Edit with VisualEditor

I am interested to write amyloid arthropathy in the wikipage amyloidosis. Came across this reference https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29762107/ but cannot find a full text version online. Any help is very much appreciated. I requested on Resource exchange but no reply in a few days. Thank you.Cerevisae (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances, which seems to be a decent journal, but I don't remember anyone mentioning it before. A student, User:Hpot90, cited a different article from that journal, so perhaps it's available from some university libraries? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your reply but I don't have any access to university libraries. Cerevisae (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I could not be more helpful here. JenOttawa (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. I've got access to three universities' libraries but none granted access to this article. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this Radiopaedia page might be helpful [1] --Iztwoz (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Johann Lahodny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Folks here may remember back in May, the issue of this article, raised by Headbomb. see

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 136#Johann Lahodny

I "solved" this by redirecting to Ozone therapy, but now Euphonie, the article's creator, has restored it to its former state. So the issue is back. While the article is obviously highly problematic as is, I wonder whether the subject is even sufficiently notable for an article at all. (I am also alerting WP:FT/N as there are fringe issues in play). Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexbrn. Thank you for your message.

Ozonotherapy, whose protocol Lahodny has modified, is in fact only part of his professional activity. He is better known as a gynecologist and obstetrician specialized in obstetric oncology as well as an inventor and designer of several restorative surgical interventions targeting gynecological pathologies more specifically related to the female reproductive system—including urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

I understand the caution and reservations with respect to most alternative medicines.

For the record, I would like to make one thing clear: I myself am suspicious and reticent about many unconventional therapies, although I remain “open-mindedly” sceptical. In fact, I'm mostly interested in them from a sociological point of view.

Nevertheless, sometimes promising avenues are likely to emerge that could potentially bring together certain complementary methods. For example, a series of clinical studies in the USA would seem to show, against all expectations, that intensive targeted chemotherapy coupled with fasting under medical supervision would potentially allow the whole treatment not only to be significantly more effective in the curative eradication of certain tumors, but could even partially protect the patient against a certain number of side effects. It should be noted that this university study has even been officially funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The advantage being that this approach would even allow for increased doses of medication while minimizing the risks. The Franco-German channel Arte reported this study (in French) and can be consulted online via → this dedicated link (from 40:04) with an interview of Valter D. Longo.

This being said, I am quite open to reformulating the text in such a way as to make the content as neutral and compatible as possible with current Wikipedian requirements. Any advice and suggestions for improvement in this regard are welcome.

I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, — euphonie ^breviary 08:18, 08:30, 09:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Before getting to the content, Euphonie, could you please clarify: do you have any WP:COI for this subject? Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I have absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever with the subject matter of this article. And the fact that you are a scientist yourself is of particular interest to me, as your expertise in the medical field would certainly allow for a substantial improvement of this textual content with regard to current requirements. Thank you for your help. Kind regards, — Euphonie (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. I am not a scientist (not that it's important). The problem with the article is that is has almost no suitable sourcing (where it is sourced) and is written in a terrible WP:PROMOtional way, making grand fringe claims. Whether it should be deleted or stubbified I'm not sure - and wait to hear the opinion of other medical editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I assume that you are implicitly referring, among other themes, to the alleged invigoration of stem cells that this specific process would induce. I have tried to express as much as possible what all of the sources currently available seem to emphasize. It is true that, unless I am mistaken, double-blind university clinical studies, including a placebo group, are still lacking. So I wrote the article with the means at hand. Therefore, any improvement, completion and neutralization of the content would be gratefully received. Yours sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 09:34, 09:36, 10:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost everything about the article really. I mean: "tachyonic field therapy" – that sounds like something out of Star Trek, or a hoax! Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed as much of the promotional blurb and unsubstantiated narrative as I could, but the article is very poor. Articles about proponents of fringe medical practices can't be written as if those practices were effective and can't ignore the real issues of safety surrounding many of them. I've proposed deletion as non-notable and I'll take it to AfD if that is challenged. On the meantime, there remains the usual problem that when sourcing is weak, the editor/promoter add multiple poor sources everywhere in a believe that lots of poor sources add up to a good one. They don't. More eyes would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help as well as your contribution to the improvement and neutralization of the article.

I added the following sources:

Robert Jay Rowen, MD (July–August 2018). "Ozone therapy as a primary and sole treatment for acute bacterial infection: case report". Med Gas Res. 8 (3): 121–124. doi:10.4103/2045-9912.241078. PMC 6178636. PMID 30319768. Johann Lahodny, MD of Austria, has furthered the hyperbaric method (personal instruction) by repeating this treatment for 10 passes of 200 mL of blood with 200 mL of oxygen ozone gas at 70 μg/ml for a total delivery of ozone of 140,000 μg in one sitting.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Robert Jay Rowen, MD (July 3, 2018). "Ozone therapy in conjunction with oral antibiotics as a successful primary and sole treatment for chronic septic prosthetic joint: review and case report". Med Gas Res. 8 (2): 67–71. doi:10.4103/2045-9912.235139. PMC 6070838. PMID 30112169. Austrian physician Johann Lahodny, MD pioneered a higher dose method and termed it "ozone high dose therapy" or "OHT". The treatment is repeated 9 more times for a total of 10 "passes" and delivery of 140,000 μg ozone. OHT is commonly known as "10 pass" in the USA.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Sincerely yours, — euphonie ^breviary 19:26, 20:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them. Case reports are primary studies and we don't use primary studies to made biomedical claims. WP:MEDRS is quite clear about that. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thank you for that information and for the additional link to WP:MEDRS that I thoroughly read with much interest. You are right. As a matter of fact, I was not aware (yet) that “case reports are primary studies”. I had ingeniously thought that → the two references above were acceptable secondary sources, since these articles had been published in a medical journal. That’s why, in the same vein, I had tried to neutralize and shorten as much as possible the section devoted to the OHT by reducing it to the strict informative purpose, cf. diff → 967214351.

This said, it is true that, → as described above, a series of double-blind clinical studies (with a placebo group) is still missing to allow the conclusion to be drawn about the alleged reliability—or, a contrario, the possible inefficiency—of this innovative approach which aims to sustain and assist other more conventional cures.

In this regard, a few years ago, I read a medical article on the use of OHT in combination with intensive chemotherapy in treating certain tumors. The content highlighted a potential synergistic benefit, arguing that OHT would improve the overall effectiveness of the treatment by allowing increased doses of chemotherapy while significantly reducing the risk of side effects. Unfortunately, I can no longer find this document. However, as far as I can remember, it was also a “case report” (written by a team of oncologists). Thus, according to the WP:MEDRS, this would still not be acceptable enough to allow its implementation under the current wording.

Thank you for your kind and valuable cooperation, your diligent assistance and your sound advice.

Kind regards, — euphonie ^breviary 23:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: your advice, help and guidance have enabled me to become more acquainted with the criteria which are specifically related to WP:MEDRS. I thank you for this cultural experience which allowed me to better scrutinize the content of several newly updated regulatory requirements. As a result, after careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that the proposal previously put forward by Alexbrn was eventually the most appropriate for the situation, as shown by diff → 958403287. I have therefore reinstated it. Of course, it may still become subsequently possible to transform this redirection into a possible newly updated article to be completed later, should a randomized clinical study occur in double-blind conditions with respect to 0HT. If so, this would thus grant an increased pragmatic reliability to the former textual content, providing all legitimaly expected scientific evidence and guarantees. Yours sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 12:28, 12:44, 13:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Statements like "he has been focusing since 2010 on an innovative form of ozone therapy called OHT—“Ozonhochdosistherapie”" and "commonly known as “10 pass” in the USA" do not constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and therefore MEDRS does not apply. I mention this merely for its possible long-term value; I think that the outcome here (redirecting the whole thing) is appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Calling OHT "an innovative form of ozone therapy" is medical content and therefore WP:MEDRS ("This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine." does apply. In particular, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" is good guidance. The full sentence was "Self-funding his own work on the therapeutic effects of medical ozone with respect to its implications and related impacts on mitochondria and stem cells, he has been focusing on an innovative form of ozone therapy that he is still gradually developing and perfecting since 2010." If you don't see the first part of that sentence as making problematical claims, and the whole sentence as promotional, I'd like to see where you set the bar.

Moreover, how does redirecting Johann Lahodny to Ozone therapy represent an appropriate outcome when Lahodny is not mentioned once in the latter article? --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The targeted sentence you mention has been revoked, thus helping to solve the issue you raised, cf. diff → 967215178.

You are right. Lahodny is currently not mentioned in the section relating to ozone therapy. What about adding it to the article?

Furthermore, I would even suggest that the following list could be included:

• USA: Dr. Frank Shallenberger → PMC 4644302 → PDF, Dr. Robert Jay Rowen → doi:10.4314/ajid.v10i1.10 → PDF
• Italy: Dr. Vincenzo Simonetti, Dr. Marianno Franzini → PMID 25280029 → PDF → PMC 5674660 → doi:10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610962 → PDF
• Austria: Dr. Johann Lahodny [2] [3]
• Germany: Dr. Renate Viebahn-Hänsler
• Cuba: Dr. Silvia Menéndez-Cepero
• Etc.

Ozonotherapy has been implemented all over Cuba for more than 50 years, including in hospital settings. The same goes for Italy and Greece where, unless I am mistaken, this approach is also officially recognized and validated by the Ministry of Health.

This technique is also commonly applied in Germany, notably by many Heilpraktiker.

On the other hand, I would also like to point out that each national school tends to favor a different approach... and sometimes even a somewhat contradictory one.

• For example, the German technique mainly uses minimal quantities with restricted dosages.
• Lahodny, through Ozonhochdosistherapie or OHT, advocates the opposite: he uses massive injections and high dosages.
• In Cuba, rectal insufflation prevails.
• Several dedicated medical associations exist in Italy. Their respective messages sometimes contradict each other on certain points as well.

According to what most practitioners say, this technique—provided that it is applied according to a rigorous protocol by an experienced and duly trained physician, using only medical grade certified equipment—would allegedly be free of undesirable side effects as well as having only few contraindications among which are glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (in Italian: “favismo”), severe hyperthyroidism, epilepsy and pregnancy.

Nota bene: I would like to expressly state that I am writing all the above in the conditional tense because I am the first to admit that these are claims that are still not sufficiently substantiated at the scientific level. Randomized, double-blind clinical studies are still sorely lacking to confirm or disprove the above. This is why, since I became aware of WP:MEDRS, I no longer dare to add anything in an article on en.wp dealing with unconventional medicine, for fear of being symbolically “stoned” in case the introduction of a word, semantic unit or unusual expression could potentially constitute an accidental infringement with respect to the draconian requirements that are explicitly stipulated for this purpose.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 00:54, 01:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, are you objecting to his novel form of Ozone therapy being called 'innovative', or are you objecting to ozone therapy being called "therapy"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone therapy is an alternative medical treatment that introduces ozone or ozonides to the body. In April 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibited all medical uses of ozone, "In any medical condition for which there is no proof of safety and effectiveness", stating "Ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy. In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals." Ozone therapy has been sold as an unproven treatment for various illnesses, including cancer. This has been characterized as "pure quackery". - Ozone therapy

I apologise for being unclear. I'm objecting to OHT being called therapy. Although now you mention it, WP:PEACOCK also applies. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At that same period, a government notice from the Ministry of Health in Italy, dated 2 January 2003, stated the following (and I quote):

“… therapeutic indication in which ozone oxygen therapy can be used, experimentally and in ways identified by the CSS, is lumbar disc herniation with intradiscal injection. The Ministry also reiterates that the practice of ozone oxygen therapy can only be carried out in accredited public or private hospital.” → [4] → [5]

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 21:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full press release:

The Minister of Health Girolamo Sirchia has ordered the sending to the Regional Health Departments and to the Carabinieri Command of the Nas of a circular containing the indications to the local health and hospital companies on the problem relating to the use of oxygen ozone therapy. The circular first of all reminds that this therapy has never been authorized for aesthetic purposes and that the entire problem connected with the use of oxygen ozone therapy has been repeatedly addressed by the Superior Health Council. The conclusion reached is that the only therapeutic indication in which oxygen ozone therapy can be used, experimentally and in ways identified by the CSS, is the lumbar disc herniation with intradiscal injection. The Ministry also reiterates that the practice of oxygen ozone therapy can only be carried out in accredited public or private hospitals. With this circular and thanks to the intense activity of the Carabinieri of the Nas who have checked the beauty centers throughout the national territory, Minister Sirchia intends to keep high attention on the safety of some therapies that, too often, are used improperly and by subjects without specific competence, putting at risk the health of unsuspecting citizens.

So the Italian Minister of Health was concerned in 2003 about the unauthorised use of ozone and makes the point that the only use allowed was for one specific procedure for experimental purposes. Is there anything there of significance to either of the two articles? --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“So the Italian Minister of Health was concerned in 2003 about the unauthorised use of ozone” “for aesthetic purposes” “and makes the point that the only use allowed was for one specific procedure for experimental purposes” which refer to “lumbar disc herniation with intradiscal injection” to be only “carried out in accredited public or private hospitals”.

This was a legitimate government warning, all the more justified since any ozone injection must be carried out according to a precise protocol which should imperatively be performed by doctors who are highly qualified and specialised in this method, or even, ideally, in a hospital institution duly trained in this procedure, as previously describeb in → my former message above.

The above-mentioned government notice was precisely aimed at avoiding any fraudulent abuse, charlatanism of the “sorcerer's apprentice” type or, even more problematic, possible ill-considered uses that could potentially endanger the patient's health.

A few years later, in 2006, the Istituto Superiore di Sanità issued an additional vademecum, the content of which can be consulted on the ISS website via → this PDF link.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 03:30, 04:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to refer to Ozone therapy by its acknowledged name sort of puts us in a bind with respect to WP:V. We do usually call things by their names. I don't share the belief that the average person would read "ozone therapy" and interpret it as "ozone that's proven to really work" (I think "therapy" sounds like talk therapy to most people), but even if I did, we can't avoid the name, and using the name doesn't turn the sentence into a biomedical claim of efficacy.

Separately, I wonder whether the first sentence of that article would really hold up under scrutiny. It appears that this is indeed widely marketed by quacks, but also that there is some conventional, evidence-based research going on. Consider this review in a top-quartile medical journal. Consider this review in a top-third medical journal. This review is from a middle-of-the-pack journal. Those don't look like altmed to me. Depending upon exactly what the sources actually say, that might need to be re-written, maybe to something like "frequently promoted by altmed sellers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to first agree on what we mean by a "review", because this paper looks awfully like a report on a single case study to me. --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that for PMID 32636631, the journal is listed at WP:CRAPWATCH (Dove Press, not MEDLINE indexed). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Review and case study" is typical for rare diseases. For very rare conditions, there are no reviews that don't include a case study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although Complex regional pain syndrome may be uncommon, I don't accept that it qualifies as a rare disease. Our article has 76 sources and Google Scholar shows 41,300 hits for the phrase. I don't have a problem with reviews that include a case study; I do object to a paper consisting solely of a case study masquerading as a "review". More pertinently, I don't see that we should accept a "Review and case study" of a single patient as meeting our standards for a reliable medical source to support a claim of efficacy. Try writing "Ozone therapy is effective in treating CRPS. in Complex regional pain syndrome #Treatment sourced to your "Review and case study" and see how long it lasts. --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the second author mentioned in the aforesaid study, in this case H. R., is a strong supporter and promoter of an alternative method—DIV (Direct Intravenous Injection)— which is not recognized by the various international bodies using ozone in their practice because of the supposed risks of embolism and other induced problematic issues that, at least hypothetically speaking, could potentially occur.

In this regard, the American Academy of Ozonotherapy (AAO) has published →‎ a formal warning to all its members on its website.

As things stand, the only techniques officially in force and recognised as being free of side effects—on the sine qua non condition that they are performed by qualified practitioners (not sorcerer’s apprentices) who are duly accredited and exhaustively trained in this procedure by using certified equipments connected to a medical oxygen tank and, above all, who remain scrupulously aware of the appropriate dosages and posology which refer to each anamnesis—are strictly and exclusively limited to the following applications:

1. Minor ozonated autohemotherapy
2. Major ozonated autohemotherapy
   [in French : grande autohémothérapie — in German: Eigenbluttherapie — in English: Major Autohemotherapy or O3 AHT (MAT)]
3. Rectal insufflation
4. Vaginal insufflation
5. Bladder insufflation → PDF
6. Ear insufflation
7. Subcutaneous/transcutaneous injections → PMC 3312702
8. Intradiscal, intramuscular, paravertebral injections → doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a3c18d
9. Intra-articular injections → PMC 5994782 possibly combined with simultaneous minor ozonated autohemotherapy → doi:10.4081/ozone.2019.8697 → PDF
10. Ozonated saline → PMID 25586644
11. Ozonated water → PMC 3539485
12. Ozonated oil

In addition, a formal warning has also been issued in Italy in relation to a parallel approach, called “ozono senza aghi” (ozone without needles), which the SIOOT (Società Scientifica Italiana di Ossigeno-Ozono Terapia) reported on its website as being →‎ “una vera bufala, priva di ogni fondamento scientifico”, id est “a real hoax with no scientific basis whatsoever”.

Sincerely,

— euphonie ^breviary
01:12, 02:06, 02:08, 02,16, 03:18, 05:52, 15 July 2020[reply]
07:28, 18 July 2020 — 11:56, 17:44, 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in the summary that says (and I quote): “This has been characterized as “pure quackery” seems partially incomplete and oriented to me. In my opinion, mainly in order to respect an optimal neutrality, this textual segment should at least be completed by the author's credit to which it implicitly refers. For example, among other possible alternative formulations:

According to David H. Gorski, ozonotherapy, like most unconventional pseudomedicine, is “pure quackery”.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 04:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the above, I fully agree with WhatamIdoing in the sense that the use of the word “therapy” is not a guarantee of proven efficacy and even less a guarantee of assured healing.

The same is true for any form of chemotherapy, which sometimes proves conclusive, relieves and, ideally, cures... but, alas, can also fail in some cases for often mysterious reasons that are not always easy to identify.

Moreover, the fact that any unconventional curative approach is based on precepts that have not yet been sufficiently endorsed by higher authorities does not necessarily mean that there is no therapeutic potential.

For example, it is now commonly accepted that certain nosocomial infections with the dreaded bacterium called Clostridium difficile are sometimes resistant to all known antibiotics. However, at The Centre for Digestive Diseases in Sydney, a single fecal microbiota transplant (not FDA approved) might sometimes be enough to cure the patient in record time, whereas he/she has been suffering immoderately for years → PMID 23869970 → TV report in French.

The word therapy does not imply “we will heal you for sure”, but rather “we will try to help you as best we can to attempt to get you out of this rough patch”.

In the case of ozone, even if one agrees or is fervently opposed to its use other than exclusively aimed for water disinfection, the fact remains that the semantic unit “ozone therapy” (or “ozonotherapy”) prevails in all languages: ozonoterapia, ononothérapie, Ozontherapie, etc.

As → written above, the introductory sentence in this article would almost allusively suggest that a global consensus would currently stigmatize this use as a kind of unanimously condemned “hogwash”.

However, the reality is a bit different.

Admittedly, some renowned authors, including Dr. David Gorski, do indeed consider most curative approaches labelled homeopathy and other related streams of thought as a form of charlatanism. He is assuredly right in a certain amount of instances where the adjectives “natural”, “biological”, “organic”, “quantic”, “futuristic” and other synonyms (alas, even with ozone in a few rare cases of “black sheeps”) are from time to time (thankfully, not always) nothing more than false promises designed to abuse the despair of patients. Those, no longer knowing to which saint to devote themselves, could easily fall into the insidious trap set by a few opportunistic swindlers. These would make the victims believe unrealistic and abusive promises, whereas the primary intention would be to plunder their assets, even if it means shamelessly emptying their bank accounts... while no convincing curative effect would ever occur in the end. Sometimes it is even much worse when, instead of any hoped relief, occurs, as a cynical added bonus, a dramatic worsening of the state of health that otherwise diligent protocolary care could have helped to prevent and avoid.

Even if there are unfortunately regrettable exceptions with certain alleged physicians who, having sniffed out the right vein, allow themselves to charge exorbitant or even downright scandalous fees, there are also thousands of other doctors throughout the world who resort to “ozonotherapy” in a probing, honest, conscientious manner and primarily driven by the fervent Hippocratic oath which resolutely advocates the following vow: Primum, non nocere.

In Italy, hundreds of doctors are duly trained in this approach. These practitioners apply the reasonable and official rates in force. A complete session lasts about an hour to an hour and a half. It supposedly implies in most cases a session of MAT (Major Autohemotherapy), rectal insufflation, several subcutaneous, intradiscal and/or interarticular injections, the drinking of ozonated water and, sometimes the washing of the eyes and nose with this same liquid. The whole session generally costs between 60 and 120 euros. In some cases, this amount is even covered by indigenous (or open-minded private international) health insurances. This price scale cannot therefore be described as truly abusive.

Moreover, as → mentioned here, ozone for curative use has already been in full force for several decades in Cuba in most private and public hospitals. There, some of this type of care is even sometimes provided free of charge and on a voluntary basis.

Germany, for its part, has granted the authorization of this practice to doctors, clinics, hospitals and Heilpraktiker.

Sincerely, — Euphonie (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting a bit off-topic, but limited, regional acceptance of a therapy is a hallmark of quackery (something I believe Ben Goldacre writes about elsewhere). If something actually worked, it would be accepted and used everywhere. Science is not regional. Some very dubious things still go in in Germany because of its Heilpraktiker hangover. In any case, since in RS ozone therapy has been characterized as quackery, Wikipedia is quite right to relay that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If something actually works, it will eventually be accepted almost everywhere. One might notice, for example, that the US and France have very different, but equally scientific, approaches to treating ADHD in children. Or that Japan bans drugs that are widely used in the rest of the world.

More relevantly, this is a multi-axis situation. The opposite of alternative is conventional – not "scientific" or "evidence-based". There are all sorts of purely conventional medical practices that turned out to be very bad ideas. We could have a whole article about the 100% conventional medicine stupidity of trying to cure breast cancer with bone marrow transplants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn

I think that we are at the heart of the problem.

Let me quote you:

“In any case, since in RS ozone therapy has been characterized as quackery, Wikipedia is quite right to relay that.”

Of course, I totally agree. WP definitely needs to relay this information. Have I ever written anything to the contrary? Not that I know of.

More specifically, → as I mentioned earlier, it should also be mentioned that the word “quackery” is the personal opinion expressed by David Gorski, especially if his “diagnosis” is implemented in the lead section. Otherwise, this introductory information would almost look like an attempt to “empoisonner le puits” as expressed by a French semantic unit (sorry, I couldn't find any equivalent in English), especially if Gorski’s name disappears behind a vague and allusive “It has been said”.

Thus, even if you have revoked—in my opinion a bit hastily—the “quotation needed” templates as well as other interpolations requiring additional references, the problem remains.

Moreover, ozone therapy is officially accepted in many countries: Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Greece, Cuba, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, etc. Thus, the use of the word “regional” (see your message above) seems a bit reductive, given that this unconventional technique refers to far more than just a few “departments”. Thus, “regional” becomes rather “continental”.

Specifically, reliable sources that condemn ozone must legitimately coexist with those that would take a more nuanced position. The only requirement is that all references included must be written by respectable and authoritative authors in their field.

This is obviously the case with David Gorski... but he is not the only one.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 07:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are falling into the WP:GEVAL trap. Wikipedia does not "balance" knowledge in this way, and has a requirement in fact to call out pseudoscientific/fringe ideas as being so with especial prominence. As to quackery, it is not just Gorski's view but rather a fact that he happens to mention; quackery is, by definition, charging money for unproven/ineffective treatments so this is obvious. Just to be clear: Ozone therapy does not cure cancer or HIV/AIDS, which is how it has been marketed. Are you really contending that selling ozone therapy for large sums of money as a cancer cure is not quackery? Checking QuackWatch I notice they say:

Autohemotherapy proponents refer to the widespread use of this treatment in Germany, implying that it is sanctioned by the German medical establishment. Dr. Barbara Burkhard of the Medical Office of Patients Insurance-Bavaria (Munich, Germany) writes, “Ozone therapy is not approved by the medical establishment in our country. [...]"

[6]

Per WP:ASSERT we don't attribute statements of fact because that it has the non-neutral effect of making them seem like "just" a view. If you want we could simply assert that ozone therapy is the basis of a form of quackery, rather than the softer "has been considered" we currently use. Either would work in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote you:

“Ozone therapy does not cure cancer or HIV/AIDS.”

I agree.

“Are you really contending that selling ozone therapy for large sums of money as a cancer cure is not quackery.”

Of course not. Should the case arise, this would definitely be a quackery. I agree with you all the more as this is → exactly what my previous message above is about.

This said, breach of trust, unfortunately, might potentially arise everywhere, sometimes even in conventional medicine.

Cancer can sometimes be cured with conventional medicine, sometimes it cannot. Surgery can also help, sometimes it is not enough. All those treatments are extremely expensive, especially considering immunotherapy which is prohibitively expensive and not always successful..

Something needs to be clarified:

Most of the international organizations that oversee the use of ozone therapy give no credit or legitimacy to ozone as a cancer treatment. These same international bodies even vehemently condemn any reference that arbitrarily conveys what would clearly be considered false hope in this field.

Furthermore, if you re-read → one of my previous message, you will see that there are plenty of honest ozonotherapists doctors around the world who are not crooks, who are sincerely devoted to using the ozone procedure with integrity and probity, in the sole hope of helping their patients in their distress. Last but not least, they charge moderate and reasonable fees, under the strict supervision of local medical associations dedicated to ozone research.

The article dated 2001 that you provided me with the link to is interesting. I didn't know it yet. Thank you for having allowed me to discover its content.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 10:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asserting, without evidence, there is some kind of legitimacy to the sale of this "therapy" but I'm not seeing any sources for that; I'm seeing exactly the opposite. We cannot know the intent of the people selling this, whether it's greed or ignorance, or a mixture of the two, but some trivial googling shows that in the real world, "ozone therapy" is being actively sold as a cancer/AIDS treatment with a load of pseudoscientific marketing. Some examples:

• From Latvia: "The benefits of ozone therapy for the treatment of cancer include: a proven boost of the immune system; halting the growth of bacteria, fungi, parasites; stimulating oxygen metabolism; reducing the amount of inflammation in the body." [7]
• From Mexico: "Transdermal application of ozone combined with hyper thermic in the steam cabinet is the treatment of choice for most cancers (except brain cancer, which can be treated with ozone insufflation in the ear at 1/32 l/m)."[8]
• From Italy: "Ozone has been used successfully around the world as integrative method for over 80 years to treat: Pain, Infections, AIDS, Diabetes, Stroke, Depression, Chronic Fatigue, Lupus, Fibromyalgia."[9]
• From South Africa "Ozone has cured AIDS in over 300 cases."[10]

In this country (the UK) people making such claims about cancer would be guilty of a criminal offence. So far as I can see, this is (as our good sources say) about the rankest quackery imaginable, typically party of the quackery smörgåsbord that is naturopathy. Alexbrn (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I respect your position, your restraint, your reserve and your praiseworthy concern for prudence in the face of this approach which, indeed, has not yet been sufficiently endorsed by irrefutable clinical studies.

I agree with you that the statements contained in the hyperlinks you mentioned would probably be liable to disciplinary or even criminal sanctions if they were issued in the United Kingdom.

One question: you added in the introductory summary (and I quote): “The therapy can cause serious adverse effects, including death.” Then you linked the reference PMID 22957409 with that segment. However, its page only displays an abstract where there is nothing in the text that could refer to ozone. I finally managed to access the entire publication via → this alternative link. It says (and I quote): “Serious adverse effects and at least five fatalities associated with oxygen therapies have been reported”. However, link number → 26, which would allow one to read more details about such a weighty statement, has apparently become invalid.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further details → here.

break

I think your referring to ozone therapy as something that has "not yet been sufficiently endorsed by irrefutable clinical studies" is so economical with the truth as to be WP:PROFRINGE, especially that "yet". This is a known, established quackery that is actively being used to defraud and harm vulnerable people, as our good sources tell us. As to the Cassileth citation, this is how citations are done on Wikipedia – whether readers will be able to progress beyond the abstract depends on many factors. The cited source's own cited web-based primary sources may well have disappeared (as sometimes happens), but this is not a problem since we are bound to respect good-quality secondary sources. If we could get updated figures on how many people these quacks are killing, that would be better to report. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t lend me intentions that aren’t mine and don't make such hasty and arbitrary deductions about me. You are completely wrong. I make absolutely no claim to the alleged efficacy or possible ineffectiveness of this therapeutic procedure. I am merely expressing what a number of a priori reliable sources, since they are written by professional doctors, potentially suggest in their writings and in the publication of their results. That’s all. Nothing more.

Moreover, this approach has indeed not yet been sufficiently deciphered in the form of randomized double-blind studies to be either endorsed or officially invalidated as null and void. Please reread → one of my previous interventions above as well as → this one and → this one instead of allusively lending me WP:PROFRINGE propensities which are absolutely not mine, quite the contrary.

As far as I know, the practice of ozonotherapy has had only one and only accidental death in its history... and even then, it was due to a highly contested practice—the DIV—whose application has always been severely reproved and condemned by all international associative ozonotherapeutic bodies, → as described in detail in the correlated message above, because of the risks of embolism that could occur.

More recently, a side-effect would also have occurred with a booed therapist who, acting as a free electron, not only practices DIV but also promotes it.

As a reminder: → WP:V

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If is also a fringe gambit to suppose that a therapy being used needs to "officially invalidated" before Wikipedia says so, first because this is a reversed burden of evidence and secondly because it is nearly always logically impossible to "disprove" therapeutic effectiveness. The default assumption has to be that it does not work. But we do positively know some things about the therapy: it's sold for money with fucking evil marketing BS; it's illegal in some jurisdictions; it harms and kills people (and more than you claim). That's probably pretty much all that Wikipedia can say on the topic, in a neutral article. (BTW, I looked up your Shallenberger guy - aka "Dr. Ozone" - who it seems is a luminary in the field. It's not pretty.[11]) Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Euphonie: You are going to have to accept that the presence or absence of "randomized double-blind studies" is irrelevant to a medical article in Wikipedia, which demands secondary sources. I find your repeated posting of the same pro-fringe material tendentious, and it's time you dropped the stick. --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify an issue: if really at least 5 people have really and directely died as a result of this therapy, it would be perfectly legitimate to include this unfortunate aspect of things. However, such an accusation is serious enough to be at least matched by concrete and absolutely focused sources that leave absolutely no doubt or possibility of misinterpretation. These sources must not only be clear, complete, irrefutable but also not subject to possible misunderstanding or imprecision. The problem is that the sentence in the linked reference does not indicate whether these deaths were specifically due to ozone therapy, oxygen therapy (which is something different) or, maybe, other unconventional alternative approaches that are also disputed. Moreover, if dramatic side effects specifically attributable to ozone therapy have been identified, they should of course also be reported, with crystal-clear sources. I have only one concern: verifiability, especially when a legal dimension is at stake and a particularly meaningful imputation has to be made publicly. Once this has been achieved, I immediately bow down with respect and deference. Therefore, if you manage to find additional sources that can scrupulously confirm in extenso the entirety of the foregoing, it goes without saying that you have my anticipated grateful blessing.

Independently of the few questions mentioned above, I find that you are doing a remarkable job of improving and completing this article and I would like to congratulate you on this.

Please, kindly note that this is my last message in this section which has indeed taken up a lot of time and attention from all of us. Thank you for your contradictory arguments, which have caught my full attention. Even if we did not necessarily manage to agree on all points, I thank you for the quality of your enlightened answers.

Have a great day and good bye. Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update

@WhatamIdoing — RexxS — Alexbrn:

Hello.

Following the interesting information that came out of → our previous dialogues, I went to take a look at the French version of the article (of which I am not the creator). As its state was still a bit embryonic, I started trying to rework it and complete its structure. So I introduced the perceptions expressed by Gorski and Green in an appropriate “zetetic” section. I did the same as what concern the “Risks and Precautions” as well as “Indications, Dosages and Contraindications”. I still have to work quite a bit on the different legislations in force, in view of the international case law which varies considerably from one country and continent to another.

I have also been checking the content of the statement made by Burkhard, in relation to autologous blood, reported by Saul Green, in his article originally published in 1997 in the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. However, the author, in order to source this assertion, mentioned, via reference 58 (and I quote): “Burkhard, B. Personal communication to S. Green, 5/23/1995” [12]. It may have been so that German health insurances had not been concerned at that time, i.e. 25 years ago. However, consultation of the German website linked to current health insurances seems to suggest that, nowadays, at least 8 health insurance companies accept to reimburse this type of “treatment”: [13].

As for the alleged deaths which (potentially) would—specifically and exclusively (?)—be attributable to ozone therapy, I have not yet managed to find sufficiently precise and irrefutable sources to dare to add this type of insert. The reason for my principled caution is not only based on WP:V but also and above all on the fact that my criminal liability could potentially be engaged in case of missteps, as it has already happened for several European contributors who have been taken to court (one of them even had to pay 25’000 euros in damages) for similar reasons: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] among others.

Thus, should this “lethal” information appear in French, → as mentioned in my previous message, I absolutely must be able to consolidate and back it up with granite and 100% unassailable sources. I may have a still unconfirmed lead in relation to a reliable reference that would report a hypothetical death that might have possibly occurred during an ozonotherapy session some 20 years ago. The main interest of this medical source would lie in the fact that this unfortunate event would → not in this case be related to DIV (a practice that is disputed and even prohibited by most professional medical associations of ozonotherapists). However, access to the full article is subject to a charge. I managed to get part of the textual content. I am currently working on decrypting it.

Sincerely,

— euphonie ^breviary
08:20, 08:24, 18:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple good sources referring to multiple deaths. Not sure why there's a problem with that? Just relay what those sources say, that is what we are meant to do here. What is specific to French Wikipedia is irrelevant here. If you want to follow-up on the misinformation about German insurance, maybe start here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for providing me this informative hyperlink which I read carefully.

Moreover, here is the aforesaid reference to an autopsy relating to a possible accidental death that could be associated with the practise of the so-called autologous ozonated blood. This article was published in 2000 in The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Access to the full and detailled *.PDF file is unfortunately subject to a (substantial) fee, but I was at least able to get a portion of the textual content. On the other hand, an overview of the abstract can be accessed for free via → this hyperlink:

Sincerely,

— euphonie ^breviary
17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of producing (partial) autopsies? We are bound to reflect what reliable sources say; revisiting/reinterpreting various bits of primary material is outside the scope of this Project. As I said, we have multiple reliable sources reporting multiple deaths from this particular species of health fraud. (Add: and, FWIW, the full text of this report of an actual death - not "possible death" - begins with the words "In February 1996, a 20-year-old woman suddenly lost consciousness during her 31st oxygen-ozone treatment by autohemotransfusion. Resuscitation was unsuccessful" and ends with the words "our case could be legally considered to be an incorrect medical ozone administration".)Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should definitely have been more clear and precise by writing that this an actual (and accidental) death which, most obviously, in this specific case, is—only and exclusively—due to the sad sequels which, regrettably, have occurred during a session of “ozonotherapy” implying ozonated autologous blood all along its process. This article, which was published in June 2000, also mentioned that “several literature reviews exist dealing with gas embolism as a potential complication of medical and surgical treatment but, to our knowledge, it has never been reported in relation to O₂ / O₃ therapy by autohemotransfusion.” Anyway, I’ll try to do my best to apply as much as possible WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:RSUW. This is quite an interesting challenge. Have a great day. Best regards. Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary
00:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure about your emphasis on "accidental". The killing could well be wrongful, as a result of negligence - that is something to leave to the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor – any editor – does not feel comfortable adding some content – any content – to an article, regardless of the editor's reason (or lack thereof), then that editor should not do so. We're WP:VOLUNTEERS. Editors who want that content should do so themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing

I couldn’t agree with you more.

Here are three new and potentially interesting additional sources:

Jacobs M. (1982). "Untersuchung uber zwishenfalle und typische komplikationen in der ozon-sauerstofftherapie". OzoNachrichten (in German). 1 (5).

Ozon-Therapie, Ozon-Eigenbluttherapie, Sauerstoff-OzonEigenbluttherapie, Oxyontherapie, Hyperbare Ozontherapie: Zusammenfassender Bericht des Arbeitsausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Bundesausschusses der Ärzte und Krankenkassen über die Beratungen gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V (PDF) (in German). Geschäftsführung des Arbeitsausschusses „Ärztliche Behandlung“ des Bundesausschusses der Ärzte und Krankenkassen. 30 March 2001.

"Mapa de Evidências – Efetividade Clínica da Ozonioterapia Médica" (PDF). VHL Evidence Map. VHL: Virtual Health Library (in Portuguese). São Paulo: MTIC: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (Brazil) / BIREME: Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information / OPS: Pan American Health Organization / WHO World Health Organization. 4 October 2019. Update: 5 May 2020.

Sincerely, — euphonie ^breviary
08:44, 08:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archive ?

Even with aggressive archiving, this talk page consistently approaches 200 MB. Euphonie, you have not gained consensus. Might it be possible to confine discussion to article talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2020)

(edit conflict) See this edit at Talk:Kwashiorkor regarding a UCSF course that touches on numerous medical topics. The table at the course description contains course assignments listing dozens of Wikipedia articles within the purview of WikiProject medicine. Context expert for this course is User:Ian (Wiki Ed). Advisors at WikiEd are stretched much thinner than before, due to recent budget/covid-related layoffs on July 1, so any help or additional eyeballs by members of this project at any of the articles, would be helpful. Here is the list of articles:

If you want to add these articles to your Watchlist, you can do so in a single operation, using a bulk edit. This is described at Help:Watchlist#Controlling which pages are watched, at #3. Edit entire watchlist. Or just go to Special:Watchlist/raw and append the entire list below to the bottom of your watchlist. (Be careful; your watchlist is not versioned, afaik, so if you *replace* it instead of appending to it by mistake, I'm not sure how your could get it back again. If this is your first time using the bulk edit/("raw" edit) feature, I would recommend saving the current contents of your Watchlist somewhere offline, before you muck with it. That said, this is a very easy operation.) Note that the bulk edit feature removes duplicates, so if any of these are already on your Watchlist, it won't matter; dupes will be eliminated. (Ditto, if I've inadvertently left some dupes in the list itself.)

Active surveillance of prostate cancer
Baby-led weaning
Brigance Inventory of Early Development (IED ii)
Childhood absence epilepsy
Childhood schizophrenia
Chorioamnionitis
Chronic diarrhea of infancy
Contraceptive mandate
Copenhagen disease
Coxsackie A virus
Cradle cap
Depression in childhood and adolescence
Developmental dysfluency
DPT vaccine
Dupuytren's contracture
Enuresis
Epignathus
Epilepsy in children
Esophageal atresia
Feminine hygiene
Fertility tourism
Fetal echocardiography
Fibrocartilaginous mesenchymoma of bone
Follicle-stimulating hormone
Gene therapy for osteoarthritis
Genital ulcer
Gestational pemphigoid
Glomerulation
Gray baby syndrome
Heaf test
Health survival paradox
Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection
Hip resurfacing
Hydrolethalus syndrome
Hyperandrogenism
Hypoestrogenism
Incest between twins
Infant mortality
Infantile apnea
Intrauterine hypoxia
Joint injection
Joint replacement
Klismaphilia
Kwashiorkor
Large for gestational age
Late-life mortality deceleration
Male chest reconstruction
Male menstruation
Mastitis
Maternal somatic support after brain death
Medical fetishism
Menstrual disorder
Mobility scooter
Neonatal withdrawal
Nocturnal clitoral tumescence
Nursing home care in the United States
Obesity and fertility
Obstetric transition
Obstetrical forceps
Onselling of sperm
Orchiectomy
Palliative sedation
Pelvic lipomatosis
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System
Penectomy
Penile agenesis and testicular agenesis
Perineodynia
Persistent fetal circulation
Pervasive developmental disorder
Pessary
Phalloplasty
Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment
Postmenopausal confusion
Pre-exposure prophylaxis
Pregnancy test
Pregnancy-associated malaria
Prenatal perception
Prostaglandin E2
Prostate biopsy
Protein toxicity
Pruritic urticarial papules and plaques of pregnancy
Pseudosenility
Reproductive immunology
Rheumatoid nodule
Septic abortion
Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis
Sexology
Sexual medicine
Shenkui
Sigmoidoscopy
Sinoatrial block
Sinus bradycardia
Stasis dermatitis
Subdural hygroma
Superfecundation
Tampon
The seven-year itch
Unassisted childbirth
Unicornuate uterus
Urethritis
Urogenital pelvic malignancy
Uterine myomectomy
Uterotonic
Vaginitis

If WP:MEDICINE already has a bot available that advises you of upcoming WikiEd courses that affect articles of interest to this project, please let me know, so I don't waste my time on this again. If it doesn't, I'd recommend you request one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing this. There is no bot that I am aware of. We were trying to share all courses that are editing medical content here, and User:Ian (Wiki Ed) was helping to populate this.JenOttawa (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers

I have watched three: pervasive developmental disorder, prostate biopsy, unassisted childbirth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you for the notification. I added a few to my watchlist as well: DPT vaccine, klismaphilia, and medical fetishism.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gandydancer, I think there may be a couple on this list that you're familiar with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will watch Obstetrical forceps, Baby-led weaning, and Palliative sedation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Coxsackie A virus, sexual medicine and Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection.Graham Beards (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added Epilepsy in children and Childhood absence epilepsy. -- Colin°^Talk 10:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the microbe-related articles: Chronic diarrhea of infancy, Chorioamnionitis, Coxsackie A virus, DPT vaccine, Genital ulcer, Gray baby syndrome, Heaf test, Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection, Male menstruation, Pre-exposure prophylaxis, Septic abortion, Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis, Urethritis, and Vaginitis. Ajpolino (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through and put Y checkmarks by what is watched so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (and everyone) for your efforts. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added active surveillance of prostate cancer, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and pseudosenility to mine; it looks like we all may need to take a few more. Please place a tick by those you watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted Contraceptive mandate, Fertility tourism, Pregnancy test and Reproductive immunology. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added: Shenkui, Onselling of sperm, Cradle cap, The seven-year itch. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added: Male chest reconstruction, Maternal somatic support after brain death, Obstetric transition, Phalloplasty, Superfecundation. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on esophageal atresia and persistent fetal circulation (surprised we still use this term). Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking these on. Maybe you and the students will decide to WP:MOVE the page to a more appropriate title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood schizophrenia, developmental dysfluency, and depression of childhood and adolescence.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Joint replacement and Hip resurfacing to my watch list. JenOttawa (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have Large for gestational age on my watch list.JenOttawa (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can watch juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia and uterotonic with the caveat that I am assigned to the newborn nursery for the next month (aka lots of time to edit Wikipedia) and then in ICU (aka much less time) the following month. But I'll do my best! Keilana (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, I suspect that some of the articles in the collapsed, "Articles assigned list" above are already on your watch list. If so, could you list them below, so others know where we have coverage already? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a number of articles under "Append this list in raw edit mode to add them to your Watchlist" are on my watchlist. Too many to go through at the moment and list. I think that pervasive developmental disorder used to be on my watchlist. For those aware of the areas I usually work in, sexology is obviously on my watchlist. Other examples: Tampon and Klismaphilia are my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Thank you to everyone who has volunteered so far. I love that people are volunteering to watch a few specific articles that interest them. That helps spread the workload. More than 40% of the articles for this class have already been picked up by experienced mentors. According to the schedule, the class will end on Friday, 21 August, just about five weeks from now, so this is a short-term commitment.

I've just reorganized the list a bit to make it a bit easier to see what's left. The biggest areas are pediatrics and women's health, but we also need editors who are interested in rare diseases, geriatrics, cardiology, immunology, and more. If you look at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2020), you can see that each student has named several articles. You can choose articles based on the subject, or you can look at the list and pick a single student to mentor on multiple unclaimed articles.

If you're on the fence about signing up: Please do! Just move the article(s) you want to the ===Watched=== subsection, add your name to the list above. It's okay to volunteer for just one article and to be realistic about your availability. But I do encourage you to try it out. These are all new editors, so they have a lot to learn, and we want them to make them successful in improving these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a matching offer ('ya know, like in fundraising :) I've got seven so far. I'll add two more if five other editors take two more. And I will EVEN make those two be feminine hygiene and tampon. How's that for sacrificial duty? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Larry Hockett, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. MarkWorthen, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. JenOttawa SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Keilana SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take SandyGeorgia up on her offer, so we need at least four more volunteers to shepherd these students through the next month. So I'm pinging: User:RafaelS1979, User:Mrakia, User:Mark v1.0, User:TheTechnician27, User:IntoThinAir, User:Literaturegeek, User:ParticipantObserver, User:Lexein, User:Mack2, User:EMsmile, User:Keilana, User:JenOttawa, User:EMsmile, User:Markworthen.

Y'all, if you click above in the collapsed bit called "Articles assigned at UCSF Foundations II course", then you'll see a list of medical situations that affect ===Children===. You have previously been one of the biggest contributors to one of those articles. If you are willing to help these med students sort out how to improve the articles, then please sign up in the ===Volunteers=== section. Just add a note there to tell us which article(s) you want to help with, and then check back in the coming weeks to see how the student is getting along during the class. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Volunteers section?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right above this one, at #Volunteers, Markworthen. I hope that this question means that you want to put your name there soon. :-D WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated lists

WhatamIdoing, are you watching the Course page? It's gotten a good bit longer. Looking at only the most recent row all the way at the bottom, none of those four are in our list yet: Senile osteoporosis, Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia, Sperm bank, Spermatocele. I didn't try to figure out exactly what's new, there, but if you find out when I first posted here, then go to the course page at that timestamp and diff it with current, that should be a good approximation. I don't have the bandwidth to do anything about this right now. Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: here is the diff;[24] it is not very helpful since some of them were already on your list. And it is apparent that WPMED cannot keep up with this.

Ian (Wiki Ed) even with our best efforts, this is out of control and too much novice editing for all of us together to watch. Why can User:Health policy not restrict their students to one or two articles each? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The students are in groups of four people, and each group of four people was assigned to multiple articles and asked to pick two of them to edit. We assigned them to multiple articles in advance this year after a Wiki Ed Dashboard error last year when students attempted to select articles and despite only clicking once were assigned and unassigned to those articles by the Dashboard several hundred times per hour, which led to several people who were watching those articles have their inboxes explode with notifications. To ensure that would not happen again we assigned each of them to a longer list of articles in advance rather than having them self-select the final articles they will edit. Health policy (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how that response addresses the problem or query. There are 123 students, and the dashboard does not say how many articles, but too many for us to monitor. I have begun updating the list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the list above; there appear to be 123 students and 128 articles. Too many articles for novice editors to be hitting all at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just a quick heads-up that the students have started to edit. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and they need reminders about primary sources, it would be considerate if they would supply PMIDs, and helpful to remind them to not just add citations to existing content, rather make sure it is also udated and accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm back with another stubby orphan, this time Cerebriform nuclei. Can it be merged somewhere? Or should it be left standalone? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is unlikely to ever be anything more than a dicdef - it's just a term that's used to describe the appearance of cells, not a condition as such. Maybe PROD it and add an explanation of the term to the articles where it's mentioned. Spicy (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a Glossary of pathology terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea, but it would have to be written by someone with extensive knowledge of the subject matter for it to be reasonably complete. I know very little about non-blood related pathology. Spicy (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have redirected to Sézary disease as seems to be specific there - it only describes a shape.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC) And is characteritic of Sezary cells.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was hesitant about doing that because it's sometimes used outside that context (albeit rarely), but the redirect is good enough IMO. Spicy (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing and Spicy Anatomical terms of microanatomy (micro) and Anatomical terms of neuroanatomy (gross) may be other options in this case. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the Wikiproject Hospitals to the list of related projects on the WikiProject Medicine main page. We have made a lot of progress in cleaning up the articles on hospitals and adding infoboxes, coordinates, and images. Hospital articles have been particularly popular during the COVID-19 pandemic. -- Talk to G Moore 11:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed typo)...seems like a good idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The feed of related projects on the side of related projects is two years old and doesn't add much current value. -- Talk to G Moore 16:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some parts in the article that deal with diseases and treatments. But, not being very oriented with medical sciences, I really can't put those parts in order on my own. Seriously need some help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and made some changes to the article. I've replied to the section you started at the WP Anatomy talk page, as I feel this belongs there more than here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article. I've posted about some sourcing issues on the talk page. I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to the article myself but I think it could use a closer look from other WP:MED contributors. Spicy (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I apologize if this is a dumb question. I am not a part of this WikiProject (I can honestly say I don't know much about medicine), but I recently added a little bit to Anorexia (symptom) and would like to add more content. The article previously said nothing about anorexia in animals, so I wrote in the lead that it happens to other species and cited some sources. However, I'm having a hard time finding any kind of secondary source covering anorexia/inappetence in dogs or cats. The tools on this project page only get results about people, and WP:Veterinary Medicine doesn't have a similar tool for finding sources and doesn't include the Anorexia (symptom) page anyway.

From what I understand after looking at WP:MEDRS, I can't talk about the causes, treatments, or other health issues caused by anorexia without a reliable source. Currently, I have yet to find a secondary source that discusses the topic, only primary sources and websites with a general overview which I don't think qualify. Also, should I discuss this with WikiProject Veterinary Medicine, even though the page is part of this project? Thanks for your help with my minor issue. TuskDeer (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes anorexia (symptom) is going to have much less MEDRS compliant, in contrast to say Anorexia nervosa, however Google books are also available for info on the symptom (and its causes)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages are in multiple projects, I think it's appropriate to ask in veterinary too User:TuskDeer. I found this advanced search] on Google books (anorexia, in books with a title including "Veterinary" gave a number of promising secondary sources. The main issue is to check for which are edited books, which is usually obvious if there is a contents page listing different authors for chapters.Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at Me-too compound and felt it should be renamed "Me-too drug" as this appears to be the common nomenclature. If in agreement, could somebody kindly amend. I tried but couldn't. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this at WP:RM. (Non-admins can't move this article to that redirect because of the number of edits in the redirect's history.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what that means but thanks. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's saying that she's tried to make the change that you asked for, but it won't let her, and an admin will have to do it. So she's placed a request for that. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard patrols Wikipedia:Requested moves so that job is now done, but if you need an admin for these sort of obvious jobs, please just ping me and I'll be happy to oblige. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please review this reversion and restore it if you think it's correct? It seems to be a 'procedural' reversion, but I don't know much about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been experimenting with ways to identify promising new editors, and I've got an idea to pass along to anyone who's interested in trying it out, too. This uses the "new" (2017) filters on RecentChanges, which some old hands may have turned off. But if you've got it on, then try this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked?userExpLevel=learner&hidebots=1&hidenewpages=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Medicine%2FLists_of_pages%2FTop-%2C_High-importance_medicine_articles&namespace=0&limit=500&days=7&urlversion=2

This is a list of all edits made to Top-priority and High-priority WPMED articles. The key point is the ?userExpLevel=learner bit. This gives you a list of all edits by people who have made more than 10 edits (so there are very few spammers and vandals, and they're likely to stick around for a while) but less than 500 edits (so some encouragement and invitations to join us might turn the promising editor into a highly experienced one). If you click that and get a list with an average of about 10 edits per day, then you have the "new" filters enabled (and the page will look a bit like the top of this screenshot, but without the blue and green highlighting). I put this link in my bookmarks and checked it every day for a while. In my experience, almost all of these edits are good-faith and helpful. Some edits can be improved upon, and a few have been reverted (usually before I saw them), but most of them just need someone to click the 'thanks' button or to invite the editor to join us here.

If you want to see edits to all the WPMED articles by this group of editors, then this is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked?userExpLevel=learner&hidebots=1&hidenewpages=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Medicine%2FLists_of_pages/Articles&namespace=0&limit=500&days=7&urlversion=2

This is a great opportunity for anyone who wants to encourage and recruit promising new editors. We can set up lists like this for any list of articles that interests you, so if you want, e.g., only articles about the pandemic, or only articles about cancer, or only articles that are currently mentioned on any page (seriously: all the links on any page), then let me know what interests you, and I'll help you set it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brain explodes. How to best use this wealth of info. And where to park the links for ease of use. The WP:MED page needs a complete rewrite, to put the most useful easily at hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who knows muscular dystrophy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lukelahood SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New genetic and autism editor, [25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone want to have a look at new article Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome and check whether it leans too far into a manual/how-to direction for easy publication? Leaving unreviewed for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a look and commented on talk page - seems that it may be better merged into Opioid use disorder that has a withdrawal section.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1300+ words is a lot to merge into a single section (and that's after User:QueensanditsCrazy cut a lot of how-to and background content out). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not feel that this article should be merged. What with oipiod use currently creating a national health emergency and causing untold pain and suffering with so many deaths that it is actually lowering the life expectancy figures in the U.S., it is more than reasonable to have several oipiod-related articles. Gandydancer (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From a quick look, this seems pretty poor. Long lists of rat and monkey primary studies in the "Treatment and Management" section. When this is reduced to something based on RS a merge may be appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of reviews at PubMed, many of them (as Iztwoz mentions on the talk page) specific to neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome. I think there's a potential for substantially upgrading the sourcing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean acute opioid withdrawal, the page is confused because they seem to think only those with an opioid use disorder can have this, that isn't really true. What they mean is where there is tolerance, then rapid withdrawal, the cellular adaptations mean that there can be a reflexive severe withdrawal. Generally the best source on all things Opioid dependence/use/disorder is Nora Volkow's studies (she currently heads up NIDA) PainProf (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A merger was proposed: Opioid use disorder the topic is discussed here: Talk:Opioid_use_disorder#Merger_Proposal_(July_2020) PainProf (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page has now been renamed to Opioid withdrawal.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akathisia needs to be on a few active watchlists. AFAICT this is a 'movement disorder' (the name means "can't sit still") that appears during antipsychotic treatment for delirium, but the Internet seems to think that it's a feeling of abject terror. I'm betting that someone who spends time around ICU patients knows a lot more about this than I do. Just blanking incorrect information would be helpful at this stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I've had this on my watchlist for a couple of hours now and.. you aren't wrong. I think the entire article needs cleanup but if we are all busy just dealing with the new edits nobody has time to cleanup the article itself. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy editing. A revert to before the current crop may be a faster route to rebuilding ... too much damage, current mess is not a good starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be watching this and am commenting on the talk page. It appears that the WP page overrepresents drug induced akathisia which is just one known cause. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amousey - I replied to you on the talkpage as well as made a quick fix, but yes, this is the primary problem with this (and many) articles that relate to medical topics that have "conspiracies" around them. There are some people who feel that their doctors/pharmaceutical companies/etc are a big scam whose entire goal is to sell unsafe toxins to you as "drugs", and that "akathisia" is proof of this - they claim that akathisia has no other cause, that it's purely a drug effect, and that the FDA is in on this conspiracy to approve unsafe drugs that "ruin lives". So, of course, that's the only part of the article that's been expanded and sourced well, because those people who did that had no desire/will/belief in the other aspects of it. I think it's actually more common than we think that Wikipedia has unconscious bias in not the material covered, nor the way it's presented, but just "how close we are to completion". As an example, I wouldn't think akathisia could be a good article now or anytime soon, because like you said, it's woefully incomplete in its coverage - because of this historical bias towards covering this part of it by those editing the article. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Berchanhimez. The big Pharma conspiracy theory, ugh... Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Another plea for basic scrutiny of recent changes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs some "watchlist patrollers" – editors who check their watchlists every day and aren't afraid to fix and revert poor content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z48

Yikes - after 5 days the discussion is archived. Now at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_37#Another_plea_for_basic_scrutiny_of_recent_changes. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat

What do we know about this journal, that published a copyvio of dementia with Lewy bodies?

1. Fymat, Alain, International Institute of Medicine and Science, here see Earwig
2. Fymat, Alain, International Institute of Medicine and Science, here, from this version, see Earwig

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We know (well, I found out) the following:

• The journal knows about the share-alike provision of the CC license, and uses a CC license for their website.
• They use a CC-BY license, meaning they should know that it requires attribution.
• The author has provided attribution for images used in the article.
• The article has been repeatedly copied into other journals (I found at least three different open access journals with the exact article).
• The license is different on each "reprint" (copy) of this article - some use BY, some use BY-SA, some use BY-NC...
• The article isn't listed on his researchgate profile in any form.
• Some of the copies I found go as far back as 2018 (see 1)

There's two possibilities - either the author published an article in a reputable journal which was then copyvioed by Wikipedia, not caught, and then either article (WP or the original) was copivioed into these OA journals, or the author copied from Wikipedia. However, given that I cannot, at all, find which article is the "original copy" (i.e. which article Mr. Fymat actually published himself), we cannot determine the "date" to reference - we are asking "the chicken or the egg" without knowing when we are looking at. Furthermore, without knowing the original article Mr. Fymat actually published, we cannot accuse him of copyvio - it is just as likely that Mr. Fymat published an OA article of his own under an appropriate license and with acceptable attribution (which he knows about given his attribution of the images used), and then his article was copied by these other OA journals without attribution.

Contacting the journal is going to be of next to no use - if anyone is actually concerned that their copyright over their contribution(s) to that article may be violated, I would suggest they contact Mr. Fymat and ask him for clarification on when he published an article on dementia, and ask him to provide proof he attributed you in it. Once you have proof that he attributed you, then you can contact the articles that copied his article and go after them, because they are violating your copyright.

TLDR: who knows who's violating who, but there's a somewhat decent chance it may not be Mr. Fymat violating Wikipedia(s contributors). It's still scummy as hell to use a Wikipedia article largely unedited as a scientific "review" article, but hey, it's open access journals - "you get what you pay for (or don't)". bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck. Published by Scientia Ricerca, which a quick Google search suggests is predatory. Does not appear to have a DOI or impact factor. And should not be confused with Current Opinion in Neurology, which is a legitimate journal. Re. Berchanhimez - SandyGeorgia wrote the majority of the WP article, so I think we can rule out copying in that direction. Spicy (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a check to see who wrote the majority of the article, but if it was SG then yes, I agree that it's more likely someone copied from us. Whether Mr. Fymat is the one who committed the copyvio we cannot know until we know where he published the article first - but all the copies of the article that don't attribute the Wikipedia editors are copyvios, yes. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, he copied me ... I built DLB painstakingly over hundreds of edits with a dozen other editors working right along with me, and every mark of my less than stellar prose (since corrected by better copyeditors) is right there in all its glory. What a jerk Mr Flymat is. Pissed Off and know nothing can be done about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to take action this time, because it is so blatant and so extensive. There are plenty of Wikipedians who can point to entire passages in there that they wrote. Mad as hell, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HE is the editor of those journals, [26] [27] and the version he copied is way back in 2018, when I built most of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is getting a letter from an attorney even if nothing will change. That was too much carefully built work to see it spread all over creation as if that ass wrote it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The copied version is even further back, here is comparison to May 2018 (when I completed most text, with major copyedit in FAC prep in 2020) — Earwig. @Sphilbrick: I really want to go legal this time, why should I not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, with the caveat that I've only just glanced at this thread, if someone is stealing and material without attribution I support going after them. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he copied Alzheimer’s too, [28] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Parkinson’s, [29] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this guy is a hoax. The institute he claims to work for is not real. If it were a real institute, or you found an affiliation I would suggest contacting the research integrity office. Similarly if he had a federal grant, the grant agency's office for research integrity could dump very large pile of bricks on plagiarist. As it happens I assume they are doing it as a scam to make their journal look real rather than for credit if that helps. Probably all smoke and mirrors. The only guy matching that name was active in the 1970s so I suspect a bit of identity theft too. PainProf (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, a search on his alleged phone numbers leads to an 81-year-old ... right: [30] I suspect I will get nowhere, as most of the editorial board contacts also lead nowhere. The 1970 publications could be his, and he could be somewhere in a nursing home now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With three Featured articles copied, will not WMF Legal help? We need to add backwards copy templates to Alzheimer and Parkinson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I need to check several more articles, that are listed here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.innovationinfo.org/journal/editorial_board_member/Dr-Alain-L-Fymat ... all of these may have come from Wikipedia, but which articles to check?
• https://www.omic$online.org/editor-profile/alain-l-fymat/ Wikipedia blacklist, change $ to s
• http://www.fiimas.org/Home_Page.html
• http://imedscience.ning.com/

And epilepsy, too. [31] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMF doesn't have a dog in the race here - they have no case to ask for removal as they do not own the copyright to the material, and in fact their legal department, unless they were representing you personally outside their relationship to WMF, could not issue DMCA takedown notices on your behalf. You on the other hand do. scientiaricerca.com is hosted by GoDaddy. You can find their copyright violation abuse reporting contact information at this site. www.auctoresonline.org is hosted by Endurance International Group, whose DMCA process is located here. Unfortunately, there is no easier way I know of to pursue violations of your copyright other than to issue a DMCA takedown notice to each individual website host.

To find abuse information for other websites, you can use any whois tool you like to find the host for the domain name. Some domain records will list abuse information in the whois record, and for others you may have to go search for it. As an example, in the second case (auctoresonline), I had to google "Endurance International Group", and at the bottom of that page they had a "infringement policy" with the information. You're certainly welcome to have a lawyer help you if you have access to one, but it's possible to form a DMCA takedown notice on your own - and in fact this page has a standard template you can use to provide a polite reminder, a more stern reminder, and a DMCA takedown notice if they don't respond to your first reminders. See specifically sections 2.1 and 2.2. IANAL but please consider that any notice you send could be posted online and be visible to everyone (and potentially connected to you) - in fact there are websites dedicated to posting DMCA takedown notice copies to prevent "censorship" and abuse (ex: lumen, previously known as chillingeffects.org).

TLDR: you can DMCA them yourself and I think you certainly should do so - you worked hard on things, and while you can't prevent others from reusing them (as you licensed them when you posted them on WP), you have the right to be credited for them anytime it's reused.

disclaimer: i'm not a lawyer by any means, but i've had to DMCA websites in the past for using content I created without my permission - not on wikipedia but from elsewhere. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though contacting the publisher (including a threat of a DMCA takedown in the letter) may not directly lead to retraction of the articles, it still might be useful as it would demonstrate good faith in trying to resolve the problem before pursuing legal remedies and thus strengthen the legal case against them. On their web site, they have a Article Withdrawal policy and copyright infringement or plagiarism are listed as grounds for retraction. Scientia Ricerca is on a list of Predatory Publishers, so I am also skeptical they will retract the article based on a single letter, but who knows, it just might work. If not, then the ground work for legal action has been laid. Boghog (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone ... once I prepare documents, there is a nice list of emails here and I will find emails for these. Quite a few of them are US and might care about shaming. And I will go back through the list at innovationinfo.org to see what else he copied. Doubt he cares about legal, but shaming might end his little scam. My lawyer says, “wow” ... that’s a fancy legal term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. Based on the process listed there, I think that the real motivation is that their website could get kicked off the internet if they don't take them down (or correct the licensing vio, by adding attribution). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see that, and that may be all I can accomplish. I think PainProf was right and the whole thing is a fraud ... coming up nowhere on anyone of significance I can email to shame the person behind this, although one of the editors is easily identifiable. Once I come up with a concrete list and approach, I will subpage the whole mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: within the links above are multiple journals that could be added to your non-reliable script, at minimum these. @Ceoil, Colin, Outriggr, Seppi333, and Casliber: who were also plagiarized at DLB, along with Jytdog, Tryptofish, Doc James and Yomangani. Adrian J. Hunter, WhatamIdoing, and others edited later I think, as we were prepping for FAC in 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look this afternoon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Auctores journal list: Auctores journals SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only good news is that scientiaricerca.com doesn't appear anywhere in mainspace. Let's make sure it stays that way. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THEY CHARGE $889 to publish SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff I wrote in the amphetamine article was extensively plagiarized a while back by some Omics journal (see the notice box on its talk page). If you want a copy of my demand letter, which the journal immediately actioned/forwarded to the authors and sorted out within a week, then LMK. Ping me again though because I’m stupidly busy off-wiki. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Started gathering info and questions at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Just catching up after a walking holiday) This reminds me a bit of a similar fraud over photos at Commons Featured Pictures. (Sadly, it can happen the other way round too: we recently had an account on Commons who won lots of featured pictures and then we discovered they had stolen, not taken, all of them). I think the steps at the Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process look good advice. Unlike pictures, it is rather more work to explain the copyvio, so I suggest to keep the letter short, with any tedious explanation of the violations as an appendix. There are key phrases in these letters that must be used and are not optional, and important to state that it is "my" copyright that is being violated. I don't think there is any need to elaborate in the letter more than necessary -- they will have encountered this before and recognise the key phrases mean that the cogs are turning on a fixed legal process. See also Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter.

For what it is worth, I think tackling such extensive violation of several important topics is important mainly because if we don't then the copyright may come back round to bit us: some journal will claim our article stole their material. As far as "Someone is being an asshole on the internet" goes, my strong advice is generally to ignore it. -- Colin°^Talk 10:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Letters proposed

My first drafts of letters are at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters; if I have to escalate beyond that, the letters will come from an attorney instead of me. Feedback appreciated at User talk:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this isn’t particularly wiki-related, but I figured I’d reach out anyway since this is relevant to primary/tertiary care physicians, nurses, and technologists.

I started a precision diagnostics company with 4 others; would love to talk about it, but need to file a patent first, and before that I have to wait on the FDA to return written feedback and then teleconference with my team on our device design. Working on getting approval for a CLIA-waived POC rapid diagnostic testing device for virtually all known infectious pathogens (each biofluid entails a unique test) and their unique AMR profiles; it’d be permitted for use in hospitals and primary care clinics that have a CLIA-waiver. Expect the pricing to be ~$14000/device + ~$75/test (less if I can leverage my patents to get the manufacturer to reduce their >100% margin on reagents). Attaining maximal sensitivity+specificity per pathogen is fairly trivial with the hardware/software tech we’re using, but phase 3 is probably going to cost upwards of $100 million. Lol

Anyway, anyone happen to know any expert medical device consultants or current/former employees of the FDA office of IVD? I need an advisory board member with that expertise to whom I can pose an occasional question on regulatory compliance.

I’m not monitoring this page, so please ping/email me if you reply. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seppi333, it sounds like you would benefit from connecting to a regional biotech networking group, such as https://www.bc-la.org/ or https://biotech.usc.edu/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems like a really good idea. Ty! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: You wouldn't happen to know of any similar ones in San Francisco and Maryland (DC metro area), would you? My team is rather scattered, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seppi333, the San Francisco Bay/Silicon Valley area has a lot of groups. You might start by looking at https://sfbn.org/about/ (there's a list of other orgs at the end of the page) or even try Meetup.com to see if you can find a group that's specific to devices. I don't know anything about groups in the DC area, but I would expect there to be multiple options. It's possible that if you find a good group in one city, that the current members could recommend another elsewhere.

I believe there are also a couple of WPMED folks who currently work in the device side of the industry, and they may see your note and have specific recommendations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a second opinion for an FAC: does the content at Horseshoe_bat#As_disease_reservoirs require MEDRS-level sourcing? Is the current sourcing of sufficient quality? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I identified a few phrases that I feel are biomedical claims requiring MEDRS-level sourcing:

1. humans likely became sick through contact with infected masked palm civets, which were identified as intermediate hosts of the virus. – sourced to Review of Bats and SARS, which is a review of sorts, but not a systematic review.
2. humans can become ill through exposure to other MRVs – sourced to ISBN 9781119150046 which is published by Wiley, a respectable publisher.
3. Kyasanur Forest disease is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected ticks, and has a mortality rate of 2–10%. – sourced to pmid:16710839 a review, but not systematic.

The sources are rather old by MEDRS standards and reasonably good secondary sources, if not necessarily the highest quality. As the claims are not exceptional as in WP:REDFLAG, my inclination would be to accept them as sufficient quality, but someone with expertise in infectious diseases (i.e. not me) might disagree with my assessment. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS and Ealdgyth: how about color accessibility on the chart in the Conservation section? I thought information was not to be conveyed by color alone ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, it isn't presenting unique information--I'm rehashing the same numbers in the prose of that section. Enwebb (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it ... sorry, was in a hurry, dashing out the door, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming back to a question I asked in 2017, see in the archive here. I asked about which tools you guys use to determine the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score. At the time, two websites were recommended to me: This one: Readability of Wikipedia and this one: Hemingway App. I have now noticed that the website ReadabilityofWikipedia no longer gives proper results (I tried it out for Sustainable Development Goals and for sanitation). The hemingway app is great for pieces of text but not so good for an entire Wikipedia article. So I am just wondering if another free website/app has turned up? My google search only led me to place where you have to pay to get the readability of your website analysed. - By the way, have you had further discussions on improving the readability score of the articles within WikiProject Medicine? It is a topic that I feel strongly about - I see it as low-hanging fruit because it is fairly easy to improve readability, and one doesn't need to be a medical expert either. EMsmile (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mcbrarian, I think this question is for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WhatamIdoing! EMsmile, I have been using the WebFX readability test tool. You can paste in the URL for a website (in our case a WP page) or your can use the Direct Input tab to paste a block of text and assess its readability. It provides several values for evaluating readability. I like to look at percent of complex words and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score. Hope this helps! Mcbrarian (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Mcbrarian - this looks like a really good website! I am going to use it. Are others within WikiProject Medicine also using it routinely to assess and improve readability? I think it should be added (as a link) somewhere on the front page under "what you can do to help". - I've been bold and added something about that here now. EMsmile (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed it, as these accessibility evaluators are controversial and contested, which has been well discussed elsewhere. Malaria is not Louisa May Alcott, and we cannot and should not write complex medical topics for sixth graders, who will not be reading those articles anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, since both MEDRS and MEDMOS have strayed from general usefulness, could we please discuss changes before making them? Both pages need complete rewrites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SandyGeorgia There is a difference between "sixth grader" compared to "10th grader" compared to "PhD level". I bet many articles are at "PhD level" and could relatively easily be improved for readability to "10th grader level". What's controversial about improving readability, and where has it been discussed elsewhere apart from the archive articles that I mentioned above? If you don't like the mentioned tool it could be reworded. Don't you think that improving readability would be important? It's a cop out to say Malaria is a complex thing, therefore, it doesn't matter if lay persons won't understand it (sounds a bit like a doctor who is unable to explain things to patients in language that the patient can understand...) It's not just the education level but also people who don't speak English as their first language and people who plan to translate an article. EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to continue contentious discussions about the issues with the translation programs or the problems introduced to many articles in the misguided name of readability. As soon as you find an article written at the PhD level, produce it for discussion. Meanwhile, if readers want NIH or CDC fact sheets written for 12-year-olds, google will easily cough them up. Wikipedia does not need to replicate useless drivel like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please EMsmile, don't use these tools. See Readability Formulas: 7 Reasons to Avoid Them and What to Do Instead. These tools were designed before AI and machine learning was a thing, when people dictated to secretaries with typewriters and engineers worked things out on slide rules. We all at WP:MED know that correlation is not causation. It isn't rocket science to measure some crude stats about words on a page and sentence length, without considering at all the meaning of words, and invent an equation that generally outputs a higher number when presented with more complex/difficult prose than when presented with simpler/easier prose. But it is really wrongheaded to think that manipulating the text in a mechanical way, as has been done by some editors, particularly in WP:MED, to reduce the score, makes our articles better. And I use "better" rather than "easier to read", because it is one thing to write text anyone can read, but quite another to write text anyone would want to read.

People have noted that medical articles have unreadable leads. They are "unreadable" not because they are hard, but because you get past the first few sentences and lose the will to live. They are unreadable because although the sentences are short, they are just a collection of random facts presented without thought to developing or introducing concepts. And they often fail in an important part of our educational mission and encyclopaedic purpose, which is teaching our readers some of the difficult words that their doctor will use and are necessary to understand a topic. As an example, I've seen text saying when a drug was "discovered" changed to saying when it was "found", as though a chemist just came across it in the street, or perhaps had lost it the day before, and I've seen an article saying when a drug was first "synthesized" changed to saying when it was "made". But drug discovery and chemical synthesis are both terms a reader will expect to find in an encyclopaedia, and will be surprised by our choice of baby words instead.

I have spent quite a bit of my time on Wikipedia helping subject-knowledgable writers polish prose so that a lay reader can enjoy and understand. Part of that for sure is spotting when a jargon word is used unnecessarily or without/prior to it being explained. Part of that is also spotting sentences that become tangled and over long. But also part of that is really thinking about what the article is trying to teach and the reader is trying to grasp, and fixing it if unclear, or saying so on the talk page. And that doesn't require inserting more full stops to make shorter sentences, or replacing some long words with simpler ones, but often requires unclear prose to be reconsidered by the expert with access to the sources and knowledge of the body of literature. Our best copyeditors don't need to be subject experts, but often work in partnership with the article author to make prose improvements that are then reviewed by that expert to make sure the meaning hasn't been broken.

I would much rather that we junk the pseudoscientific formulas and computer algorithms, and use our human brains to actually read our articles in order to consider if the text is good, or bad. After all, a human brain is what our readers have too. -- Colin°^Talk 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Colin thank you for your thoughtful response, very useful. Don't worry, I wouldn't use such tools mindlessly. I am involved in a project that will look at hundreds of articles (not medicine ones but on sustainable development issues) to improve them in a week-long online edit-a-thon (more info here). Using a tool for the initial rapid assessment of where we are at could be useful to point to where the problem areas lie. I also like tools like the Hemingway App that points to sentences that seem overly long or complicated or passive voice. But of course the actual editing work would have to be done by humans. I do wonder / hypothesise though that such tools are useful if you want to compare a large number of articles for readability, setting yourself some targets on improving the readability and so forth. I believe that readability is an issue for many Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I would still say that it (= working on readability) would be a useful task that a volunteer could do for us and thus it should be included in the task list of this WikiProject here (but without mentioning particular tools if the tools are the controversial part). - For comparison, we have described it like this for WikiProject Sanitation, see here. EMsmile (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And I fully agree with you when you say "Our best copyeditors don't need to be subject experts, but often work in partnership with the article author to make prose improvements that are then reviewed by that expert to make sure the meaning hasn't been broken." - so this is what I think we could capture on the task list, couldn't we? Invite people who are good at copyediting to work with other Wikipedians to make prose improvements. EMsmile (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been that editors have been using these tools and methods to make changes they thought were helpful, but actually damaged the articles-- lots of articles, over a long period of time. I am concerned about any widespread use of or endorsement of these tools, as opposed to the careful way Colin and other good editors work through prose. We have lost or will lose almost all of the medical Featured articles because of the damage caused by these approaches-- replacing them with generally useless, dated, and inaccurate Good Articles. The WP:MED page needs to be restructured and rewritten to promote excellence in the way MILHIST does ... and adding this automated tool advice is a step in the wrong direction, particularly when we have so much redesign needed at the WP:MED page to encourage better content ON wikipedia rather than OFF. "Replace long words with short words whenever possible" is sometimes good and sometimes not; but for sure, we have seen people get carried away with these concepts, so that accuracy in medical content is lost. Just because some editor in some country somewhere on the planet cannot translate the common English word "apathy" is not a good reason to remove it from an article. And just because some translator somewhere does not know how to translate the single most common term describing Tourette syndrome (that tics wax and wane), is not a good reason to remove a term (wax and wane) that ANYONE reading about TS will need to learn, because they will encounter it frequently. We have also seen all of the medical pages (MEDMOS, MEDRS and WP:MED) be used to interpret guidance as policy, without common sense, and as soon as you add such "tools", they are likely to be misapplied. And anything that impacts medical accuracy should be discouraged-- these tools have been used in ways that caused that. "Apathy" is much more than "lack of interest". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Until this 2016 edit, MEDMOS said not to write for 12 year olds; perhaps we should restore that. EMsmile is correct that there is a big difference between writing for 12 year olds and writing for older teens, and there is rarely a need for an entire article to be written at the grad school level. Dementia with Lewy bodies#Causes, for example, ranks as being written for 17 year olds, and I doubt that any of us see a need to make it use even longer and more complex sentences.

IMO there are ways to use these tools appropriately. In particular, they can be helpful when looking at individual paragraphs or sections. Previous discussions have generally concluded that the start of a large section should usually be more readable than the rest. The Hemingway app is good for highlighting specific problems, especially the overuse of the passive voice and adverbs (which, when used as intensifiers, tend to be slangy and unencyclopedic in tone: it's not "painful"; it's "really painful!").

I've also found that necessary terminology produces nonsensical results in some systems. So, e.g., these three sentences:

• Dementia with Lewy bodies is a disease.
• DLB is a disease.
• It is a disease.

get different reading scores in one system (10 year olds for the first, beginning readers for the other two), but if you encountered that in context, you'd handle them all with the same ease. This formula is treating with Lewy bodies as a prepositional phrase that contains an adjective, instead of recognizing that the first four words are part of the name.

(The Automated Readability Index says this comment is written at a level appropriate for 14 or 15 year olds.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should restore that ... but there is so much more. We need a comprehensive look at WP:MED, MEDMOS and MEDRS, and the changes made over five years which are not all helpful. Worried about timing relative to COVID. Also, I expect the Causes and Pathology sections of most articles to be at a higher reading level-- and that applies even more so to a topic like Dementia with Lewy bodies. There is a way to use these tools appropriately, but until we get the project pages back to a place that recognizes the distinction between policy and guidline-- and how to appropriately apply guidelines-- I worry about any additions. I'd rather see us focus on teaching editors to write top content, collaboratively, encouraging and bringing in not only top content people, but non-medical people for jargon checks, and competent copywriters. We see this happening again, FINALLY, with Spicy's and Ajpolino's efforts at complete blood count and at Buruli ulcer. Would that we could get Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autism and so many other high-pageview articles back to being examples of what we should aim for, rather than removing words like "apathy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with restoring that text. EMsmile, the readability-score mechanical manipulation of medical leads reached its peak with Readability of English Wikipedia's health information over time. This claimed that our articles had improved because their algorithmic readability scores were lower, and also noted that "None of the pages were written at the 7th or 8th grade level as recommended by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)". Such "research" was used to justify removing that earlier guidance and misquoting general Wikipedia guidelines in MEDMOS, which currently says that article leads should be "written as simply as possible", which is quite a different thing from being accessible to and understandable by the widest audience.

I think it is interesting that the article I cited says "Grade levels are not meaningful for adults. Adults who have trouble reading typically know a lot of words and concepts that a grade-level readability test would assume they don’t know." Their "True Story from Ginny" box is also a vital lesson for anyone thinking you can often just substitute "the proper word/words for something" with a "more readable simpler language".

I agree with you that such tools could be used to help highlight potential bad cases most in need of some work. However, they will also find topics that contain a lot of difficult words that are unavoidable, and fail to find topics that are just badly written. They also can only score text that exists, so if the lead fails to mention or explain something critical, you won't even know.

An article I have worked on, on and off, and is in no great shape or example of good practice, is Tuberous sclerosis. The list of medical signs that a doctor will use to diagnose the disease are: facial angiofibromas; fibrous cephalic plaque, ungual fibroma; Shagreen patch (connective tissue nevus); multiple retinal nodular hamartomas; cortical dysplasias; subependymal nodule; subependymal giant cell astrocytoma; cardiac rhabdomyoma; lymphangioleiomyomatosis; renal angiomyolipoma; "confetti" skin lesions; multiple dental enamel pits; multiple intraoral fibromas; retinal achromic patch; multiple renal cysts; nonrenal hamartoma. These are all terms a doctor will use when discussing this disease with patients or carers, many are unique to this disease (rare otherwise), and while we can and should explain what each of these terms means, we can't avoid them. I mean, lymphangioleiomyomatosis. Nine syllables! -- Colin°^Talk 19:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And even with that, gets a grade 12. So, if we have a PhD level article, I'd want to see why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a task on "improving prose"?

Thanks for all the contributions on the topic of "readability". I am finding it very interesting (and I can hear your pain about people in the past who meant well but made articles worse by trying to simplify language too much). Let's leave aside that discussion about those algorithms and tools for now. Can I reach any consensus on my proposal to add another bullet point to the task list about improving prose? The task list looks like this and I have added a potential new task at the end: