Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Edit with VisualEditor

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

List of archives

Concerns with dropping Cochrane sources in lots of articles[edit]

Rod of asclepius.jpg

Greetings User:Harrisonnelson1205 and others. (I'm tired, so I'm sorry if this is excessively grumpy.) For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the recent contributions I see from this editor. In general, I dislike it when contributors think there's 1 journal that's so great that they then go along dropping sentences in random articles to cite a single publication. I dislike the flow of the prose that results from this approach, and I find it a myopic approach to editing. I recently reverted one contribution at deep vein thrombosis that was added in this manner, and I explained my rationale on the talk page and the edit summary. (There are other gripes I state there, and they relate to the source, but I won't repeat them here.) Maybe others would like to review these contributions. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to do so myself. I have been concerned for a long time about conflicts of interest in these cases. I fear that editors who adopt this style of contributing are blinded by the desire to cite 1 specific journal or publisher and that they do not consider the rest of the medical literature and the totality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so that the net effect is that they aren't really here to help build an encyclopedia. I'm concerned that editors who contribute in this style are instead actually here to promote a publisher to Wikipedia's detriment. Biosthmors (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I suppose Cochrane is an unusual case in that its content is (nearly) always representative of the kind of WP:BESTSOURCES Wikipedia likes to use. I haven't reviewed any of these specific edits but suppose one factor is how well-developed the articles are to which Cochrane material is being added. Adding it a some poorly-sourced raggedy article is always going to be a win; dumping it disjointedly into a well-sourced, well-developed article ... not so much. Appropriate care should be taken to ensure this is taken into account. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think that Cochrane sources should be put on such a pedestal. Sure, they are a reliable source for biomedical information. Sure, I think some citations are appropriate and helpful for readers. But let's take for example the recent seminar on VTE that was published in the Lancet [1]. Only 4 out of 164 references are to Cochrane sources. I also cite Cochrane sparingly at deep vein thrombosis (an article that is currently up for peer review and one I've tried to maintain over the years). I have repeatedly had to clean up what I consider to be "Cochrane clutter" from people dropping in Cochrane sources in an unwise manner. Personally, I don't find Cochrane sources to be particularly useful for article development. For example, deep vein thrombosis uses 4 Cochrane-published articles out of 199, and none of them are highly-cited within the article. (Contrast this with the Mazzolai et al. source, which is cited over 20 times there.) In other words, I think a well-developed article will cite Cochrane sources only very sparingly. Therefore, I hold a negative view towards single-purpose accounts whose goal it is to tilt the balance of an article towards Cochrane sources in a haphazard manner, as was the pattern of edits I see with Harrisonnelson1205. Wikipedia citations are something Cochrane keeps track of, as you can see here. Clearly there is the potential for conflict of interest editing. Because I think Cochrane should only be cited occasionally in a well-written article, I don't agree with the assertion that adding Cochrane-sourced content to a "poorly-sourced raggedy article is always going to be a win." Such use of sources could be wp:undue and mislead readers about what subtopics are actually of import to an encyclopedic summary. Biosthmors (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Similarly (undue weight / promotion of Cochrane), I just noticed on fingolimod that there is content in the lead that is not in the body, thus violating wp:lead, and I think the content unnecessarily mentions and promotes Cochrane by linking the organization in the lead. At DVT, I never mention Cochrane by name in the body of the article. I just report the biomedical information. I haven't done the digging to see who added this content. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Biosthmors, I would agree with Alexbrn that Cochrane sources are some of the best possible systematic meta-analyses that exist in the literature. They would be second only to clinical practice guidelines in terms of quality of MED sources. In fact, they are called out explicitly in WP:MEDRS as high quality, and as exceptions to the "5 year rule": "Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window."--Shibbolethink ( ) 02:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh, I also forgot that WPMED really endorses Cochrane as generally reliable and one of the most useful sources for med articles, see: WP:COCHRANE.--Shibbolethink ( ) 02:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Over at wp:cochrane it is stated that this initiative "supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia medical articles" (my emphasis). I'm expressing concern over the interpretation of the word relevant. Who gets to decide what is relevant, someone who works for Cochrane? Surely we don't believe every recent Cochrane publication deserves citation on Wikipedia, do we? The Lancet in their recent seminar did not find much among Cochrane publications to highlight as relevant. I don't feel like the arguments I've stated are being addressed. The user whose edits prompted this thread was rapidly citation spamming medical articles in my opinion. An uninvolved administrator cautioned them against promotion on their user page. Biosthmors (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
And Shibbolethink, for what it's worth I'd much much rather use clinical practice guidelines and review articles to develop content here than start by looking through Cochrane sources. The source that was added to DVT recently addressed an issue I have seen no secondary sources mention. In other words, it's appears like that publication might be an example of writing a high-quality systematic meta-analysis for the purpose of publishing a high-quality systematic meta-analysis. I have concerns that Cochrane has more incentives to publish high-quality systematic meta-analyses than they have disincentives that would focus them on real-world relevance. Just because they publish something doesn't automatically make it relevant to an encyclopedic summary, in my opinion. Do others disagree? Biosthmors (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:Balancing aspects always requires editors to use their judgement. In the specific case, I'm not convinced that was a good addition (that edit used a lot of words to say "we don't know if this detail matters"), but it also wasn't obviously irrelevant. If I'd wanted to cite that source myself, I might have added it as a four-word parenthetical in an existing sentence: "...compression stockings (knee or thigh length[1])..." and trusted that the very tiny fraction of readers who were interested in this detail about this would check the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the reply, WAID. I think that's a wise approach. I agree. We need editors to have a wp:clue so that they can make similar determinations. Sometimes 4 words (or none) might actually be what is called for instead of unbalancing articles with single or multiple sentences. Biosthmors (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Surprise surprise. Someone who claims to be working in the best interest of Wikipedia (and Cochrane?) was name-dropping and linking Cochrane in the lead at fingolimod (which goes against WP:LEAD, for one).[2] User:YetiHed, in light of the concerns I raise, do you think that that edit to fingolimod was entirely in the best interest of Wikipedia? How so? Biosthmors (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi there - It sounds like my edit was not in the right place, if so thanks for moving it. I'm not sure what you mean by name-dropping. If the issue was the placement / wording, okay. If you mean the issue was including the review in general in the article, I'm not sure what to say. It's one source of evidence on the question of efficacy that, alongside other sources, does seem appropriate and relevant to me. If more experienced editors think this is in error, fine. I will say that when I was volunteering for the Cochrane/Wikipedia project it was under the auspices of WP:COCHRANE, and it seems like that is what you have an issue with.YetiHed (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
You're welcome, thanks for the reply, and sorry for the delayed response. By name-dropping what I mean is that I think linking the publisher, journal title, author, university, etc. that is associated with a reliable source runs the risk of wp:overlinking. It could be in Cochrane's interest to have as many hyperlinks as possible to their Wikipedia page so that they can feel like they are "building their brand," but that is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Imagine, for example, if at DVT I started specifying the publisher or journal title (and linking them) for every study and described every study type. That would create a lot of wordiness and links that do not help people learn about DVT. I simply try to report the relevant information without going into unnecessary factoids about where the information came from. (I concede that I do sparingly mention the source of clinical practice guidelines.) Please see mos:ul for the real purpose of links on Wikipedia. Also, would you mind telling us who helped you fashion your contributions to Wikipedia as part of this initiative? And I'd like to know the same for you too User:Harrisonnelson1205 if you don't mind and if you are affiliated with this initiative. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Biosthmors thank you for staying on top of this issue, which has been an ongoing problem for many years; it is time we did something about this problem. I have noticed over the years how much effort you have to put in to correcting the Cochrane entries, but the problems go well beyond formatting. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane is a misguided venture which, rather than leading to significant improvements of Wikipedia articles, has instead appeared to benefit Cochrane more than Wikipedia in terms of advertising. The goal of the "collaboration" appears to be to get every Cochrane article cited on Wikipedia, and this is often done by newly recruited volunteers who don't know how to format their entries, in which part of the article to place them, whether they are repeating better information from better sources already in the article, and even, at times, whether they are linking to dated information. The idea seems to be simply to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane/Cochrane Review List to make sure Cochrane is represented everywhere-- even if there are better or newer sources.

The goal of this newly recruited volunteers appears to be simply to add an entry, any entry, somewhere on Wikipedia to make sure Cochrane is cited, and I have been raising concerns about the sloppiness of these entries for years. JenOttawa is pinged, she promises to speak to the new trainee, everyone involved is nice and kind and well intentioned and helpful, but ... lather, rinse and repeat and the same things happens with every new trainee. There appears to be no sustained commitment to quality.

I don't know why the "search archives" button isn't working, so I am unable to link to the number of times I have raised this issue-- also, I often raise it on article talk pages, rather than here. I do not see the benefit of this "collaboration", but have repeatedly seen that it creates too much work for other editors to clean up the faulty entries. This is a collaboration with a purpose contrary to the goals of Wikipedia-- to push Cochrane into higher visibility, and I wish we would stop this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Does this work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank, Jo-Jo … I am not sure what happened to the “search archives” feature, but that link did lead me to at least one sample, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 137#Old Cochrane reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're welcome SandyGeorgia. JenOttawa, I see from User:Harrisonnelson1205/sandbox that the user essentially self-declared an affiliation with the Cochrane initiative by linking to a Cochrane review list. Does any part of this initiative advocate (even implicitly) for the viewpoint that all published Cochrane reviews deserve inclusion in Wikipedia's encyclopedic summaries? I see this user had a self-described template. Do you know where they came up with that style of writing? You don't advocate for editors to cite every Cochrane review that is published, do you? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I just emailed JenOttawa to see if this discussion could be continued. I feel like aspects of this initiative (which I understand poorly, to be honest) should be modified judging from the quality of contributions I've seen. I would say there's no consensus for poorly-considered edits or contributions to continue. Biosthmors (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Fetal cell lines in drug testing[edit]

I was hoping to help a bit with the COVID-19 vaccine articles. The US news says unvaccinated healthcare workers are hoping to get an exemption from COVID vaccine mandates. The main theme is that the HEK 293 cells were derived via abortion, the cell lines were used in testing and/or production of all the vaccines, and that avoiding anything remotely connected to abortion is religiously necessary.

In looking for more information on this, I ran across this webpage, which lists other, non-vaccine drugs with similar uses of the same cell lines. The answer appears to be "just about everything". If you can't take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines because they were tested on these cells, then you also can't take aspirin, ibuprofen, paracetamol, Benadryl, or, you know, just about any other drug, not to mention several altmed things like Quercetin. Or, if we want to put a fine point on it, Regeneron, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquinone, and whatever else anti-vaccine folks have touted as COVID cures. Presumably, if you have a religious objection against taking (and prescribing?) drugs tested on fetal cell lines, then you would have identical religious objections to using any of these other drugs as well.

I've thought about adding this webpage to the ==External links==, but it seems a bit unfair to the author (who could get harassed) and although the list comes complete with footnotes, it's not any sort of official page. Does anyone have any ideas about where to find a more formal page with a list of drugs that are known to have been tested on this cell line? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Well I certainly wouldn't worry about the author being harassed. They have put this out there, and in a direct and challenging manner. BD2412 T 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I assume you were thinking of it being a EL for HEK 293 cells, rather than COVID-19 vaccine or COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, which don't mention HEK cells. Your linked essay notes a difference in ethical problems with those manufactured using those cell lines and those which at some point have been tested on them. Perhaps this is something the article could be clearer about. A source in the article ([3]) notes that Pfizer/Moderna used the cell line for testing whereas Astra/Johnson used it for manufacture. Wrt testing I think there is a similarity with animal testing. I'm not aware of anyone forgoing shampoo, soap, deodorant, face cream, etc, because some of the ingredients were once tested on animals in the 1970s. It seems to me more appropriate, like your author notes, to encourage the use of alternatives to things one objects, than to take a view that the product is now forever tainted with evil because someone once did a certain test. -- Colin°Talk 12:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Modern vaccines do not contain any fetal cells and a fetal cell line doesn't either. The cell lines were derived from fetal cells many decades ago and these extant cells are millions of generations removed from the original tissue. The cells are obtained from cell banks, the ATCC (company) in the US for example. Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This seems to be the typical view of researchers, but I imagine that if you are sufficiently desperate to avoid the vaccine, then you might grasp at anything that offers. There might even be a few people genuinely holding such a position. But I confess that I doubt the sincerity of a claim that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines must be rejected as inherently tainted by evil from anyone who accepts other drugs that also used these cells lines. Perhaps it is due to a lack of information, and the person would stop using nearly all modern drugs. Or perhaps the person doesn't hold this view sincerely, and the religious objection to COVID-19 vaccines is just a fairy tale that they believe the US courts will accept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The linked decree Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines would suggest these are views held by more than just a few people. All this "cooperation in evil" theology is way above my level of contemplations. Outside of Northern Ireland, in the UK there isn't quite the same attitude, as your first article puts it, that abortion is some special kind of evil above all others. It is certainly odd to us how it skews the US political and legal system from top to bottom. And even Northern Ireland was brought into line with the rest of the UK when its local politicians were too busy squabbling to do their job. What's the view about the Astra and Johnson vaccines? Are they considered even more evil? -- Colin°Talk 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think they are, according to this model of thought.
If someone genuinely holds the position that any drug that uses these cell lines is immoral – "do not handle, do not touch, do not taste" – then that's fine with me. But if that person is cheerfully taking other drugs that were also using these cell lines, and that person only objects to the vaccine but not the others, then I doubt their honesty.
Of course, if you said to them, "Oh, did you know the same is true for all of the drugs you've taken in the last 20 years?" and their response is "I had no idea. I'll stop taking them all, beginning immediately", then that would be a sign of a genuine belief. But I don't expect that to be the case. I expect them to say "I don't want the vaccine, but I'm going to keep taking my asthma medication, my blood pressure drug, and my pain killer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes I get why we have an imperative to say something on this issue. Maybe the way to approach it is to just list a few of the other drugs which were directly tested using HEK-293T cells, or
I would think vanishly few are aware they are used elsewhere. The Vatican statement concentrates entirely on Covid vaccines, and references an earlier one on other vaccines. So I suspect there isn't a Vatican statement about drugs in general, and that people don't ask their doctor if their medications have been tested on foetal cell lines. The social media posts peddling this anti-vaccine scam won't mention it I'm sure.
I am a wee bit concerned that your effort to enlighten someone might make them stop some important medicine. Do we really need a list of "Here's all the medicines you can't take because then you are cooperating in evil and will go to hell". I think it is worth Wikipedia noting that pretty much all modern drugs are tested on these cell lines. I'm not aware of other kinds of drugs that are manufactured using them, but that's just my ignorance... perhaps some antibiotics are?
In the UK, the health secretary has today reinforced their commitment to require all care home staff to be vaccinated by 11th November: "If you work in a care home you are working with some of the most vulnerable people in our country and if you cannot be bothered to go and get vaccinated, then get out and go and get another job. If you want to look after them (care home residents), if you want to cook for them, if you want to feed them, if you want to put them to bed, then you should get vaccinated. If you are not going to get vaccinated then why are you working in care?". The same rules do not apply to nurses and doctors in the NHS, who also work with "some of the most vulnerable people in our country". It also does not apply to visitors. Care home staff earn minimum wage. Many do leave to work in the NHS instead and can earn more money on the tills at an Aldi supermarket or filling boxes in an Amazon warehouse. It is estimated around 40,000 will be required to leave. We shall see if that happens. But there is already a crisis with care homes, being short of staff and going bust due to high costs of dealing with covid. I think this sort of thing demonstrates the really difficult problem when what seems to be us to be a straightforwardly obvious science-based decision meets legislation, personal rights and staffing compromises. -- Colin°Talk 10:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm curious whether the UK has as many people making the same argument. I suspect that for many people, this claim exists purely due to a quirk in US law. If you are an employee, and you are required to do something as part of the job – anything, really, whether it's working on Friday evening or getting a vaccine – and you have a genuine religious objection, then US employers are normally required to accommodate that. There are limits, because it's not reasonable to pay someone to be a bartender if the person refuses to sell alcohol, but the exemptions usually cover everything that isn't absurd.
In the case of the vaccine, if you say that you want a religious exception because of the way the drug was made (or the way it was subsequently tested, in the case of old drugs like aspirin), then the employer normally has to accommodate this. We have no similar exemption for just being afraid of it, or believing that the costs to yourself outweigh benefits to everyone. The lever you can use to get out of a workplace requirement is claiming a religious exemption; no other reason works in this case. As a result, I suspect that there are many people claiming a "religious belief" that they don't really hold.
I don't want people to stop taking life-saving drugs, especially not without appropriate medical advice about alternatives and an awareness of the consequences. But I also don't want people lying to the courts, either, and I also don't want the courts to blindly accept a claim that Dr This or Nurse That rejects everything involving fetal cell lines but still is willing and able to do a job that normally involves prescribing, dispensing, and administering drugs they reject on religious grounds. I think that if a licensed healthcare worker refuses the vaccine because of genuine abortion-related reasons, they will also refuse other drugs with similar development histories. And when that is true, I think we have reached the point of a devout Muslim or Mormon being a bartender: that person can't do that job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Yeah, it bears mentioning that the list is essentially endless, because there are more "turtles all the way down" aspects... Even if a drug was not directly tested on a fetal cell line, it is likely that a technique used in its creation would not exist without a fetal cell line. as Colin suggests about Shampoos, cosmetics, etc. And perhaps the cell line which it was tested on was not fetal in origin, but was at one point reliant upon fetal cell lines for its own development (to synthesize plasmids used to alter its genetics, or to test its nutrient broth, or to test its growing conditions, or to test antibiotics used in its culture and upkeep, etc etc.) Indeed, the protein serum that we add to 90-95% of cell cultures comes from fetal cows. I'm guessing that's not what we're worried about here, but still. No hands are free of blood in this scenario.

Where do you draw the line? It's fetal cell lines all the way down!

They are such an integral part of medical science. because they are some of the only truly renewing and immortal non-cancer primary lines... Some have argued that it is much better to test drugs on fetal cells than cancer, when it comes to safety of that drug. Because cancers mutate into organisms that are pretty distinct from humanity... Each cancer cell line is screwed up in its own way. We need fetal cell lines to avoid the problems that creates. That's why this list is likely extremely long.

I think we'd be artificially cutting it at "directly tested on," when any truly moral person who holds this conviction would want to avoid any medicine which would not exist without fetal cell lines. And that line is basically as long as any medicine which has existed since a few years after the cultivation of these cell lines. — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Alzheimer's Disease Article - Live Changes Request[edit]

Hi all! I'm a student at the BHSc program at McMaster, and User:Bharatss-SB,User:Joyjxu1 and I are currently taking a course where we have to update an article for a class assignment. We would love to edit this article, however our professor has concerns that the need for group consensus would significantly impede our progress. We were wondering if we could be granted permission to make live edits? No worries at all if this is not possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan1087 (talkcontribs) 13:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Joan1087, if you go to Alzheimer's disease and look at the top of the page, I believe that you will already see a button saying "Edit" (instead of "View source"). If so, you are already technically capable of making live edits. Is that what you're asking about?
Also, could I make an optional, personal suggestion? I think you will have an easier time with discussions if you all go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and find the item labeled "Discussion tools". Click the box to turn that on, and then click the blue button at the bottom of the page to save the change to your preferences. That will give you a [reply] button on talk pages. It has a visual editing mode (or a live preview, if you prefer the wikitext source mode), and it adds the :::: indentation and ~~~~ signature codes automatically when you post you comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Frazier's point[edit]

Frazier's point is located 3 to 4 cm lateral to the midline and 6 cm above the inion (red circle). It is a site used for ventriculostomy

Hello friends, I come to you with another curious medical orphan stub: Frazier's point. Same questions as the last one: is it notable? Can it be merged, or should it be deleted? ♠PMC(talk) 00:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I would say merged into VP shunting. I can find a few sources about it, more than others like that random anatomical variant ligament. At least everybody has one of these... [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] — Shibbolethink ( ) 01:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
agree w/ Shibbolethink--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
ventriculoperitoneal shunt redirects to cerebral_shunt#Shunt_routing, which mentions the Peritoneal cavity as the drainage site. Would cerebral_shunt#Shunt_routing still be a good merge target? ♠PMC(talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah yes, I had only moused over, not even noticed the redirect. That is a perfectly fine merge, as VP shunting is just one type of cerebral shunt. Frazier's point should be merged into Cerebral shunt#Shunt location, in my opinion, though. That appears to me to be the most pertinent part of that article to anatomy and localization. — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
 Done And expanded it a little bit. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Experimental cancer treatment[edit]

From its illiterate and nonsensical lede, to its jumble of content mixing mainstream cancer research with with out-and-out quackery, this article is a misleading mess. I'm thinking any viable content could be moved to alternative cancer treatments and cancer research, but before proposing this, I wonder if there is a distinct topic here, maybe around participation in clinical trials? Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I would agree this should be deleted/merge any non-unique non-patent-nonsense content into alternative cancer treatments. Maybe some of it into List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments? — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I haven't looked at that article for years and years. The idea is that we should cover mainstream, non-altmed cancer treatments that are in development (e.g., stuff listed at, stuff being hyped by biotech companies that are looking for investors). It should be less about listing the individual experimental treatments (which change constantly as drugs move through the pipeline) and more about the general idea. Drugs don't spring fully formed out of Zeus's head; they start off in preclinical trials, move into clinical trials, and then either get approved or disappear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

V1 Saliency Hypothesis[edit]

(Am I at the right place?) This article cites whom it claims to be the proposer of the hypothesis, for all(-ish?) on-topic claims, many of which are extraordinary. From the article,

  • V1SH was proposed in late 1990's by Li Zhaoping.
  • V1SH is the only theory so far to not only endow V1 a very important cognitive function, but also to have provided multiple non-trivial theoretical predictions that have been experimentally confirmed subsequently. two citations, both to Zhaoping
  • Opinions started to change by a surprising piece of behavioral data: an item uniquely shown to one eye among similarly appearing items shown to the other eye (using e.g. a pair of glasses for watching 3D movies) can attract gaze or attention automatically cited to Zhaoping


There are other refs in the article but they seem to be for unrelated claims like:

  • In the 1960s, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel discovered that V1 neurons are activated by tiny image patches that are large enough to depict a small bar Hubel et al. (1962), and
  • This work led to a Nobel prize , and V1 has since been seen as merely serving a back-office function (of image processing) for the subsequent cognitive processing in the brain beyond V1. However, Hubel and Wiesel commented half a century later that little progress has since been made to understand the subsequent visual processing cited to an interview but all this is there only to be contradicted by our article with a primary source: Outside the box of the traditional views, V1SH is catalyzing a change of framework to enable fresh progresses on understanding vision. cited to Zhaoping.

Because the article uses Zhaoping's works to support on-topic claims, I am concerned that this may be WP:FRINGE and may need to be covered accordingly, or not covered at all. Would someone confirm that this is a topic that's got attention of independent academics and is notable enough for a standalone article (This seems to be independent, but is it, and is there more?)? If the topic is notable, should we do anything about what these authors are doing, for example, the promotional WP:SYNTH in the last paragraph of the article, and apparent WP:COI with Zhaoping? Could you also check that links to this article, accompanying text, and other unrelated material cited to Zhaoping, that these editors have been adding to other articles are appropriate? Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Should MEDRS apply to advocacy of high-fat diet?[edit]

The subject is almost the entire question: should Nina Teicholz be tagged with {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} requiring WP:MEDRS sourcing with respect to the veracity of the diet claims that the subject is a proponent of? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

If those claims are for human health effects, certainly. The schtick is that sugar-is-poison as I recall. For WP:FRINGE views, however WP:PARITY may apply. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sugar is poison, in sufficiently high concentrations. That's how Fruit preserves become "preserved".
From a quick glance, I think this mostly amounts of "journalist with a viewpoint". The article covers who said what, which is not something that one expects to find medical sources discussing. It should not be tagged as needing MEDRS sourcing.
As for the viewpoint, if the question is whether you should eat your fruits and vegetables cooked in butter and topped with Parmesan cheese vs cooked in processed oils high in trans fats, then she's probably right. If the question is whether you should eat your fruits and vegetables steamed rather than coated in fat – hmm, I haven't looked at all the sources, but I don't see any evidence that anyone ever asked her that question. The mainstream nutritional POV is that trans fats are worse than saturated fats, but the main thing is to not eat too much, and to eat your fruits and veggies. (Personally, I vote for not sautéing the strawberries, but a bit of butter works nicely in an apple compote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Talk:Anne Wyllie#Publications[edit]

Opinions would be welcomed there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Merging articles about abuse in healthcare[edit]

I think we should merge Workplace safety in healthcare settings and Patient-initiated violence into a single article that deals with "abuse in healthcare" which would deal with abuse by patients, professionals, relatives of patients and people generally in a healthcare setting, and the causes of it.

How this topic should be split up editorially is unclear. I suspect concepts like "patient-initiated violence" and workplace safety are in part designed to "beg the question" of what the causes of abuse of healthcare workers in the healthcare setting are, insofar as an implicit assumption is created in the concepts of abuse themselves that presupposes that healthcare workers have no role in the abuse that occurs in a healthcare setting. However, these concepts and terms *are used* in a reasonable amount of research. On the other hand, a review of the research does not convince me that the research actually suggests or even addresses the question of how involved healthcare workers are in the abuse they receive. Rather research mostly addresses factors exclusively to do with patients and their relatives and ignores the interactions with healthcare workers themselves.

To turn to a metaphor, If one instead of the concept of "dog" always discussed the concept of "dooog" that does not include rottweilers, bull dogs, or alsatians, then we might be able to conclude that dogs are safer animals than they actually are. Alternatively if we included tigers and lions in the category of "caaaaat" we would conclude that cats are very dangerous indeed. There is most likely not a scientific basis for either non-standard category, but if we were to suppose that these concepts were used in literature should be use them?

So we have an editorial question about how we "cut up" the concept of abuse in the healthcare settings. I personally think that drawing a massive line between "blameless abuse of healthcare workers" and "abuse in the healtcare sector" artificially reduces understanding, so the broader term should be used editorially despite the literature. It's also worth noting that research in mental health *does* acknowledge the role of interpersonal relationships in violence - so if we are to address abuse in mental healthcare settings at the same time as other settings the broader category is necessary.

Turning to the literature itself. I think this discussion of literature in this (primary) source does a reasonable job of summarizing this situation:

Previous research on workplace violence in primary care has often focused on risk factors mostly related to characteristics of the patient, the general practitioner or the work environment [2–6]. In emergency primary care the patient is often unknown, and this limits the usefulness of warning signs related to the patient. However, aggression usually occurs as a result of interpersonal interactions [7, 8]. Cox and Leather [9] claim that “human aggression is typically the product of interpersonal interactions wherein two or more persons become involved in a sequence of escalating moves and counter moves, each of which successively modifies the probability of subsequent aggression”. Existing studies on the dynamics of the interaction between staff and patients have mostly been performed in psychiatric institutions and general hospitals [10]. The in-patient premises, settings and incidents differ in many respects from emergency out-patient settings [11], thus the transfer value of findings from in-patient settings is uncertain.

It is also worth noting that qualitative research on the topic is rather lacking, so the support for the current conceptualization in the literature is weak, based on a recent theoretical review:

However, as noted by Landau and Bendalak a weakness of most studies in this field is their strong emphasis on empirical findings with very little (if any) theoretical orientation.


So the more restrictive conceptualization of "patient initiated violence" does not yet have real support in the literature, perhaps supporting a more general article that can comment on the lack of theoretical clarity. And straying into OR territory, we might like to note that research from the limitied "abuse by patients" viewpoint found that involuntary treatment, and unsolicited touching were some of the most predictive factors of patient violence.

Discussing the surrounding literature general, the literature seems to be sourcing some concepts from criminology. ([2]). Some research is taking concepts from sociology. There is research of sociology within mental health settings and violence, including historic theoretical conceptualizations like "the total institution" from Goffman. Discussions of inpatient involuntary eating disorder treatment talks about dehumanization of patients.

Talpedia (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello Talpedia. I was involved in writing the article Violence against doctors in China and can confirm that the two topics (patient initiated violence, and healthcare workplace safety) are both independently notable and both have received significant coverage. As nothing to do with health exists in a silo by itself there is definitely some overlap. Workplace safety in healthcare settings is an extremely broad topic and I think there is enough that could be said about both to keep them separate. I think you make some good points but that they are probably best addressed in the literature itself or in discussions or forums, but that our job here is to base our encyclopedia on good quality secondary sources. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

are both independently notable and both have received significant coverage

Hmm, that is almost certainly true. However the article Workplace safety in healthcare settings is exclusively about abuse was moved from a page "Aggression in healthcare settings" (edit) and covers much the same material as Patient-initiated violence.Patient-initiated violence being created *after* "Aggression in healthcare settings" was fairly complete (diff)
I agree that an article about worplace safety in healthcare is broader and probably interesting (topics like drug safety, slips and falls, chemicals etc), however none of this content exists within Workplace safety in healthcare settings as it stands.
Alas, I suspect most journals (or indeed forums) would not accept my post on whether one wikipedia page should be merged into another and have its title changed. [
I don't think making editorial decisions about article titles - and by implication what information (mostly from high quality secondary source) goes where is at odds with basing these articles on good quality secondary sources. This is implicitly acknowledged in policies like WP:POVFORK and WP:COMMONNAME. [User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Looking into the policies now, I think WP:CRITERIA is relevant to this question and specifically WP:COMMON, and WP:POVTITLE. Although it does not specifically seem to address the question of generality here. ("German initiated conflicts of the 20th century" comes to mind here as an analogous topic). Talpedia (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, how about we fix the article with the broader title so it's actually broad? That would involve splitting off almost all of the current content and merging it into the article titled Patient-initiated violence, and then adding the missing information. says "overexertion" is the most common problem (lifting's dangerous), and falling is second; these two represent 70% of lost-work injuries among nurses (the most common licensed healthcare profession). Violence is third with 12% (this includes, e.g., frightened dementia patients), and "contact with equipment" (e.g., needlesticks) is fourth with about 10%. It would be good for the article to reflect the real-world risks.
BTW, it it sometimes possible to use this tool: to figure out what kind of content most readers are looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Sure. That's a defacto merge together with a new article on health and safety in heatlchare. I'm still not sure about the phrase "patient-initiated violence", but I suppose this can be considered separately from the merge itself.
I agree that a workplace safety article would be valuable for the large number of people employed in workplace and interesting in general Talpedia (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I had a go at replacing the lead of Workplace safety in healthcare settings with a broader concept, cited to the source linked above. Most of the work still needs to be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]


This potentially significant new COVID-19 drug has inevitably caused a lot of editing activity. While there is a lack of WP:MEDRS sources it's probably okay to use some lesser sources with appropriate caveats and restraint. However, we now have a user pressing hard for using a primary source (pmid:33961695) to include speculation that the drug can cause cancer and birth defects. More eyes from MEDRS-savvy editors would be welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Now at Talk:Molnupiravir#Cancer and birth defects claims. Also, thank you to Michael D. Turnbull for adding the other viewpoint to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Alt-med flowchart[edit]

This alt-med flowchart might help. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Aaaand now I've heard of ear candling. Something new every single day. Ajpolino (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Have to admit, that one was new to me as well Before following the link, I tried to guess what it was, strictly from the term itself; I pretty much had it right, but rejected my guess out of hand, thinking, "Naaah, couldn't possibly..." The other new one for me was CST. Mathglot (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you were looking for what Ernst calls "non-specific" effects, CST looks like it might be pleasant – like a bit of pampering at a spa, probably suitable for people with fibromyalgia (whose tender spots presumably make normal massage unpleasant) or frail elderly people (whose skin would bruise easily). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Come on project members, never heard of ear candling or CST!!! You medics need to get out more. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]