two factors (the other being that patients with actual VADs would normally preferentially consult an MD) could well explain why there appears to be an association of MD consultations with VAD. The strong associations shown in this and other studies of VAD and neck manipulation remains unaccounted for. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't comparing MDs and DCs, but rather primary care MDs (ie, not the emergency room). Patients with VADs complain of headaches and neck pain, and aren't necessarily likely to consult an emergency room with those symptoms, but would likely consult a chiropractor or their family doctor. However, if they have full-blown symptoms of a VAD, then they would consult an emergency room. Given that both Cassidy and Cote have Ph.D's in epidemiology, and Haldeman is a professor of epidemiology at UCLA, I'm sure that they understand the statistics better than you or I. As an interesting/trivial aside, Haldeman is a third generation chiropractor - his grandmother was the first chiropractor in Canada - might be worth a bio if there are good sources that discuss her. Again, Haldeman is also a medical doctor, so to state that he is biased towards one side or the other seems to be an adhominem attack - "he is a chiropractor and therefore the study will favor chiropractic" (paraphrased). DigitalC (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked my comment to make sure that such a misunderstanding doesn't happen again. Writing "MD" was too vague. I didn't imply ER MDs at all, so nothing else needs changing.


 * Thanks for the info about Haldeman. 3rd generation! I wasn't too far off. That establishes his bias as more genetic than cognitive and professional. He simply can't do otherwise since he's actually in a familial relationship with the profession. ;-) My comment was based on the fact that nearly all his work involving chiropractic subjects tends to glorify it or subtly run interference for it with his MD colleagues. (He wouldn't get paid if he criticized the profession. He makes lots of money speaking for them and they'd stop hiring him. He'd essentially become "divorced" from his "family".) He's a favorite poster boy used by the profession when they want the added prestige of an "MD" title promoting their agenda. That's just what I've gleaned from my years of reading his publications, seminars and speeches. In this he's no different than chiropractors in France, who for many years had to become MDs to legally practice chiropractic. Once they graduated, they promptly ignored their scientific learnings and reverted back to chiropractic metaphysics and unethical practices, while being legally protected by their MD title.


 * It is very telling that he very rarely (if ever) speaks out clearly and loudly against the unscientific practices, fraud, abuse, and quackery which have been documented by chiropractic researchers to be more prevalent in their own profession than in other professions. (See here for refs.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm very willing to change my mind if you can show me refs where he does criticize his own profession/family. His status as an MD enables him to get acceptance for chiropractic POV where a DC would not get acceptance for saying exactly the same thing. That's what I've observed over the years.


 * I'm pretty certain that some of the MDs reading this can identify with the still common attitude in the medical profession, that an MD automatically has more credibility than a DC, IF one only looks at their credentials. There is still a lot of (justified) skepticism toward the chiropractic profession. Chiropractors are in much the same situation, as the old joke goes, that, just like women and blacks, they have to work twice as hard to get half the pay credibility. In some cases it's quite unfair to certain chiropractors, but there are historical reasons for those attitudes. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Toxicology Task Force / Need help adding health effects of household/industrial chemicals
Two questions:
 * 1) What is the status of the Toxicology task force proposal? It seems that the conversation kind of died last November, but it looks like at least a few people were interested. What would we need to do to get that project started?
 * 2) * Nevermind, answered my own question -- I'm creating the project now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I am about to start going through the list of chemicals/health problems listed in CHE Toxicant and Disease Database, Scorecard.org: Chemical Profiles, and other such sources, and adding known health effects for each chemical to the WP article for that chemical. Anyone interested in helping me with this? Know of any other sources I might use? Thanks Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at an example from CHE, I appreciate the categorization by strength of evidence. However, they don't seem to include any information about absolute or relative risk, and that could be misleading to our readers.  For example, something can have very strong evidence to support a link -- but perhaps only one in a thousand people are ever exposed to that level of some uncommon toxin, and only one in a hundred of small group of exposed people ever develop the disease as a result of the exposure... and perhaps it's a common disease, like hypertension.  The result is that you could have a ~99.993% chance that any given case of high blood pressure is not caused by the "strong evidence" toxin.  Simply saying "There is strong evidence that [name of rare thing] causes this disease" -- which  is all this source says -- doesn't begin to communicate the importance of this fact to the reader.
 * Also, I don't think that a laundry list of every probably associated substance is going to help our readers; it might be worth limiting such lists to those with strong evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- as far as Wikipedia articles for certain pathologies, I was only going to include chemicals with strong evidence, and was only using the CHE database as a place to get ideas for chemicals to search for in the literature. On the other hand, as far as chemicals, I don't think it would hurt to have a "laundry list" of health effects, since that list will be much shorter than the list of chemicals suspected to cause a certain illness. Thanks for your comments. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a bunch of work on toxicology related articles in the past. Worked on the more common overdoses.  This would be a good place to start.  Will do more work on it eventually. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent -- looking forward to working with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stupid questions perhaps
A couple of questions arose while reading on MELAS syndrome. Cheers, -- C opper K ettle  16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will eating dairy products increase lactate levels? (I'm sure it won't, just to be safe)
 * How lactate levels could be manipulated by diet?


 * I couldn't find any references to suggest that dairy products can increase lactate level, even in MELAS. Neither could I find any evidence to show that diet has a significant effect on lactate level. The closest article I found was this one, where spoilt milk led to septic shock. The body has a fairly robust homeostatic mechanism to deal with excess lactic acid: lactate dehydrogenase. Lactic acidosis is traditionally caused by impaired oxygen utilization in tissues, either due to impaired oxygen delivery, or impaired uptake into the tissues/mitochondria. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Would someone who has more expertise than I please take a look at List of life-threatening diseases and the talk page discussion? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This could include almost anything from an ingrown toenail to a myocardial infarction. I do not understand how this will be defined. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone might also want to take a look at List of causes of fever and List of causes of unexplained weight loss as well. PDCook (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh Yes without appropriate context these types of pages are not very useful. Infectious diseases would be good enough to summarize much of it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Midazolam
Midazolam is up for good article review. Quite an important benzodiazepine for hospital use and emergency control of seizures. Comments are welcome.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Will have a look as one of my favorite benzos.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirects and the WPMED banner
Should unique redirects for disease synonyms (like Mallorca acne --> Acne aestivalis) have a WPMED banner on the talk page, perhaps with a new "redirect" parameter, as there is already a "category" parameter (see Category talk:Cutaneous conditions for example). I think there may be utility in seeing unique redirects within the scope of a project or task force. If WPMED banners on unique redirect pages is not recommended, perhaps you could share your rational. ---kilbad (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Like most projects, we don't usually bother with such tags. Such tags don't seem to be tracked or useful to the WP:1.0 team -- or to us, since, unlike a stub-class article, there's not much 'improvement' that you can do for a redirect.  In fact, I routinely remove them, because they are almost always leftovers from a merge, and thus contain invalid/outdated information from the pre-merge state.
 * If you decide that it's warranted in any given case, then the tag should be set to  ("NA" means "not an article"; if you don't set this, then the banner may assume it).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be useful to create redirects banners for sourced synonyms that are used within a condition's article and are assigned to a designated category. For example this would differentiate redirects categorized per WP:DERM with a dermatology task force redirect template banner, excluding those created as common misnomers or redirects without the use of difficult to type characters such as ascents or en dashes. Calmer   Waters  07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone make the banner read "redirect" when the class is set to redirect? See Talk:Red_Hawk_(disambiguation) for an example. ---kilbad (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hawk (disambiguation) isn't a redirect: it's a disambiguation page.  Pages like that should normally be set to  .  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, can we still get class=Redirect to read "redirect" when the banner is viewed? ---kilbad (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not showing up, then you could make the request at Template talk:WPMED or at the Meta banner that it relies on -- but what's the point? Basically nobody looks at the talk pages for redirects, and the few who do are highly unlikely to care whether it says "redirect" on it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

&mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I added the class to Template:Class  mask/templatepage that  transcludes onto the Template:WPMED/class page and then shows onto the  banner if "redirect" is typed after class=. There appears to be 221 redirect article talk pages that are currently labeled with this box. I performed a test edit here Talk:Mallorca acne. These edits can be undone if it is decided to not proceed with this idea. Calmer  Waters  10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had to undo your edit to /templatepage. The class mask template is all set up for Redirect-class, it was just a question of enabling it for your project, which has now been done at Template:WPMED/class. (The 221 you saw was probably the number of subcategories of Category:Redirect-Class articles which is not what you were looking for.) So you just need to create the category and you're done. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks MSGJ for both setting up the redirect and taking the time to respond to my inquiry. Calmer   Waters  14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I second the thanks. Also, now that we are going to be using banners on at-least derm synonym redirects, the following page should probably be updated so users can know how/when we are using the banner: WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Assessment.  Also, perhaps someone could create the redirect class categories? ---kilbad (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed that page should be updated and agreed upon before starting what may be close to a thousand redirects banners on our project alone. Where would be the best place to take up discussion? Also, Clicking on this article will have the two categories we need ready (the current redlinked ones). All We need to do is document the main page of the catogry those pages as Kilbad has proposed and how they are best utilized; and as MSGJ said, the rest should fall in line. Calmer   Waters  16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New Toxicology task force
Just wanted to announce the creation of a new Toxicology task force. I'm finishing up some of the last setup steps, and am just waiting for admin assistance to modify the WPMED template. After that, we'll need to create project banners, userbox templates, etc. and start tagging and assessing articles for the project. Looking forward to working with you ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes if you need access to a toxicology textbook I might be able to help out. The new Goldfranks comes in in June 2010  have access to the 2006. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct name
Have a discussion on what should be the correct name for an article. Should it be Dizzy (medicine) or Dizziness? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dizziness, because it's a noun, and without the (medicine) qualifier, unless there's some entirely non-medical use that (1) needs to have a separate article AND (2) is a more important concept than the medical/physical one. Parentheses/pre-disambiguation titles are only chosen when multiple articles with a legitimate claim to the main word exist.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dizziness, I agree - Draeco (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained moves
Recently, all articles regarding the 2009 flu pandemic by continent was moved by Immunize. I don't know if consensus needs it to be moved, but I reverted it before when TouLouse made the same thing. This day, Immunize moved all articles. A closing admin on 2009 flu pandemic in Europe's requested moved (moving back from 2009-2010 name to its 2009 original name) noted that the disease came up by 2009, so there is nothing worthy to call it "2009-2010". Any opinion? (Should somebody voted these to be back in their original names?) Thanks.-- JL 09 <sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?c 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The user has been warned that such bold moves without consensus is not wise. PDCook (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Symptom checker
While trying to find the appropriate categories by symptom (for example:category:difficulty breathing, or category:confusion, or category:pain), I found some web sites which provide symptom checkers. Is a kind editor willing to work on such an article? I would be happy to help out, but this is not my field, and I do not feel good about working solo outside my comfort zone. Thank you, --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'' – they already are and many editors (with more qualifications in the subject than I have) are working to keep it that way. Physchim62 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion: no. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll c&p this part:
 * Ah-huh. Incorrect information about risks of HIV transmission (when researchers sound alarm about HIV complacency ) is comparable to large animals and carpentry. Very smart comparison there...
 * RexxS, we can ignore 3RR in BLP articles if there is an inaccuracy. Maybe we can have the same thing for health related articles. '<font color="Red">Phoenix <font color="Black"> of9  19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My responses here are the same as I made on Jimbo's page:
 * We should be striving to raise the standard of all Wikipedia articles, and medically-related articles are no exception. Raising a standard requires effort from many contributors and we are fortunate that BLP attracts sufficient input to allow us to set extra criteria for the content. To try to prioritise improvements from the point of view of consequences of misuse of information is to look at it from the wrong end. Volunteer contributors will each make their own decisions about where they contribute, and the only way to raise the standard of articles is to get people interested in them. In fact, medically-related articles already benefit from the remarkably active WikiProject Medicine ... I would also remind you of the very high standard of sourcing required for medical articles, as outlined in WP:MEDRS, and the additional criteria for content and style as documented at WP:MOSMED. That these exist is already proof of the willingness of Wikipedians to strive to improve our coverage of medicine.
 * All of us would be better off if we stick to 1RR – if something is wrong with an article, BLP or medical, you can find lots of other people at the WikiProjects who are willing to help you combat obvious vandalism and libel. WP:AIV and WP:BLP/N can deal with more contentious cases. There's really no need to get anywhere near 3R other than when combating a persistent vandal, and WP:RBI is the best solution for that. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I had in mind the outright banning of primary sources from medical articles. I cannot imagine a circumstance when it would be okay for an article to present evidence supported only by primary sources. And if they were banned this type of time-wasting would be avoided, and there would be no opening for synthesis. Anthony (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The existing guidelines on OR are pretty clear. WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED are good too. I'm against banning any type of verified reliable source based on any arbitrary criteria like primary/secondary. Most articles that present research have an introduction and discussion section that are essentially secondary source information. Maybe Anthony could give some examples of what kind of source is unacceptable?


 * On the other hand, BLP has a policy of removing contentious unsourced information that I think should also be used for medical articles due to liability purposes. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
 * Using primary sources is appropriate in some cases. Primary sources can provide details (what's interesting to our readers is not always what's interesting to a professional audience), show diversity of opinions on disputed points, and provide useful examples.  We may not have much choice in some cases:  For rare conditions, the overwhelming majority of high-quality sources may be primary sources.  There are thousands of rare diseases, which means (eventually) thousands of articles about rare diseases.  Our readers are not best served by banning as much as 90% of what's been published about exceedingly rare diseases like ODDD (243 cases reported, worldwide, ever).
 * Also, while inappropriate recentism is deplorable, the academic press is slow. New information that's getting an enormous amount of media attention shouldn't be suppressed for a year while we wait for someone to write a proper a review paper.  We're usually better off citing peer-reviewed medical sources, even if they're primary sources, than relying on newspaper articles about them, even if the newspaper article is a secondary source.
 * There are, in short, good reasons to use primary sources -- with due care, and in strict moderation -- and our articles would frequently be worse if we issued a one-size-fits-all blanket ban on primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Standards will not be raised by taking any kind of decision here, standards will only be as high as our work. There are thousands of poorly written med articles, and the solution is not to say that they should be better; but to improve them.--Garrondo (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Stillwaterising, that the introductions in some primary research papers provide useful independent summaries of a field, and have no problem seeing them used in an article, but the paper's results, and the author's interpretation of them should wait for an independent review. As for examples of sources I find unacceptable, pick anything that's not a peer-reviewed independent summary, a systematic review or a recent university-level textbook. I don't trust myself, let alone you, to cherry pick primary research. (No reflection on you, by the way. I have no idea who you are, but that's the point.) And I like the idea of erasing all poorly sourced assertions in medical articles. But it looks like I'm alone here, so I bow to the wisdom of the majority. Anthony (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that we all agree that articles should ideally be based primarily on secondary sources of exactly the kind you name, and that secondary sources should be relied upon whenever possible (which, for common conditions like hypertension, is "always"). It's just that primary sources have their place, too (e.g., filling in a minor detail).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Where Do I Find Free Access to Publications?
Does anybody know how to get free access to research articles through ScienceDirect or other services? The only two things I can think of are either to find a terminal in a university library with an online subscription or ask with them directly to give out a complimentary subscription as a Wikipedia editor. Any thoughts? - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I use Pubmed. I prefer to search for free full-text articles. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My university, in Western Australia, offers "community membership" which allows access to all it's subscribed journals, for a not-very-big fee. Anthony (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip Anthony, do you have a link? Free sources are preferred of course, however I can't count the number of times this week I've ran into an article I really needed that had a hefty price tag. I can't in conscious use an abstract as a source without reading the whole paper. Nor can I afford to pay more than $30-$50/month for a subscription. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the biggest libraries in North America is in your hometown. Why don't you call them and ask what kind of resources are available to the general public?  The phone number for the Life Sciences library seems to be (512) 495-4630.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the same problem, but I use Pubmed too. If we make requests here can you provide us with full text articles?? <font color="005F4C">M <font color="0134B1">aen <font color="005F4C">K. <font color="005F4C">A. <font color="0134B1">Talk 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only available to people who live in the neighbourhood. But maybe your locals university does the same. Anthony (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you What, I called them up. I seems like I can register for guest access to all resources. Webpage here. I guess I can take a small number of requests for articles from other editors. They said that some can be printed, others have a limit on the numbers of pages that can be printed and most can be emailed from the library. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)