User talk:Garrondo/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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:Garrondo/Archive_1.

Welcome

Hello, Garrondo/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Ginkgo100^talk 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I second you reading the following:

Edward Bower 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Types of MS-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Types of MS-2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MS warning

I redid my warning. It is needed especially in view of misleading information about long-term efficacy of disease modifying treatments. Laetoli (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sobre los cambios en la página de MS

Creo que la localización es tan específica como en cualquiera de los otros síntomas y en todo caso su única diferencia es que sus efectos son ´más visibles que otros. Incluso en el mismo artículo habla de donde deben darse las lesiones para que ocurran: En el caso de la neuritis la inflamación debe comprimir el nervio optico, en el caso de la oftalmoplegia en el tronco cerebral y en el caso de la mielitis en la médula..., por lo que no me parece válida tu razón para mantenerlos de manera tan preponderante en el artículo en comparación con el resto de síntomas.

Pues tienes razón. ¿Lo cambias tu o lo cambio yo?--Juansempere 07:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bien hecho. La página de pathophsyiology realmente necesitaba un empujón.

Me alegro de que te guste. Querría extenderla un poco y luego ponerla como Main Article, pero ando mal de tiempo.

Una pregunta ¿Era Luccinetti o Luchinetti? Aparece 2 veces el nombre y cada una de las 2 es distinto.

Pues las dos esta mal. Según los del lesion project es lucchinetti [1].

Por mi parte estoy creando un template para tratar de poner en contacto las diferentes páginas sobre MS y crear una especie de proyecto sobre MS ya que creo que a día de hoy la página general está francamente bien. Cuando lo tenga hecho te lo enseño.

Ya he visto que también has rellenado la página de schilder disease. Gracias. Yo estuve buscando información y encontré muy poco.

He puesto en la pagina de discusión de multiple sclerosis el template que he creado; a ver que te parece.

Pues me parece estupendo. ¿Como lo pondrías? ¿junto al general o en vez de él?

Luego corregiré lo de Lucchinetti si no lo has corregido tu... La verdad es que todos andamos muy mal de tiempo... pero poco a poco esto va para adelante. El template pensaba ponerlo además del que está y también en las páginas a las que señala directamente relacionadas con la página central. Yo ahora voy a intentar ir mejorando el artículo de los síntomas, ya que el de patofisiología se me escapa un poco, pero iré poco a poco. De la enfermedad de Schilder yo también encontré muy poco...pero por lo menos con lo que puse ya da una idea. Quedaba feo el link sin información. Bueno... un saludo que a mi ahora me toca trabajar con EM en directo. --Garrondo 07:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No creo que el lugar en el template del EAE sea en borderline forms al ser un modelo animal. Personalmente creo que sería mejor ponerlo en algún tipo de categoría tipo investigación. Te parece?--Garrondo 13:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lo había puesto ahí porque igual que se induce en ratones seguro que tambien se puede inducir en humanos, pero a mi tampoco me convence dejarla en ese sitio, asi que cambiala.

Por cierto. Echale un vistazo a lo de Susac's syndrome. La he puesto ahí porque no tengo ni idea de donde ponerla, pero tampoco estoy seguro de que sea su sitio (lo digo porque el artículo dice que no es desmielinizante).

Ah, y junto a la página de Susac encontré esta otra Schilder's disease, y habría que fusionarla con la tuya y redirigirla. Si no lo puedes hacer lo hago yo mañana.

Sobre Schilder disease

Seguro que el nombre correcto es Schilder's disease, porque el que puso Schilder en las páginas de MS fuí yo, y lo saqué de un artículo francés (y los franceses hablan el inglés todavia peor que yo) Ya me encargo yo de la fusión. Si te parece me cargo todo menos los nombres de las enfermedades raras. Parece que el que escribió eso sabía lo que estaba diciendo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juansempere (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Ya está hecha la fusión. Al final he respetado mas o menos todo lo que había pero lo he redistribuido según la estructura de tu artículo. Por cierto, tres de las enfermedades extrañas esas que aparecían en Schilder's disease tenían artículo asociado.. En cuanto al Susac's syndrome, lo he puesto en el template de Nervous system pathologies, al final. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.54.131.54 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Leukodistrofías

Vale. Pues probablemente es mejor quitar lo de las leukodistrofías. Ademas, me da la impresión de que eso esta relacionado con el tema de que se ha usado el nombre de Schilder's disease impropiamente en muchos sitios. Si quieres lo borramos, aunque la redacción actual es bastante neutra.

Tambien estaba pensando que muchas de las divisiones que aparecen en la página de MS ya no tienen sentido. Voy a borrarlas y si piensas que esta mal por algo luego revierto los cambios. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juansempere (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Nuevos cambios

Pues los cambios los hice ya, aunque me referia solo a quitar un par de titulos de subapartados. No son nada importantes. En cuanto a lo que dices de artículos, si ves alguno especialmente interesante si que te agradeceria que me mandaras un link, aunque solo si dicen algo nuevo. Ya tengo bastantes artículos con los de mi doctorado.

Tambien quería hacerte una pregunta. ¿Cual es la opinion general de los que trabajais con EM en cuanto a la heterogeneidad? ¿Se sospecha que es más de una enfermedad o por el contrario se piensa que es una enfermedad con variantes? --Juansempere 10:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracias por preguntarle a tu jefe. Un saludo. --Juansempere 11:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cambio de nombre de Borderline forms of multiple sclerosis

Hola Gonzalo,

Por lo que he visto en varios artículos, la forma mas extendida de denominar a estas enfermedades es IIDDs (idiopathic inflammatory demyelinating diseases). Si te parece bien, le cambio el título al artículo.

Phineas Gage

Can you please help me to cite Phineas Gage? I don't really know a lot about him, but I can help out with formatting a bit. The main things that'll need citing are page numbers for any direct quotes, and citations (w page numbers) for anything unusual. I can't find any study by Raveena on Google Scholar - could you please find the source for that? -Malkinann 06:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I can try to help. What do you mean with page numbers for any direct quotes? Page numbers of the books?... That will be quite difficult since the original writtings are almost a 100 years old

Just try your best, okay? :) Antonio Damasio's page number should be easy, if you've the book on hand. How did you get hold of the references to write the wiki article? I just got a hold of the reprint of the doctors' notes, and I can't see the quote that's in the wiki article.-Malkinann 12:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the book; but i´ll have to look for those citings; Apart from that I have a spanish soft cover edition of Damasio's book and I don´t know if the pages will be the same. Anyway I promise to look for them--Garrondo 09:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Even if you cite the spanish book and clearly say that it's the spanish book, that should be acceptable for now.-Malkinann 11:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why I'm so interested in Phineas Gage? The case is unusual, and I believe the page only needs a few more citations and to be a bit more inclusive of other theories on Gage to keep its GA status.-Malkinann 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing the same reference more than once

Rather than putting the <ref> tag just as is, the first time you use the reference, you put <ref name="Catchy name goes here"> and then go on to put in the reference: Blow, J. (2027) On citing references more than once in Wikipedia, Journal of Wikipedia, 3(1) pp. 27-56 and you finish off the ref tags with </ref>. So you end up with: <ref name="Catchy name goes here">Blow, J. (2027) On citing references more than once in Wikipedia, Journal of Wikipedia, 3(1) pp. 27-56</ref>. The second time you want to use the reference, you copy and paste the "<ref name =" bit and put a / in it. as in <ref name="Catchy name goes here"/>. the only way this stuffs up is if the first reference is removed, or if the catchy name is changed. You can find out more about citing the same reference more than once at WP:FOOT. Hope this helps. -Malkinann 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Curiosidades de la red

¿Qué tal Gonzalo? No he podido evitar buscarte en Wikipedia después de que esta mañana comentaras en la comida del laboratorio que sueles colaborar por aquí. A mi también me gusta escribir de vez en cuando algún artículo, pero de momento sólo en castellano. Un saludo, Iñigo.

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

You have added Therapies for multiple sclerosis to WP:SPR but you have not told us what you want from the review. You should have created Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis with a comment. I have created it with a header, but it needs a comment from you. --Bduke 02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

You're welcome. You've done so much work on it, and you certainly deserve congratulations; with this kind of dedication, the article's surely headed for good things and better ones :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been re-reading the article, and I noticed that many of the references to Medline are not actually there to support a statement, but just providing a link to the drug information page. This isn't really necessary; a link to the Wikipedia article is enough. It would also be nice if you could provide a ClinicalTrials.gov reference for the trials you mention (e.g. of azathioprine, methotrexate etc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK then; that's an interesting use of footnotes. Thanks for your reply. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not necessary. It was just confusing at first, because it looked as if the references after each drug name would mention the relevant trial. If reference 25 covers them all, there's no need to look for them individually. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck; you've certainly worked hard on it :) I left a note on the article Talk page regarding images, have a look and see what you think. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I just removed the thumbnail sizes—it's better not to add them, especially if you'd like to take the article to FAC eventually. Have a look at WP:MOS for an explanation as to why. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Devolviendo el saludo

Pues el verano me ha ido bien. He estado de viaje por Italia. Siempre alegra ver que se acuerdan de uno al volver. Saludos, Juan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juansempere (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I agree the page is very specialist, and I am not very qualified in assessing whether the article is complete. When faced with this conundrum, I personally prefer to get an expert on board who can externally peer review the article (as has happened on coeliac disease).

Perhaps somewhat more emphasis should be placed on professional guidelines. In the UK we have a clinical practice guideline from NICE (CG8) that should probably be quoted together with other notable guidelines. JFW | T@lk 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Garrondo, I'm sorry but I'm not really qualified to judge if it's comprehensive or correct (I'm not a medical professional, just a layperson), and I don't participate in WP:GAC. I've been quite disillusioned lately that the Medicine Projects don't pitch in more on the FA and GA candidates. One person who may be willing to review it for GAC is TimVickers (talk · contribs). Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You have undone my text: "No therapy has yet been proved to delay conversion from relapsing-remitting to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis." It is usual pratice for the burden of proof to lie with people advocating treatments. What I say is true and yet, of course it is hard to proove a negative. Rather than delete my text please provide a citation showing a treatment that delays onset of SPMS.

You have also removed my text on psysiotherapy - this is perhaps the only treatment which has been shown to make a difference in the longer term.

You have also undone my text (based on needing a better citation): "Some have argued [C. Confavreux of EDMUS in ECTRIMS 2007] that inflammation may cause relapses but that neuro-degeneration causes disability[2], in which case treatments that reduce inflammation may have no effect on long-term disease course (as has been amply demonstated in the case of steroids)". What Confavreux says is becoming more genrallty understood. Why do you disagree? What is wrong with my citation?

It is important to be especially rigourous when addressing pharmaceutical treatments, particularly because large sums of money are involved. I feel the article is rather buying down the pharma line AND no citations are given for named treatment regimes.

I am copying this text in MS talk.Laetoli (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You've obviously put a great deal of work into the articles on MS. When I recently found a personal reason (not, in the end, MS) to read them I was terribly impressed by their even-handedness and scope. They gave me a lot of information that was scattered elsewhere on the internet, sometimes full of complicated medical-ese and sometimes of dubious reliability. The articles here were informative, well-sourced and addressed controversies and disagreements in a terrifically NPOV way. You've done great work and should be proud. Dina 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis FAC

Hi, Garrondo. I don't have time to give the article the attention it deserves right now, but I'll have a look as soon as possible. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I am afraid that I don't have too much knowledge about wikipedia. How can I vote for a featured article? --Juansempere 12:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While my comments on the value of these articles still stand, I got all editor-ish and have been making some changes. Only language tweaking, to relieve what I perceive to be a little stiffness. Let me know what you think. I think this is a great FA candidate. Dina 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with Alzheimer's Disease

I have seen your fantastico work on MS and wanted to see if you could read through the Alzheimer's disease page and give some comments on what looks good and what is unclear. We are working toward shortening it and may move toward a Therapies in Alzheimer's disease page like you have done with MS. muchisimas gracias --Chrispounds 14:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get your FA done on MS first then. I will take a read through it and see what I can comment on. I was hired by Elan and Biogen to do the forecasting for Antegren/Tysabri, so I have a decent background in the disease. --Chrispounds 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dietary treatments for multiple sclerosis

Please see my comments at Talk:Dietary treatments for multiple sclerosis. I am proposing deletion of the article as it is prone to abuse and the information is already covered or can be covered elsewhere. Let's discuss if you object. OccamzRazor 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Don't worry, it can be quite a while. It's been about 12 days since the Featured article director (Raul) promoted/archived, so it shouldn't be much longer :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been promoted. Congratulations! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just add

{{featured article}}

to the very bottom of the page. Again, congratulations—keep up the good work :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon symbolism

I wasn't clear in my edit summary, but if a national organisation adopts an awareness ribbon - as for multiple sclerosis - I think that merits inclusion into the article. I've left a message on Talk:Multiple sclerosis to this effect. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think recent edits have made the intro of the MS article rather bulky. Laetoli (talk · contribs) has also made some comments on the talkpage that I'd like to have your views on, particularly the perceived over-emphasis on pharmacotherapy. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Laetoli has removed most of his comments on Talk:Multiple sclerosis and left a message on my talkpage indicating that he will not be editing anymore. He has, however, left a piece of text for consideration on the talkpage with regards to the side-effects of pulsed MP, plasmapheresis etc, with a few references. I was wondering what you thought about this.

Laetoli seems to indicate that while treatment for RRMS may give short-term benefit, but does not delay secondary progression. If this is not borne out sufficiently by the article, perhaps we should have a look into this. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis organizations

I have just moved your page, Multiple Sclerosis organizations, to List of multiple sclerosis organizations and updated the other places it could be found. The move is solely motivated by making the article title match the normal pattern, and a redirect is in place for the old name. As you're the creator, I wanted to make sure that you knew where your page is now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MS therapies

Just a note to register my admiration for your hard work on our MS-related content. I'm sorry you've been rather alone on your quest to get the treatment approved for FA, but I think that reflects the paucity of neurology expertise on the project rather than apathy. It seems we have a new contributor with an interest in neurology, Sanjpatel1 (talk · contribs). If you're stuck he may be able to help. JFW | T@lk 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, BTW, it was interesting to see a photo of my own navel area being added to the above article :) Well done on producing such an excellent article, too - Alison ^❤ 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs).
Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Copy Edits

As someone with a partner who has Spanish as a first language, I have a pretty good appreciation of the challenges of writing in another language--especially when the language is a horrible one like ingles. I am glad to help out by polishing the gems you have added to the piece. You have added a lot to the article, but I am not going to take the time to read the source articles written in castellano y francais to validate your points. We have a great article now, and we continue to make it even better. --Chrispounds (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Disease

You'll kick yourself with IMO - it just means 'in my opinion' (I use it quite a lot!) --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence on the AD article - you've been doing good work in 'media'. I have an annoying habit on WP of declaring things, then not keeping to them. I had followed the AD link to the author Terry Pratchett and found he had been diagnosed with early-onset AD. I haven't actually read him since around 1990, but I've always had a lot of respect for him. I have a strong hunch he will, in time, become an ambassador for AD, an even set a up a foundation in his name. He's ones of the world’s best-selling authors, though he writes in the humour/fantasy genre - I don't know if you'll have heard of him. The irony here is that I'm trying to get him into a Featured Article! I think he is a good candidate for one, and will help highlight the AD cause.

I’ve actually starting to revise my opinion a little on AD becoming an FA - providing we have enough 'side space' to give air to anything contentious, it could have the benefit of spreading AD awareness - something I feel strongly about. I still have my reservations though - the wrong kind of article on AD can equally be exploited and, rather than develop popular understanding, turn people away. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Garrondo since your in the field i wanted you to take a look at the talk page for Cognitive Retention Therapy i just added a link to Grandparent magazine i would like you to read and let me know how i can fit that into the article. Thanks --Chris Ashby | Talk 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alzheimer's in the media

An editor has nominated Alzheimer's in the media, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alzheimer's in the media and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

B@rnstar

It's been a while since I last looked at Alzheimer's disease. I then noticed it on WP:GA, and thought: "How on earth?" Then I noticed that you'd been at it. Absolutely brilliant. Keep up the good work. Have a barnstar:

I'm always available for help, although I have the niggling suspicion that I have little to improve on the AD article in the present state... JFW | T@lk 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Therapies for MS

Hi Garrondo, I have not heard back from you since we had a brief discussion on the Treatments for MS page. I wanted to talk to further about this, as you have provided the largest contribution to date. Here is another example of the same issue we were addressing - http://www.thisisms.com/article101.html - despite having fooled the MS Community here with it's "remarkable efficacy", it does not stand up to close examination. In fact, it is worse than unethical in using the unfortunate "treatment-failure" patients in order to imply a favourable comparison. Do you agree, or disagree ?

In any case my goal is to make a relative-efficacy table, and I wonder if we can collaborate on this. I can offer to dig up references/citations.io-io (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ps: After posting here, I found this - http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-5018.html - in case you think that MS-ers are not easily fooled. That is why I think painting an accurate picture is important. Greetings, io-io (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Response (placed on my Talk page) re : treatment of multiple sclerosis

We are not the ones to judge quality of articles. Multiple Sclerosis is a leading journal and the article you are precisely mentioning is not a bad article, and thats the reason why it has been accepted, even if it does not have control group (is impossible to find a 20 years follow up with control group, it would not be even ethical). --Garrondo (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly think we are qualified to take a cursory look on what is claimed. In fact the Multiple Sclerosis journal abstract does not claim much, except however that its data is selective - "Of the 18 remaining patients in October 2004 (average disease duration 23 years), 17% with baseline EDSS scores <4.0 reached EDSS >/=4.0 and 28% with baseline scores <6.0 reached EDSS >/=6.0." - You will note that only 18 of the 46 patients still avail of the free treatement and care, and the scores of the other undoubtedly less fortunate 28 are not counted at all ! Furthermore the EDSS data is given in terms not of overall progression, but whether "milestones" were reached. However I agree that this article is not the worst.

HOWEVER - I was more specifically referring NOT to the journal abstract, but to the "news release" with the media "spin" on presented data in http://www.thisisms.com/article101.html - you should review the comparisons claimed by the drug manufacturer in its unique style (I have never seen anything quite like it), with great care - and you will notice what this MS web-site thinks of it. Please tell me what you see in this "news".

It would be goal in continuing the Treatment page to help patients with heavily referenced comparative efficacy data, as they are bombarded with literature and the web-pages of the "establishment" drug companies, despite the rapidly-changing landscape. (Can you please also reply to me here, because when you wrote to my talk page I did not know whether you were referencing the Discussion page or this page) THANKS FOR YOUR TIME & CONTRIBUTONio-io (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that pharma companies propaganda can be truly tendencious. I also agree on having new information on the treatments article on relative efficacy; as long as every sentence is well referenced and there is a balance between treatments. I know that glatiramer is not the best treatment, but that does not mean is absolutely useless. I´ll try to help, however I go on holidays for two weeks tomorrow and I will also be pretty busy on following months. Nevertheless I´ll try to help, but this time you will have to do the hardest job. What we can do is to create a section in talkpage of the article and reach a consensus on how to include the kind of information you say or to create a sandbox on topic and add a link in talkpage. I also believe that maybe the best idea is to create somekind of efficacy comparison table or graphic since there is alredy some info in main text saying that treatments are not equally useful. A useful article is alredy in the referecnces. See ref 24: Johnson KP (2007). "Control of multiple sclerosis relapses with immunomodulating agents". J. Neurol. Sci. 256 Suppl 1: S23–8. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2007.01.060. PMID 17350652. I remember that in this article there was a lot of comparative info, althought it was only about inmunomodulators, and it neither included tysabry. Do you really prefer my answer here to your talkpage? I hate people answering in their own talk page. :-) --Garrondo (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, and I wish you a great holiday. Actually maybe you have forgotten (or did not realise I was the same poster) but 2 weeks ago was when I first addressed you on the Discussion page (Treatment of MS), so we can talk there. I do not have access to that particular paper, but I have a lot of references, so let's see what I come up with.

By the way, most drug companies have not (and would never descend, I really believe), descended to the kind of "advertising" that I bought to your attention - the wilful use of the less fortunate (originally taking their drug) MS-ers to highlight a false "benefit" and get worldwide media coverage - but they do repeat this every 1-2 years, and as if by magic, due to the weaker patients continually failing, the relapse rate ( it was originally http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7617181?dopt=Abstract ) appears to improve all the time !! I just wanted to explain part of the reason that I think the stage is so lop-sided.

My preliminary thoughts ? A simple table, with the 6 approved drugs, and columns for Relative scores (relative to placebo !) for lesions, relapses, and disability progression. Speak to you in 2-3 weeks, bon voyage.io-io (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

HI, welcome back, I added that Table just now on my Talk page. Please take a look and give me your reaction, THANKS.io-io (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, noticed your revision on the page this morning - I was following the classifications on the main MS page, and which includes PRMS...has world body decided it is really a form of SPMS ?......tx.....io-io (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Caregiving and dementia

Thanks for the prompt input. I think we're already at the point where the article will withstand any AFD that should arise. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the star

Thanks so much for the star you gave me for the article reading. Yes, it was quite a bit of work, so it's very nice to know that it's appreciated. Cheers, Leo. Leotohill (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor

Thanks for that - it really does apply here perfectly to the PML profile :o) :o) :o) ....anyway, made you 3 replies because I had missed earlier comments (and there is some talk that page may be improved....your input on Wiki is appreciated here) - will come back to ALZ later....io-io (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(You know, I had thought the above was exactly what I needed, sorry you did not think it was a funny twist). On this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alzheimer%27s_disease#A_new_alternative - I will come back this evening to assist; it is not quite right as Bapinuzemab (sp?) is considered a "passive" immunotherapy (even though its an MAB)....io_editor (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I was just leaving Wiki when I saw your AD page "undo". In fact the difference between what the drugs do now - the standard they achieve is to lessen symptoms for just a 6-month period - is fundamentally less than treating the disease itself. If you go up to the drugs listed, and go to their pages, you will undoubtedly find most of their labels and you will see they are no indications by the FDA (or maybe EMEA, if any of their labels are given) for disease progression, but only for symptom (dementia) relief -these drugs simply sharpen the mind (they are also used in Parkinson's). Also they speculation that they "may even" help in disease progression is wrong, because if they could, a huge trial would have been simple to run (the drugs are safe) and it would be a holy-grail achievement to prove this - instead it either has not happened or has failed. This was a weak paragraph and my revisions are very central to the problem of AD, that it is currently un-stoppable. By the way, I had also proposed on the Investigational Therapies page that it be limited to finding something for Disease Progression only, as that is far more interesting and critical.....io_editor (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

nevertheless, if the goal is to make the page better, the distinction should be made ...the exploding of the AD population is, along with global warming, the challenge of the century, and the already-approved drugs are not a factor....io_editor (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

A "cure" in English means literally a return to full health. The goal is to either a) halt progression, or b) delay progression - and even this would be an enormous advance, saving $bns to the overall burden (care-givers, hospices) because the patients are old anyway....io_editor (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I see there have many a lot of edits since..... and no further comment as to content. I will come back to the page another time. One other thing re: MS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheumatoid_arthritis#Prognosis - for RA the prognosis is a 5-10 year life shortening - for MS it has to be greater than for RA. I intend to use "up to 10 years" when I visit the page again....io_editor (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

I was hoping to send you an email, but it seems you have deactivated the feature. If you don't want to activate this now, could you send me a message and I will reply to you. JFW | T@lk 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

MS Treatments

Dear Garrondo, I apologise unreservedly for any offence that I may have caused you. It was not my intention to make personal attacks - I realise that I sometimes act in a hot-headed manner when I get upset about things. Take care, Paul Laetoli (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Garrondo, thnkx for putting a word in on the N page. Be sure that this liver issue is totally nebulous, it just arises from independent doctors' reports, and there is no way of knowing things such as what the patient is eating, or how bad his liver was before (no trial means no baseline measurement). The "Dear Doctor" letter is just routine, a precaution. By the way, even though the "Table" in "trouble", I am enjoying the conversation (when time allows!).io_editor (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to re-visit your recent edit to natalizumab - it's wonky. WLU (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sentence first must re-read, grammatical nay it is. WLU (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel too strongly about comparable, but others on the talk page might (User:WhatamIdoing added it I believe; I'd check with her before deleting outright). Once you get past the first couple words I think it reads much better than my initial sally, thanks. WLU (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User page

I just stalked your user page. DId you know that User:Jfdwolff and JWF are the same editor? Your user page is redundant!

Also, were you aware of the ISBN search tool, diberri and the google ref generator? They're all ridiculously handy (especially Diberri). WLU (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the standard paste I usually dump on new editor's talk page.

Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates

I like the space saved as well, but my greates appreciation is reserved for the preservation of content. I've no problem with the section being shorter but I would have taken umbrage to any of the salient points being removed. You didn't, and your wording was definitely superior to mine. So huzzah!

I gave more attribution to the source of the liver reports, and in addition to giving more context it also made it grammatical. Whaddya think? I was surprised to see the error 'cause your english was so good in previous posts and edits. WLU (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be putting in a RFC/U on Io io editor, you may want to comment but I don't think you've had as much conflict with him. You can add to the sandbox here if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab

This drug has been shown to reduce number of attacks & their severity. However, since RRMS is characterised only by attacks/relapses with no steady decline during the periods in between, then it follows that it only reduces severity of attacks and not disease severity (except on temporary MSSS scale during & following relapse) which can easily be confused with delaying onset of SPMS (which it has not been shown to do). Laetoli (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for bold emphasis. It was not meant to seem rude - I guess I was just doing it because I could :-) It was certainly not intended to be demeaning. Best Laetoli (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Dementia

Can we add Lyme Disease as a form of subcortical dementia? Given the number of cases globally and the potential for misdiagnosis, this seems reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damwiki1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease once again

Hi Garrondo. I really appreciate all the work you've done on this article, and you should be commended. However, please don't be offended because I'll be doing some copyediting to your grammar and style. Together we can get this article to FA, I hope!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For outstanding service to cleaning up, improving, and rewriting Alzheimer's disease OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

MRI image for AD

When you emailed, did you replace "_@_" with "@" in the address? (Just checking... ;/) LeadSongDog (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to know somebody read it! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AD copyedit

Hi there! Sure, I'll help. I'm having a lot of Internet trouble today, but I'll see what I can do. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's

I think we're close to getting this finished up. Sorry that I misunderstood "both" in the recent drug trials. I know English isn't your first language, so it was a minor grammatical difference that confused me! Anyways, I think you did a great job getting this here. What's next? :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the photo of Auguste D, it appeared in a recent book by Konrad Maurer. He can be reached at konrad.maurer@em.uni-frankfurt.de. He may be able to inform us regarding the rights to it. --Chrispounds (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your idea of having this article on the main page by 9/21 for Alzheimer's day is important. Hopefully, it will pass soon, I don't think there are any major issues. Once it passes, please post here. Since I've had an article on the main page within the past year, Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, one point would be deducted. If you nominate it, as one of three or four major contributors, it should get one point. I calculate the article is worth 5-10 points, if we can get it on 9/21. Just tell me when you've posted it, and I'll support. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease was promoted today!!!! Good job. I checked the points for the main page article, and unfortunately, because Polio was an featured article within the past few days, we don't get enough points to be listed. Sad. We'll try for it next year. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done to you both (and Matt and LeadDogSong) for reaching FAC. Nice to see Wiki produce a FAC through collaboration. Colin°^Talk 08:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job on the Alzheimer's promotion! Muchisimas gracias. --Chrispounds (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey there

Congratulations on getting AD featured. I'm sorry I never got around to commenting at FAC—I did some copy editing, but then I saw significant changes being made to the article and decided to wait until it was more stable. Sorry about that, and congratulations again! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

I usually take a little break from complex editing after a big effort that I had with Alzheimer's disease and Helicobacter pylori. I'm not very good with neurological diseases, I'm just good at copyediting and digging up references. So, as long as you know MS quite well, including all of that biochemical stuff, I can help out!!! I'm ready to get energetic with another article, but MS looks like it doesn't require an FAR or anything major. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review: Sleep medicine

Thank you very much, Garrondo, for your comments at peer review! Real life has, as they say, gotten in the way yesterday and today. I'll comment at that page as soon as I can, and I'll let you know when I've done so. Thanks again! --Hordaland (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did write a response to you at peer review last night. But it's discussion, not checking things off on a list as done. You're making me consider some items, and re-consider others. Very worthwhile for me. Thank you. --Hordaland (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Neuroscience + Neurology

Sounds like a good idea to me. I have no experience with merging WikiProjects though, there's a lot of work to do to merge talk pages etc. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sclerosis

Hi,

seems like we had some kind of edit conflict there :-) but I seemed to have beaten you :-p.

I've undid you, just copy-edit if you disagree.

cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.