User talk:65.130.253.244: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 09:38, 17 September 2022

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Blanked IP talk}}
-==References==
-Please use high quality references per [[WP:MEDRS]] such as [[review articles]] or major textbooks. Note that [[review articles]] are NOT the same as [[peer reviewed]] articles. A good place to find medical sources is [http://www.tripdatabase.com/ TRIP database] Thanks.{{-}}[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-::I will post both here and the same copy on your page...hi Doc James, thanks for your help on testosterone article. Please forgive-this reply will be written hastily--but i feel
-that the types of information on TRIP:database are not for some
-purposes as good as that from the new york times(nyt), the popular press, which as you know, my edits in question were taken from,
-because: review articles require highly specialized training to interpret, and we wikipedians, whether we have that
-training or not, are requested not to make interpretations.  in fact the type of comments that dr. anawalt made are likely
-not to be made in a review article on medline, but they are notable and of use. Particularly, the edits i made came from
-an article by a reporter(Roni Rabin) specializing in medical news, and were direct quotes. Now, direct quotes
-published in the nyt are highly reliable, as quotes, whether or not the quoted information is correct. One reason for this is the attention paid to the nyt as "newspaper of record" in the usa-faulty quotes are quickly spotted. So if reliability of quotation was your concern, that shouldn't be, at least in my opinion. Another thing, is as "newspaper of record",  nyt is presumed to contact respected medical authorities, or when not, identify them as "alternative opinions, blahblahblah". Furthermore the authorities that were contacted, such as Dr. Anawalt, are then able to give general estimates of the testosterone situation in north america, that i would guess are unlikely to be found in TRIP:database, at least without the use of interpetation, using our own knowledge, of us as wikipedia editors, which is, I think, against wikipedia policy. When you questioned reliability, was it because you couldn't be certain that dr. anawalt was a respected authority, or that perhaps that what he said was opinion? But after looking at anawalts citaions on TRIP:database itself, (and  straqightforwardly that he was in nyt) can't we say he should be given approximately the same authority as that of a citattion from TRIP? And if it's because it's just anawalt's opinion , shouldn't the opinion of a respected authority, quoted in a major newspaper, be given some representation in a wikipedia article? [Of course, still another point is conflict of interest: the scuttlebut reported in the socalled(by WP:medrs) "popular press", that medical articles in medical journals frequently have conflict of interest--articles, maybe review articles also? may even be researched and written by pharmaceutical companies and signed by physicians, even without  seeing the raw data.]
-:But here, for example,  this is a previous version of "Adverse effects" section, from not long ago, at least nominally written with information from cited review articles:
-:::<<<<Whether or not testosterone causes important adverse effects is unclear.[98] In light of the above there is tentative evidence that it does not affect the risk of death, prostate cancer or cardiovascular disease.[98][99] It does increase hemoglobin levels and decrease HDL cholesterol levels but it is not clear if these changes are meaningful.[98]
-Testosterone in the presence of a slow-growing cancer is assumed to increase its growth rate. However the association between testosterone supplementation and the development of prostate cancer is unproven.[100] Nevertheless physicians are cautioned about the cancer risk associated with testosterone supplementation.[101]
-Fluoxymesterone and methyltestosterone are synthetic derivatives of testosterone. Methyltestosterone and fluoxymesterone are no longer prescribed by physicians, given their poor safety record.
-Ethnic groups have different rates of prostate cancer.[102] Differences in sex hormones including testosterone have been suggested as an explanation for these differences.[102] This apparent paradox can be resolved by noting that prostate cancer is very common. In autopsies, 80% of 80-year-old men have prostate cancer.[103]>>>>
-This version above does not give understandable indication of what may be important adverse effects to the average reader like me. -It's good to mention the stuff about HDL etc, interpreted or not, but it means little to an important part of wikipedia readership. Also what interpretation is given seems to have been given by a wikipedia editor: "In the light of the above..."--wikipedia editors are asked NOT to put 2 and 2 together, NOT to make deductions, NOT to figure more out in the light of something. So it's good to have Anawalt's reliable "opinion" here from nyt on general considerations-it provides what we wikipedia editors shouldn't provide.  Also, given the cautious nature of what anawalt's statements, it can provide a safety anchor to future versions of this section, if for example you are hit by a truck or too busy to watch it. (Like, in this old version--suppose you[I think it was you] hadn't been around to find the citation enabling a warning of contraindication during pregnancy that you inserted later on:--Anawalt's cautious statements could have still have made women athletes foreseeing pregnancy to be rightfully more cautious.)I won't delve into the lack of mention that this was research on males in therapy, and the utter lack of mention that the citations were only research on males, not females, is a form of inadvertent interpretation by wikipedia editors.--we need general assessments and opinions from experts like Dr.Anawalt!
-Well, Doc James, thanks for your time, hard work, and skills, and i hope we can work this out.--Richard Peterson.[[Special:Contributions/65.130.253.244|65.130.253.244]] ([[User talk:65.130.253.244#top|talk]]) 00:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)