User talk:Sciencewatcher/Archive 7

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Hi Sciencewather, I see you noted that the PNAS article was included lower in the XMRV page. Why wouldn't this merit referencing in the opening paragraph? Among the available studies, it was conducted by the most highly respected author (Harvey J. Alter) and published in the most highly respected journal (PNAS).

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgladden2 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in the lede, and I see another editor has added it. I think it was just your wording that was off (and you didn't add the reference correctly). Don't worry about it - people are just picky about info being perfectly correct! --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI

Would you be willing to clarify your comment to this question? [1] I am unable to find anywere in the source Sergie has used where a medical authority has recommended this treatment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just replied there. I thought it was obvious who my comment was intended towards, but I guess it's best not to use subtlety on the internet :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Leaky Gut Syndrome Edit

Hi,

 Regarding your last edit on the above mentioned page, here is a link to the abstract: http://journals.lww.com/topicsinclinicalnutrition/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2006&issue=07000&article=00008&type=abstract

and here is the abstract: "Autism is the most common developmental disorder in the United States, with the number of diagnosed cases increasing secondary to more sensitive screening methods. Because autism has no known cause or accepted treatment approach, many parents and physicians have employed a number of dietary manipulations to alter the effects of the so-called leaky gut, which is believed by some to be the underlying cause of the regressive behaviors particular to autism. However, the link between autism and a gastrointestinal pathophysiology is not substantiated by research. The dietary approaches employed are cumbersome, not proven to be efficacious, and may further narrow the food choices of the child with autism."

Obviously, they are talking about the treatment of Autism and not treatment of Leaky Gut itself. I will say this is just amazing that you could be so bold as to put in your notes that your quick review showed it had to do with leaky gut.

Just FYI, I am part of an information gathering team that is doing a report/case study regarding Health on the Internet and will be submitted, if nothing else, in Blog form so you will be referenced as will everything you say and edit. Just FYI. Thanks and please be more careful in your editing :)76.168.8.59 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)John S

As you can see, the abstract clearly talks about leaky gut. Bear in mind that 'leaky gut syndrome' does not actually exist - it is a basically quackery, therefore you will not find a review looking at the 'treatment of leaky gut syndrome'! This study looks at treating 'the effects of the so-called leaky gut', which seems to be a good study to include in the article. If you disagree please discuss on the talk page of the article so others can participate. I'd also recommend getting a username. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What??!! Unless you are a qualified MD or researcher, that's a pretty bold statement. As you can't prove a negative quoting a study that confirms this is obviously useless. The abstract clearly states that leaky gut is so-called but does not say the treatment itself is a matter of treating the leaky gut. It clearly says that the treatment is for Autism and that Leaky gut, since it is so called, is only secondary. I am removing it and will continue to do so under the guidelines of Wikipedia. Saying Leaky Gut is quackery is a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.8.59 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Health Concerns Canola Article

I noticed you helping on the HFCS article. I wonder if you might take a look at the Canola article? Someone has added a health concerns section and tagged the health benefits section as POV. I doubt this is the consensus of the scientific community. Most of the info in health concerns seems to be Canola contains X and X is unhealthy not studies have shown Canola to cause Y. It is going to take an editor with more knowledge of Wikipedia policies than I have to fix this. Weetoddid (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just deleted it entirely because there was nothing there worth keeping. I'll keep an eye on the article and if there is any disagreement we can discuss the specifics on the talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. I don't think you can just delete my contribution without some discussion. I dispute that the health concerns section was original research, synthesizing, and violating POV.

I do not conclude that canola is unhealthy. I do cite studies where canola was fed to animals and caused harm, and I think that is relevant here. I cite studies about canola consumption in humans, and that is relevant here. Perhaps the title of the section can be changed from Health Concerns to something else, however the purpose of all these animal and human studies is to determine heath effects.

All the facts I state come directly from peer reviewed articles in widely recognized scientific journals. I do not make any conclusions independent of what is contained in the articles. If it seems that way, please point it out so that I can rewrite more clearly to make that apparent.

Since the all the statements are supported by references, and since they are relevant to the topic of health concerns about eating canola oil (which was the point of much of the research!) they belong in the article. If they are deleted, the article becomes not NPOV because it is suppressing research.

I think you need to really specifically point out where I am synthesizing or doing original research.

I don't think it makes sense to have an article on Canola oil that makes no reference to the large number of studies done feeding it to animals to determine if it is healthy for them, or the studies done on the effects of canola oil on humans, or that does not even mention the word erucic acid.

I do agree there are studies that can be referenced that show eating canola is safe in humans, and someone- perhaps me- should add them in to make this section more NPOV, but I do state that there is no that canola is harmful to humans. In that case, you should have added an NPOV warning to the section and then added research supporting the healthfulness of canola oil- of which both animal and human studies exist.

If there are some sections you object to, the proper course is to discuss it and I will fix them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMilk (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Dear Sciencewatcher

  If the purpose of this article on Fibromyalgia is to help people then you should keep the Yoga anecdotal evidence links. 

My wife actually met Manish and what he said on the web-site is not a lie. The name and an associated face will give more confidence to people suffering from this ailment to try out alternate therapies. The source is indeed verifiable according to the Wiki policy. Maybe it is against the Wiki policy to report "non-scientific" article, but you must realize the following inherent bias in the articles published in scientific journals:

1. A large part of the medical research is funded by Pharmaceutical companies who have profit motives. So the treatments that do not bring perpetual revenues to these companies are not researched.

2. The research funded by Government bodies suffer form a cultural bias. The decision makers in these bodies have never been exposed alternate paradigms. It is quite natural for them to discard any proposal that is radically different and does not conform to their line of thinking. At this state, there a bit of religious fanaticism in these people (towards the religion called "the modern science"). They are unable to keep an open, rational and unbiased mind -- the hallmarks of a true scientist.

3. For the young faculty members in the universities, it is too risky to try out something that is radically different. The established faculty are already in their comfort zone -- so they don't bother.

4. The Yoga teachers and the people who have benefited from Yoga are the only ones who might have some motivation to carry out scientific research. It is unreasonable to expect the ordinary people who have benefited from this to change their careers and become scientists to research publish the findings. They are better off sharing their experiences with other people. For Yoga teachers, spending time in healing more people is a better use of their time than trying to carry out scientific research and publish it.

5. Even if someone tries to publish scientific research on the subject, one suffers from the culture bias of the reviewers that I described above in (2) (thought it is a minor point for a serious researcher).

6. This mindset is changing with the works of Richard Davidson, Allan Wallace, John Kabat-Zinn etc. but it will take a long time. You can contribute your tiny bit to accelerate the process.

7. I am speaking from my own experience. I myself work for a prestigious biology research lab. I also practice Yoga and know about its potential from personal experience. The reason I edited the page was that we recently have had some discussion with a University big pharma company about new research in Fibromyalgia. I started reading more about it. I was surprised to learn that Yoga was not mentioned in Wiki. I do not see any motivation in the established institutions to carry out serious research on this. If I had my way, I would advocate for "a clinical trial on this breathing technique" -- who is going to pay for it?

8. If you don't trust my words, I encourage you to try this out on a group people with Fibromyalgia and see the results yourself.

9. There is a scientific article that does talk about benefits of the breathing technique and Fibromyalgia for your reference. Sudarshan Kriya Yogic Breathing in the Treatment of Stress, Anxiety, and Depression: Part II—Clinical Applications and Guidelines, RICHARD P. BROWN, M.D., and PATRICIA L. GERBARG, M.D., THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11, Number 4, 2005, pp. 711–717. www.reconnectwithfood.com/resources/documents/yogaandptsd.pdf

10. I think you should include Manish Tondon's link and the above article. I leave the final decision to you.

with best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.117.126 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments. I pretty much agree with everything you say, and I believe that yoga/meditation (and similar treatments such as massage) are probably the best treatments available for fibromyalgia. However in wikipedia we need to follow the guidelines such as WP:MEDRS and WP:EL which say that we should mainly use large clinical trials and reviews, and we should avoid anecdotal reports. As the article already mentions a trial of yoga, that is sufficient for the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

Dear Sicence Watcher- I added a few references to this post and you reverted them even though they had citations. Also I have not been banned from wikipedia. Sorry if this is your favourite page but maybe the point of wikipedia is that others should edit as well :-)

spread some comment luv :-)

Catherine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.117.80 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you're using the same ip range as a banned user who constantly comes on the CFS articles causing mischief, so unless you register a username there is no way of distinguishing you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you have registered a username...but the comment on your user page doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

greenmedinfo.com

I'm confused by your comment here. While Sayerji (talk · contribs) obviously has a coi. Mark Marathon (talk · contribs) just seems to have a very strong desire to ensure the link is added as well. Am I missing something?

Coincidentally perhaps, Greensburger (talk · contribs) added the same link recently to Curcumin. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the user Sayerji. I wasn't suggesting Mark Marathon was pushing his own site. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Madeley

I may have been first to draw attention to the inclusion, in a spam e-mail from this man, of reference to the Wikipedia article about him. There is an case for leaving the article in, with comments about his spamming activities. However, I am a victim of countless spam e-mails, despite filters (and by the way am particularly infuriated by ones advertising spam e-mail generation services). I therefore want to thank you for achieving the deletion of the article about this nonentity. I feel better. Ragbin (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

Today, he is still spamming so have referred him to the terms of The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Ragbin (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't gotten anything from him this time. Spammers don't give a shit about the law - I have reported many of them to the ICO and they do nothing at all. Even if you take them to court, they will say you are a business so they are allowed to spam you (which they are, according to the stupid UK spam laws). The best thing to do is to report the spam to their ISP, and phone the ISP if you keep getting spammed. I have gotten many spammers kicked off their ISPs by using that technique. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dietcheese

Hi,

Just wondering why you reversed the edits here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-fructose_corn_syrup&diff=453388820&oldid=453374410

I'm new at this and perhaps not following the rules correctly -- if so, I'd like to understand why. Otherwise, it seems like a legitimate source.

Thanks, DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietcheese (talk • contribs) 03:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look back in the edit history, you'll see this was already reverted by another user.

The main problem is that it is a single primary source...for medical articles we mainly rely on reviews - see WP:MEDRS. Although we do include this study in the HFCS health effects sub-article (along with criticism), it isn't appropriate to put it in the main HFCS article. If you disagree you're welcome to discuss it further in the HFCS talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Health Concerns about HFCS

A study done by Princeton University showed that there is in fact a difference in how HFCS is metabolised, compared to table sugar. The evidence is clearly presented in the reference. How is this not relevant to the sub-topic "Health Concerns of HFCS"? How is this evidence any more irrelevant than the previous statement about HFCS not being different from table sugar, which you did not delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.173.3 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I explained this in the HFCS talk page, which is where you should discuss this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

After engaging my brain - thank you very much for the kind suggestion, Sciencewatcher - I still consider link 15 in the High-fructose corn syrup article to state the opposite of what it is cited to say, or in the very least not confirm it. Yes, High-fructose corn syrup is not the same as Fructose, the latter being only the main constituent of the former, and fructose has been implicated in increased lipogenesis and insuline-resistance (aka diabetes). To cite #15 and claim that it disputes links between HFCS and diabetes is thus a little bit misleading. --Gerhard (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Gc-MAF therapy for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

WHy did you remove the edit regarding a treatment for CFS ? I cited a scientific publication there and posted a link to the report as a reference. THe treatments mentioned there are not curing anyone. Gc-MAF treatment is successful in 75-85% of all cases treated. It should be mentioned on that page. --Gcmafexpert (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, it is not a reliable source. It is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is not placebo controlled. Please follow WP:MEDRS before adding any further references. Also, any further discussion should be on the article talk page rather than here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sciencewatcher, if i can find the article on Pubmed and link to that, would it then be a reliable source? I know it's published, just not exactly sure where to find it. Thank you. --Gcmafexpert (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, as it isn't controlled, but you should discuss it on the article talk page rather than here. Also please do read WP:MEDRS which explains all this in great detail. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why edits removed as spam

Dear Sciencewatcher I am new to wikipedia. Please explain in detail on a point by point basis the reasons for your removal of the edits made as spam. I believe I have in all cases quoted sources from the peer reviewed literature.

Thank you Sirchwik (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (apologies if I did not sign this correctly)

- you pasted the same large tract into multiple pages

- it fails many of the wikipedia policies such as WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:MEDRS.

- you are using many of the same references/websites from David Wiseman. If you yourself are David Wiseman or are posting on behalf of him, you should read WP:COI.

- I'd recommend reading thoroughly all the relevant policies before posting again.

Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks for rapid response, please clarify and help to rewrite

[ removed whole bunch of info - sorry but this talk page is not the place for in-depth discussions of content ]

A - Thank you. Please go through these edits and suggest how they may be rewritten to conform to anything that I have misunderstood. Sirchwik (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should bring it up on one or more of the talk pages, so you get input from other experienced editors. The IBS page would be a good starting point (that is the only one on my watchlist). --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

you said :Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. - where do I do that?

Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

you said :Feel free to ask me any questions or advice. - where do I do that if not by "clicking send me a message"? If you removed my questions how can I ask them to you? is there a sort of WP email? Please help !!!!!!! Sirchwik (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I don't have the time to read a big long discourse on my talk page. If you have any succinct, short questions, feel free to ask them, but I'd still recommend posting on the IBS (or other) article talk pages. I'm just an editor like you - I'm not an admin or anything. I was in the same position you are when I started editing. All I can suggest is to read all the policies thoroughly (I've been here for years and I'm still learning). Then start off with minor edits, and discussions on the talk pages. Watch and learn. I'd also advise not adding any of your own research or websites - instead, discuss them on the talk page, and others can add them if they think they are suitable. Bear in mind that just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal does NOT automatically mean it can be added. As per WP:MEDRS we mainly rely on well-cited reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks - will begin as you suggested

Thanks. I will begin as you suggested with minor edits. Perhaps some of the ones I pointed out in my earlier message that seem pretty minor and mainly stylish. Please let me know if I screw up, but please be specific as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirchwik (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Sorry I just reverted your entire edits as I didn't have time to look through them all in detail, so feel free to put back any minor changes. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WAYN

I've moved the discussion to the WAYN talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, would you like to help out with adding to Post-concussion syndrome?

I’m writing to invite you to help me make the Post-concussion syndrome article more accurate and comprehensive. We can start with “Four current problems with our article (May 2012),” or any place else you’d care to start. In my judgment, the article needs some real help. As I stated on the discussion page, I have pretty much decided to request that this article no longer be listed as a good article, although I am willing to wait a couple of days. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Sciencewatcher

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Endometriosis. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI

[2] regards --WSC ^® 18:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Suggestion: See a shrink.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.167 (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm the one that needs to see a shrink. In fact I'm pretty sure I don't, but I'm not sure about you (whoever you are). --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapies ArbCom

I haven't named you as a party, but I think you might want to comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Psychotherapies given your moderate involvement a while back at Cognitive behavioral therapy. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Toxic mold article

I would like to reference this properly, please advise. There have been many refereed journal articles on the impacts of mold-born mycotoxins on the central nervous system, not merely the more benign allergic and inflammation reactions presented in the article. There is indeed a concerted effort to suppress these findings, for the repercussions would be serious economically.

Thank you

Paul Lebow, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pslebow (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody is trying to suppress anything. The problem is that there isn't any good science showing those findings. In wikipedia we mainly use high quality well-cited reviews, and that basically removes the problem of crappy science. See WP:MEDRS for details. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your approach to Badoo edits

Hello, I have no intention of starting an edit war, regarding the Badoo.com entry. I simply want facts to be displayed on Wikipedia; and as it is obvious on the Talk page for the article, there are serious concerns, which are easily verifiable with a basic knowledge of computers.

The article references the commercial website itself - i.e. Badoo.com, which apparently is treated by yourself as a 'trusted resource'. However, you personally take the approach that the same website cannot be used as a reference for criticism, only positive references are allowed. I suggest you are not in a neutral position on this matter, and lack the basic technical knowledge to verify the amendments to the claims made in the article amendments, that you keep undoing.

You have also continually failed to address several important questions which were raised in the talk page, including one in which reference number 20 clearly points to a spam website including pornography, and another where you stated that you had 'tested the website', obviously without you having registered to verify correctly the statements that were made in the edit you reverted.

There is an 'OfficialBadoo' video on YouTube that uses a Gmail account to register and explore the site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ECcBV25wQE

I followed the same basic process, and the results can be seen here, signing in with a Gmail account, and the video includes the cookie details of the user preferences, including personal details, that you keep reverting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_5LDvQ0A0E

Thank you for your warnings, regarding Wikipedia regulations, but perhaps you might like to look to yourself, before continually reverting factually correct amendments to an article that are displayed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a website that should be used by companies to gain credibility by posting their own articles.

I feel strongly about this; if editors of articles are not sufficiently knowledgeable, or able, to verify an articles amendments, they should refrain for editing and reverting, and certain from warning users who are capable of the simple task of checking the veracity of an article, not to do so. I will post this in its entirety on the Talk page for the Badoo.com article.

In summary, please watch this simple verification of the amendments regarding lack of privacy cookies on Badoo - you can either try it yourself, or simply find an area where you the capability to give an informed opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perambulator3 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Food Intolerance - "umbrella" page

Hello Sciencewatcher, I'm currently working my way through the Food Intolerance talk page. I notice that you have a long term interest in the topic, and you have a pretty good grasp of the difference between the science and the quackery.

I really think this article needs to be made into an "umbrella" page, with much of the content going to separate pages for each type of food intolerance/sensitivity. The diagnosis, symptoms and treatments etc are so different for each type of food intolerance, that combining those streams is affecting the clarity of the article.

It is perhaps less of a break-up than you might think. The main categories of food intolerance I'm aware of are: 1 - FODMAP (fructose, lactose, etc) 2 - Salicylate, Amine, Glutimate (flavor enhancers), Additives (colourings, flavourings, preservatives) 3 - Gluten (non-coeliac intolerance)

I'd go with this type of grouping because each group has a distinctive diagnostic process. 1 - FODMAPs have a breath test, for two types of FODMAPs. However, for the other FODMAPs and for non-bowl symptoms, elimination diet is the only diagnostic process. 2 - Sensitivity to the food chemicals in this group is only diagnosable through elimination diet. 3 - People who suspect gluten intolerance should start by doing the coeliac gene test, and following the ordinary medical diagnostic process. Those with a negative on the gene test and endoscopy who still suspect gluten intolerance can diagnose it through elimination diet.

I'm still reading through the Food Intolerance talk page. It may take a while... --Another287person (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing this at the food intolerance talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Still finding my feet. --Another287person (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Fibromyalgia

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Fibromyalgia regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Controversy in the lead section. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Lyme disease

Hi Sciencewatcher, thanks for jumping in and helping. The more the merrier. I've started a discussion on the Talk page "How often does the rash (when present) look like a bull's-eye, really?," which according to CDC 'may clear as it enlarges, resulting in a “bull's-eye” appearance.' I take that as meaning less than a 100%. Please take a look at this as you have the time. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TAWS and Polish accidents

I noticed you did some work on the TAWS article. I am concerned about the lack of reference to tow major TAWS failure in Poland, reference to which were removed by MilborneOne. In short, the section outlined how the system failed. The Wikipedia page gives no hint of the actual track record of the system, and the Polish references seemed to help fill that gap - though ALL failures are worth mentioning in regard to a major air safety system.

I would also add that footnote 3 is inappropriate [it does not support the statement attached. I am a scholar of Polish studies, not aviation. This Wikipedia article is likely to be accessed by people looking into how a major part of the Polish govt. were killed. This was one of the greatest air catastrophes in political history (and a subject of great debate & many conspiracy theories). Perhaps I and wrong about the post and MilborneOne is correct, but I would like to hear an outside voice.

Thanks for whatever help you can give.

Tanessi (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Glutamic Acid (flavor)

Hello,

I made an edit to the Glutamic Acid (flavor) page because the Wikipedia article incorrectly cited a source describing the NOAEL for glutamic acid. In the Wikipedia page, it is cited as 6 g/kg/day, but the journal paper claims at one point the NOAEL is 16.000 mg/kg/day and later 16 000 mg/kg/day. This could be interpreted as 16 g/kg/day or 16000 mg/kg/day, but definitely not 6 g/kg/day. Also, in a different section of the paper, it is stated that the lethal dose for 50% of the rats in a study was 15000-18000 mg/kg/day, which makes 16000 mg/kg/day unsafe. If they intended to say 16 mg/kg/day is the maximum safe dose, then glutamic acid should not be regarded as harmless, because the paper states that the average European eats about 0.1 g/kg/day, which is 100 mg/kg/day. Can you explain these contradictions and why the paper is a good source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.233.26 (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

16.000 means 16,000, i.e. 16000. In Europe the period is used to separate thousands. The article was corrected from 16000 to 6000mg, which is why we use that value in the article (see the abstract). This is better discussed on the article talk page rather than here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of web conferencing software page

Dear Sciencewatcher,

Can you please explain why you keep deleting Drum form the Comparison of web conferencing software ‎page?

It is fitting to have Drum there as a credible Web Conferencing software and our software supports one of the largest conferencing providers in the world.

If we are going about this the wrong way please let us know.

Thanks

Laurence