This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
This is another of the frequent problems I encounter with student editing; when you dig in to the really bad additions, you often find a prof pushing a pet agenda, and with limited knowledge of how to work on Wikipedia. Would they be proud of adding that kind of junk to a "real" journal or encyclopedia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bear in mind your revert action of my "Fourth factor" addition. The so-called Fourth Factor was suggested by Dr Claude Franceschi, an angiologist of international renown. It's a theory.
While I fully respect your attitude of removing unreliable sources, as an example if you consider the Big Bang theory, until proved otherwise, it's still only made of speculations. However, the Big Bang Theory is the subject of many articles, including one on Wikipedia.
On the contrary, the Fourth factor theory has been validated by a 16 months double-blind randomized controlled trial from 1992 (see the underneath reference; sorry in french), which was not clear in my earlier text. I should have inserted the latter reference instead!
I suggest the new following text in replacement, in 'Causes':
A new pathophysiology of the hemorrhoid disease has been proposed. According to this theory, the inferior rectal veins are not the cause of the hemorrhoids disease but instead, the victims of what has been called the Fourth factor. The latter would be the physical and chemical aggression of the mucosa of the anal canal, indirectly affecting the rectal veins.
A 16 months hospital double-blind randomized controlled trial confirmed the theory [1]. This study could lead to further experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geiss (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you have used a non English ref from 1995. If this theory has been accepted like the Big Bang theory has you should have no problem finding a recent secondary source to support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you deciding if such an information could help the medical community finding out possible causes of the hemorroid disease, in the interest of patients.
Is any of the material under Business and commercial history considered a medical claim? Currently there is an article on Zeltiq Aesthetics (the producer of Coolsculpting), which I don't think is really notable enough for a separate page, as oppose to a section. It relies almost exclusively on primary sources and some of the information there is not accurate. Saying the product is intended for losing weight for example, comes off as very poor medical advice based on my understanding of it. The Beauty Choice Awards bit seems promotional to me. I was hoping to merge it with Cryolipolysis and replace with the secondary-source based business section, then consider renaming to Coolsculpting (what the public knows it as). CorporateM (Talk) 20:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's strange - I thought Coolsculpting and Cryolipolysis were synonymous and the Zeltiq page said they owned the trademarks to the Cryolipolysis term, but on the Cryolipolysis page it says there are multiple products that use the technique. Let me see if I can figure out what's going on. We may need a much shorter page if the sources referring to Cryolipolysis are not specifically referring to Coolsculpting. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, the medical sources mostly say Cryolipolysis, while the media sources mostly say Coolsculpting. I figured we'd want to go with the term used by the public, rather than the one used by medical experts, as our audience here is the public. However, right now I'm trying to figure out if Cryolipolysis = Zeltiq's Coolsculpting, or if it is a broader term referring to a technique used by many, in which case I made an egregious error thinking all these sources about Cryolipolysis were referring to them specifically. I'm gonna go back to the drawing board a bit with that one. If you have time, I'm also working on Invisalign here. Fairly new to medical articles, so still learning. CorporateM (Talk) 20:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said you'll email Nature about their stance regarding TCM as pseudoscience [4], so do notify everyone at the discussion once they reply. Thanks. -A1candidate (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doc James,
I noticed you were a major contributor to the Obstetric Fistula page and I would like your input on an illustration I created to contribute. If you have the time to take a look at the image I would greatly appreciate your professional opinion. Any suggestions on anatomical edits, layout, labeling, etc. are welcome. Also, if there are other illustrations you think the page could use I would be happy to make them. I have included a link to the image below. The image is more or less a polished version of the illustration that is already on the page.
User:VHenryArt great having you join us. We really need some medical illustrators among our numbers :-)
I am not a major contributor at obstetric fistula but happy to help.
I would change "Fistula area" to "Areas fistula commonly occur"
Also it just shows the fistula forming between the uterus and the bowel / bladder which can happen but connections between the bladder and vagina or bowel and vagina per [5] and [6] are also common
The cited source is a review article, by a third-party, containing and referring published secondary sources and, accurately reflecting current medical knowledge. The fact that is was published in 1986 does not mean that the information ceases to be valid. If you can show that the information I extracted from the source has been superseded, became obsolete, or negated in any way, then prove it but, please do not simply delete the whole contribution. There is always the "Clarification needed" in superscript that could be added to invite further clarifications. The source meets the high-quality reliable sources guidelines. It is a review published in a reputable medical journal, reliably referring academic and professional books and work written by experts in the relevant field. The information that I posted in the article is not content that could be considered as coming from a primary source either. You are welcome to reword my contribution if you think you can improve it but, to simply delete it would deprive Wikipedia of important information. Thank you. 98.217.155.45 (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
