Archives

July 2006—January 2007 Feb 2007—March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007–July 2007 Old odds and ends Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007 July 2007 July–August 2007 August 2007 September 2007 September 2007 September 2007–October 2007 November 2007 November 2007–January 2008 January 2008 February 2008–March 2008 March 2008–May 2008 June 2008 June 2008–July 2008 July 2008–September 2008 September 2008–October 2008 October 2008–November 2008 November 2008–December 2008 December 2008–February 2009 February 2009–May 2009 May 2009–June 2009 June 2009–August 2009 August 2009–December 2009 December 2009–March 2010 March 2010–June 2010 June 2010–August 2010 August 2010–November 2010 November 2010–December 2010 December 2010–present (Date ranges are approximate)

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This is something I would consider bringing up at AN or ANI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Fringe positions are grossly overrepresented on Wikipedia, and this sort of campaign is one of the reasons. I just added the page to my watchlist, and will semiprotect if any new "editors" show up to add the tag. Antandrus (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki AIDS-denialist recruiting is sort of like herpes - it flares up occasionally, and it's annoying, but in the end it dies down harmlessly. I wouldn't get too worried about it. This has happened before, and it will happen again. Having more eyes on the articles is always helpful, so thanks for watchlisting it. In general, the readership of the denial-wiki seems extremely low, so it may not be a big issue. It's utterly beyond me why BruceSwanson retains any editing privileges here, since his goals are so clearly and diametrically at odds with this site's ostensible focus on creating a serious, respectable reference work, but such is life. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're giving him rope, it's up to him to hang himself. Given his mediocre but somewhat worthwhile work on other pages (ugh, proofreading, expanded from an unsourced stub to an unsourced full-length article including his own blog? Really? I guess that's an improvement of sorts...) I would argue for a page ban would be the fairest way forward - if it comes to that. It's never been taken squarely to AN or ANI that I can recall, and his POV-pushing is not so egregious as to merit an instaban. Based on topic choice and POV, yes. Based on actions, no.

Note that the rethinking AIDS page references several wiki pages, so if you are watching for meatpuppets, you may want to think about watching all of them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:BruceSwanson's consistent use of the second person plural would seem to violate WP:MEAT, WP:BATTLE and a bunch of other stuff that I can't be bothered to look up. MastCell erroneously references the site's "ostensible focus on creating a serious, respectable reference work", not realizing that this is a social experiment with the reference work as an unavoidable byproduct; we shouldn't hold that against him though. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second person plural is the y'all case. I suspect that you meant the first person plural ("we"), which is more commonly indicative of MEAT or shared accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, second, it's all the same. (Thanks for the correction.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we're being pedantic, I did say that this site's goal was "ostensibly" to create a serious, respectable reference work. Increasingly, I think that goal is ostensible, intended for show, as a fundraising trope, and as a wholesome-sounding rationalization for the amount of their free time people devote to this place. Because if we were serious, why would we allow our article on zidovudine to be edited by people who deny the very existence of HIV/AIDS?

In reality, the dominant attitude seems to be that our goal is to create a fully functional online social environment in which all ideas are equally valid as long as they're mentioned in newsprint somewhere, regardless of how idiotic they might be considered by people who actually know what they're talking about. Or a "level playing field", for shorthand. If our articles mislead the reader, or embarrass anyone with a glancing familiarity with their subject matter, then that's a small price to pay for knowing that we've guaranteed the Creator-endowed civil rights of every single-purpose agenda account to use Wikipedia's servers to promote their pet beliefs. Anything less would, of course, be censorship. MastCell ^Talk 03:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a free-content database in which the contributor's declared expertise is taken into account. It's called Citizendium. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is apropos of what, exactly? MastCell is discussing Wikipedia's adherence to its own stated aspirations and policies, not the declared expertise of contributors, so the motivation for this remark is unclear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not actually asking that anyone be shown deference by virtue of their expertise, real or imagined. I edit quite a few topics here where I lack any expertise at all, and I enjoy it. I don't think Citizendium would let me edit them. I don't think you need experts to write good content. On the other hand, you can't write good content if you are palpably and viscerally contemptuous of expertise. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In conversations with Wikipedia observers sometimes they've asked me what kind of knowledge or expertise it takes to write a Wikipedia article. I've told them that all it takes is the willingness and ability to compile relevant sources and take the information from them and present it in a logical manner in the article. That's about it. As you all have noticed, Wikipedia's model doesn't otherwise provide any more deference for editors with declared expertise than it does to any other editor. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you let Joe the Plumber do brain surgery on you after he "read" 15 random articles on the brain? Would you let Britney Spears fly a 747 after she studied the manual for two hours? To properly write about a topic you need to understand it. There is a reason why we have higher education. For many fields, it takes years to get to a level where one can usefully read the sources. For other fields, less so. And of course it's less critical in fields where less misinformation is out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you that higher education is required to contribute to most, if not all, Wikipedia topics at the level that is appropriate for Wikipedia. I think just about anyone has the ability, if motivated enough to apply themselves, to find and organize the appropriate sources, extract the relevant information, and present it in an organized manner. Also, it's not our job to weed out "misinformation." All we're allowed to do is weed out sources which don't meet our guidelines. If sources which meet our reliable sources guidelines contain contradictory or varying views on a topic, it all goes in there with relevant weight. Our readers are intelligent enough to look at the sources and decide what is true and what is dubious. It's not appropriate for us to tell them what or how to think about a topic. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for the motivation behind this non-sequitur. Why do you feel the need to state this obvious fact, something about which you even say "As you all have noticed..."? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think we're saying more or less the same thing. As I said, I'm not asking that experts be shown more deference than the average editor. If this project were sanely run and truly interested in its ostensible goals, then we would want to value expertise - because it's beneficial to the project - instead of framing it in terms of deference and power dynamics. Once we frame the question in terms of whether the average editor should "defer" to experts, we've already left the realm of useful discourse.

It's an odd sort of arrogance to pretend that experts bring no added value to this project. Wikipedia encourages people to edit boldly and confidently, regardless of their formal training or knowledge base, which is the key to its success. Unfortunately, it does a much poorer job of instilling even a minimal sense of humility. Too many Wikipedians, when faced with someone who knows more than them, respond with contempt (polite or otherwise), rather than a desire to learn from that expertise or leverage it to help build the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 07:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification: Wikipedia's model doesn't otherwise provide any deference for editors with declared expertise, or anyone, but it does respect demonstrated diligence and expertise in properly finding and evaluating the best quality sources, and using them constructively in full accordance with article content policies. Some editors don't defer to that model. . . dave souza, talk 10:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that since experts should have a handy understanding of a topic and ready access to sources, they should be able to "win" virtually any content dispute through access and ability to summarize sources. TimVickers always seemed like a gold standard on this (not that the other contributors to this discussion aren't awesome). Takes longer than "just trust me" but also produces a better article.

I've also see the contributions of editors banned from wikipedia over at Citizendium and must say - their model doesn't produce a better encyclopedia and still allows nonsense to be pushed by POV editors. Also belies Bruce's "using your real name will always make things better" argument. Placing the emphasis on sources rather than expertise still seems like the best approach. Verifiability, not truth, is a diabolical piece of genius IMHO. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No publishing model is perfect. After all, The Lancet allowed this. What better example of a POV pusher breaking rules to publish nonsense they want others to believe. There are hotspots on Wikipedia where it does't work so well. But there are plenty articles that get no trouble at all. One day, I will get round to rewriting Epilepsy, which is quite neglected yet is as important a topic as AIDS, just uncontroversial. I would love to collaborate with a neurologist on that, and I don't think we lack such editors because of abusive editors causing trouble: these experts are just busy people. Perhaps the JMIR paper will encourage some. Colin°^Talk 12:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used to encourage colleagues with real-life expertise to volunteer some of it to Wikipedia. After all, a large part of a physician's job description is to educate people to help them make good decisions about their health; and improving Wikipedia's medical coverage is a quick and potent way to educate people, as some of our contributors have nicely demonstrated in that paper and elsewhere.

I'm not as optimistic anymore, mostly because when push comes to shove, the culture here will favor social and political considerations over the creation of serious, encyclopedic content. That's been a disappointing realization, at least for me, especially since I see it getting worse rather than better over time. One can avoid it by working on less controversial articles, and that's been the direction I've been leaning. As Colin notes, "less controversial" doesn't mean "less important", by any means. Some of our most controversial topics are among the most obscure and unimportant.

I don't proselytize for people to share their expertise with Wikipedia anymore, because I'm not convinced it's a good use of time. I don't discourage people either; I usually just try to warn them about this site's culture and advise them to steer clear of anything remotely controversial until they get their feet wet and decide whether they like it here.

The JMIR paper is awesome, and I'm hopeful that it will increase the number of editors interested in creating high-quality medical content (although we've been blessed with excellent editors from the first day I can remember, and before, so we're exceptionally lucky in that regard already). Colin, I'm not a neurologist, but if you tackle epilepsy, leave me a note and I'll do my best to help out. MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind offer. Don't hold your breath. It has been on my list for years and I've got an obscure subject to get out of the way first. I'm sure a tardigrade would contribute faster to Wikipedia than me. Colin°^Talk 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that my "expertise" on epilepsy begins and ends with a few "gee whizz" transcranial magnetic stimulation articles. If it would help, though, I could start an internet discussion group on the importance of accounting for contrail occlusion when deciding which astrological sign would work best for your ketogenic diet. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Good one. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU's comment about problems with Citizendium is spot on. In my experience, someone with a declared expertise in a particular subject area is not necessarily a better contributor. Often, the self-declared expert editor appears afflicted with severe myopia about their chosen area of expertise, and will sometimes act on it by trying to censor sources that they don't approve of because they present a view they don't approve of, for whatever reason. Of course, not all experts act that way. TimVickers is a good example of someone who knows how to effectively cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors consider Antandrus's Observations on Wikipedia behavior to be insightful and thought-provoking. With regard to complaints of "censor(ing) sources" the very first Observation is apropos. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a rare display of common sense I've decided to leave this comment and back away from the horse. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that User:Whaleto and User:Ombudsman were the same person. Do they have permission to have two accounts and use them to edit the same subjects and vote in the same AfD? Maybe I'm wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea who either of those two editors are, and am not particularly curious. The AfD is almost 5 years old, and closed with a consensus to delete, so I don't know how productive it would be to repoen the issue now. Ombudsman (talk · contribs) is only sporadically active, and I haven't encountered the other user you mentioned at all, if memory serves. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

it makes me so sad, but it's so correct

so long as the ignorance doesn't overwhelm me, my goodness I'm quoting it everywhere.

Thanks my friend

Egg Centric 21:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one is too good to leave unplagiarized. I have always admired your fancy-brand bent for word turning. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't plagiarism. MastCell, due to the Wiki licensing agreements, permits it implicitly. But best to let him know about it explicitly. Egg Centric 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (I think Boris was just teasing, and not seriously accusing you of plagiarism). Thanks for the heads-up, and feel free to use it as you like; I'm glad it resonated. Boris, thanks for the kind words. MastCell ^Talk 04:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I was accusing myself of plagiarism, an accusation that appears to be justified. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't be too hard on yourself. All of the real experts on climate change are doing it. Allegedly. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without participating in talk page discussion, you have deleted reliable sources, and rewritten a sentence so that it is supported by no sources at all except your personal opinion.[2] Am I missing something here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...must...resist...temptation... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please succumb to the temptation to explain why that's a useful comment, Boris.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit summary was fairly clear, but you can assume that I agree with the so-far-unanimous objections to your edit which have been voiced on the talk page. I prefer to limit my interactions with you, because they tend to bring out the worst in me.

When you say that I've "deleted reliable sources", you must be referring to my removal of the 50-year-old journal articles you cited. I think I'm improving the article by reducing its reliance on such superannuated sources, and I suspect that rationale is obvious to you, even if you don't agree with it.

Then you suggest that I've inserted unsourced material. Given your interest in the subject, I'm sure you know that essentially every reputable scientific, medical, and public-health body to have addressed the subject has drawn a tight linkage between the legality of abortion and its safety. These include:

• The World Health Organization ("The incidence of unsafe abortion is influenced by the legal provisions governing access to safe abortion, as well as the availability and quality of legal abortion services. Restrictive legislation is associated with a high incidence of unsafe abortion.")
• Sedgh et al., Lancet 2007, PMID 17933648: "Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively."
• New York Times 2007: "Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely."

... and so on. I'm not sure why you think 50-year-old journal articles are superior to these sources, which are the sort of modern, high-quality sources that a serious, respectable reference work might be expected to feature. Actually, I have a few hypotheses about why you're playing games to obscure a clear statement of easily demonstrable expert opinion on the subject of abortion, but I don't think it would be constructive to voice it at this juncture. I will bring these sources over to the talk page - actually, they're already in the article, which makes your {{cn}} tag all the more difficult for me to rationalize, but if you'd like every sentence multiply footnoted then whatever: [3] MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these interactions do bring out the worst in you, and I prefer to limit them as well. I'll pursue this matter at the article and its talk page. As usual, you overlook contrary statements, and take other statements out of context. 50-year-old sources are perfectly acceptable at Wikipedia if they are accurate and have not been contradicted; and, you omit to mention your removal of much more recent sources. Your editing could be much more neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This was definitely needed. Any chance of convincing you to add a similar comment, or take some other appropriate action, here, or at the continuation here? There are no signs of winding down, and at the rate it's going this talk page debate will soon be longer than the separate article devoted to the subject. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...didn't AzureCitizen also just commit a 3RR then? 98.201.181.140 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how many people read this page, and I've generally resisted using it as a blog, but here goes. Inspired by a fellow Wikipedia fan, and by the high standards of integrity in public discourse set by our political leadership, I have created the following inline template: User:MastCell/NITBAFS. I think Wikipedia will benefit from its immediate and widespread application.^{[Not intended to be a factual statement]}. And I think Wikipedia has been in desperate need of such a template for a long time. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so modest, MastCell. This page is being watched by 243 people, as anyone can tell by clicking on certain buttons above. Your new template has obvious value, since sarcasm is not so easy to convey on the Internet ^{[Not intended to be a factual statement]}. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but false modesty is sort of my thing. Anyhow, I've been around this site so long that most of those 243 are probably long since burnt-out and retired, although their watchlists still show up on the toolserver. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page Not intended to be a factual statement exists, as a redirect, FWIW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Given the current notoriety of the phrase and its implicit commentary on the current political discourse, I briefly considered turning it into a freestanding article, as with other phrases such as the terrorists have won, tired and emotional, the bomber will always get through, etc. Not sure whether it would be a worthwhile undertaking, but it could be interesting, and perhaps more appropriate than a redirect to a BLP. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MC. I just posted the link to my Facebook wall, and my free-thinking, liberal, skeptical friends are reposting it. I'd give you credit, but..... OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like. But what about your conservative friends? MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> You have liberal friends? In their current alliance with the Tories, they don't have many friends here. Also, by "skeptical" do you mean credulous? Anyway, kudos to MastCell. In parliamentary terminology a terminological inexactitude template might be nice, but this one looks more generally useful. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'm fairly sure a redirect from a well-publicized direct quote to a (sourced) subsection explaining the quote is OK, BLP-wise, but wouldn't get overly worked up if someone disagreed and it went away. My contribution was to redirect it to the correct BLP. It appears someone originally tried to make it a sub-stub article, but was overruled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, me again…

Tick season is here - time to think again about LD diagnosis. Could you find the time to read Craven et al. 1996, PMID 8903216, and let me know if you can see any problems with it?

There is a little background that would be helpful in understanding why I’m bringing up such an old and relatively obscure paper. Presumably you know, or can easily find out, the different sensitivity/specificity trade-offs appropriate to surveillance case definitions versus diagnostic testing. As to LD-specific background: (1) the only currently mainstream-accepted diagnostic algorithm leans on this data and interpretation, which were presented (as it says at the end of the paper) at the Dearborn conference in 1994, where the current view was codified. (2) Some of the authors of this paper, namely Dattwyler, Sigal, Steere, and Johnson, are among the most vigorous advocates of the current practice of requiring positive results on the standardized two-tier test for diagnosing and treating any case of suspected LD that doesn’t present with a physician-documented EM rash. I’ll be glad to provide detailed documentation of both these points if you doubt them.

Spring has sprung, the first warblers are here! We have, flitting around in full mating plumage, palm warblers and yellow-rumped warblers (cute name, eh? though not as good as titmouse or the classic yellow-bellied sapsucker). Hope you and yours are well, Postpostmod (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Lyme Disease in California, thankfully. Ticks must be scared of earthquakes. I don't know anything about the testing, but I'm here to comment that I hope there is a good definitive test, because I keep running into people who are blaming everything from autoimmune diseases to CFS and fibromyalgia on LD. And these are Californians who have never gone hiking in the woods in the east. Must be communicable. </end snark> I'll gladly read that article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to meet you. I look forward to discussing the paper with you (and I hope MastCell joins in - how about it, MC?). I think there may be a little social dynamic problem with more than two people in the conversation, which is why I asked MastCell in particular to discuss it with me, but we'll just have to see how it goes.

One small thing - it's not disputed at all in the literature (i.e. it's not controversial) that California, especially the northern part, is endemic for Lyme disease. I found PMID 20498837, PMID 20514140, and PMID 21177909 to be nice sources, talking about the various Borrelia genotypes found in ticks sampled in locations including CA, the various mammalian host species, and the types of Borrelia found in serum of CA residents. But I don't know your taste in literature, so you might want to type "lyme california" and "borrelia california" into the pubmed search bar and choose your own refs.

Best regards, Postpostmod (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those locations are about 1500 miles north of me.  :) However, I supply information to PCT thru hikers about medical issues, like the fact that Sierra streams and rivers tend to be giardia-free, and there is a change in clothing and insect concerns as people move north. Right now, they're just making it into the mountains above LA, if that far, because the snow pack is huge on the Sierra Crest. But I'll study up on this to see what the issues are along the trail in Northern California. The trail up there is around 5000-7000', although goes down to <1000 in a few places. That changes the fauna quite a bit, which eliminates some of the reservoir fauna. Of course, everyone outside of California thinks we hang on the beach with our birkenstocks.  :) But thanks for the info. I need to get ahead of the game along some parts of the trail.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to help hikers. Areas with a dry climate do have fewer ticks; a tick's idea of heaven is moist leaf litter with lots of small mammals and birds foraging (like, around Boston). Unfortunately the most interesting natural habitats are also the most tick-infested. I've never lived in a dry climate so don't really have a hands-on sense of those ecosystems.>p>

Living here in the middle of the mess, I haven't cut back on my time outdoors, but I do carefully avoid brushing against vegetation and walking in tall grass. I wear permethrin-impregnated clothing (available in various brands) and hiking boots or leather (not mesh) walking shoes. It's not clear that bug spray helps, but I spray my socks and shoes just in case. The sock-tucking method is only practical if you have a pair of spare socks to put on immediately after you untuck the pants - otherwise as soon as you untuck they just crawl up the socks, under your pants, and keep going until they find a cozy place to make camp. I don't mind looking like a geeky bird-watcher on the trail, but still have enough residual youthful vanity to draw the line at going into a restaurant, say, with my (baggy) pants tucked into my socks.

A pleasant overview of Lyme disease history that would be unexceptionable to the mainstream medical community would be Jonathan Edlow's Bulls-Eye. It's not perfect (what is?) and not well-referenced (I guess since he's at Harvard and publishing through Yale, it doesn't have to be. ;-) But he, remarkably, mostly attained the fragile and elusive NPOV. All our public libraries have copies, but maybe yours won't because of the locality. I got a used copy cheap on Amazon.

Happy reading, best regards, Postpostmod (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that had LD rates by zip code throughout California. Interestingly, even in Southern California, which everyone assumes to be hot desert, the areas along the PCT in SoCal are forested. They're very moist now, because we had a wicked winter (sorry, couldn't resist, since you said you were in Boston). And, the map points out a moderate risk of LD in those areas. I might have to post some new information. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. Postpostmod (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I took a look at the Craven paper. Without a clearer idea of what you're driving at, it's hard for me to say much. It appears to confirm that serologic testing is inaccurate in early disease, but highly sensitive in late disease, supporting the current approach to Lyme diagnosis. Your phrasing suggests that you think the paper is flawed, but without more direction, I can't guess what you're thinking and nothing is jumping out at me.

  On the subject of testing, I'm interested in what approach you think would make sense. I think it's possible that current criteria lead to underdiagnosis of Lyme-related illness. On the other hand, one needs some sort of diagnostic criteria on which to base one's treatment. Otherwise, one might as well be a faith healer, albeit with the ability to prescribe potentially harmful medications. If we jettison the current approach of clinical suspicion backed by two-tier serologic testing for late disease, what should replace it?

  As a side note, I'm curious what you think of the current state of the "Lyme-literate" world. It seems to me - at least at a superficial glance - to contain a non-trivial proportion of what I would term snake-oil salesmen. I believe that people are seriously suffering, and that at least some, if not all, advocates of alternative approaches are motivated by a desire to relieve that suffering. At the same time, it seems clear that tests and therapies are being marketed which are clearly inaccurate and unhelpful, and which have the potential to defraud people with medically unexplained symptoms. At the risk of ad hominem argumentation, some of the figures involved have histories which might induce skepticism. I suppose I could name names, but as you're familiar with the demimonde, I think you probably have an idea of what I'm referring to. Do you think there's a need for the "Lyme-literate" world to set its house in order, so to speak, before attacking the supposed corruption of the IDSA? (I apologize for the loaded and leading question; feel free to respond as you wish, or not at all). MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. RL calls, I'll be back in a few days. Best regards, Postpostmod (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to be so slow in responding. And sorry that I may seem to be providing too much information - I saw a TV ad yesterday that had, as a humorous disclaimer, a box stating "excessively explanatory explanation". I'm between a rock and hard place here.;-)

Regarding the Craven paper PMID 8903216, let’s postpone temporarily your policy- and values-related questions (your paragraphs 2 and 3) while we look in detail at the data. I trust we can agree that physical facts come first, and policies and values follow. Sorry you were puzzled; I guess I leaned too far on the side of not "leading the witness". I hoped our previous discussion [4] of the issue of circular reasoning in Steere et al. 2008 PMID 18532885 would inform your scrutiny of Craven et al.

In reading Craven, the immediate oddity that caught my eye is this. From looking at Table 1, I thought, "92% and 93% sensitivity – that’s almost up to the standard one might accept in a diagnostic test!” But then on reading the text, I found that the (then) CDC method was being dismissed, despite its high sensitivity, as being “poor”, because of its low specificity. This would be marginally okay if the low-sensitivity, high-specificity test were being used only for research purposes or surveillance (i.e., for measuring whether the number of cases are increasing or decreasing over time and region). In several of the CDC’s statements it is emphasized that the surveillance definition should not be used for diagnosis – presumably because of its poor sensitivity. (refs on request). But this distinction seems to have been lost in the fray. Of course, the whole analysis in Table 1 is pretty bogus, because early cases are lumped in with late ones, and no one expects early cases to be identifiable by serologic methods.

The worst problem is a little more subtle, but not much. I thought maybe you’d catch it because we saw it in the Steere et al. 2008 paper. The problem is that the positive cases identified by serological methods were not excluded from the analysis. In fact, most, if not all, of the late-stage cases were probably selected by a serological method: “All case-patient serum samples (total = 109) were from patients who met the CDC clinical case definition for surveillance of Lyme disease (15)”.

Here’s a link to ref 15, the 1990 CDC case definition PMID 2122225: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00025629.htm. The relevant information is on pages 19-21. Please pull it up and take a look at this definition. I’ll quote the summary here for people who are following along on a superficial level:

[Begin quote]

Clinical case definition

• Erythema migrans, or

• At least one late manifestation, as defined below, and laboratory confirmation of infection

Laboratory criteria for diagnosis

• Isolation of Borrelia burgdorferi from clinical specimen, or

• Demonstration of diagnostic levels of IgM and IgG antibodies to the spirochete in serum or CSF, or

• Significant change in IgM or IgG antibody response to B. burgdorferi in paired acute- and convalescent-phase serum samples

[end quote]

(It then goes on to define the very limited subset of “late manifestations” that qualify: see the original article.)

You’ll note that erythema migrans (as long as it is diagnosed by a physician) is sufficient, so the “early LD” patients don’t have to have culture or serological evidence of infections. 14 of 34 acute-phase patients were culture-confirmed, but that has no bearing on the analysis. Presumably none of the late-stage patients were culture-confirmed – if they were, wouldn’t the authors say so? Anyway, it’s not considered practical to use culture (or PCR, for that matter) for diagnosis in clinical practice, because the odds are so low of getting the right piece of tissue on a biopsy of anything but an EM or synovium.

That means that the only way to “confirm” a case of late, non-arthritic Lyme disease was (and still is) through antibody evidence filtered through the criteria of whomever is fabricating the standard. We therefore know that all the late non-arthritic Lyme disease patients in Table 2 had antibody evidence of infection that was stringent enough to satisfy the most stringent of the study’s authors, as a necessary criterion for being included in the analysis. (I’m not including the arthritis patients because it’s possible some of them were confirmed by culture of synovium- too bad it doesn't say.)

All of this renders Table 2 of the paper, where the sensitivity of the test in late Lyme disease is supposedly demonstrated, meaningless. If you define “real” late LD cases as those with abundant antibodies to a certain subset of epitopes, then lo and behold, all “real” LD cases are guaranteed to exhibit that combination of antibodies, and you have a reported sensitivity near 100%. It’s a rather transparent artifact caused by faulty case selection and data analysis.

I’m sorry if this all looks suspiciously complex (or even pathologically obsessive ;-) to the average MD. It’s everyday routine to a competent research scientist. To paraphrase Racker’s famous dictum “Don’t waste clean thinking on dirty enzymes”, it’s also foolish to waste clean thinking on dirty data or interpretations. Because it’s such a time-waster, most of us don’t embark on a series of experiments until we’ve established to our own satisfaction that the literature we’re relying on, is “clean”. In other words, we’re our own fact-checkers. Once you get used to doing this kind of reading, it becomes second nature. And it’s so easy now – you can pull up the relevant papers with a click of the mouse. We used to have to go to the library (or send someone), and photocopy the articles - laborious, but we still did it.There’s no reason not to check, if there’s any reason to suspect there are errors in the literature that can lead you astray, in your pursuit of the physical (as contrasted with the socially constructed) facts. This routine practice has the further effect of cleaning up the literature in its wake. If everybody is constantly checking the primary literature, instead of taking reviews and textbooks at face value, then errors are much less likely to get encrusted as dogma in a field of study.

I’ll address your policy and values questions after we get done with the dry technical stuff. I think mixing them up confuses the issues unnecessarily and puts us in a frame of mind more emotional than rational, which interferes with undertaking the strictly intellectual work needed here. I do get the impression that policy and value issues may be the primary reason mainstream medicine (and hence Wikipedia) keeps defending current diagnostic and treatment policies. If that is the case any discussion of physical evidence is seen as irrelevant, and talking about the mainstream view as "evidence-based" and "scientific" is perhaps not intended to be a factual statement. ;-)

Hope you're enjoying the spring. We saw 5 new (for this year) migrant warblers yesterday evening. All in one tree, in ten minutes, after wandering around for an hour and a half seeing not much but robins. Patience pays off. Two were new species for me - the worm-eating warbler (which actually doesn't eat worms) and the blue-winged warbler. Don’t laugh - you don't know what you'll do for fun when you're my age. ;-)

Best regards, Postpostmod (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell,

How's it going? you never write, you never call…;-)

I’ll apologize in advance for my posts being so long. I sometimes feel as if we’re talking past each other, so I want to be sure to make few assumptions, and provide enough detail so you can see how I’m making my good-faith effort at dealing with the issues.

I’ve been trying to think how to answer your policy questions in a way that doesn’t automatically set up a conflict. Theoretically, there should be a lot of overlap between doctors’ and patients’ interests, though I’ve become aware they’re not identical. It would be nice if we could stay within that overlap, where patients want to get well and doctors want to help them. The alternative is to go into the zone where their interests conflict. In my youth I liked a good fight as much as anyone, and I can see the appeal of us-versus-them drama. It must be a primal human impulse – look at the premise of most organized sports and computer games. Now I’m less inclined to go there, but I’m not entirely ready to assume a stance of passive resignation. ;-)

I don’t want to discount cavalierly the belief system of the mainstream medical community (and WP:MED, which I think reflects it - a compliment! ;-). I’m making an effort to put myself into doctors’ shoes, so to speak. I'm trying to imagine what would be the function of believing that recommendations which have gained ascendancy in “mainstream medicine” should be defended at all costs, regardless of their scientific quality. Also problematic is the assumption, probably veiled to doctors but starkly visible to newcomers and outsiders, that a hierarchy of experts is the proper way to organize medical knowledge. (Think, for example, of the ice-cream-cone model of academic medicine in House of God.) It seems to boil down to both doctors’ and patients’ discomfort with uncertainty and complexity. They both want, and feel an urgent need for, simple, yes-or-no answers. Plus, patients want treatment. They don't have the option doctors have, of turfing their case to somewhere else so it's no longer their problem. Some medical sub-fields presumably resist the social pressure to provide easy answers where there are none. Maybe this is because the leaders of these fields are both able to understand best practices in science, and able to see how a short-term gain in psychological comfort is not worth the long-term frustration, suffering, and loss of credibility caused by working within a false disease paradigm. Physical reality is what it is. An appealing, internally consistent, but untrue description doesn’t change it.

Let’s look at it from an intelligent patient’s point of view (and we’re all prospective patients). A “faith healer” would be someone who is offering medical advice that doesn’t work in the physical world . A “snake oil salesman” would be someone who is pushing a medical product that doesn’t work as advertised. And so on with quack, charlatan, etc.

It may be that there is a definition of these epithets that is peculiar to mainstream medical insiders. For example, suppose all these epithets are applied customarily to anyone who does not endorse the majority view, even when it’s indefensible from a scientific standpoint. Then your comments would be understandable to me. Of course I wouldn’t find them convincing reasons to support the LD status quo.

Regarding your suggestion that it's more important to criticize rogue "LLMDs" than to clean up the mainstream, I disagree. Because the mainstream claims to be science-based, and affects the billion or so people in the developed who trust in it implicitly, it is much more urgent to correct the mainstream. If the mainstream view were adjusted so that it accurately reflects the physical facts, everyone could stop fighting, scientific progress could be made, and there would be fewer abandoned patients seeking out alternative therapies.

In summary, if a widely used test is inaccurate, it is causing misdiagnosis and therefore mistreatment of patients, and should no longer be used. End of story.

Please let me know if you get my point. Then I’ll be glad to share with you my thoughts on what would be a realistic approach to LD diagnosis. It requires reading a couple more papers: I’d suggest PMID 1537905, and PMID 8459513 plus the comments (letters) on it.

Back in nature, the warbler migration is over, but there are nesting and hatching and fledgling birds all over the place. Many of the little guys have no tails, and they perch on twigs keeping their balance, looking around, and waiting for Mom and Dad to bring home the bugs. Fun to watch. We went up to Plum Island (MA) last weekend and enjoyed it on a gorgeous day. No greenhead flies yet, cool and sunny. We did, after some debate, go through about 3 feet of light brush to get onto another trail, and sure enough, in that tiny distance, my friend picked up a nice big I. scapularis on his pant leg. At least the adults are visible. We checked ourselves carefully and proceeded. Mostly the trails there are wide enough and well-maintained, so it’s not too dangerous if people know the drill and dress appropriately.

Hope you and yours are well, and that your baseball team prospers. Best regards, Postpostmod (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC

Hello, I'm still interested. Best wishes and Happy 4th, Postpostmod (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago, my baseball fantasy league had its draft. Our league has been together for some 20 years, so we all know each other well. We have lawyers (can't be trusted, ever), scientists (just a bit above lawyers...LOL), and a couple of hot baseball groupies (don't ask). Anyways, Josh Hamilton came up for bid, before his recent injury, when someone opined that he seemed to have a lot of injuries. This lead to a long conversation that there were injury prone players, and then there were those who never got hurt. And drafting players who were injury prone was a bad idea. You look across sports, and there are just some players that are on the DL almost every year, and there are other players who are rocks (think Cal Ripken Jr). Now, I'm the major skeptic of the group, so the conversation stops, and they thought I would say something like "selection bias" or "no reliable sources" (yes, I use that term, picked it up here, I'm sure). But I didn't have any good information. I actually avoid drafting baseball players who have 2 or more stints on the DL, as a strategy. Especially with pitchers. Then I thought about it more. Mariano Rivera is rarely if ever on the DL. Josh Hamilton seems to be on it all the time. So, it got me to thinking. Are there just athletes with weaker joints, bones, muscles, tendons, or whatever? Or is it selection bias? If there was science involved here, I could rule fantasy leagues forever! I would never draft Paul Molitor specifically because of this theory, and despite his good stats, you'd only get 2/3 of a season out of him. Maybe I'm guilty of random baseball injury denialism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an element of individual predisposition to injury, but also an environmental component. The examples you chose are good illustrations. Josh Hamilton took a notoriously cavalier approach to his own health early in his career; aside from injuries in a car accident, which may have predisposed him to subsequent re-injury, he was reportedly drinking a fifth of liquor a day with cocaine for dessert, and didn't stop until there were evident health consequences. While his most recent injury was blamed on his third-base coach (??), one could surmise that the years of self-abuse contributed to cellular aging and predisposed him to recurring injuries. Also, he plays the game aggressively, as his most recent injury attests.

Rivera, on the other hand, is famously calm and disciplined. Plus, he has far fewer opportunities to injure himself - he throws one inning at a time, never swings a bat or runs the bases, and doesn't even really throw breaking balls. While Ripken played one of the most physically demanding positions in the game, he was similarly disciplined and religious about his physical conditioning. Whether that explains his greater durability than Hamilton, I don't know - it may be selection/confirmation bias. I do think that the more committed a player is to physical conditioning, the more durable they tend to be - for example, it probably explains why Roy Halladay can throw 100+ pitches every start for an entire season and postseason.

In the end, though, it's probably mostly random. Mike Mussina famously mocked Carl Pavano by saying that Pavano's body had "rejected" pitching, like it was a mismatched organ. I guess that makes as much sense as anything. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find these quotes? You must have some RSS feed that sends you odd quotes from anyone on the planet. I'm obsessive about baseball, and I've never heard that quote, especially given how delicious it is. Anyways, that's an interesting consideration about Josh Hamilton. I don't follow the gossip in baseball as much as I should, so I forgot about his drinking skills. Even though Rivera is a one-inning reliever, think about the relievers who broke down quickly. Joe Nathan and Brad Lidge seem to be fairly fragile. And given your theory that they don't get in harm's way very often just pitching one inning, they must be made of porcelain. I've never broken a bone, and I've done some dumb, crazy, senseless things, from falling off a motorcycle at high speed, to misplacing a nut on a rock face falling 50 feet, to missing a turn on a mountain bike, and rolling down a mountainside. A couple of advil and I'm ready to rock.  :) So from my standpoint, Josh Hamilton is a bit weak—maybe his body rejects running. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lidge had a series of major injuries early in his career, including a torn rotator cuff (I think rotator cuff issues have him on the DL at present) and a broken arm. Whether those set the stage for his subsequent injury-proneness, or were simply an early manifestation of it, is probably an insolvable question. On the other hand, Rivera had some early injuries too, and he's been remarkably durable. I think it's probably one of those things.

Regarding Pavano, Mussina said:

Our problem right now is we have too many pitchers on the 15-day Pavano. That's what it's officially called now. Did you know that? The Pavano.
His body just shut down from actually pitching for six weeks. It's like when you get an organ transplant and your body rejects it. His body rejected pitching. It's not used to it.

It's not from an RSS feed. It's from Joe Torre's book, The Yankee Years. You should read it; it's full of juicy insights (Torre added, for good measure: "The players all hated him [Pavano]. It was no secret.") If you're a Yankees-hater, the book will confirm pretty much every negative impression you had about the team. Whatever your feelings about the Yankees, it's an interesting look behind the curtain.

I'm sorry to hear about your misplaced nut. I hope it turned up. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a backup nut! I will get the book, because I despise the Yankees. And of course Torre managed the Dodgers for a bit. You should read The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty by Buster Ulney. Also, a good one, especially if you want to read how the Yankees have gone downhill. 15-day Pavano. Love it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I still remember where I was when I watched Luis Gonzalez hit that winner off Rivera in Game 7, 2001. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of amusing, if the Yankees are in the WS, I'm watching, because I want them to lose. To anyone. I'm not a fan of the Bosox, but when they came back down 0-3 and swept the Yankees, well that just made my year. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary study, but... [5] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have a pretty dim view of most social-sciences literature. The level of statistical and analytical sophistication is decades behind the biomedical literature, and some of the stuff I see presented seriously in major social-sciences journals just makes me cringe and feel embarrassed for them. But that's a personal view, not one grounded in Wikipedia policy.

I can't access the full study (although I could request it from my local library), but it doesn't appear to focus on antiretrovirals as a contributor to the spread of AIDS. I have no doubt the authors mention that point, but a) it's a single primary study, b) in a relatively low-impact journal, c) focused on a relatively small area of the world and explicitly local rather than global in scope, and d) not a major thrust even of this single paper. So I don't think it actually meets the bar for inclusion at this point. There may be other sources which make a similar point - that is, the success of antiretrovirals creates a false sense of security - and if so, the section could be expanded using more and better sources. As is, I think it's a bit odd to pull out a single interview-based study from a relatively small region published in a relatively obscure journal as the basis for a bullet point, but that's me. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As ye speak, so shall your will be done...FHTAGN! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel so powerful. It's almost like I can see the Matrix. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary doesn't match my watchlist on the article; the IP gave rationale on the talk page and then blanked the page (admittedly, without an edit summary). I'm hoping this serves as a gentle reminder that new users may not know about proper use of edit summaries (many long-term editors don't use it properly!), so a little extra AGF on your edit summary would help.

I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended- in other words, a nudge, not meant to be condescending or to indicate you were wrong in the revert. tedder (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - you're right. I actually didn't see the talk page comment until after I reverted the edit, so that's an oversight on my part (although of course I couldn't go back and change the edit summary). I stand by the revert, and my subsequent explanation on the talk page, but I was wrong on the edit summary and that's my bad. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 03:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are correct on the edit. I tend to be hasty on my edit summaries, and I'm glad you took it as I hoped. tedder (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious subject. You're not supposed to make arbitrators laugh out loud - eHarmony indeed. Sanctions may be called for. ;-p Risker (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block him! For making me go look for it ... [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too came to congratulate you on this but I see I am third in line. Nice one anyway. --John (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, he only asked her once! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kneel at the altar of said wit. Genuflecting, I offer this cookie brimming with acerbic chocolate chips and lmfao crunchies. Ocaasi ^c 05:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the cookie? This is awesome, but I can't make the math work out. If he's been with us since 2004, he's not 15 (is he?), so surely he can figure out what he did wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, thanks for the kind words and the cookie. I have to say, I debated whether it was worth posting an admittedly unconstructive comment. But then I figured the thread couldn't get any more surreal, so what the hell. And now look at the positive feedback! I'm clearly being incentivized to stop editing articles and stop trying to calm disputes, and instead contribute side commentary. But like Langston Hughes said (or maybe it was Madonna), I guess we laugh to keep from crying. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apology for taking direct issue with that remark on the talk page, it cannot be allowed to pass un-checked. If you are not deliberately wanting to incite an edit war, then you need to clarify why you said it. You have been on that page long enough, and longer than me, to know not to make that kind of comment. OrangeMarlin should know better too. If there is deemed to be POV then the tag should have been placed on the intro and the matter raised on the talk page. Rest assured you won't get me into an edit war on this. The truth of the matter will be established. OrangeMarlin is either woefully ignorant of medical literature, or being deliberately provocative. That you have allowed yourself to be taken in, doesn't say much for your knowledge of the subject. DMSBel (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm woefully ignorant of anything but quantum mechanics. Just can't figure that shit out. By I am not woefully ignorant of the fact that you are topic-banned editor who's disliked by the community. Of course, I have no clue what you're talking about, but then again, topic-banned editor bore me to death. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article that Trevor Marshall claims supports him. Since he's the last author, it kind of makes him a bit biased. But, my read of it is that it does not support the Marshall Protocol, but more about autoimmune disease and microbes. I'm not sure that's earth shattering. I remember studying something about strep causing some types of autoimmune diseases (remember, I'm an old fart, so this was 35 years ago, and I hate microbiology). Anyways, in your free nanoseconds, see what you think. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think MC is quite busy these days, and may not bite. I could be wrong. The sole two pubmed-indexed articles I could find that mention Marshall can be found in this post on the talk page. Both are negative, one's a letter to the editor. I have both, but to do justice to the protocol I'd have to understand it first, and I'm not really interested in finding out a bunch of obscure biochemistry about vitamin D just to point out that the implications drawn by Marshall aren't really substantiated. Anyway, it's there, but it really does look like pretty classic fringe-pushing, complete with Nobel laureate name-dropping by a unjustifiably persecuted engineer working to revolutionize biochemistry by ignoring the scientific consensus and promoting ideas through case studies about people with ill-defined, poorly treated conditions that defy conventional treatment (hello chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic lyme disease, I see you're all here...) No Gallileo gambit yet, but I'm sure it's coming. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. First of all, about this review article: it was submitted on 14 Dec 2010 and accepted on 15 Dec 2010. In other words, it is not "peer-reviewed" in any meaningful sense of the word. An article cannot be meaningfully peer-reviewed in less than 24 hours. Cannot. Not possible. So the article should not be referred to as "peer-reviewed". There's nothing especially fishy about this - some review articles are not peer-reviewed, but simply published with the (unstated) assumption that they reflect the authors' opinions. I've written review articles which were accepted without comment the day I submitted them, and I've written review articles that were sent out for review where I got back a stack of "suggestions" from the reviewers that I had to address before publication. In general, the higher the journal quality, the more they skew toward the latter approach, but that's a generalization.

As to the content of the article itself, I'm not sure how much my personal opinion of its merits is relevant. I don't think it's especially convincing to a scientifically literate reader. In particular, it seems that the authors are treating people with olmesartan and antibiotics on the basis of their hypotheses. While a physician is certainly licensed to prescribe drugs off-label in this manner, it raises an ethical question (at least for me) of whether it's proper to treat patients in this uncontrolled fashion, outside a clinical trial, with drugs with known risks and side effects. Antibiotics are not completely benign drugs - I can understand why that ID doc was horrified - and neither is olmesartan. I wouldn't necessarily feel comfortable prescribing these drug to a patient on the basis of a totally novel hypothesis, unless it was in the context of a registered, IRB-approved clinical trial. Those protections exist for a reason. In particular, I find it [ADJECTIVE REDACTED] that the authors treated a woman with a resting BP of 75/45 with an antihypertensive (40 mg olmesartan qid). I would be surprised if any IRB would OK that intervention, at least not without an extensive process of informed consent beforehand. It's not clear to me that registered trials exist when it comes to the Marshall Protocol - I couldn't find anything registered at clinicaltrials.gov, although it's possible that I used the wrong search terms or there are trials overseas.

Moreover, it seems like the results of treatment are that patients feel worse and, eventually, sometimes feel back to baseline after months or years. That raises a lot of questions. A lot. The way these questions are explored by the authors is pretty unsatisfying and reeks of confirmation bias and insufficient self-skepticism.

Citing a case report of a single patient is, of course, meaningless from a scientific standpoint. All the more so since the biological endpoint cited by the authors is the antinuclear antibody titer. I don't think this will impress anyone who has any clinical experience at all, or who has ever ordered ANA titers. Moreover, autoimmune diseases are notoriously unpredictable - they wax and wane without apparent cause all the time, so pointing to a temporary improvement in two case studies isn't what I'd call scientifically convincing. I could write two case studies right now about patients with autoimmune disease who spontaneously improved despite no treatment at all. This is mostly useful as a teaching aide for lectures to medical students on clinical trial design, the importance of control groups, and the impact of the natural history of a disease and spontaneous remission rate.

That's just my personal opinion. I could go on, but I'm not sure I should bother. As to my opinion as a Wikipedian, I think the article is a classic example of the importance of our notability criteria. We can't write an encyclopedic article here, because there are no intellectually independent, reliable sources. It will either be an editorial hatchet job, or it will misleadingly suggest a greater degree of acceptance for these ideas than actually exists. It should be deleted as it fails our notability criteria, which should be particularly stringent for a BLP. I will consider whether it's worth the inevitable clusterfuck to nominate the article at AfD. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sure the "adjective redacted" wasn't an adverb and adjective? Or an adverb and verb? Or possibly an adjective and noun? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reserved the compound phrases until I got to the case of "BB", whom the authors describe as suffering deteriorating renal function after starting olmesartan. Of course, the authors attribute this to some sort of hand-waving "immunopathology" and "toxin clearance". One might, of course, consider the fact that renal dysfunction is a common and notorious adverse effect of angiotensin antagonists. From the paper, it looks like the patient's creatinine jumped from ~1.1 to ~1.7 shortly after starting olmesartan, and peaked at ~2.2. That's a bit concerning. The authors proudly state that the patient hasn't needed dialysis yet. Which is good, because I wouldn't want to be a malpractice insurer covering a physician who gave olmesartan off-label on the basis of a dubious hypothesis and continued it in the face of a declining GFR.

It sort of goes back to my point about ethics and oversight - I would like to know a bit more about the structure in which these patients are being treated. The authors note proudly that "we have had no reports of patients needing dialysis". That sounds good, except... how are they tracking patients? Do they actually follow them, fill out CRFs, etc? Or are they counting on the fact that the patient's local doc is going to pick up the phone and call them to mention that a patient ended up on dialysis? If the latter is the case, then "we have received no reports" is considerably less convincing and more concerning. If I tell patients to take a drug, send them home, and then a year later they all die in their local hospitals, I might well "receive no reports" of their deaths, unless I had some sort of actual clinical protocol to track such adverse events. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are essentially the exact same concerns I had, though I lack an MD to back up my statement. Fortunately, they are somewhat common sense in my mind. Your analysis of the peer review of the article is interesting - one question in my mind was how these articles were getting into journals given just how damned speculative they seem to be, and how the independent commentary on them seemed so skeptical. Would you happen to know anything about the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences in general and [this article in specific? I've been trying to figure out what their peer review process is and the website seems to suggest they only "invite" articles, they don't accept them unsolicited. I'm wondering if it's like PNAS where if you're a member, the peer review process is relatively minimal, thus allowing "unconventional" ideas to find their way to a high-impact, respected, "peer reviewed" journal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, an MD is just an applied scientist, no different than an engineer, so don't give any special weight to MC's thoughts. Oh wait, MC could block me for that one! What I use to determine a journal's quality is the Impact Factor. I've got a link somewhere in one of my numerous bookmark folders for a listing, and I should check up on it. Anyways, there are journals like Science or Nature that are 50's or so. There are junk journals that are in the 5's. And that difference is huge. I'll try to find out what they are to give us another idea of quality. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applied scientists are still subject matter experts; I wouldn't take Einstein's tailoring or medical advice seriously, even though he's synonymous with genius. The difference between me (and Trevor Marshall for that matter) and MastCell is the volume of knowledge about the specific topic we're discussing - medicine (and by implication, biology, anatomy, clinical trials, chemistry, pharmacology, etc.). I'll be far more willing to accept the opinion of an MD who is referencing the mainstream than an engineer who is claiming to revolutionize it. Not everyone gets to be Gallileo, though everyone wants to be!

The impact factor would be interesting, but it's not everything. PNAS for instance, has a high impact factor (I believe) but because of their approach to publication submission, review and acceptance, they've had more than their fair share of junk. I think Linus Pauling published a lot of his vitamin C junk in PNAS for instance (emphasis on "I think", I could be wrong). Or witness The Lancet and Wakefield for that matter. But no matter what, the three of us appear to be on the same page regards the Marshall protocol - it's outrunning the evidence base and has a lot of warning flags associated with quackery. I'm more leaning to "it's unproven" than "it's rank nonsense", mostly out of politeness. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that PNAS got rid of the publication backdoor for Academy members - I think they learned their lesson with Peter Duesberg in particular. Lancet is a good journal, but they've always had a reputation for favoring novel speculation over methodologically sound science (Wakefield being the most prominent, but not the only, example). That said, I'd publish there in a heartbeat. :)

The Annals N Y Acad Sci article is part of a "special issue" on autoimmunity, linked to the 6th International Congress on Autoimmunity in Porto, Portugal (which is beautiful, if you've never been). Apparently, Marshall participated heavily in this conference ([7]), and participants were invited to submit speculative articles for this special issue. The peer review process is unclear, but in general such invited articles for special issues are not rigorously peer-reviewed. In the preface to the journal issue, the guest editors (Yehuda Shoenfeld and Eric Gershwin, both prominent researchers in autoimmunity) explain:

... this volume, published by the New York Academy of Sciences, concentrates on critical clinical issues, with papers that might otherwise have fallen between the cracks of other journals... because they "push the envelope" on the future of autoimmunology research and clinical practice. (PMID 19758123)

So I think it's pretty clear that the article was invited as part of a special issue of Annals N Y Acad Sci, intended to "push the envelope" with speculative ideas about autoimmune disease. That doesn't invalidate it, of course, but it's useful context. If you want the article in question, I'll email it to you.

One thing to keep in mind is that with the proliferation of conferences, meetings, and journals, it's possible to get nearly anything into print in a MEDLINE-indexed, nominally peer-reviewed journal. Impact factor is tricky - of course, big-name journals will have a high impact factor. But in some subspecialities, even the most prominent, reputable journals will have "low" impact factors of 2 to 4 or so. That's a function of the size of the field, more than anything else.

About the protocol, my biggest concern is that it's not at all clear to me that it's being tested in an appropriate setting. Elsewhere, Marshall has indicated that he has no intention of ever publishing any clinical results from the protocol in a peer-reviewed journal (except for isolated case reports in non-refereed reviews, which have the scientific value of a late-night infomercial). Apparently his intent is simply to present the results at various meetings, which have much lower (or non-existent) peer-review requirements ([8]). The interventions in question are not entirely benign, to my mind. Anyhoo... MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a conference somewhere for you to present your results on osmiorosaceatherapy's health benefits. I'm always torn by new scientific or medical ideas. We should push the envelope, and see if something works. But we shouldn't harm people in doing so. Or at least try not to do so. It's so easy (at least to me) to spot the charlatans or the real scientists who are "pushing the envelope." A real scientist discusses the actual data. He is open to criticism. And he answers those criticisms directly, not by obfuscation. Pseudoscience almost always personifies the issue. I don't know why "show me the evidence presented in reliable sources" isn't the point that ends the argument. Trevor lacks any evidence whatsoever, and his trolling of medical conferences is lame. It's so obvious to us that it is lame. But I guess he gets to fool everybody by pointing how he's in a conference with 1700 people. The FDA was not amused, I see. Anyways, these conferences are scary, if they are really being used a method to get out fringe ideas. Wikipedia is not going to be fun if that's so, much like everyone using Medical Hypotheses to support AIDS denialism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OM, I'm not even going to try to guess what that therapy is supposed to be. My dog latin (and dog greek) isn't up to bark.

The problem is the three of us are on the same page. Others who are editing the talk or main page, are not. There's now a gaping hole in Trevor Marshall where a discussion of his protocol should be, and I really feel there should be a brief discussion, highlighting the expected consequences based on what our current understanding of vitamin D, immunology and metagenomics says and we can do so if we allow the brief discussions to be used.

Marshall also doesn't appear to realize the disservice he is doing to nearly everyone. If he's right, if vitamin D, occult bacteria and autoimmune diseases are linked, he's actually keeping important information from the largest group of people because it's never going to be an accepted protocol without adequate testing. If he's wrong, then all the poor, desperate SOBs who try it are hurting themselves (and creating antibiotic-resistant bacteria that hurts the rest of us). But like most with an idea that is "too good to be tested", it's simply going to languish in the netherworld of unlikely interventions with a strong internet presence. Sigh.

Anyway, gents, thanks for your help and analysis, it is much appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osmiorosaceatherapy. Would you please keep up with the best advances in medicine? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the latest advances in astronomy, such as the possibility of mining cheese from the moon and its relation to Earth-based cheese production? We should stop hijacking MastCell's page, his e-mail must be getting flooded. Plus, if we end here I got the last joke on WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, can you get the moon cheese discussion back on your user talk. Maybe put it on your User Page. It was a classic. I'm too lazy to go dig for it in your archives. As for MC, we're his entertainment. If only Comrade Boris would join in, then it would be perfect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you'll like this then, I created a page: Wikipedia:Skeptic vs believer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the subsequent Big Cheese addendum discussion that we had. LOL. But I'm watching the article. Obviously, it will be on speedy delete by some twit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a wiki, so feel free to add anything you think is missing :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MastCell. I've been watching your edits for a while, and I like the way you write. A comment you made on a talk page caught my attention, because I wonder if it applies to other topics.

every respectable scientific journal on Earth requires authors to describe the funding sources behind each publication

Do you think (or to be precise: does any non-fringe, quotable WP:RS think) that the views of funding sources has enough of a bearing on study results that it should always be disclosed? Does anyone ever try to correlate the amount of money spent on research with the views of the funding sources?

If so, does this apply to controversies like global warming too? (I've heard that tens of billions of dollars has gone into the search for a connection between human activity and climate change (AGW), specifically the last 50 to 150 years of 0.8 Celsius atmospheric warming. But how much money has gone into attempts to "falsify" the AGW theory?) Stop me if I'm beating a dead horse, but I've been trying for years to sort out competing claims of scientific consensus vs. "it's all a hoax". --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I cited Barnes & Bero 1998 at Talk:Passive smoking - it's a systematic review which addresses exactly the question you're asking. As to reliable sources in favor of consistent disclosure of funding sources, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has stated as a matter of fundamental principle that such disclosures should be universal practice, and that they are essential to the reader's understanding of published research ([9]).

I don't really want to open the climate-change can of worms. I don't work in the field, but my understanding is that most reputable climate-change research is government-funded (this is true of most reputable biomedical research, as well). To my mind, the government has no compelling interest in promoting one side or the other of the climate-change "controversy" (scare quotes intentional). It simply doesn't make any sense to me that the receipt of government research funding biases the published findings, although it's nice to be able to make that judgment on my own since such funding is disclosed. On the other hand, it's quite easy to see the potential impact of funding from industries with a major financial stake in averting carbon-emission regulation. In fact, for people conversant with the tobacco industry's efforts to subvert the scientific process to forestall regulation (now largely defunct in the US but quite vigorous overseas), the climate change goings-on occasion a sort of deja vu. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MastCell. I might have remembered the polls incorrectly; at least I couldn't find the poll I was referring to. Gallup says 73% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans believe that most global warming of the last century is due to human causes. [10] Whether that makes it a liberal POV or not is still up for grabs, then, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If 73% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans believed that the world was round, that wouldn't make it a "liberal POV". It would mean that, on average, Republicans are more poorly informed on scientific questions than Democrats, or that (as Stephen Colbert famously observed) "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

If one believes that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that abortion causes breast cancer, or that human activity plays no role in climate change, then the Republican Party provides a more sympathetic home, as it does to many people and industries who find their agendas threatened by scientific findings. But an issue is not necessarily political just because one of our two parties refuses to accept its basic scientific underpinnings. MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you accept the idea that most recent warming is anthropogenic and reject the opposite view that most of it is natural, presumably because you've studied the science of AGW theory, understand it to be falsifiable, and have examined alternative hypotheses on their merits and found them wanting. Those who disagree with you must be ignorant or ideologically motivated, since no actual scientific alternatives could possibly have any validity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry to intrude)But can you actually mention an alternative hypothesis? And by that i mean a complete description of climate that takes into account all the different variables that are in play? Not just a "this X seems to have some effect". For instance the Svensmark hypothesis that so many sceptics throw around, isn't an alternative - it merely states "clouds can be formed by cosmic rays", and then hypothesises without taking other factors into account, or even checking if this effect is small/medium/huge, that "this might explain current climate change" (but fails to show it).

An alternative is not just something that can be "invented" on the fly... It has to explain reality, as well or better than the current explanation, to have value. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed: That's not quite what I said, but OK. I think that someone approaching the existing science with an open mind and scientific literacy is overwhelmingly likely to conclude that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Some percentage of educated, scientifically literate people will disagree - that's just a reality, and it can't be explained by ignorance. The psychology of what I'll call "denialism" (for lack of a less emotive term) is fascinating and complex. There are prominent academicians who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS, or that LDL cholesterol has nothing to do with atherosclerosis, and so on. There is never unanimity on a scientific question of any depth or currency, but there is often consensus. That's why scientific consensus is a useful concept: it encapsulates what the scientific community believes to be true, while allowing for the possibility (actually, the inevitability) of individual "dissenters".

As far as ideology, that's a bit tricky. I think it's obvious that over the past 10 years (at least), the Republican Party in the U.S. has treated science as sort of a left-wing partisan activity. Concurrently, of course, scientific findings haven't squared with American conservative ideology: for instance, carbon emissions and secondhand smoke are harmful and thus should perhaps be regulated; induced abortion is a safe medical procedure; abstinence-only education is ineffective and potentially dangerous; or that "intelligent design" is not even wrong.

What's been different (from my perspective) in the last 10 years or so is that now, the right treats these findings the way they'd treat a Democractic public-policy proposal: they launch a political campaign to discredit the finding, using caricature, innuendo, propaganda, and outright falsehood. It's one thing to treat "Obamacare" that way - after all, that's a political policy admitting a variety of different views, although the level of political debate about it was stupefyingly idiotic. It's another thing to treat a scientific finding as if it were a partisan proposal to be kneecapped and sunk. But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear above, when I referred to "the idea that most recent warming is anthropogenic". Should I have underlined "most"?

Here is my understanding of your comments (with some synthesis):

• biased or ignorant view: no AGW has occurred in the last century or so
• open minded and scientifically literate view: anthropogenic climate change is occurring, an idea divisible into two sub-ideas:
  1. that most recent warming is human-caused
  2. that some recent warming is human-caused, but that most is naturally caused

I think the three of us recognize that no one in this thread is advancing the top bullet point. But I wonder if you recognize the distinction between the numbered points which I have indicated. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific consensus on this issue is the first of your two numbered points (most). The second one (some) is a tiny minority opinion, which is advocated by very few scientists. (the first bullet is simply not even present outside the very very extreme fringes) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[11]. NW (Talk) 18:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be used around here as "proof". I figured out how to increase size of image so that I could read it (and I have good eyes). Is it me, or did the authors leap to a conclusion without considering anything else? Infant mortality rate is dependent on so many factors that even if vaccination was causal, it would require mountains of data points to identify it. In reality, we can identify other factors from poverty to smoking and other drugs to poor pre-natal care to a broken healthcare system. How did this article pass peer-review? I've never heard of the journal, Human and Experimental Toxicology, but you may have. The article frustrates me, because we know it will show up everywhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. Neither author has any credential in epidemiology. Uh oh. Radar up. Miller is a psychologist and a member of Mensa. See this article from Natural News...it appears the National Vaccine Information Center (read: anti-vaccinationists) contributed to have it freely available. Oh, yes, Goldman is an AIDS denialist. Oh my. I think if I spend another 20 seconds investigating, I might find them on a pro-Homeopathy website. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another 34.3 seconds spent investigating. Enjoy yourself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a visual Neil Z. Miller, Medical research journalist (aka SuuuuperGenius) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just kidding about the homeopathy thing. Then I see he lectures for the Hahnemann society. I won't even mention the chiropractic background. Thanks Artifex. You made my day. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The journal rank gives a hint. That the paper is an e-pub ahead of print might carry some import. But to vault from correlation to presumption of causality? Just wow. At least it's a primary paper. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in (I'm not a stalker honest! Just a newbie who's trying to sort out this wiki thing by looking at more experienced editors), but as someone who works as an epidemiologist I wanted to thank you for giving me such a good laugh!

Note that they used IMR. Using Australia as an example, (since I have the data here) and putting aside the fact that the IMR fluctuated considerably between 2008-2009 and thus the classification of mortality based on one year's data is suspect, 71% of the infant deaths are neonatal. This is an area which is not likely to be overly affected by vaccination given that the ONLY vaccine given in this period is one shot of Hep B. Unless of course you want to try and claim some kind of reverse temporal causality where the vaccines are so toxic they actually kill before being administered a la Thiotimoline...

... do you think if I wrote it up Human & Experimental Toxicology will take it? Interrapax (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be worth it just for the chance to cite Asimov, wouldn't it? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Yes, that's a good point as well. Infant mortality in the developed world is driven largely by two factors: lethal congenital malformations and complications of prematurity. Neither of those is conceivably vaccine-related, so there's really no plausible reason to look at infant mortality rate as an indicator of vaccine safety in the first place.

This chart shows the causes of infant mortality in the US in 2005. Congenital malformations and prematurity are the top two causes, followed by maternal complications affecting the infant (placental abruption, cord compromise, etc), unintentional injury, and respiratory distress/hemorrhage/necrotizing enterocolitis (all 3 of which are complications of prematurity). What these causes of death have in common is that there's no plausible way to blame them on vaccines.

The bottom line is that if we, as a bunch of pseudonymous Wikipedians, can poke holes in the article's most fundamental claims this easily, then any peer reviewer worthy of the name should have been able to identify these issues. That's what skepticism truly means, although the term has been appropriated by every tinfoil-hatted Galileo wannabe under the sun. But to answer your final question: with the proliferation of scientific journals, my experience is that any finding, no matter how ludicrously incorrect or methodologically ignorant, can be published somewhere in the nominally "peer-reviewed" literature. MastCell ^Talk 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone else says it, "no, that doesn't prove that elevated infant mortality causes increased rates of vaccination". Though it does seem slightly more plausible than the above conclusion. What I'd like to see examined is office/clinic visits and waiting room durations. Now there's a risk factor that could be controlled. Guess I'd better go looking for those now. ;-)LeadSongDog come howl! 13:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested on the article page, I think we need to do a massive epidemiological study entitled "Vaccinations in the USA lead causes forearm displacement fractures in infants." Obviously, lots of kids break their arms within a year of receiving vaccinations. I'm sure I could get a few of you to be co-authors. Then we can start an article here Vaccinations and bone fractures. Then we would have to write a few books. Next, would be an appearance with Dr. Oz. Oh, Jenny McCarthy would want to be our friends–being geeks that we all are, we now can reliable claim we're friends with a Playboy Playmate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you meant that facetiously, but without falsifiability or reproducibility the study would be worthless. We may as well say that eating sweets makes children hyper, simply because on occasions when we notice children eating cake and ice cream (like a birthday party) the kids shout and cut capers. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data of a very high-quantity will be key. High-res 3D models of each questionable infant forearm should be captured via PET, CAT, MRI, X-Ray, Laser and low-energy Gamma scans (higher energies are preferred but only if the subject is already dead). Consider scanning the entire infant if it's available (this is also preferred). It should also go without saying that accurate time, date, altitude, latitude, longitude, et al. data are crucial and very important. Analysis of this high-quantity data begins with methods pioneered by Dr. N. Z. Miller, leveraging all (every) aspects of his amazing advances in the once obscure realm of linear regression and the application of integers divided by π (all now famously know simply as ZMethods). Once these data are rendered statistically transparent by application of ZMethods they can be further analyzed using many obscurely powerful sounding methods such as Wavelet deconvolution, targeted Bayesian multivariate linear regressions, Dembski's method (uni-dimensional discrete Fourier transforms using _base2 integers of a specified hamming distance complexity, usually 1), Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient integration, etc. These advanced numerical data pattern discovery techniques are specifically designed to produce specifically discoverable results previously unknown or non-existent. However, it should be known again that the key is data of the finest quantity. This is key. For example without quantity time data a Vaccine Induced Infant Forearm Displacement Fracture Cluster (VII-FDFC^TM) appearing every odd Monday of an even month between 10:04 and 10:07 PDT on a north-north-east ley line could easily be missed! (Note: Behe's method of ley line discovery also requires good latitude and longitude data.) Missing such a cluster frankly, cannot be permitted. It is vital and really important that these latent VII-FDFC^TMs be discovered, analyzed and the results published in proper journal type form for rapid decimation dissemination to the public with graphs and charts. A series of New York Times best-sellers would be the fastest method and should be high second only to data quantity on the goals list (with foreign language translations a close second proceeding concurrently).

Did you know that during the Crystal Cage illusion a six-hundred pound tiger is hidden in a space less than fifteen inches deep and that the floor of that space travels over eight feet in less than one second when the cat is revealed before the audience? -- ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On similar themes, did you know that in Italy attending STD clinics can cause AIDS? PMID 1955262 Or that up to 20.7% of influenza infections occur in waiting rooms? doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2011.02.014 Maybe that "stay home with a hot toddy" isn't such a bad idea ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something must have been lost in the translation on the STD-AIDS connection. Are they implying by going to an STD clinic you have increased chances of contracting HIV? Or is it a self-selecting system where only those who might have HIV will go to the clinic? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the title says it all, why would anyone need to read further? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artifex...I didn't actually want to spend that much time doing it. I wanted to be as lazy as Miller and Goldman. And Ed Poor...I know you right wing anti-science types totally lack a sense of humor or irony, so why would you spout out your fake science understanding here? Pathetic. Really, sad too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Pujols to be on the other side of the mean on oft-injured players. But he's so good, even if he's out for a couple of weeks, his numbers are outstanding. But to come back from a fracture in just two weeks is amazing. He must have some outstanding bone healing abilities. OR, he'll swing at some off speed pitch and re-injure himself. Either way, I doubt they'll be discounting his $200 million much. At least he's stronger than one of those wimpy soccer players. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to be able to swing a bat and catch the ball two weeks after (what looked like) a serious wrist fracture is amazing. The cynic in me thinks... no, never mind. Redacted per WP:BLP. Anyhow, I think any team in the league would pay Pujols to play first even if he only played 60 games a year. By the way, I see Jack McKeon is doing marvels for the Marlins. He intentionally walked Ryan Howard with runners on first and second the other night, a fairly unconventional move given Ryan Howard's inability to hit a breaking ball and tendency to ground into double plays... how did that work out? MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, but taping my fingers together per WP:BLP. I've given up on the Fish. Hanley Ramirez is just not moving to his career average, pitching has been lame, and not much else to say. But they get a new stadium soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of BLP. See Pujols is the Terminator. I think this qualifies as WP:RS, if not WP:MEDRS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you defending uncivil behavior. Sandy's response was unacceptable. Would you reply to someone that way, with all the namecalling? Even if Sandy found my comment uncivil, that does not justify namecalling in return, and I am surprised to see you defending that kind of behavior as somehow justified. It is not justified. It is inappropriate, period. --Elonka 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let that throw you, MC. Your analysis was spot-on. After knocking on someone's door to insult them, most of us would be unsurprised at getting a heated reception or at being told to leave in unambiguous terms. This seems to be Be nasty to great editors week. I sure hope that's the last episode. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugation of the verb "to be rude" (irregular verb)

• I may have said things that, in retrospect, were somewhat intemperate. Who could blame me though, really, considering what I have to put up with on a day to day basis.
• You are violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from further inappropriate behavior, or I will report you to WP:WQA.
• He/she is a disruptive troll and must be blocked indefinitely.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 16, 2011.

What's the polite way of saying I'd rather poke my own eyes out than be part of this? I'll think of something. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't quite bring yourself to do it, there are hundreds of editors willing to poke other editors' eyes out. Simply place {{eyepokehelp}} on your talk page, and someone will be along to help you shortly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to find people willing to poke other editors' eyes out, I'd just join the mediation. :P MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be WP:POINTY (ha ha ha) of me to create the template, and redirect it to the mediation page... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	It's about time you got some positive reinforcement for your tireless work editing articles and as an example for how to not only edit and collaborate but not take this place too seriously. Yobol (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are not helpful at article talk pages, especially controversial ones like Talk: Abortion. Accusing other editors of being querelous edit warriors, and of engaging in gamesmanship, is best done at user talk pages, if at all.

As for you recent charge of gamesmanship, your own gamesmanship seems quite obvious. You don't like the image of an aborted fetus in the article, and have removed it, without preserving it in hidden form for later discussion, without suggesting any replacement, without citing any consensus for removal, without acknowledging that the image was a stable feature of the article prior to recent edit-wars, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]