Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 145

I checked the archives, and I couldn't find a notice about this, so I apologize if it's a duplicate. The September issue of Publishing Research Quarterly contains the article, Wikipedia, The Free Online Medical Encyclopedia Anyone Can Plagiarize: Time to Address Wiki-Plagiarism. It is about plagiarism from Wikipedia to medical journals.^[1] I was able to locate the abstract and citation online via my local public library's access to EBSCOHost, and the notice there said that full text "may be held at another location, check with your librarian", and "Full text delay due to publisher restrictions ('embargo')" and mentioned a 12-month delay. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The irony of an article about Wikipedia being paywalled... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I have access to this article and can email it to you if you'd like. The examples given are Catamenial pneumothorax (plagiarized by ^[2]), Cocaine (^[3]), Exome sequencing (^[4]), Hospital-acquired infection (^[5]) and Infant colic (^[6]). The articles were found by searching for transclusions of the reverse copyvio template. Spicy (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

But no mention of Diabetic neuropathy, which made the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, with the hoax content copied by an allegedly peer-reviewed medical journal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spicy:, yes please: email me. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a case study: Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat. The publisher has returned/rejected letters from my attorney. If you want to know more about how to proceed legally, you will have to email me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just wow - so illuminating and exhausting - thank you for linking here! — soupvector (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it is less than surprising. The publisher is on Beall's List of Predatory Publishers. They are located in a residential apartment park. Their journals are not PubMed indexed. The article is "authored" by the Fymat AL, who is also listed as Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Fymat's PubMed-indexed articles were in the range 1970-1998. To be fair, most of his articles were in Applied Optics, so perhaps some later publications were in legitimate journals that are outside of PubMed's scope. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

LeadSongDog there is much more to the story ... those Pubmed-indexed articles are probably his father's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all who participated in the November collaboration of the month: tonsillitis. It attracted around 200 edits from 11 medicine editors (though if anyone is interested, it still could use further work and there's now some collected resources at the talk page to help guide improvements). I think there was enough interest to justify running the collaboration of the month again, so this month we'll focus on Dexamethasone! Please head to Talk:Dexamethasone to coordinate our efforts. Also, please nominate and vote on future collaboration topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month. See you all there! Ajpolino (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello this article and its content is quite controversial in Australia, as it affects the masks we wear, see here. We spent a fair bit of time making sure this neutrally presents the varying opinion of the agencies and the controversy. It appears this has been controversial many times before (I haven't been through all the talk but there is a CDC paid editor and people have been blocked). The current page as we edited it seems neutral to me, but please keep an eye on it because of the conflicts of interest. With thanks --49.180.100.63 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That letter is not a reliable source. The CDC generally is. And who is "we"? Alexbrn (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a reliable source of the fact that one professor wrote a letter to another professor about the contents of an article. It might be evidence for the fact that there is controversy over PPE advice in Australia. The CDC may or may not be reliable, but they don't comment on Australian politics. I imagine "we" means "wikipedia editors". While the CDCs publications may be reliable, due to the scrutiny they undergo and the incentives that exist, a paid CDC editors work on wikipedia is not. Talpedia (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes nurses and doctors and support staff over here don't get proper protection when on the front line, due to a few peoples opinions, which the unions disagree with. But Australian politics aside, that's right on the point that there are incentives that exist to motivate paid editors from any agency to reflect their agency's point of view. Theres been more than one australian that started editing because they were upset about its content as far as I can see. In America they get the masks, here we don't that seems to be why. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Any help in finishing up Talk:Immune system#To do appreciated. Should a vaccine launch announcement occur in December, we have been offered the WP:TFA slot on the mainpage for December 30 ... there are still some loose ends to tie up in the article. RexxS might you add alt text and check accessibility? Some book page numbers are missing in case anyone can access a library ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, if you have, or can borrow, any of the following books (including more recent editions), please help out:

• Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walters P (2002). Molecular Biology of the Cell (Fourth ed.). New York and London: Garland Science. ISBN 978-0-8153-3218-3.
• Janeway CA (2005). Immunobiology (6th ed.). Garland Science. ISBN 0-443-07310-4.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that WaId, but we do have page nos on some of those books. We are missing only Alberts and Janeway ... or alternate sources for those citations. I believe all the rest have page nos, chapters or sections already included. (It's OK to indicate a chapter or section as opposed to exact page no. ... although anyone is welcome to add page nos as well if they have them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm shortening the list even further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've got a copy of Janeway 7th edition. What needs to be found? Natureium (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Natureium: Awesome. I will have to change the Source to indicate then that we are using the 7th edition. If you go to the article, go in to edit mode, and do a ctrl-f search on Janeway, you will find ... {{sfn| Janeway |2005 |p=}} and all you have to do is add the page number or range supporting the text prior to the citation. If it is a range, you have to change the singular p to plural pp. Unless you prefer that I put a list of text that needs citation on talk ... thanks so much !! I can later change the year to the 7th edition unless you want to also do that while you're in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Ok, this might take a while because I have a print book that can't be searched. Natureium (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that ... we have to let Wehwalt know in advance if we can take the TFA slot, but we still have a few weeks. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've got an Alberts 6th ed. On it... Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess the reason 4th ed. is cited is that it's freely searchable (though not browsable) online . I could change the citations to 6th ed., but that would make it harder for readers to verify content. All the citations seem to be for basic facts that haven't changed since 2002, so I think we should stick with 4th ed. It doesn't seem to be possible to recover page numbers from the online version of 4th ed., but I could use the |loc= parameter of {{sfn}} to add section links like this: Pathogens Cross Protective Barriers to Colonize the Host. Would that meet FA requirements? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. and I agree about the facts not having changed. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Works for me, thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've left a note about this consensus on the article's talk page. (I also agree with the group.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just came across this as an orphan. I linked it at Cardiovascular disease from the Sex sub-heading, but wanted to make sure you guys had a look at it since it looks to me like it's a WikiEd creation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. Isn't it amazing to find one of these unexpected holes in content? We should have had an article on heart disease in women years and years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's the because broader overview articles are harder to write. It's easy enough to track down every source about some obscure disorder of the lower spleen or whatever, because there may only be enough to write two paragraphs total, but figuring out the best sources and structure for a comprehensive article a broad topic can be daunting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Having written Oculodentodigital dysplasia (an incredibly rare disease) some years ago, I have to agree. Identifying a "high-quality source" could be simplified down "Look, this one is peer-reviewed and was published during the current century!", and it was physically possible for one person to read everything published on the subject. Broad topics are much harder (also more likely to have some disputes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am interested in reaching out to see if there are any medical editors here who also improve medical content in Malay or who have ties with Malay WikiProject Medicine. If you know of anyone please let me know. Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Udin Azmi, Saiff Naqiuddin, and Ricky250, who know people at the Malay language Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much @WhatamIdoing:. I have been approached by a group from Cochrane Malaysia who are interested in learning more about Malay WikiProject Medicine and potentially collaborating. JenOttawa (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like CyberTroopers started that page earlier this year. I'm not sure that there's a specific group of editors there yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings JenOttawa, thank you for your interests, As of currently, i'm not really focusing on medical or medicine projects but I think my fellow editor such as SNN95, Tofeiku and CyberTroopers may able to help you out. Fandi89 also a great helper. -Ricky250 (talk) 1:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't do the Malay one. As WhatamIdoing said, @CyberTroopers: is starting that wikiproject. And yes we will help if you need it. SNN95 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @SNN95 and Ricky250:. Is is nice to meet you! I left user CyberTroopers a message on their english talk page to start with. If you are interested in getting involved or have any ideas please do keep in touch. I suggested that the Cochrane group also leave a message on the Malay WikiProject Med talk page in order to learn more.JenOttawa (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a thread at Wp:RS/N#Medscape which seems to be arguing for recognizing this as a stronger source than it has been. Input from Project members would be useful. We don't mention Medscape by name in WP:MEDRS but do mentions its (defunct?) predecessor eMedicine. Perhaps this should be updated? Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#Requested move 7 December 2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A request edit template has been placed on Ridinilazole. Another editor is also concerned about the reliability of sources and the inclusion of writing from conflict of interest. Can someone take a look at this article and provide some guidance? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion - I've cleared the requests but more work on the article would be welcome. — soupvector (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The main problem with that article was the tone – it was written more like a PR press release or internal memo than an encyclopaedic article (old version). I've taken a stab at improving it (current version). I don't think there is a whole lot more we can or should write about it until it is approved. The results of phase II trials are not appropriate to include in an encyclopaedic article about an as-yet unapproved drug. TompaDompa (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Could someone here help out Jo-Jo Eumerus with one statement (about immunosuppression and ultraviolet radiation) at this article? See Talk:1257 Samalas eruption#MEDRS. I am not sure that what I presented is broad enough. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello all,

I have spotted some problems with the Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies. Please drop by the talk page. -Mys_721tx (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States#rfc 9228113 is about whether to prefer sources that place Trump's height just high enough that he's very overweight, or just short enough that he's slightly obese. There seems to be a disagreement about whether authorized public statements from a politician's personal physicians should be treated as infallible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've commented. Ultimately, this looks more like a WP policy than medical question, but I agree some input from medical experts can help shed light on the data. — soupvector (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

After the tree fell on me, and I allegedly lost height with the compression fracture, I have had height measurements by different physicians varying up to an inch, even as I now insist they take care to get it right, as I want to know if I've actually lost height. Last physical exam, I gained 3/4 of an inch, even with making sure they were taking care in the measurement. But I don't know how to weigh in on that discussion, because ... verifiability over truth. I just don't trust height measurements from doctors, as they haven't been reliable in my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Even when great care is taken, height actually varies based on posture, recent activity, and other sources of variance that cannot be eliminated. — soupvector (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah ha! Nice to know ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inertia (anxiety) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Augmentation is an interesting word. Paraphrasing from the Oxford English Dictionary:

augment, verb - To make greater in number, size, or degree; to add to, to supplement; to increase, enlarge, extend; to increase, grow, intensify.^[1]

augmentation, noun - The action or process of becoming greater in number, size, or degree; growth, increase, intensification; extension, enlargement; an addition, an increase; an intensified state or condition; the action or process of increasing the size of a part of the body by plastic surgery. ^[2]

We have an (stub-class) article titled Augmentation (pharmacology), which is about enhancing psychopharmacological treatment effects by adding a second drug.

But we also need an article (or a section in another article?) about drug augmentation, meaning a gradual worsening of symptoms, usually after taking a medication for an extended period of time. Drug augmentation and drug tolerance often coexist, i.e., a person needs to take more of the medication to achieve the desired effect and the medication induces a worsening of target symptoms instead of ameliorating symptom severity. (See the pramipexole article for an example.)

Questions: (1) Do you think an article about drug augmentation is a good idea, or would it be better to include information about the phenomenon in another article?

(2) If drug augmentation merits its own article, what title would you suggest for it?

Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 07:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How does Augmentation (pharmacology) differ from Synergy#Drug synergy or Adjuvant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Good questions. I'll take a stab at the first one: Augmentation is a treatment strategy, whereas drug synergy is the biological (chemical) process that makes the treatment strategy possible. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your second question, see Adjuvant therapy, Immunologic adjuvant, Pharmaceutic adjuvant, and the proposal to merge Adjuvant into Immunologic adjuvant. Also, if you have access to Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster Unabridged, they both have very helpful info from a lexical perspective at least. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that we have too many articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bell's palsy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

From poking around in some of the more sordid areas of the web, it seems there's an idea at large (based on some cases during the trials) that the COVID vaccines cause Bell's palsy. This likely why our article has seen a spike of interest recently. Given the lack of sources I don't think anything can be said on this, but it may be good to have some extra eyes on the article for a while. Alexbrn (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the internet actually saying that Bell's palsy, which was first described by physicians over a thousand years ago, is caused by a vaccine that was distributed for the first time this month? Or is this just a claim that Bell's palsy is a possible side effect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The latter. Here's something about it on Snopes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not a regular medical editor but with some trepidation and great caution created a stub for the new autoinflammatory disorder VEXAS on 17 November after one of the 52 authors of the key paper mentioned its discovery during a consultation on a different ailment of mine. (Hmm, is that a Conflict of Interest? I hope not.)

I wasn't sure then whether its article title should be VEXAS or VEXAS syndrome (I made a redirect from the latter). Some sources use one, some the other. The NIH News release uses "VEXAS". I've just found it in OMIM, where both names are given. But I now find that Wikidata has two separate entries, one at VEXAS (created 20 Nov by an editor who apparently first edited Wikidata on 19 Nov)) linking to the en.wiki article, and one at VEXAS syndrome (created on 24 Nov by a bot), linking to the DOID record. I am not a Wikidata expert. But I'm confident they both refer to the same entity so presumably there should only be one Wikidata record.

So I have two questions for expert medical editors, especially those well versed in Wikidata:

1. Is the article at the right title?
2. Could someone please do what's needed in Wikidata so that there is just the one entry, with the alternative name included?

And of course there may be many other improvements which could be made to this article: I look forward to seeing it develop. I tried to make sure that I was not editing beyond my level of knowledge ... which is why most of this stub is a couple of quotes. There may be further useful categories which could be added. I've added an entry to the list at List of OMIM disorder codes, though if it ought to be called "VEXAS syndrome" that will need to be changed.

Thanks in advance for any help on this article and its Wikidata. PamD 21:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: You should be bringing this up at wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Thanks, have now done so. My ignorance of Wikidata extends to not having known that it had such a thing as Wikiprojects.

But the question as to which title the en.wiki article should have is one for here, still. Any thoughts? PamD 22:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Since VEXAS stands for "Vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, Autoinflammatory, Somatic" (and not V.E.X.A. Syndrome), the page should probably end up at VEXAS syndrome. Since you have the redirect in place, moving the page to the probably-technically-correct title is not urgent. Fixing the page title here is much easier than merging the Wikidata records (independent of the Wikidata process). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: thanks for creating the article and linking to the podcast, which was fascinating. There does seem to be a small amount of confusion with two reports saying "The team called the new disease VEXAS (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory and somatic syndrome)", though surely that's VEXASS. But in the published paper, the authors say "We named this disorder the VEXAS (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome" and write "VEXAS syndrome" repeatedly throughout the paper. As I have previously noted at "Down syndrome" discussions on possessive-form variant spelling, I suspect that the shift away from "Down's syndrome" as more to do with the difficulty in pronouncing a clearly audible "'s" when followed by "syndrome" rather than "disease" (the possessive is more often retained on Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease). So I wonder if the syndrome part of this name gets dropped over time, with just VEXAS used, or whether we might even see the typo "VEXA syndrome" appear. Maybe we will even see "Vexa's syndrome" appear through some dictated typo, and someone wonder who the heck Dr Vexa was :-) -- Colin°^Talk 17:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Colin: Thanks, glad you enjoyed the podcast. I google VEXAS from time to time and I think there will be more to say about it and more interesting links as time goes on. (I also think Dan Kastner is probably due for an article). I'm pretty sure that the author of the paper who mentioned it to me called it plain "VEXAS" - but then she talks about "Schnitzler's" rather than Schnitzler syndrome (or "Schnitzler's syndrome", in the UK). On consideration I think perhaps I got the article title wrong, and will now move it to VEXAS syndrome ... done, and tidied the bolding in the lead for consistency. PamD 23:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In the context of discussions surrounding vaccines, I created a portal style project for vaccine safety on Wikipedia here: Wikipedia: Vaccine safety. Please feel free to integrate the contents of the project with Wikiproject Medicine or any other relevant project. I am also open to the idea of making it an independent WikiProject, but I do not know if a WikiProject on a narrow topic area like this is likely to generate sufficient interest among medical editors. --Netha (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In general I think splitting the effort around COVID-19 (which is what this will be, effectively, at least in the short to medium term) is a bad idea. It happened for the COVID-19 Wikiproject and the divided effort is I suspect one reason why they now perceive things are spinning out of control. Alexbrn (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Could someone evaluate these edits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd revert the lot, and see what happens. bad form on display, but a newbie. If they weren't the primary author, perhaps I'd think differently. I'm not a medic, so I haven't touched them, I'll wait for other comment. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Antibody-dependent enhancement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – which has already sprouted an enormous "In coronavirus infection" section
• Vaccine adverse event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Antibody-dependent enhancement needs better sourcing to put it mildly--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I figured this was a good place to ask this question. NPR recently discussed CDC sponsored study that found, "...that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020" []. In what contexts/usage would the discussion of this study be subject to strict MEDRS vs normal RS. I would assume if we had an article listing/discussing CDC research articles this would be just standard RS since the objective is to verify the study actually exists. What about to claim "a study showed evidence of the virus in the US in the 13 Dec to 17 Jan time frame"? That is again verifiable as the claim is that a study that makes that claim exists. What about, "evidence of the virus in the US in the 13 Dec to 17 Jan time frame"? Alexbrn has removed this source from several articles as failing MEDRS but after our discussions regarding MEDRS and WP:Biomedical Information I don't see that as clear cut. I've pinged Alexbrn as a courtesy but I'm hoping for other opinions (either to say I'm very wrong or not). Springee (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Epidemiology is WP:Biomedical information, and your argument we can use primary sources and news reports because epidemiology always reports on something in the past and so is somehow not medicine but "history" is, I think, specious WP:WL. What intensifies the matter here is that the claim you want Wikipedia to relay, that COVID-19 was spreading in the USA in 2019, is an WP:exceptional one and so requires exceptionally strong sources, not exceptionally weak ones. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, I think this is a gray area. We are talking about a CDC study that says they found the marker antibodies in blood samples from the mid-Dec to mid-Jan time period taken from blood samples from the western US. I don't think it is clear that saying it was first in the US in January vs December is Biomedical Information per your link. Again, this is why I asked for the opinions of others. Do we have a MEDRS that says mid January is when the virus came to the US? What I've seen is mid January is the earliest diagnosed case in the US but I'm also generally not searching this topic. Springee (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Your continued assertion that this is a "gray area" does not mean that's true. The "CDC" study you want to use to "lend credibility" to the idea that COVID-19 has been around for a while so isn't as serious as is generally thought, is PMID 33252659, which (even if it were a reliable source) couches its findings in an ultra-cautious manner. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Your continued assertion that this isn't a gray area does not mean that's true. Your claim about how I want to use the study is false as I have never added it to any article. The same is true of your claim that I think this isn't a serious illness (for ref, several family members are suffering from it and one of one of my siblings had a patient die from it). You removed it from three. Please allow others to weigh in as I already know what your opinion. Springee (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
        • You bad faith argumentation is noted; not responding further. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Disagreeing is fine. Accusations of bad faith are not helpful. Springee (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• This is a claim that definitely requires WP:MEDRS, and those sources need to be unequivocal about it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • But why? This seems to sit in an area between MEDRS and normal RS. Is there a particular part of MEDRS that pulls this in? Springee (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Springee: Because it's a single primary source being used to support an extraordinary claim. The particular part of MEDRS that applies to it is the second paragraph "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." More importantly, the policy at WP:REDFLAG states "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". You removed the GS alert given two days ago, so I can assume you're aware of the standards of behaviour required for you in COVID-19 related discussions. Now give it a rest before you exhaust the patience of the busy editors here. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Why is this a redflag claim? At the same time would two independent studies that suggest the virus was in the US in the December time frame count? I understand that second paragraph you quoted but I don't agree it must apply to a claim of when this virus was in the US. This goes back to why do we have MEDRS, specifically because we don't want to do harm with bad information here. I also don't see how politely asking others to explain their view is any violation of the COVID-19 DS. Springee (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

        Thanks for posting this question here, Springee. As you can see, it's a good place to get answers.

        This is an exceptional claim because it's not the general, settled, mainstream view. It is also an exceptional claim because the study is weak. There was an Italian study that did the same thing a couple of weeks ago. The problem with the study is that they have no idea whether they are finding antibodies that were triggered by SARS-CoV-2, or merely antibodies that happen to bind to SARS-CoV-2. "Hey, we found antibodies!" is not exciting to anyone who knows how those tests work.

        Some months ago, there were reports about finding antibodies in five-year-old stored blood samples. Everyone looked at those results and concluded that the test must be bad, and the antibodies are merely a case of coincidental cross-reactiviity. But when they run the same test on blood samples from a few months ago, the internet believes that the same test magically started working and proved something.

        What would be an impressive piece of research is a lab running their test on blood samples from December 2018 and *not* finding antibodies, and then running the same test on blood samples from December 2019 and finding antibodies. But none of them have done that; every single time they've run these tests, they have found antibodies. It would also be impressive if the research did DNA testing to find the virus itself, rather than just doing one test – a test notorious in the industry for its error rate – and announcing that you should be considered a famous scientist now. None of these retrospective antibody tests have been confirmed in any way (not even by running a different lab's antibody test on it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

        • WhatamIdoing, thank you for the thoughtful answer. That was the sort of reply I was hoping for as it helps make the concerns clearer. Springee (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• I came across this discussion via Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019. The standard for what claims of early SARS-CoV-2 detection are allowed seems to be fairly arbitrary, as other examples based on primary studies are included. Why is this American Red Cross study not allowed in particular? Fences&Windows 22:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  We need to be careful with all such claims, not just this one study. All of the COVID-related articles need to be reviewed and updated. Some edits, especially in the early days, added speculative content that should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Fences and windows: it's just the usual fringe theories dressed up in press reports. Frankly, I'd be ashamed of writing a medical article that used news reports for over half of its content. The question you should be asking is why you haven't already removed all of the poorly sourced woo from the article. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  The situation is a little more complicated than just "remove the woo". Certainly there are things that I would (and have) remove because they smack of conspiracy theories (e.g., this disputed claim about when the US government was first informed of this virus), but some content is more political than scientific. That said, if everyone who reads this section picks one of the thousand-plus articles about COVID-19 and removes any single outdated claim, we would make some progress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Hi RexxS, dial it back a bit, please. I'd not read the article before yesterday: I corrected some typos and grammatical errors, and after that the first thing I did was to look at the talk page (ownership issues, no discussion since July, no mention of MEDRS) and the history (lots of reverts) and then I commented here to better understand where we draw the line and so others might edit as an example of the issues you've discussed. Studies looking for SARS-CoV-2 in stored clinical or environmental samples from 2019 aren't "pseudoscience": while I'm skeptical of many such claims (because they contradict other evidence), my opinion is OR, we know the virus was present at least somewhere in late 2019, and this is a legitimate area of research. If the findings are discussed and critiqued in reliable scholarly sources (not only preprints or primary articles) then we should provide that information to our readers. If we don't discuss the evidence, its reception, and its limitations, readers will find other information sources that may be less balanced than we are. Fences&Windows 14:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Fences and windows: there's nothing to dial back. I'm sick to the eye-teeth of editors wanting to cram every piece of breaking news and misinformation into our COVID-19 articles. If a few more folks actually took responsibility for cleaning up articles when they see these issues, instead of enabling the conspiracy theorists and woo-pushers, Wikipedia would benefit dramatically. There's a world of difference between keeping track of research that comes to conclusions far different from the mainstream, and taking them at face value to insert tenuous content into our articles as if it carried the same weight as the mainstream view. WP:FRINGE really does apply. When we have good quality secondary sources that are competent to assess the evidence, we'll be in a position to write about where the virus was present in late 2019. Until then, we should be silent on the matter. Your "reliable scholarly sources" are well short of that as WP:MEDRS makes clear. If you disagree with that approach, then in my opinion, you ought not to be editing in the medical field. Now tell me to dial that back, I dare you. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm happy with the enthusiasm. There's been a lull in attention to these articles, and we would be better off if more people tried their best, than if people with an interest walk away because they don't fully understand every jot and tittle.

  Specifically, I want to emphasize that asking about a source on this page is not even remotely close to "enabling the conspiracy theorists and woo-pushers". Asking for help on this page is one of the most anti-conspiracy and anti-woo things that any editor can do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  RexxS, this kind of confrontational response won't recruit editors to help you. I've not added or defended a single specific source in that article, so my sources don't come into the discussion: I said if secondary sources have discussed those studies we can include an analysis of the claims; if there aren't any, then those studies will need removing. Please stop attacking people and have a reasoned discussion that focuses on the sources and not editors. I asked a question in good faith and I am not a conspiracy theorist. Fences&Windows 19:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: The sort of sealioning exhibited by Springee in this thread is so far away from "asking about a source" that it's not funny, and I'm disappointed that you would enable it. Take a look at the history of their talk page to see plenty of examples of their behaviour.

  @Fences and windows: yer, well, letting editors get away with pushing their pet theories and breaking news won't recruit folks to help either, so you'll just have to suck up my cynicism.

  You have indeed not added or defended a single specific source in that article, and you have pointed out that "If the findings are discussed and critiqued in reliable scholarly sources (not only preprints or primary articles) then we should provide that information to our readers." which is perfectly fine, within the limits of WP:DUE for any given article. But then you come out with the extraordinary " If we don't discuss the evidence, its reception, and its limitations, readers will find other information sources that may be less balanced than we are. which gives the green light to all of the conspiracy theorists and wannabe reporters to stuff our articles with every badly-sourced piece of misinformation that they can find. Nice work. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps ease up on WhatamIdoing, Fences and windows, and Springee. This is starting to get out of hand. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  +1 for WhatamIdoing, Fences and windows, Springee and PackMecEng. Let's be clear, Alexbrn invited Springee to post their questions here: "If in doubt, ask at WT:MED." Any editor unable to respond to content-sourcing questions at WT:MED without making personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, criticism of what volunteers do or don't do with their time, threats of blocks, throwing down gauntlets, telling folk they shouldn't edit medical articles, and daring others to escalate things even further, should move their mouse up to the little blue star at the top of the page and click on "Remove this page from your watchlist". I hope that is clear. -- Colin°^Talk 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Colin: Alexbrn invited Springee to post questions here; he didn't invite them to repeatedly make the same mistaken assertions, nor to bludgeon the debate by cross-examining every other poster who didn't agree with what they wanted to do. If you spent as much time in trying to keep poorly-sourced content out of articles as you do lambasting those who do try, your advice would be worth listening to. You don't and it isn't.

  Now tell me whether the source in the original post is worth putting into an article or not, because you seem less interested in answering that question than making personal attacks on me. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  I am concerned that WT:MED be a place where editors feel safe to ask questions about current/proposed article content and what sort of sources they can use. Replies to that should concentrate on the current/removed/proposed article content and sources used. Do you disagree with that? -- Colin°^Talk 23:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  We're all concerned about that, so you're not special in your views there. Indeed, your concern doesn't give you the right to attack me by pretending that is the issue in this case, given the OP's track record and behaviour above. Now, can you answer the question whether the source in the original post is worth putting into an article or not? --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Do you think your replies to Springee and Fences and windows make WT:MED a place "where editors feel safe to ask questions"? I believe your very first reply to Springee was to require them to "give it a rest before you exhaust the patience of the busy editors here" and to ask why Fences and windows hasn't "already removed all of the poorly sourced woo from the article" and accused them, and everyone else who hasn't "clean[ed] up articles when they see [the] issues, of "enabling the conspiracy theorists and woo-pushers", and of giving the "green light to all of the conspiracy theorists". These are your words, RexxS. If you are genuinely "sick to the eye-teeth of editors", no matter what those editors are up to, then take a wikibreak. -- Colin°^Talk 00:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  That's really rich coming from you. A moment ago you were lecturing us with "Replies to that should concentrate on the current/removed/proposed article content and sources used. and, unlike me, you've not once addressed your contributions in this thread to the original post. All we've seen from you is the mud you're throwing at me by the cheap trick of taking quotes out of context, in the hope that some of it might stick. What's your "reply concentrating on" whether the source in the original post is worth putting into an article? If all your contribution to a discussion is to tell other editors to take a wikibreak, you should be taking your own advice. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• List of vaccine ingredients (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I see this article gets increasingly shared on social media as a kind of "Eww, look at the things they put in vaccines" document. Some issues:

• The article is old, largely unsourced, and seems to be mostly a copy of a previous version of this
• It seems to be completely out-of-sync with the current CDC document, omitting e.g. any dengue vaccines, and having wrong lists of excipients (for e.g. Adenovirus vaccine)
• "Ingredients" is a odd term, used here to cover both the excipients used and the "culture medium".

Any thoughts about what to do about this? If it stays, WP:TNT may be in order. But I wonder if what is essentially a copied table from the CDC, is encyclopedic in nature anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a long history of being useless at knowing when to AFD, but that's what I suggest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking of removing the "culture media" table column as it is so egregiously misleading (the CDC explicitly say the culture media are not contained in the final product), and renaming the article to "List of vaccine excipients". See what that looks like. It'll still be out-of-date, but than any AfD will at least be looking at something update-able, and won't have the risk of preserving the full current horror in aspic while it runs. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You know you can use the visual editor to easily remove entire columns (although I never get it right :) Still a useless article. Someone like me (with considerable medication allergies) is going to the manufacturer insert anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That's actually an impressive feature of the Visual Editor (which I have so far shunned). Good tip! Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The CDC does not say "the culture media are not contained in the final product", they say their table only includes things "listed as contained in the final product" and quite a few of them are a result of the culture media (e.g. egg protein). The process of manufacture does have a potential effect on what is in the product even if not an intentional ingredient. We see "Made in a factory that processes nuts" on the wrapper of a chocolate biscuit that doesn't list nuts in the ingredients. I wouldn't get too hung up on whether the name is misleading or whether culture media should be separated from excipient. I'm more concerned that it is essentially an unmaintainable raw data dump that isn't encyclopaedic: there's no explanation of what the excipient is for, how it ended up in there, what amount is typically present and whether you should care. The Vaccine article does briefly mention some of this stuff but not in any depth. I think there is merit in a Vaccine excipients prose article, which would explain to the reader and could be suitably vague "Egg proteins are found in some flu vaccines" rather than misleading the reader with a false impression of accuracy about exactly which branded vaccine has which precise allergens or ethically problematic origins. -- Colin°^Talk 16:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I could copy that to AFD ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Colin: That makes sense, the distinction between "may contain traces of ... " and an "ingredient". I agree the article is inherently un-encyclopedic. Is there also a license problem with copying CDC stuff? Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa is the one to ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

See Use of Agency Materials. Generally, the work of a US Government Employee is in the public domain. My understanding is the stuff they write in "the following requirements must be followed to utilize CDC’s public domain content" is legally nonsense. If it is public domain then it may, as they say "be freely used". Of course there is a moral problem with plagiarising, and if all you are going to do is copy/paste, then why not just link to it. Really, we should be adding value, and in more ways than just hyperlinking the words. -- Colin°^Talk 17:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What a shame that Who wrote that coughs on this table, as it would be interesting to see which blocked user has been adding that content. (I found one sock in the contribs). But “who wrote that” equally failed to be useful in my DLB copyright issue, and is quite buggy, failing on content like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Lay discussion of the Pfizer vaccine ingredients, here. Zefr (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll have a go at making Vaccine excipients go blue later. -- Colin°^Talk 13:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed a well-intentioned IP address trying to help correct the Osteoporosis article by commenting on the talk page, suggesting two review articles to replace an observational study. I am greatful to see experts trying to help with these articles, especially when they point out errors. Does anyone who has a background in nutrition have time to look at these reviews and verify the suggestion? The comments are here.JenOttawa (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a nutritionist and haven't looked into this or read the sources, but from your description it sounds like this doesn't require any subject-matter expertise, only a fairly-straightforward application of WP:MEDRS: Cite reviews, don't write them. TompaDompa (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There are three separate problems at osteoporosis: a) student editing; b) seriously outdated content and sources; and c) outdated content in the lead that is not in the body. None of this requires subject-matter expertise; all of it requires elbow grease to update and correctly cite the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As of today, Britain's first guidance on how to diagnose and clinically manage long covid is published (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188). As a result, the page Long Covid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) needs overhauling, as do various other articles. The document refers to other materials "for healthcare professionals" available here: here, issued in June and here, issued in November, updated yesterday. I have added some definitions from the new NICE guidance to the lead, but now the details of the guidance should be looked over with an eye to incorporating the information in a way compliant with Wikipedia medical policies with which I am not familiar, so it'd be good to have some experienced help now that authoritative sources are becoming available.

The NICE:

have used the following clinical definitions for the initial illness and long COVID at different times:

• Acute COVID-19: signs and symptoms of COVID-19 for up to 4 weeks.
• Ongoing symptomatic COVID-19: signs and symptoms of COVID-19 from 4 to 12 weeks.
• Post-COVID-19 syndrome: signs and symptoms that develop during or after an infection consistent with COVID-19, continue for more than 12 weeks and are not explained by an alternative diagnosis.

The bottom two bullet points (4 weeks +) are what they define as "long COVID", though they also state that:

Post‑COVID‑19 syndrome may be considered before 12 weeks while the possibility of an alternative underlying disease is also being assessed

They state that infected

People may also develop signs or symptoms of a life-threatening complication at any time and these need to be investigated urgently.

It also notes that:

People need good information after acute COVID-19 so they know what to expect and when to ask for more medical advice. This could help to relieve anxiety if people do not recover in the way they expect. ... Accessibility of information ... is particularly important after acute COVID-19 because people may have cognitive symptoms ('brain fog') or fatigue, making it difficult for them to take in long or complex information.

a sentiment much aligned with Wikipedia's principles! this post will be repeated at WP:COVID GPinkerton (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a discussion best located on that Talk page, but I will comment here in reply that you may be conflating "long" and "post" COVID-19 ("...though they also state that..."). The durations as described in the NICE guidance 4-12 weeks (for "long COVID-19") and the latter 12+ weeks (for "post COVID). — soupvector (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Soupvector, yes I'm just advertising here for volunteers. But also no, they way they have it is that "long" is both the 4+ and the 12+ weeks arbitrary deadlines. There has already been criticism of the randomness of that and the potential prejudicial implications of the "post-Covid" moniker. GPinkerton (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume that they have titled it to be similar to Post-polio syndrome, and people who don't know anything are thinking that they're saying "Get over it already!" Actually, there seem to be quite a large number of conditions named "post-(medical condition)":

• Post-Ebola virus syndrome
• Post-LASIK ectasia
• Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment
• Post-concussion syndrome
• Post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis
• Post-kala-azar dermatosis
• Post-polio syndrome
• Post-schizophrenic depression
• Post-steroid panniculitis
• Post-stroke depression
• Post-thrombotic syndrome
• Post-transfusion purpura
• Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder
• Post-viral cough
• Post-viral fatigue syndrome
• Post herniorraphy pain syndrome
• Post viral cerebellar ataxia
• Postarthroscopic glenohumeral chondrolysis
• Postcardiotomy syndrome
• Postcholecystectomy syndrome
• Postencephalitic parkinsonism
• Postencephalitic trophic ulcer
• Postherpetic neuralgia
• Postinflammatory hypermelanosis
• Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation
• Postinflammatory hypopigmentation
• Postinflammatory lymphedema
• Postlaminectomy syndrome
• Postmastectomy lymphangiosarcoma
• Postmiliarial hypohidrosis
• Postperfusion syndrome
• Postpericardiotomy syndrome

Maybe if people knew more about these, they wouldn't think there was anything unusual here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi members, I am finding difficulty in improving things (as they are now outside of my specialization) that are mentioned in the DYK nomination of modRNA at Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA. Anyone willing to rescue things to pass the DYK are welcome. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 05:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the "Risks" section (this being a hot button topic for misinformation "out there" on the web), and it is very poor. This article should be nowhere near the front page until that at least is fixed. And yes, it may need a specialist editor. Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That has to be stated at the DYK nom page ... they operate in a vacuum over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The "Risks" section removed. There should not be things that are difficult to interpret and un-verifiable using available WP:MEDRS. Thanks everyone for the suggestions — Amkgp 💬 11:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• RNA vaccine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

As I sometimes do, I checked social media to see what people are saying about Wikipedia and the pandemic. Our article on RNA vaccines seem to be linked quite a lot as giving convincing reasons why RNA vaccines should be avoided (typically). Looking at our article, there was a big emphasis on risk from less-than-solid sources. I've pecked at it a bit, but this could really do with some more in-depth attention, ideally from somebody with subject-matter expertise, as I think it is still unduly skewed. The page is currently being viewed > 20,000 times per day. Alexbrn (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(Add) And my attempted cleanup has now been reverted so we're back to scary article from weak sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I had a go, let's see. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Great work on the article, Alexbrn. The Side effects and risks » General subsection would benefit from additional information from reliable sources (if available) because the current content suggests that the Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna mRNA vaccines are being rushed to market. If that suggestion (implication) is true, fine. But if it's not true, i.e., if there is more evidence of safety and efficacy than the current subsection content, that should be added. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's a lot less unduly scary than it was. I have some difficulty with this topic because the safety/efficacy information about mRNA vaccines isn't readily available to the non-expert (you can't just get the latest Cochrane SR, for example). I suspect there is knowledge buried in more specialist sources, and this is why it would be good to have a subject-matter expert who could help here. As to "rushed to market" (or in the UK's case, to state provision) it seems the various regulatory agencies are insisting that they aren't cutting corners - and they are WP:MEDRS after all, which we can but reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The BBC told me in the last few days that my anaphylactic reactions to aspirin mean I am ineligible for the Pfizer vaccine; hope that info lands somewhere if it can be reliably sourced, as I Could Die, and don't know what's next for me wrt eventual COVID vaccine. Hope the other vaccines don't have that issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

To vent a little: one of the things that is infuriating about the current situation is that while the anti-vaxxers have their material ready and are propagating it round the web, there seems to be no neat, authoritative, readable, public-facing information on this vaccine available on a page from the NHS, or similar. A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on as they say. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep ... and to add to the vent, I'm not particularly thrilled to be getting my info from the laypress (but did notice how depressing it was to read that, as I'm getting just a wee bit tired of the inside of my house :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There are allusions to what the MHRA are saying, but I haven't found the MHRA source (which would be good). AIUI the "allergic reaction" to administration of this specific vaccine BNT162b2 was a surprise as this hadn't shown up in the trials, but now new advice has been issued in the UK not to give this vaccine to people with a history of "significant" allergic reactions. I suppose we'll have good sources in time ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ugh ... I'm for sure among the "significant", and was lucky last time to be one block from a hospital. We shall see! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The MHRA source is actually published on the GOV.UK website:

• "Regulatory approval of Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19". GOV.UK. 2 December 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020. and
• "Confirmation of guidance to vaccination centres on managing allergic reactions following COVID-19 vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine". GOV.UK. 9 December 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020.

There may be other updates, but those are the important documents, as far as I can see. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS (with two anaphylactic reactions to medicines, I'm out of luck ... I guess I get to stare at the walls of my house a bit longer than the rest of us ... not complaining, could be worse). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've now begun the process of donating plasma for my COVID-19 antibodies. According to the consent I had to sign, there is considerable research in progress on ways of making antibodies available for those unable to have vaccine, or whose immune system is too compromised for vaccines to stimulate. It's not a perfect solution, but it's one more hope for the means by which we'll beat this virus. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It would sure be nice to hear (in gory medical detail) how you are doing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I gave my first batch of plasma today. It took about 50 minutes and they took 560 ml of plasma in six cycles. The machine draws enough blood to centrifuge about 100 ml of plasma per cycle, returning the red cells each time. The gory details and pictures are now in Plasmapheresis #Donation procedure. I'm fine and they want me to donate again in a week's time. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I was reading this earlier today:

Friedersdorf, Conor (2020-12-10). "The Public-Health Value of Speaking Plainly". The Atlantic.

It has made me think that these articles need very simple, very basic explanations, like "When a virus infects a cell, it permanently changes the cell's DNA. "Vaccines that use mRNA do not make permanent changes" or "When a cell builds components, it uses its DNA to make mRNA. The mRNA is used to make protein components. The mRNA is temporary and gets used up during the building process." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that's right. The opening sentences of RNA vaccine are bamboozling. And as for the diagram ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point, WhatamIdoing. In the U.S., despite a federal law (the Plain Writing Act of 2010), many government agencies continue to write regulations, guidance, and documents designed to educate the public in bureaucratese instead of using plain language (PDF). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page views have more than doubled this month (compared to last month, which wasn't low) at Messenger RNA, and probably at related articles, especially RNA vaccine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We are still on track to run Immune system on the main page on 30 December ... with the Pfizer vaccine launch announced in the US today, it's too bad we didn't get it sooner, but who knew. I am still unsure if we need to work RNA vaccine in to Immune system, and have asked that question on talk. I don't have a good sense of the dividing line between a biology article and a medical one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page views for RNA vaccine have gone through the roof recently. If an admin is watching, it might be a good idea to semi-protect the article to prevent any more of this kind of thing. Alexbrn (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Holy mother of terrible writing, Batman. I hate working on NotNews articles, but now it is semi-protected, so some cleanup may be possible. I will try to pitch in more when not iPad typing. The lead is a wreck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the edit-warring SPA IP from the article for a year. Sandy has done a lot of work cleaning up the article and I've now semi-protected it for the moment – I'll be happy to remove the protection once we get a sense that normal editing has returned. Thanks to everyone who has had eyes on this article. Please feel free to ping me directly if you need admin assistance. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I barely made a dent in very few places! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I did more copyediting at RNA vaccine; not a biologist, or a doctor-- someone please go check my work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That is looking a lot better Sandy. The patient has been stabilised, so to speak. Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is now at a stage where we could go in and clean out the poor sourcing, but I have been trying to keep up with a lot of other things I have going elsewhere on Wikipedia, so have stopped for now ... and some of it is Over My Head. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

PS, pointing out to others that it was the work of Spyder212 on top of mine that really brought the prose to a more readable level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope everyone is also watching Tozinameran. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS and Alexbrn: might one of you deal with the issue at Talk:RNA vaccine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just came across Broad-spectrum therapeutic, a new article. Here's my potential concern: while I think it might be possible to have an article on the general concept of a broad-spectrum therapeutic, this article doesn't do that fairly. It seemingly uses two conflicting definitions of broad-spectrum therapeutic: (1) in the first sentence, the NIH source defines it essentially as any broad-spectrum antibiotic, antiviral, or antitoxin (of which there are many). (2) In the third sentence, the source defines it implicitly as a single therapeutic that is effective against more than one of [bacteria, virus, toxin, other pathogen]; simply being a broad-spectrum antibiotic is not sufficient. These two definitions conflict and it is difficult to tell which the article is about.

I'm also worried that this is WP:NEO and poorly sourced relative to MEDRS standards. It's telling that the article on the "only identified broad-spectrum therapeutic", Azithromycin, doesn't even have the claim that it's a "broad-spectrum therapeutic". I'm not competent on MED issues, though; can someone else take a look? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

L235, thanks for posting this message. I've cleaned it up a bit. I encourage other editors to pull out their favorite textbooks and have a go at expanding it (it's only four sentences long). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I would redirect this to Broad-spectrum antibiotic without a second's thought. It is pure recentism by the authors of the cited paper—this is not an accepted or widely used term in the pharmacology literature, and it is so vague as to be practically useless.

One could argue that nitazoxanide is an even better example of a "broad-spectrum therapeutic", as it has widely proven antiprotozoal, antiviral, and antibacterial effects in vitro; however, those have not translated to clinical use, which is an essential condition for the therapeutic part. I suspect this is purely the work of champions of COVID-repurposed drugs (azithro, ivermectin, etc.) to advance their opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In fact, we already have Broad-spectrum antibiotic and Broad-spectrum antiviral drug (which should probably be moved to Broad-spectrum antiviral). Broad-spectrum therapeutic could be a set index article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, I'm happy to follow your advice. Do we think it's better to follow the formal Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers process, or should we WP:Be bold? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:MED friends, meet Fvasconcellos, one of the originals in the construction of MEDRS and MEDMOS, and a fine editor, who went missing for way too many years ! Let's keep him around! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently there's a new rumor that Safety syringes are fake. Very few pages link to this article. Does anyone feel inspired to Wikipedia:Build the web to that article? I think that both COVID-19 vaccine and other vaccine-related articles would benefit from a brief mention of their existence. Berchanhimez, do you have any other ideas off hand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, wait, what? The syringes themselves are allegedly fake? Natureium (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Natureium, I think the story is that no injection/vaccination happens, and that they're using the equivalent of the knives used in theater performances, with retractable needles, to make it look like they're vaccinating people (at all, if you think this is a coverup and we're all going to die; or to make it look like that they're vaccinating important-seeming people, if you think the purpose of vaccines is to microchip the world, or to conveniently dispose of a couple dozen micrograms of mercury, etc.). Because everyone knows that the needle needs to still be sticking out and able to stab you afterwards for it to be "real", right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

See BBC News. there's probably enough background there to do some work on the article. --RexxS (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm reviewing a DYK nomination for Eluru outbreak. The nominator is new to DYK and did a fine job writing the article, but they weren't aware of WP:MEDRS and wrote it with entirely popular articles. The article thus needs substantial work to come within policy. I'm looking for a volunteer or two to assist the nominator in rewriting the article and teach them the ways of the MEDRS. Thanks. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am said nominator in question. I appreciate any help you all can give. As mentioned on the DYK nom, so far I searched the websites of the NIH and AIIMS as well as Google Scholar and JSTOR for any mention of the Eluru... poisoning? (I don't know what terminology is correct here) but didn't find any results. MSG17 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

A recent deletion discussion of this article on Polish Wikipedia (with a note that it is based on our English ones) also sports comments about some sources being promotional/unreliable, and there are socking attempts. So, enough red flags for me to ask experts here for a glance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed a couple of blatantly inappropriate sources. I never thought I'd see someone try to cite WikiHow in a medical article. It's too late here for me to dig any deeper. Spicy (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've collected another batch of articles with medicine-related links to DAB pages where expert attention would be welcome. When I came to check my bookmarks, something like 80% had been fixed; these are what remain. Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Blumberg sign  Done Spicy (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Cleidocranial dysostosis  Done Iztwoz (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Contact guidance  Done
• Eleanor J. Gibson  Done Iztwoz (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• DNA vaccination  Done
• Electroejaculation  Done
• F wave  Done Spicy (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Foveolar cell  Done Spicy (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Gondwanatheria  Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Hematocele  Done Iztwoz (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Immunity (medical)  Done
• Inovio Pharmaceuticals  Done
• ISG15  Done Spicy (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Lateral periodontal cyst  Done Iztwoz (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• List of medieval abbreviations  Not done

wrong wikiproject? if here because someone thought the relevant abbreviations are from prescriptions, that one is different - "Sig" for "Signa" is imperative "mark" or "label" — soupvector (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• List of MeSH codes (G03)  Done
• List of MeSH codes (G07)  Done
• Meibomian gland  Done
• Microcephalin  Done
• Neurohacking  Done Iztwoz (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Roots of the ciliary ganglion  Done Iztwoz (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Sensory overload  Done Iztwoz (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Tapanuli orangutan  Done Iztwoz (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• TLR4  Done
• Willardiine  Done

Thanks in advance, and Compliments of the Season. Narky Blert (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert, I think we're done with this list, unless someone has an idea about how to handle Sign (disambiguation) in the List of medieval abbreviations. Maybe Andrew Dalby could help with that one. Thanks for posting the list, and thanks to Spicy, Soupvector, and Iztwoz for getting this list done so quickly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, all! I expect I'll be back sometime next year. I may try touting "sign" around other WikiProjects. Narky Blert (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Why me, by the way? Happy to try to help but, in fact, I can't help much. I think the redirects should be to "meaning", which is a simpler way of saying "signification". However, meaning is itself a disambig page, and the Latin abbreviation could, I think, in different contexts be linked to any of the first three pages that are listed on that disambig page. So we would still end up with links to a disambig page, just a different one. Sorry, better see what someone else thinks ... Andrew Dalby 14:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Why you? Because you know Latin, and I don't. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, I have to admit that's a good reason. Happy Christmas, by the way Andrew Dalby 10:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Surprised you went against WP:MEDTITLE Ozzie. Must say, I find it a bit distasteful how there's a push to get "Pzifer" up front in this name (particular in the US) , despite the fact the virus was apparently BioNTech's invention. Alexbrn (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

its still WP:COMMONNAME...IMO(this isnt about the brand)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there WP:MEDRS sources that show that tozinameran is the INN for BNT162b2 or the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine? Health Canada uses it that way. Is that sufficient? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Health Canada is a stringent regulatory authority, so I presume that would be more than sufficient. The EMA/CHMP documentation just released also confirms "tozinameran" as the active ingredient of Comirnaty. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the EMA needs to get their documentation updated. The new Comirnaty EPAR shows COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified) as the "International non-proprietary name (INN) or common name" and Single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA produced using a cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 as the "Active substance". --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have added a video to the page Topiramate depicting myself experiencing the "carbonation grimace" reaction that is popularly known to occur as a side-effect of Topiramate. I am a novice editor and hope that anyone would double-check my addition to see if it meets guidelines. Henstepl (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Henstepl and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. Short clips are particularly useful on the encyclopaedia, for example, demonstrating the tics of Tourette syndrome. I'm aware of the possible side-effect on appetite of topiramate but this is the first I've heard of a "carbonation grimace". I did some Googling to see if we can get a better source than "Geek Mamas Magazine", per the medical sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS. I managed to find one very recent case report and a mention by the American Migraine Foundation, both suggesting it may make carbonated drinks taste "flat". Your Commons file description of your personal experience seems stronger than just "flat" and such a strong reaction you involuntarily grimace and can't bear to finish the drink. Google also turns up similar personal-experience tales.

In terms of sourcing requirements, a single case report and some forum comments don't cut the grade, nor does your personal experience I'm afraid. The AMF comment is a better source, but is just a single source, and WP:WEIGHT makes us consider whether the body of secondary literature considers this important enough to note. The major website sources on drugs (e.g. BNF, drugs.com) do mention "altered taste". The topiramate article already mentions the "uncommon" side-effect: dysgeusia -- which is just the medical term for that. I checked the sources we use for the "Adverse effects" list, and they confirm it affects fewer than 10% of patients in trials. How much of that altered-taste was to carbonated drinks and how much was other tastes, we don't know.

While your description of the effect on you is real, and valid for Commons, I think if the video clip is to be retained on the Wikipedia article, we'd have to have a caption that sticks to what the reliable sources widely document: that altered taste is one of the possible side effects. And we'd need to pick one of the high quality sources that backs that up. Perhaps in future, more reliable sources will specifically document the carbonated-drink effect. -- Colin°^Talk 17:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If we could use our own personal experiences, I'd be tempted to put "tastes like malted battery acid" in the articles about carbonated drinks. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity, how do you know? Narky Blert (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Why, I read it in a reliable source, of course! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

What a mess that article is. I can barely bare ( :o ) to look at yet another dreadful drug article on Wikipedia. Ajpolino, I wonder if the MCOTW on Dexamethasone has gone nowhere so far, because neither can anyone else! They are so bad across the board that it is painful, and I don't know even where to begin to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe... but that hardly explains the relatively low participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month. My guess is that folks have limited bandwidth available to take on a side project. Perhaps we'll take January off and see if folks are more interested in maintaining a Collaboration of the Every-Other Month. Merry Christmas! Ajpolino (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a discussion at WP:NPP/Reviewers about a new article on a medical imaging technique. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I expanded the article MedPage Today, few days back from its status of redirection. It was tagged with speedy deleted and now listed for deletion discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MedPage_Today_(3rd_nomination). I have devoted too much time and improved the article great length. Please help so that a quality article can stay. MentroPat (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Immune system on the mainpage at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 30, 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Buruli ulcer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buruli ulcer/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And now a featured article. Congratulations to Ajpolino, and all who pitched in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Would an article about a physician who promotes fringe medical theories fall within the scope of WP:MED? And also, would a separate section concerning such theories be necessary on that page. I'm specifically looking at Steven Hotze.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, people here are interested in any WP:Biomedical information that appears on Wikipedia, but some fringe stuff can be dealt with entirely at WP:FT/N - and if possible, should be, since editors here are bursting at the seams dealing with COVID-19 content, so it would be bad to have unnecessary distractions here about energy healing, coffee enemas, etc. For the article you mention, I don't think there are any medical claims which require specialist input -- you don't need medical expertise to tell you that no, COVID-19 is not an invention of the "deep state". Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease is a top-rated medicine article, and consistently among our most viewed articles. It has been six months since I gave notice on the talk page of a Featured article review needed (the article is seriously outdated), yet there has been no interest. Unless someone indicates they have plans to update this important article, I will be submitting it to FAR next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

On a quick glance, possibly finding a second and perhaps even third reference for the life expectancy listed in the sidebar; it's one of those very central pieces of information on which we don't want to highlight a number lower/higher than other estimates. Should be easy. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Celmck has agreed to take a look at updating the article. She's very well acquainted with Alzheimer's disease from her day job, but is new to Wikipedia. If anyone else is interested in helping out, feel free to organize at Talk:Alzheimer's disease. Otherwise, if you see Celmck around, say hello and welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! There is a list on article talk; I'll be there. (Should we make it Jan MCOTW? I see there are no new nominations, on my part at least because of holiday business ... and I see we did nothing on dexamethasone, in my case, because I don't even know where to start on drug articles ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. First stumbling block. I navigated my way to our list of templates for welcoming new editors, and find not a single one that is appropriate to this instance :( Going to look for a general (non-medical) welcome template next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes speaking of stumbling blocks, she tried the Wikipedia Adventure but apparently it kept leaving her at dead ends or the little help box would cover the "submit" button. So we're off to a great start... Anyway, if you don't mind I was hoping we could give the article a couple of weeks while Celmck gets her sea legs and takes a look. If she decides it's not for her, or is ready for some more hands, we can make it a collaboration of the month or proceed with the FAR accordingly? Ajpolino (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wrote my own welcome, and then was dismayed to see her embark on that "adventure", which is not likely to be extremely helpful to someone like her. At some point, we will have to teach her about Diberri and correct citation. I am fine with allowing ALL the time needed; I doubt that anyone else will launch a FAR in the meantime (but I will make sure there is a note on talk to that effect). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

An editor, Roland Of Yew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is edit-warring to insert content about a vaccine's efficacy into COVID-19 vaccine, based only on press releases and newspaper reports. I'd be very grateful for more eyes on the article, which is not in good shape. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you all know; I am unwatching all vaccine and COVID articles. Again. Ping me if needed. I have had severe anaphylactic reactions to both aspirin and penicillin, lucky to be a block from a hospital both times, and have been made severely ill by two different vaccines recently. I just don't need to be reading the kind of crap people are plopping in to those articles, as I am scared enough without reading laypress garbage. I hope "they" will eventually sort out what to do with people like me so that I can get the vaccine under the most safe scenario, but I'll be shaking in fright when I do. Just can't read those pages right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have recently taken up writing Haltlose personality disorder - and one of the terms that keeps coming up in any discussion on Kraepelin's psychopathies is "Gemütlose", the subtype with the most in similar to Haltlose (which is considered its mirror in that they are the only two of the seven psychopathies to share multiple exclusive traits). Like Haltlose, it is virtually impossible it seems to find it referenced in English-language sources...and as I try to track down its modern definition I'm left blindly fumbling. I'm seeing suggestions online that Reactive attachment disorder is what Bowlby called 'Affectionless Psychopathy', which itself was described by Emil Kraepelin, Kurt Schneider and other as one of the seven forms of psychopathy, "Gemütlos/e/n", but it's not clear that these are the same disorder and not just reusing common German words perhaps in a different context. Anybody able to tell me whether Kraepelin/Schneider/other's findings on the Gemütlosen Psychopathen would belong in the RAD article or elsewhere? I'd rather not start a whole new "Gemütlose psychopathy" article if it is commonly considered by another name these days. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NONENGLISH sources are acceptable, if they are otherwise good sources. The main problem with that subject is that basically only German psychologists believe that it's 'a thing'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Bingo, Haltlose I can create an article on it because it is listed in the ICD-10 so it is different from Dependent PD, Borderline PD, Antisocial PD, etc which it closely resembles...but Gemütlose is not in the DSM or ICD, so I doubt I'll ever be able to make an article on it...but it seemed like possible RAD was the new name for it (I know nothing about RAD) and yet I couldn't find a source explicitly stating "Gemütlose is now called..." or even "The diagnosis of Gemütlose was abandoned when...". Ideally even if not in its own article, I'd like to clarify that Gemütlose "is now considered a combination of X and Y" or "Z when X is not present" or something...I mean Schneider and Kraepelin are major figures in Psychopathy worldwide (though yes, Haltlose remains largely a European diagnosis limited to Germany, France, Switzerland and some Eastern European universities, and then less-academic acknowledgement of it outside those countries) - it just seems bizarre that Gemütlose alone has simply vanished without an explanation of why. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there an article about Haltlose personality disorder on the German Wikipedia? Just curious. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No. There are articles at the Dutch, Portuguese, Romanian, and Simple English Wikipedias, but not at the German Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to our last discussion on the article. Most editors agreed then that the article needed to be merged (somewhere). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

a) No, we discussed at the time, you and one anonymous IP editor felt that way and suggested reducing a heavily sourced, heavily relevant and heavily-linked-to article about a diagnosis that exists in the ICD-10 should be reduced to a passing mention in "some other article somewhere" ignoring the fact it's larger than just about any article into which it could be merged. It has 154 different sources almost entirely drawn from peer-reviewed medical journals, textbooks and other reliable sources. Also, this question is not about Haltlose, I am asking about Gemütlose Psychopathy which is one of Kraepelin's seven types. Please do not misrepresent past discussions, nor drag this one off-course. In case I am at fault for not conveying it clearly, let's talk about Gemütlose - specifically, my question of whether anyone has any ability to find out if it has a modern name, or is strictly historical and abandoned. If coming to this page to ask medical questions just results in "people" calling for my pages to be deleted (without success) I'm liable to stop reaching out for help. That wouldn't be good for anyone. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It only "exists" in the ICD under the label "Other specific personality disorders", along with examples such as Passive–aggressive personality disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To put it in perspective, in 1940 The Lancet itself suggested that Adolf Hitler might be a prime example, since "it may seem that to include Hitler among the Gemutlose psychopaths is to question a diagnosis which puts him in another group, the hysterical psychopaths. But all, Koch, Kraepelin, Schneider, Kahn, Henderson and the rest who have written about psycohapthic states have insisted...", etc. So it has notability, but it's just...disappeared? I assume it's just renamed...I need somebody with more familiarity with the subject of psychopathy specifically :\ HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Did the Lancet say that in 1940, or did a letter-writer say that in the Lancet? — soupvector (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair question, but looks like an article first, and then five issues later a letter with the same title. Regardless, not trying to use it as an RS or anything right now, just asking for help hunting down whatever happened to the idea of Gemutlose Psychopathy, and specifically since its "alt name" is Affectionless Psychopathy, and the "alt name" for RAD these days is Affectionless Psychopathy...are they the same? Or did it get coined as an alt for X, then X was abandoned, then somebody recycled the alt name for Y? Is X Y? Just looking for research help to find the answer, not WP policy on what to do when not knowing such an answer. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried e-mailing any of the authors on recent papers? I've found some authors to be very willing to answer a question if you tell them you're a volunteer working on a Wikipedia article and want to make sure that you're getting it right. (Other times, I get no response.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't, even though I did find a professor currently at University of Cologne who seemed to perhaps have a grasp of it - so that's a great idea, thanks. It'll at least tell me I'm headed in the right direction - I think I've found a source today saying that it was merged into the modern definition of Antisocial personality disorder but I want to make sure about that. It's a fascinating historical subject, similar to Haltlose (still recognized today) or Hysteria, etc. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article from AP

• Kang D, Cheng M, McNeil S (30 December 2020). "China clamps down in hidden hunt for coronavirus origins". AP.

which says that all COVID-related Chinese research benefits from the "guidance" of a govt. committee through which it must be cleared prior to publication. Not sure how this might affect our content. I note in Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 we cite PMID 32973152, with 2 (of 3) Chinese academic authors, for saying that it seems the virus did not originate in China after all ... Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As reliable as Chinese sources about woo then, and we should treat them as such. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that might be an overreaction, Roxy. It would be appropriate to use WP:INTEXT attribution in such a situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)