User talk:76.164.103.108

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 TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References are required on Wikipedia. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is such a large discrepancy between the actual experience of the individuals who use this insulin, and the research results reported, there is VERY good reason to suspect interference from Lilly, insurances, and governmental sources in the research that is reported. I'm not going to fight the whole establishment on this. I'm making a logical argument that does not require references here. I greatly mistrust these studies, and the fact that one can design a study to get this outcome, in no way obviates the experience of your average diabetic who might not want to go through an MD for this insulin - and doesn't have to in some countries.

It's an open forum. If you haven't personally used the product (and there are MD's who have if you need a credential), please don't edit my page.

This is your third revert. If you continue you may be blocked from editing further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to silence someone with over 40 years of experience, including 6 years comparing the product in question with the other products? Have you ever personally used this insulin on yourself? The last time, I presented your point of view first, and then allowed my point of view. I think that was more than fair. The insulin may be more expensive, but the company does not have as many products as the other ones do to fall back on. It presumably has to make some money for development. In any event, I have personally known people who are extremely poor, who pay out of pocket for this insulin compared to the other ones because they don't have insurance. I think that is a pretty strong argument against what some of these papers say. It may be anecdotal, but these big studies have too many ways to be influenced. Short of raising my blood pressure by censoring my point of view, I would hope that you would have a more formal process for blocking an edit.

I would also add that I have no personal affiliation with the company involved apart from the fact that I know their product like no person who has never used it ever will. In cases where hypoglycemic reactions pose a threat to one's ability to work, for example: police officers, firefighters, pilots, EMTs, truck drivers, people who have to supervise children, people who have to give speeches, people who are participating in high intensity competitive sports, this insulin solves a very big problem.

I have to say that the fact that you don't think it's a good deal, should not entitle you to edit out the fact that I do. There is a large amount of money put into justifying your point of view. I just have my voice. It really bothers me that you censor the many years of experience that I have with this product AND that you distribute your point of view to a wide population that has influence over a person with a disability without allowing the disabled population to express their point of view. It goes against what I thought this site was about. Everyone getting a voice to improve information about a topic. I can't say how disappointed I am. And I obviously, as a scientist, don't believe the references or interpret the data the same way. Years of experience has taught me discernment. That's why I don't cite them, nor will anyone ever make me cite them to support what is a very sound argument based on years of experience with the subject that all the money in the world can't buy.

The point may be one (and I know from experience that it is significantly higher than one) but it is in no way to be deleted in favor of a statistical ensemble that may not correspond to any individual reality.

P.S. I taught the med students at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Our goals is not "truth" or a list of "everyone's opinion". Our goals is to summarize the best available literature.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please make that statement in bold at the top of the page in question, then. Because, a lot of people do rely on this site for information. I reference widipedia quite a bit in my online work, and, just checking to make sure, I have never (nor will I ever) link to your page as a reference in its current state.

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Insulin glargine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

do not appear much better than traditional neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH insulin|(NPH) insulin]] in spite of the long-acting insulin's somewhat greater market cost with respect to traditional

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ginsuloft (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Insulin glargine. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Change your approach please

Hi there, I see you've been editing Insulin glargine unsuccessfully. Attempting to add unsourced content based on your personal experience will never work here. All that will happen is that you will get blocked again, and possibly have your ability to edit disabled indefinitely. Would you please consider changing your approach? Zad68 14:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this whole exercise with a very good sense of humor at this point. My experience as a type I diabetic for over 40 years will outperform any MD or scientist without direct experience in this field on their best week. The daily battlefield (and lab) has been my body for 40 years. If you want to improve your article page, you will include my work - or the work of others with similar levels of experience.

I can see where this is headed pretty well. This site is generally not used or well-considered by the peer-review community who would rather I not participate on it anyway. I happen to like Wikipedia a lot, and its general level improves to almost Harvard level with the participation of others on it from my interaction with it. The page in question is really wrong and harmful. And you keep deleting the medical edits which are in fact more accurate corrections of your presentation of the results based upon the references that you present, such as the fact that the research was only done on type II diabetics, and there is a difference between type I and type II. The usual comment (on some really stellar articles in Wiki) is that "This page may require additional references for verification." Somehow, that doesn't seem to be an option here. You just censor. I'm not moving this discussion to peer-review, so the net effect is to silence.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:76.164.103.108 reported by User:Lesion (Result: ). Thank you. Lesion (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After your block expires, the thing NOT to do is repeat the same behavior

Hi, regarding this edit: You were blocked for a week for making these sorts of edits without discussion. The thing not to do immediately after your block expires is to go back and repeat the exact same behavior. If it continues all that will happen is you will be blocked for longer. Zad68 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stop acting like you own the right to publish on this topic. You have not made a single even grammatical correction to your horrible page. All you seem to be able to do is threaten people who try to improve your horrible work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.103.108 (talk • contribs)

It's possible you're still just misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. No editor here is supposed to be "publishing" any original findings or experiences. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All we do is summarize the existing scientific literature. Zad68 20:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can and do express and publicly disseminate an original (wrong) opinion using references is still irresponsible on your part. There have been a lot of great pages on wiki like the one on Othello containing a detailed and obviously very sensitive and educated analysis of the music. The analysis was removed probably because of someone like you. Some of it has been kept in Wagner's ring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen . I could look for other examples, but it would probably just devalue everything in Wikipedia to call them to your attention. I'm tired of fighting the good fight. You waste my energy.

The opinion of any editor holds no value here. For medical content, you need to base your edits on reliable sources which meet WP:MEDRS. Your rambling, unreferenced "personal experience" which challenges reliable source is most unwelcome. n=1 opinions are the lowest form of evidence imaginable. Whatever happened to evidence based medicine? Lesion (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Healing is an art. It involves a living being. If you want to know what happened to evidence-based medicine, read my corrections carefully. In the case of the glargine studies , it was corrupted by special interests and money and research careers and governments and wars. You can never replace individual experience with a statistical ensemble. What works for one individual very well may not work for everyone, but the fact that so many do pay and use this insulin successfully tells me that my experience probably does generalize better than these studies do. This is just a wake up call to you as a probable resident MD learning about disease in your spare time. A patient's history with medicine supercedes the best evidence-based statistical medicine. BTW, as a scientist, I always try to correct other MD-PhD's when they design medical experiments. The goal must always be to heal, never to prove that something works on one population that gets it, allowing the other population to suffer because you want to make a drug look good. If I ramble, it's cause I've been there, done that, and have too much to contribute in this case.

And, I guess that the real question is what happened to the reviewers in these studies? They weren't published in great journals. Still, a lot of people didn't do their job very well (which is in no way an invitation for the studies to be repeated). It's a successful insulin for a lot of people. Period. Let it go. (I'm a little worried that a patient with a Penicillin allergy is going to show up in your care, and you are going to give them Penicillin because it has been shown in x study to be effective...)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.