User talk:Doc James

This is a Wikipedia user 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:

Hello dear friend.

I didn't know one could remove legitimate sources, because they back up statements which you one doesn't agree with. Furthermore, "trimming really old primary sources and a search link" in the form of removing a source from 2018 (^[1]) which gives a realistic estimate of a product's duration of action, in order to reinstate the previous estimate according to which BZD give effects which last for "up to a day" is ridiculous. If some people still think duration of action is determined by elimination, rather than distribution, they should at least not prevent other people with more information from correcting errors.

It's OK though I guess I won't pass on those guidances for "new healthcare editors" and stay on my side of Wikipedia in the future, where I've contributed greatly without ever offending anyone with sources deemed unworthy, simply because they are "old" (2018 was so long ago...) or back up statements which are not universally accepted (like a lot of data about medication, btw)

cf: [1] =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRaikkonen01 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KRaikkonen01 This is a search link https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/lorazepam not a single source. And what appears on that page changes as time goes on.

The link in question says "The usual duration of sedative effects of lorazepam is 6 to 8 hours; however, some degree of unsteadiness and sensitivity to the CNS-depressant effects of other drugs (e.g., opioid analgesics prescribed for postsurgical pain control) may persist for as long as 24 hours."

We already say some effects may last for up to a day.

This is a primary source from 1988 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3280615 and this is one from 1983.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6661348

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/lorazepam

Covid-19 Pulse oximeter testing section

Hi Doc, You removed the pulse oximeter section from COVID-19_testing#Test_methods since it is not diagnostic.

However it is a good early warning test.

Personally I had a bilateral pulmonary embolism a few years ago, I just thought I was unfit and increased my exercise once I had recovered from the fever and feeling like death on my flight back from Kenya. When I eventually went to ER about 10 days later on the basis of some mild persistent chest pain on a day I was stressed, the Oximeter indicated that it was lung rather than heart and CT scans diagnosed it. I was put straight into intensive care, a little oxygen and I felt back to normal and they threw me out the next day as started doing yoga and calisthenics in the ICU.

Covid hypoxia is much sneakier than a pulmonary embolism, and by the time a person is aware in those countries like the UK with no testing prior to requiring hospital admission significant damage has been done to the lungs resulting in terrible recovery rates.

UK medic's are personally checking their oxygen levels on a regular basis (according to their blogs), and I suspect anyone else that is informed is as well. I am.

Pulse oximerer's allow for early in the field testing, and low oxygen Covid or otherwise is something that needs to be quickly diagnosed irrespective of the cause. This is particularly important for those areas like Western Europe and the US were there is no program of test, track and trace, and the testing system has been overwhelmed. It is also important in the 3rd world where there are no test kits because of demand from the 1st world.

I hope you will reconsider and put the section back in making clear that it identifies a significant health issue, and that any significant drop in Oxygen levels requires further diagnostic tests.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can see low O2 in COVID19. But it is not diagnostic of the condition, it is just a potential sign similar to coughing or a fever.

WHO is supplying test kits to many countries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that low O2 is one of the symptoms, however it is different to coughing or a fever since both of these are apparent to the patient whereas low O2 is not apparent to the patient until it is too late to treat, and is a sign of a serious case of COVID19 that is resulting in lung damage.

The WHO has a limited number of kits and places like India are having to ration test kits because of the demand even when they have successful management. [2]

Checking with a pulse oximeter is a low cost field triage system, and I think is helpful to the article. RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at the Russian Ministry of Health Guidelines for outpatient treatment of mild cases COVID-19. They use 95% SpO2 as the cut off for mild cases. Mild is over 95% SpO2. The guidelines were published on 17 April and are available here [3] (google translate works well on them)RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Low O2 sats is used to determine when someone with the disease should be admitted to hospital for oxygen therapy. It does not make the diagnosis one way or the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - is there another section of the article re monitoring that would be more suitable - since Silent Hypoxia is one of the things that distinguishes Covid-19 form other flu like viruses. Thanks for your time.RonaldDuncan (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We see people with hypoxia without significant symptoms of SOB at rest in a number of conditions. We really need to stick with sources per WP:MEDRS and not the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TM

Dr. James, you are mistakenly and erroneously conflating different types of meditation as sources to dispel the effects of Transcendental Meditation (TM), as opposed to Vipassana or Mindfulness Meditation (MM). Please read through even just the abstract of the articles to ensure the veracity of this claim. What you are posting has absolutely nothing to do with TM. There are three general types of meditation. They are: Open-Monitoring, Focused Attention, and Transcending--which is TM. The sources you used are on Open-Monitoring and/or Focused Attention not TM. I encourage you to look up the peer-reviewed literature on these subject matters. There is none within any of the publications you referenced. In fact try searching: "Transcendental Meditation" into any peer-reviewed journal publication(s). You will find that there is none within the scientific literature that you cite with regard to TM. Again, they are studies on different types of meditation and how they can affect health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactics117 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those references did cover TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi there! I just wanted to say thank you for this edit. Yes I know it was a one-liner from over a year ago but I actually somehow was not aware that template existed previously. I'm just getting back into editing Wikipedia after many years of inactivity so still re-learning the ropes here. Cheers! Paradox society 21:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paradoxsociety no worries, great to see you back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

See [4] - that user has very few edits and is clearly vested in the "disease only" view of CFS. WEe've been holding this back, following RS, for 15 years. It looks to me as if advocates have got to CDC, as they did with Morgellons (which was found, after years of investigation, to be delusional, exactly as we always said it was). Guy (help!) 10:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entry inhibitor article

You up to the challenge of updating Entry inhibitor? It could use an expert. :) 2001:56A:F9B1:AE00:8049:C799:FA15:B46B (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I work more on articles about diseases and specific medications rather than families of medications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of medicine

Please have the medicine project expand the Glossary of medicine for all the students out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.194 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:LearnMore is doing impressive work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Thanks for all your COVID related work, especially your patient, careful explanations about sourcing at the talk pages. Capewearer (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Capewearer. It has been a good collaboration. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Sunday Morning

Hi, Doc James,

Just saw you on CBS News Sunday Morning, talking about editing on COVID-19. Great job! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. Had the opportunity to be a spoke person for all the great work people are doing here :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incessant reverting

Information icon Hello, I'm Doc James. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

James, your policing of the interpretation of the subjective and ambiguous term "constructive" doesn't seem to help with the vision of Wikipedia or be relevant to the changes made to the Autism page. Can you clarify why you feel the change is not constructive? Please consult with me before undoing valuable contributions I have invested my time in.

You changed text to what the references specifically do not support.

Specifically you changed "Autism is associated with a combination of genetic and environmental factors"

Which was supported by the reference in question to

"Autism is hereditary and previous associations with environmental factors have been disproved or debunked."

Which is not supported by the reference in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James, As I said over email, I will provide more contributions to the page including more sources as reference / supporting evidence. Kindly only revert changes if you have a valid reason for doing so, my time is valuable. Also note that reverts should not be made out of disagreement and in disagreement evidence prevails, so If you disagree with my edit the onus is on you to provide evidence. In this case please provide evidence that Autism is anything other than a genetically inherited state. I don't think it's your area of expertise, so I recommend you leave it and let experts continue to brush up the page.

The original content was supported by the references provided. The changes you make were not. Your claim of expertise is neither here no their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have reverted the edit again which is pathetic. I will make a formal complaint on the matter.

[1] ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/lorazepam

[1]