Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 157

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160

Bulgarian Wikinews

Hi! Is the Board aware of the situation on Bulgarian Wikinews, and are they going to weigh in on LangCom's proposal to close the wiki? --Rschen7754 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754 board is somewhat aware and planning to go with the expertise of LangCom. Is there more we should be aware of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
There were some concerns expressed, including an "official" statement from the Russian Wikinews: m:Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews. There were also some portions of the LangCom statement that made official judgments about specific users' conduct that are really outside the scope of LangCom: they are not a global ArbCom. --Rschen7754 17:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Will ask them their positions on these comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Appears there were significant concerns and consensus by the Bulgarian community to close the project. The board will support community consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, the edits you recently made to the young blood transfusion article include incorrect and damaging information. If you do not correct these, I will pursue legal action against you. Please respond in a timely manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4150:880:AA00:7944:C24:D1C3:FD06 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Main subject

What is your reasoning for having Chronic bronchitis redirect to COPD when there is far more information on chronic bronchitis on the Bronchitis page.?--Iztwoz (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the primary use of the term is to mean COPD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Who has defined that the primary use is for COPD - 8.6 million Americans were diagnosed with chronic bronchitis in 2015-16. It was stated in the GOLD report that chronic bronchitis be considered as a specific disease entity so why redirect it to COPD. You say that the primary use is to mean COPD which is not the case - chronic bronchitis may be present for many years without airflow obstruction.--Iztwoz (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC) and also may never progress to COPD.--Iztwoz (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Most people do not use it to mean simple a chronic cough. This is the CDC page https://www.cdc.gov/copd/index.html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That page simply states what COPD includes....it omits to state that these are included only when airflow is restricted. For so many people to have been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis without it being considered COPD must tell you something.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The NCBI comes up with 43,436 items for Chronic bronchitis. PMID 2826902 is a Cochrane review of 2017 entitled "Haemophilus influenzae oral vaccination for preventing acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease." Its opening sentence says that "chronic bronchitis AND COPD are serious conditions......"--Iztwoz (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
And how many of those are used to mean COPD?
Why do you think the CDC says says COPD "includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis"? Why do you think Harrison's does not deal with chronic bronchitis and emphysema separately but deal with them only within the chapter on COPD?
Yes the lay public are still searching for the old term. This is like how people still search for ADD when they mean ADHD. This does not mean that we should not redirect ADD to ADHD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
So why does the 2017 Cochrane review describe chronic bronchitis separately from COPD when it says that chronic bronchitis and COPD are both serious illnesses. And why does the GOLD report state that chronic bronchitis should be treated as a separate entity?--Iztwoz (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
We have been discussing this for nearly a year now. The term "chronic bronchitis" is used in different ways. It is used to mean a former type of COPD. And it is used to mean a chronic productive cough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The first posting on both this page and Bronchitis page was just under 5 months ago. Not even half a year. But I see that you have now omitted the problematic inclusion of previous 'types' of COPD on the Bronchitis page. And things are still being brought up because you are not responding to most of the points I raise. Could I ask you to make the same edit in the lead on the COPD page please. Also I've only just read through the archived talk pages and see that I am not alone in thinking that both emphysema and chronic bronchitis ought not to redirect to COPD.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Iztwoz sounds like we could use a RfC to solve this. I will work on drafting one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Iztwoz I have started the RfC here Talk:Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease#RfC:_Redirects_of_"chronic_bronchitis"_and_"emphysema". Please add what you propose. And than I can start the RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Since you were of the impression that these issues had surfaced a year ago - I was going to suggest going ahead with the RfC on April 30th 2020 the actual first year anniversary. In my view progress albeit slowly is being made. Howsoever I hope to be posting my opposition later today.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to post your alternative proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy to be here.

Thanks for your message Doc. I'm a longterm fan of your work, so it means a lot. Looking forward to contributing more to the community in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by About Medicine (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Copypatrol still not working

Hi Doc James, sorry to bother you, but the Copypatrol bot is still not filing reports. It's been circa 36 hours. Any assistance you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, they've solved it Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Perfect great to hear User:Diannaa. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please declare your awareness of AC/DS (gc)

Hi Doc James, can you please make a declaration about your awareness of Arbcom Discretionary sanctions in the area of firearms and government control, so that nobody needs to place a template here about it?

Based on your edit at Overview of gun laws by nation and this Rfc about the impact of gun control, it would be appropriate to add a {{Ds alert}} for topic 'gc' to your Talk page since no one has done it so far. But I'm sure you're already aware of WP:AC/DS, and I don't feel comfortable templating you. Fortunately, a self-declaration template exists. If you can please add a {{Ds/aware|gc}} template below showing that you're aware of Arbcom sanctions in this area, then there's no need for anyone to add the template. See Template:Ds/alert code gc, and WP:ARBGC. (You can add multiple codes, to forestall future templates for other topic areas; e.g., {{Ds/aware|ap|cam|gg|gmo}} for post-1932 U.S. politics, alternative medicine, gender/gamergate, and genetically modified organisms.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mathglot thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Given the note you left on my talk page, and considering as I cited a well-reputed government source in APA style, what is the apparent problem with the reference I cited, that you were referring to? It's not clear to me what construct you were trying to make. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Was this edit[1] which is a case report. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rt sided pneumoDWP.jpg

Notice

The file File:Rt sided pneumoDWP.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused lower-quality duplicate of Commons image

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GZWDer (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:GZWDer no worries problem was solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Prices for medications

Hi Doc James. I'm baffled by your behavior around adding pricing information to medication articles.

I wish you had identified your RfC when you disputed my removal of the material in Ivermectin, rather than waiting for me to find it. I'd hoped this was something you put aside after that RfC, but apparently not [2][3].

I have no interest in finding out how widely and strongly you've been pushing this. Please tell me there's discussion somewhere that demonstrates that this RfC is outdated, or even needs revisiting? --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Was travelling. Thanks for pulling the RfC.
Conclusion of discussion is "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus)"
If a high quality source discusses a price that IMO shows significance. Else it would not have included the price. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
From my perspective, you're ignoring every policy and discussion related to prices for medications, including the outcome of the RfC. If such sources had been offered, we wouldn't having this conversation. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, you're going to make a larger dispute over this: [4] The amount of time information has been in an article is no reason to revert. Please don't put your admin status at risk like this. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you claiming that medical textbooks and government sources are not suitable? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your continued removal of government sources and major medical textbooks is becoming disruptive.
Your removal of pricing information from the iPhone 11 article is pointy after I pointed out that prices are common in articles and mentioned this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you stop edit-warring? Yes or no. I'll get to your other concerns, but this talking past each other needs to stop. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
You appear to have missed Wikipedia:Prices which says "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
So this talking past me is intentional? I'm afraid discussing the matter with you is just setting you off. That seemed to be the case all along at Ivermectin.
I'm very sorry that my stumbling on this issue has caused you to respond so. Really.
If you think it would help for me to respond further to any of your concerns, please let me know. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
We know that the pharmaceutical industry is trying really hard to hide medication prices with ongoing legal cases in the United States.[5]
Many NGOs including Doctors Without Borders and UNICEF struggle with the lack of transparency around medication and vaccine prices.[6]
WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
You've made these points already.
Again, if you think it would help for me to respond further to any of your concerns, please let me know. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
You have argued that you do not consider prices of medications to be notable. I have provided positions of major medical organizations that state that they consider prices to be notable. Here is a link to MSF [7]
Transparency around prices is critical to global public health.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
My concerns are about encyclopedic value (NOT) and due weight (POV).
If you want to make a large scale exception to NOT and POV, do it properly with a large scale RfC, providing compelling reasons for revisiting the topic of your 2016 RfC. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
We have both "independent sources" and a "justified reason". This is not an exception. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you bring these issues up in the 2016 RfC? --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Vaping article potential bias

Hi Doc James.

Please consider looking at the edits I have tried to make to the e-cig article. I see you have warned QuackGuru about reverting edits by other people as well. This user has reverted all my edits on this topic. While sometimes, I understand the user's concerns or need to change to comply with MERS, often it seems like anything recent that is more critical of vaping than the citations from 5 years ago is being edited out.SCBY (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

When is patients justified?

Hello, first thank you very much for your copyediting after my massive changes on NAFLD! I wonder when (if ever) is writing "patients" justified and OK with WP:MEDMOS? Eg, on NAFLD, it's still in pathophysiology, diagnosis, outcomes and epidemiology. It makes sense to me since we are talking about individuals that are being clinically treated for the pathology, not just everyone with a NAFLD. Do you think it's ok to keep "NAFLD patient"? Thank you in advance for your thoughts! :-D --Signimu (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Signimu WP:MEDMOS recommends "people with NAFLD" rather than "NAFLD patients"... Or course one should not change direct quotes and journal article titles... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Ok thank you very much! Have a nice day! :-D --Signimu (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Causes of cancer

Hi Doc James. I am happy to cross paths again on medical topics. After watching a video (from 48:00) with Sapolsky renouncing the connection between stress and cancer as a 25-year myth, I decided to check it out.

On one hand, Causes of cancer does not mention stress. On the other hand, Cancer claims connection with stress by saying: "Common environmental factors that contribute to cancer death include tobacco (25–30%), diet and obesity (30–35%), infections (15–20%), radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing, up to 10%), stress, lack of physical activity and pollution." I found that it was added by you in 2010.

I checked the two citations:

  1. Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes (2008) includes a claim about stress: "Fifth, most carcinogens and other risk factors for cancer, including cigarette smoke, obesity, alcohol, hyperglycemia, infectious agents, sunlight, stress, food carcinogens, and environmental pollutants, have been shown to activate NF-κB." without citing any particular study (and there are no cited studies with the word "stress" in the titles). I see there are 1000+ citations of this paper so I guess it is an influential summary. Nevertheless, I have no idea about the attitude towards its statements and I don't see a substantial original research to support the claim.
  2. (cited later) Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States )2018) does not mention "stress" at all.

I am considering removing the mention of the connection with stress (or at least noting that it is questionable) but I believe you are much better grounded to do that. Please let me know about your opinion and if you will take over. Cheater no1 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Cheater no1 we know that chronic stress decreases immune function. And we know low immune function is linked to cancer. We have other reviews like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Found a more recent review :-)
"Cancer. Findings regarding whether stressful life events increase cancer risk or progression are much more equivocal than findings for the other conditions discussed above. Mechanistic laboratory studies have demonstrated a role of stressful experiences in modulating physiological processes related to cancer development (for reviews, see Antoni et al. 2006, Fagundes et al. 2017).... While exposure to stressful events could theoretically impact any disease that is modulated by associated behaviors or physiology, the evidence concerning stressful events and cancer highlights a divide between what theory suggests and what data show... However, the strongest conclusion derived from decades of research on stressors and cancer is that stressful events may be associated with decreased cancer survival but are probably not associated with disease incidence (Chida et al. 2008)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29949726
Will update to reflect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me know what you think[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Based on the following citations I made two iterations (last version) Cheater no1 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that Cancer was still leaving the impression that there is proven risk between stress and cancer incidence, whereas, based on the 3 meta-reviews (one you cite, and two cited by it), it is not clear if there is any connection whatsoever. Given that it is a very common prejudice that stress is causing cancer, people may tend to deduce it.
(Cohen, 2018) meta-meta review in a respectable journal (Annual Review of Psychology), basing its main stress-cancer correlation conclusions on other two reviews: (Chida, 2008) :::and (the same Cohen, 2007):
  • "Findings regarding whether stressful life events increase cancer risk or progression are much more equivocal than findings for the other conditions discussed above."
  • "The findings reviewed by (Chida, 2008) were limited to only a relatively narrow set of possible cancer sites. Furthermore, the reported pooled effect sizes were modest, and the authors found evidence for significant publication bias."
  • Conversely, prospective studies of the association between stressful events and cancer onset and progression have not consistently found evidence for stressor exposure as a risk factor (for a review, see Cohen et al. 2007)."
(Chida, 2008) meta-review which reports:
  • "Subgroup meta-analyses demonstrate that stressful life experiences are related to poorer cancer survival and higher mortality but not to an increased incidence."
  • "These analyses suggest that stress-related psychosocial factors have an adverse effect on cancer incidence and survival, although there is evidence of publication bias and results should be interpreted with caution"
(the same Cohen, 2007) review reports:
  • abstract: "Despite widespread public belief that psychological stress leads to disease, the biomedical community remains skeptical of this conclusion."
  • "Experimental research in animals has found that stress contributes to the initiation, growth, and metastasis of select tumors."
  • "Cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases with multiple etiologies, and the contribution of stress-related perturbations (eg, HPA and SAM activation, diminished antiviral defenses) likely varies across sites and stages."
Please let me know if you think I may miss something.
I have summarized some.
Not sure "Psychological stress is generally believed to influence the cancer progression and recurrence." is needed as what is commonly believed is not that important
If we have a 2019 review we do not really need the 2007 commentary https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/209083 or the 2008 review https://www.nature.com/articles/ncponc1134
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Have strengthened to "Psychological stress does not appear to be a risk factor for the onset of cancer."
Based on "the strongest conclusion derived from decades of research on stressors and cancer is that stressful events may be associated with decreased cancer survival but are probably not associated with disease incidence" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Thus we skip the molecular aspects (and the theoretical expectations), the publication bias and the mixed results. Nevertheless, I the short phrasing captures both the connection to progression and the seeming lack of connection to the onset.
Causes of cancer contains a reference to "Work stress and risk of cancer: meta-analysis of 5700 incident cancer events in 116,000 European men and women (2013)" that is not cited by the (Cohen, 2018). I added it to Cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheater no1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Cheater no1 in my opinion we can go into more depth at Causes of cancer but should keep the main article shorter in coverage Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Mother Hutton

I noted you removed my reference to Mother Hutton on the Digitalis article. I would be interested to read your thoughts on this. Thanks --BooksXYZ (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:BooksXYZ at what edit are you looking? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Doc James in this edit, you removed the reference to Mother Hutton. I was interested in your reasoning. User:BooksXYZ(talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
User:BooksXYZ Unclear were or not this person existed or was simple made up for an advertising campaign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Addison's Disease

Better not edit war on Addison's Disease or I will alert the admins about you and/or protect the page. I am EDIT WAR NEGATIVE and take edit wars VERY seriously. Now please stop making disruptive edits on Adrenal disorder-related articles or there will be trouble. Thanks, Dino245 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Addison's Disease. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dino245 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Dino245 "ugly" is not a justification to remove an image that is classic for the condition in question. Ie you will need consensus to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Doc James Fine, case closed. You got what you want. Dino245 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Dino245 you simple need to get consensus. The gums is a classic place to find increased pigmentation especially in people who originally have darker skin (ie Wikipedia needs to be useful for more than just white people). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Head & Shoulders article

Remember me? I was wondering maybe I can put all those products into a table chart? Just to look neat? Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPICGAMER890 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do they have independent overage?[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What is independent overage? EPICGAMER890 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Textbook that discusses the topic. But likely there is no few reliable sources as I am not sure it is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh EPICGAMER890 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edits to Contraindications for Ipratropium bromide

Hi, Can you please explain why did you revert my changes to Ipratropium bromide under the contraindications section?

The contraindications I added are verifiable by several sources such as those below (this is a subset of sources): 1. https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-77987-3222/ipratropium-bromide-nasal/ipratropium-0-06-spray-nasal/details/list-contraindications 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1835224 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110819/

These also appear in the pamphlet for Atrovent Nasal Spray albeit with a different phrasing, see under PRECAUTIONS/General where it reads "ATROVENT® (ipratropium bromide) Nasal Spray 0.06% should be used with caution in patients with narrow-angle glaucoma, prostatic hypertrophy or bladder neck obstruction" Link: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2003/020394s005lbl.pdf

Moreover, I was also given the same exact information by a urologist.

If this information is present in the article, it could save people a lot of trouble. Please accept my edit.

Thank you

You provided no reference.[11] Please see WP:MEDHOW.
Those are precautions not contraindications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about hidden comments in medical articles/formatting

Greetings and felicitations. In medical articles I see hidden comments such as <!-- Definition and symptoms --> and <!-- Cause and mechanism -->. I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles and they are not mentioned. Is it customary to leave them in, or are they left over from a standard medical article template? I.e. is it okay to delete them? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:DocWatson42 we generally structure the lead of medical articles to follow the body of the text. Those comments help to keep it organized like that. A bunch of us use them. Thus best to leave them in place :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay. :-) —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Newly created article

Perhaps a regular contributor to AfC will notice before you read this message, but I still think you can help out with this, if you are willing. I found The origin of epileptology and the historical evolution of epilepsy via Special:NewPages, created by an editor with whom you've already discussed referencing medical articles. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Vycl1994 needs a fair bit of work I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Your calculation on the eteplirsen page is incorrect; see discussion on the eteplirsen talk page.

Please see the talk page of the eteplirsen article. Your calculation of 1.5% is based on incompatible figures, as discussed in that talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonMoulton (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay yes agree you are correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Mother Hutton & Digitalis

I noted you removed my reference to Mother Hutton on the Digitalis article. I would be interested to read your thoughts on this. Thanks --BooksXYZ (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:BooksXYZ at what edit are you looking? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Doc James in this edit, you removed the reference to Mother Hutton. I was interested in your reasoning. User:BooksXYZ(talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
User:BooksXYZ Unclear were or not this person existed or was simple made up for an advertising campaign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Doc James The person existed, only her name and the details are in doubt. Withering notes her in his own account. It is an important epistemological (and social) insight, that modern pharmacology does not start with an authority pointing the way, but with the observation of unschooled practitioners This is a particularly pointed insight here: Wikipedia is written by everyone, not just authorities. --BooksXYZ (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Were does this source state "Hutton"?[12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Came across this conversation, hope ok to add in...." Unclear whether or not this person existed or was simple made up for an advertising campaign"....[13], making of a myth. Interesting... Whispyhistory (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

AML / Draft:Declan Meagher

Hi Doc James. Thank you for reviewing. I am his grandson. Please advise on how to publish/improve while minimizing COI. Gaelmeagher (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to go through the AfC process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_157&oldid=922917113"