User talk:Neb46545

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia. We have compiled a list of guidance for new editors:

Use high quality sources for medical content. This is described at WP:MEDRS. High quality sources include review articles (note this is not the same as peer reviewed), position statements from national and internationally recognized bodies (think CDC, WHO, NICE, FDA, etc), and major medical textbooks. Lower quality sources may be removed.
References go after not before punctuation (see WP:MOS)
We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
Do not use the url from the inside net of your university library. The rest of the world cannot see it.
If you use textbooks we need page numbers.
Please format your references as explained at WP:MEDHOW or like the ones already in the article. This is simple once you get the PMID / ISBN.
Every sentence can be referenced. We reference more densely than other sources.
Never "copy and paste" from sources. We run copy and paste detection software on new edits.
Section order typically follows the instructions here at WP:MEDMOS
Please talk to us. Wikipedia works by collaboration and this takes place on the talk pages of both articles and user.

Again welcome and thank you for joining us.

P.S. Please share this with fellow new editors.

James Heilman a.k.a User:Doc James
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine
University of British Columbia

and

The Team at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref[edit]

I assume you meant to ref this [1]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that also worth mentioning ? "No evidence of association with serious adverse events was found, but the harms evidence base was limited.The overall risk of bias in the included trials is unclear because it was not possible to assess the real impact of bias."

We reference that review 9 times. What do you want to add and were do you want to add it again?

We should not be cutting and pasting large quotes from sources. Also we should simply summarize the newest Cochrane review rather than summary older ones. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this is content at a grade 8 level and thus should be in the lead "The review included 90 studies, 24 of which (26.7%) were funded totally or partially by industry. Out of the 48 RCTs, 17 were industry-funded (35.4%)." Your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need to be convinced that the previous review and the new one make a very strong point regarding the funding from the industry and its relation ship with the outcome ? This is not typical in a medical review -to refer to this relationship in the conclusion. I think the authors wanted us to know about this relationship and how it qualifies the outcome; hence their inclusion and their emphasis. Of course the industry does not wants us to focus on all that. In general I think readers should know about the history of the medical reviews about a controversial topic so they can form an educated opinion instead of being treated like 8th graders who are being told vaccines are "good" and people who have seconds thoughts about them based on scientific evidence are "bad". Don;t you think being fully informed is more responsible than ignoring an aspect of research which according to the authors was so important that they included it in both reviews? --Neb46545 (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

So far you have engaged in homeopathy advocacy and adding anti-vax tropes to another article. Neither of these things is good. Most people who do these things end up banned. Just letting you know. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have not. I just advocate for neutruality and accuracy. Are you trying to find an excuse to ban people? --Neb46545 (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your definitions of "neutrality" and "accuracy" could use some work. Guy (Help!) 01:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. All my suggestions are based on entire quotes within context - entire conclusions from first rate journals since this practice introduces the less bias. Others prefer summurizing in order to create a version of truth somehow conpatible with their beliefs.Not me. --Neb46545 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]