Talk:Migraine-associated vertigo

References

A good deal of unreferenced statements in the article. Removed how-to and dosage information per WP:MEDMOS. Inserted fact tags, where citation needed. Tricyclics do NOT accumulate in the body, this is bull, 25 pound weight gain is also not typical. Please see what books and publications are appropriate as references. Provide PMIDs of your journal citations. Conference papers are less useful. Same for web presence of a clinic. We need peer-reviewed sources. The whole article needs rework for proper references. I fixed your inline references, you forgot the reflist. I deleted the spurious repetition of the refs at the end. You had a references syntax error. Please take items not related to the article back to your talk page. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

To 70.137.153.83 above, thanks, i'll be working on that today. This is my first Wiki article and I'm sorry for the errors. As I was doing my editing, I found quite a few external links as citations, so I thought they were acceptable. It is good to know you guys police these pages so well! :) --Julcal (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

Note that Julcal is a known spammer and originally wrote this article with an indirect link via her forum pointing to a bogus selling scheme website (http://www.feed-your-cells.com/) promoting a cure for this condition. The company is called Enzacta and is an MLM scheme. Keep an eye on this article for outbound links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio34 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The above responder adds nothing constructive to the article. He has been cyberstalking me for months. He found out (by cyberstalking me) that i published this article last night and quickly posted his usual rant. I deleted it and he quickly re-posted. I am no spammer. I did write the original article with a link to my Mav-forum but someone removed it, not me. My link did not take one directly nor indirectly to the website the above responder claims it does. This is simply part of his typical character assasination of me. i actually don't mind the free advertising. My website is great and it's a great product. MLMs are not schemes, pyramids are.--Julcal (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

The accusation of "cyberstalking" is ludicrous. It can be seen clearly in the earlier edits of the main article that she included a link to her forum where there are links to the "feed your cells" promotional pages with which she is financially involved. In her newly-created forum she is free to prey upon people with illness and sell her product which she has shamelessly plugged here again in the above paragraph. Wikipedia is an unbiased information website and not for capitalising on people with an illness. The original posted warning of this person's spamming behaviour (which she deleted) was not made by myself. A simple check of the IP address indicates this. There are others aware of her motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio34 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The accusation is not ludicrous. This is not the only incidence, and it won't be the last. He shows up wherever I make a presence on the internet. --Julcal (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

As I explained below in the 3O section, I don't see anything on the current version of the main article that link to that forum. If there were links before then that's one thing, but the current version is the one we should be discussing. It does seem at least somewhat apparent that Julcal has a conflict of interest on this page, so she needs to be very careful of her edits here. If you two just want to sit here and snipe at each other, then take it to WP:WQA. We should be discussing the problems of the current version of the page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with her editing this article. I simply asked that others beware of outgoing links.03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio34 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we've established that. But as far as I can tell, there are no outgoing links on the page that are of any danger, so you need to cool off and start assuming good faith. If dubious links show up, then we'll remove them as needed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I saw this page listed for a third opinion, so here's my thoughts. A great deal of this article is somewhat dubious, and it needs a great deal of work. I've marked the article with a list of issues; please resolve them before removing those tags. Studio34, can you show me some proof of what you're talking about? I don't see that site listed in any of the sources. Either way, the lead needs to be reworked to actually describe what migraine-associated vertigo is. I mean, the name sort of implies the meaning, but we could use more clarification there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright, I'm starting to see how this is working. Julcal, you wrote "My website is great and it's a great product. MLMs are not schemes, pyramids are." This is not a place for you to promote your website. Do you run http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi - appreciate your help on this matter. Her forum is here: mav-forum[dot]com. You'll notice on the site, she has a "link to MAV lens" which takes you to squidoo.com. Go down one layer and you'll see she is involved in the sales of a bogus product called "PXP". Further, under her name in individual posts, there is a link button that takes you directly to "www.feed-your-cells.com" where the sales of PXP occurs. Finally in her own personal bio, she claims that she was "cured" by this product. She is known on a previous forum to have made such claims while being treated with true migraine pharamacueticals.03:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio34 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you've quite made that point. This is starting to border on bad faith. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So in other words: you need to go back to a previous revision of this page, then click a link that is not present in the current revision; from there, go to an external site. While on the external site, go to yet another external site where you can buy the product. That's pretty far fetched, isn't it? (You could probably find child porn from wikipedia given the same amount of steps!)

As long as a direct link (or at least an indirect link) is present on the current revision of the page, I don't see a problem at all.

Also, to Annyong: dizziness-and-balance.com is run by Chicago Dizziness and Hearing (CDH), a clinic with (at least) two M.D.s (one of which is in the top of the field) who, as the name implies, specializes in dizziness and hearding disorders (neurotology). The site is probably the best resource for dizziness information on the web, with plenty of citations backing up every claim. Dr. Hain who runs it has currently authored or co-authored at least 77 articles found on pubmed. It has nothing to do with any of this. -- Aeluwas (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not far-fetched and your child pornography analogy is way off base. As HelloAnnyong clearly explained, there is a conflict of interest and it should end there. The current version of the article is free of spam and just needs work like any other unpolished Wikipedia article. Yes, Hain's website is a fantastic resource and would be an appropriate link for additional reading.studio34 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Scott (Studio34). Now he accuses me of plagarism. My article doesn't have a chance with him on board, so I have removed it. I was trying to do a good thing giving migraine-associated vertigo a presence on the internet. There are so many MAV sufferers who are confused about what is ailing them. I realized that MAV was my illness when I read posts on Studio34's forum which I happened across through an outgoing link on Wikipedia. When I did the same, I was accused of being a spammer. --Julcal (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

Julcal: you were advised to stop with your sniping and stay on topic. In case you have forgotten, the topic is the current article on MAV. Edit and build the article freely but keep the spam out please. Your "stalking" and "obsession" comments are ridiculous. All Wikipedia members are free to edit articles in a constructive manner.studio34 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AND this issue has been resolved, fairly and squarely. Although it needs work, I am proud of this article. It fills a much needed void for all those MAVers who don't know what the heck is going on with them. I hope someday it will be a great article. Thanks to all who are working on it constructively.--Julcal (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

AN/I Alert

A situation involving editing here is being discussed at the Administrators' Notice Board. DGG (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Real issue, article needs work

As an aspiring neurologist and someone who is intimately interested in neurological, vertigo, dizziness and associated disorders I can attest that this is a real medical condition which several specialized treatment centers. However the article, as currently written, does not seem to be as encyclopedic as it could be. I will try to get involved in certain sections and add appropriate references and make the tone neutral. Basket of Puppies 17:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone who was once diagnosed with MAV (before getting my "real diagnosis") I saw some world experts on the issue. The following is written by a Northwestern University Professor, Dr Tim Hain. He is an expert on this issue and here is his paper, which can be used as an excellent resource for this article: Migraine associated vertigo Basket of Puppies 17:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That site has received a fair amount of use in the refs on this page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. It's perhaps one of the best sources. Basket of Puppies 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I have rewritten the Intro and sourced it to Dr Hain. I believe that it's now neutral and concise. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I removed it from the articleissues template. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. One issue down, a whole bunch more to go. Basket of Puppies 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BOP, it's reading much better now.studio34 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

The section "Symptoms and Syndromes Associated with MAV" and the section "Vertigo Syndromes Associated with Migraine" seem to me either duplicative or overlapping, but perhaps someone else can clear it up better than I. DGG (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

References

We need an exact reference for the Conference, in a published source. We spell out journal names. I have started combining references, using the named reference format, but this should be done for the rest of the article also. DGG (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Propose to replace links to the vertigo website by Hain and other self-published and clinic links by peer reviewed articles with PMID numbers, preferably secondary references and not primary research or case reports or anecdotes. Given that the mentioned specialists are described as well known capacities of their field with lots of peer reviewed publications, this should be no problem with pubmed searches for the topics. The conference proceedings indeed need to be replaced by publicized peer reviewed articles with PMIDs too. See WP:MEDMOS for the acceptable references and the exclusion of self-published materials, except under very narrow and hard to verify circumstances. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 70.137.153.83 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

PubMed sources would be better, true. I'll have a look and try to get back to you. Basket of Puppies 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• I got the following relevant Hain papers from PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15837905?ordinalpos=42&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12521357?ordinalpos=62&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8586026?ordinalpos=97&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I would not find the self published paper. It could be he never sent it to a journal. Regardless, I believe it should be included and used as a reliable source. Basket of Puppies 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, 3 papers are meager, when a previous discussion mentioned 77 published peer reviewed papers. Given the situation I would exclude the self-published paper for WP:MEDMOS guidelines about sources and self-published references, see there and look also at the broad associated discussion of this topic in WP. As his clinic site is material of his own clinic business I would additionally exclude it for COI. Go find more peer reviewed sources with pubmed, which support the article little by little. Exclude the Hain clinic site. Thats how reliable sourcing works. See how to get a cross section of contemporary medical mainstream opinion from pubmed and use that to support or contradict sentence by sentence of the article. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also use pubmed to find citations of his work and look at those. Find citations of his conference paper and PMID of that conference paper too, otherwise exclude it for reasons above. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Hain's references

• I am highly confused at this edit which refers to Dr Hain's website as "spam" and indicates a COI. I am rather tempted to revert this IP's edits but will wait until discussion here resolves in some sort of consensus. Basket of Puppies 23:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to revert, then. The IP has done nothing but remove this source without any justification. COI totally doesn't exist here. I don't see how MEDMOS applies, either. Multiple users here have verified that the site is reliable source. As such, I'm going to consider this to be blanking vandalism until we get proof otherwise. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS says:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Considering about all of Dr Hain's publications are on vertigo and migraine then I feel he passes WP:SPS with flying colors. There is absolutely no WP:COI issue nor WP:SPAM, either. I don't even know how that was suggested, but I think we should avoid even a hint of that. As a result of this application I believe we should readd the references to the version which I wrote. Basket of Puppies 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• In an email with Professor Hain he suggests we use "Pharmacologic Treatment of

Persons with Dizzines" Neurol Clin 23 (2005) 831–853 as a reference. He says the paper on his website is only self-published at this point so this other one might be useful in some ways. Basket of Puppies 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it in pubmed? get PMID please. Is it on the web as a link to be included in fulltext? That would be nice. This is much better than the previous vandalism discussion, warnings and page blanking discussions. Please also see below for a review article useful as a reference, I put the link. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in PubMed. I still find it interesting that you won't accept his self published paper (which is absolutely permitted via WP:SPS), but you will this paper. This paper only serves to further his position as a well published expert on this topic, thus further permitting the self published paper via WP:SPS. Basket of Puppies 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is due to preference to be given to published, peer reviewed papers, and also to SPS .com publications being frowned upon due to commercial interest tainting neutrality in principle and by COI. See discussion on dispute resolution page and answer by User:Chaldor. Is the review article linked below in fulltext useful as a reference and to locate more references? 70.137.153.83 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In a short formula SPS is not a license for experts to push their own commercial interest site into WP as references, if other solutions are open, if other sources can be used for the same purpose. SPS may apply for a Nobel price laureate having published a singular book on the topic. Not for a doctors office patient information site. Maybe discuss the topic with Dr. Hain again and get his opinion? Discuss the reference guidelines and COI topics in particular. What about below link to a review article, which could be used for the purpose? Your opinion? 70.137.153.83 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So, if Professor Hain was to move this paper over to his Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine website (under the Dept of Neurology, with a .edu website) then would it be more acceptable? And, Professor Hain has written more than just one paper or book on this topic. He has written dozens and is a fully tenured professor at a major academic hospital in this specific topic.

Regarding the reference, it has some information as to treating MAV. Those treatments should be inserted into this article, and sourced to the paper. The paper states (sorry for the lack of formatting, I'll try to work on it tonight when I get home from school):

Calcium channel blockers Drug (brand name) Dose Uses Common adverse reactions Cinnarizine (Stugeron) (not FDA approved) 25 mg three times a day Migraine, vertigo Sleepiness, weight gain Flunarizine (Sibelium) (not FDA approved) 10 mg at bedtime Migraine, vertigo, motion sickness Sleepiness, weight gain Nimodipine (Nimotop) 30 mg twice a day Migraine, Meniere’s Headache, flushing Verapamil 120 mg sustained release at bedtime Migraine Constipation

Basket of Puppies 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDMOS dosage information and how-to of treatment is to be excluded from the article. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, according to WP:MEDMOS, "Do not include dose and titration information except when they are notable or necessary for the discussion in the article." Since some of these medications are only effective for treating MAV at certain dosages then it is entirely applicable to the article. Basket of Puppies 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Remains the question of how far this is a How-To or treatment algorithm description and if and when this belongs here according to guidelines. This will probably develop in the details, as the article develops. Also possible to discuss at WT:MED. The entries for the particular medications are already present and may profit from adding MAV related information in their indications section, so you can take a look if you see room for improvement there too. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See e.g. flunarizine and cinnarizine for reference, they also include references for their use in migraine and MAV. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Flunarizine (Sibelium) for migraine, MAV. The 10mg at bed time are the standard dosage recommendation for this indication, according to package insert. So there is no reason for including dosage information, according to MEDMOS guide lines. - There are no special circumstances making the standard dosage in a labeled indication per package insert notable. Same for side effects. (That it is not FDA approved does not make it so special, it is approved and labeled for this indication in Europe.) 70.137.153.83 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Same for Cinnarizine. It is std dosage range, described side effects according to package insert/monograph. Nothing out of the ordinary. No reason for including dosage for special circumstances or discussion, per WP:MEDMOS. This will all probably develop during the further development of the article. But maybe a reason to improve the articles of flunarizine and cinnarizine by working on the side effects list. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

HelloAnyong - Will you follow procedure and discuss edits on the talk page, by answering to the controversial points in question. Will you not call valid concerns vandalism again, and will you immediately remove such notice from my talk page. That "several editors" think a commercial website is a feasible reference is not enough. Will you please read the guidelines and the discussion for the point in question. Sources have to be neutral and peer reviewed, this ref is the website of a private business. See talk page above, the concerns about the sourcing of the article exist from the beginning, and we have to proceed to improve the sourcing as described above. Please read again. I have explained the sourcing guidelines enough. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking

Basket of Puppies: Please will you not describe removal of a reference as "page blanking" and remove your related warning from my talk page. There is nothing ambiguous about the situation. A link to a private medical office is not a feasible reference, please convince yourself at WP:MEDMOS that self published materials are not valid references. Furthermore a link to a private business constitutes advertisement for the commercial purpose of that site and constitutes spam for that reason. By this nature such links also constitute a conflict of interest. Sources have to be neutral and peer reviewed. They preferably represent broad medical consensus as reflected in secondary sources. There are guidelines. Please read them. The article now almost exclusively sources to Dr. Hains commercial activities, and this has to be removed. This has now been on this talk page for sufficient time to be answered in a meaningful way. That one or more editors think the source is such an authority that we can skip or override the sourcing guidelines seems to be a misunderstanding of WP policies and guidelines. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Annyong, you seem to misunderstand that multiple users can simply think something is RS, even it is a single commercial website. There are guidelines, described above, and I ask them to be respected. Please discuss, and don't call valid removal of commercial websites as vandalism. Don't do that again. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am really, really sorry and hope I didn't offend you. But I think I should let you know that I didn't revert you or call your edits vandalism but instead I opened this discussion on the talk page. Again, I am really, really sorry. :( Basket of Puppies 00:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't throw Wiki terms around without being able to validate them. You saying that our reverts are unacceptable per WP:COI is totally incorrect. I know the guidelines; I've been editing for three years now. I still disagree that it's a commercial website; there aren't any calls to action on it or anything. It's a site put out by a doctor who is educating the public; it doesn't say IF YOU HAVE DIZZINESS CALL US!!!!11!one. Per WP:SPS, info published by a certified expert in the field is acceptable, so long as the person has works that "ha[ve] previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Take a look at http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nupthms/faculty/hain.html - I think his body of work speaks for itself. So tell me again why it's not an acceptable source? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And actually, if you want to be really specific about it, the fact that all of your edits have been centered around this topic makes you a single purpose account. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, now it is already a bit too much with your snot!

I am a well known editor and editing on many other topics for years. Cut it out now.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a commercial website, because it is a doctors office, and they make appointments. Yes.

I am not "throwing around" terms, please try not to be insolent.

The website is a doctors office, makes appointments and advertises itself as a capacity in the treatment of such disorders.

However, if he is such a capacity, then I have previously advised to use his peer reviewed publications as a source, and not the website of his business. And this is what we have to to. I do not care about the great Northwestern University, just limit yourself to peer reviewed sources. He must have written enough to find with pubmed. A conflict of interest alway arises if commercial websites of businesses are used as references, rather than using neutral peer reviwed publications. If you get paid for forcing him into this article or if somebody else is getting paid is hard to verify.

The "specialized knowledge exception", as mentioned by you, would apply maybe to self published work of a Nobel price laureate, not to the patient info of a doctors office.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The applicable guidelines are to be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)

70.137.153.83 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you added that to the RSN listing. I quote:

“ Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. ”

Look at how the site was being used before you removed it. It was being used to support statements like "Migraine associated vertigo is dizziness associated with a migraine headache condition" and "Migraines causes more vertigo than any other medical condition." You're arguing over whether or not the source can be used to define what the term means. What is written on the page correlates closely to what the website says. What is wrong with that? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We would have to verify the statements against mainstream material. I do not see why to use primary sources, if the opinion is well enough sourced from broad consensus. The reason that I am now looking to the detail so much is that I already removed statements to the same source "Ergot and isometheptene are triptans" (false),

"triptans like ergot ...are highly addicting" (total bogus),

"amitryptiline leaves residues in the body" (total bogus) and "leads to weight gains of 25 pounds" (total bogus).

After removing those we have to do a check of the article against broad medical opinion. Dr. Hain belongs to the Physical Therapy dept, and his opinions may differ from broad consensus in some respect. This is to be verified against mainstream sources.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I complete your citation above, where you omitted the core point:

In general, Wikipedia's medical articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to a medical article, but must be used with care ...

70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) First, please start indenting your comments; I've had to do it every single time now. Second, how do I know that Hain's conclusions aren't in the mainstream? Or that those are false? As a person with no knowledge of this subject one way or the other, here's what I see: a source that is written by a professor who has a doctorate and has published many articles in his field... and your belief. I have no way of knowing whether or not "triptans like ergot are highly addicting" is really true, and since you have shown no other credibility here, I have no reason to believe you. It is your opinion that he is not in the mainstream.

Furthermore, for us to verify his statements against mainstream material would be a violation of WP:SYN. It is not Wikipedia's job to check sources against each other; we merely report on what the sources have to say. So if you can find a source that says "triptans like ergot are not highly addicting," then that gets included. Both opinions get included. Also, I don't really see how you can remove a source for "Migraine associated vertigo is dizziness associated with a migraine headache condition." Is it really not a mainstream belief that "migraine associated vertigo" means just that? Are we not being careful by using a primary source to verify that definition? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Hain's paper passes WP:SPS extremely well. Furthermore, any hint that he is commercial in nature is comical. I can personally verify that his office is part of the Northwestern University complex. How do I verify this? I was a patient of his and have personally had him as my physician and neurologist. I admit this as I do not want to give any and misconception that I am purely objective, but it's utterly clear that his office and practice are under the auspices of Northwestern University School of Medicine and Hospital. Since Dr Hain passes every test we can throw at him then I will go ahead and revert the edits to the one which has consensus. Basket of Puppies 05:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't find a source "triptans like ergot and isometheptene are not addicting" but: 1) ergot is not a triptan. 2) isometheptene is not a triptan. 3) triptans are generally not regarded as addicting does not need to be mentioned, nobody thinks they are. And now get your fringe science out of here. We don't need articles so special that they are to be sourced to one single authority.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also no discussion that a doctors office even if "affiliated with NWU" is a private business, he says so. And as such it is a commercial website, and I want the article sourced to published reliable secondary sources.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Puppies, please read above guidelines for sourcing again, they require to get mainstream opinion from review articles and cite precisely. Its junior college level of understanding.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Puppies, obviously the policies are beyond your level of understanding or attention span. We have not reached a consensus so far. Will you not revert again without consensus!

70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't shown me with a reliable source that ergots and isometheptenes are not triptans. You haven't shown that it's "fringe science," nor that it's not mainstream. I have a feeling that this might be bordering on tendentious editing, where you have something against Dr. Hain. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have referred the IPs tactless comments about me here. Basket of Puppies 06:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ergots and isometheptene are not triptans according to high school chemistry. See triptans. isometheptene and ergotamine and look at the structure. They just don't belong there by definition. Please find a RS that chicken soup is not nerve gas. That kind of bogus. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Turns out that the previous corrections I had applied corrected mere misinterpretations of Dr. Hain's site by editor Julcal. He doesn't say ergot and isometheptene are triptans. Anyway, it is correct now. His site is patient advice. I would prefer to source to his published writing in peer reviewed journals if possible. I certainly have no preoccupation against him, just want the article well sourced. It needs work, do we agree about that? And editors here have to stop the habit of calling every inconvenient argument or constructive criticism vandalism or "page blanking". Teaching must be hell in this country. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 70.137.153.83 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A Brasilian friend has dug out the following review article, which contains a whole lot of useful references. So you can use these to not solely rely on Dr. Hain's site as reference.

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0034-72992008000400020&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

70.137.153.83 (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it highly annoying that a user with no user name and no user page is taking such a heavy hand on this article. It needs work, yes, but it seems that no-name editor has some kind of ulterior motive in editing and commenting on it. --Logophile (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources/notice board Dispute resolution

See here for dispute resolution by reliable sources notice board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Migraine_Associated_Vertigo 70.137.153.83 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a little upset that this was only shared after a discussion which went your way. I have chimed in there and consider the discussion very much alive. In the future it will be highly appreciated if there be notice given when a discussion about this article is opened on a page outside of the article's talk page. I think that can be considered fair, right? Basket of Puppies 05:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't complain to me, HelloAnnyong has taken it to dispute resolution. See above for a link to another source, a published review article. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

In doing my own research on MAV, I noticed that there is not a consistent terminology used by the medical community. It is sometimes called "vestibular migraine" and sometimes called "migraine-related vestibulopathy" among other things. I have added those synonyms to the lead paragraph.

I have tried to fix some of the confusion between the words "dizziness" and "vertigo." The first one is a non-technical term and may refer to any number of sensations. Vertigo is a technical term that refers to a certain type of sensation. (The corresponding articles right here in Wikipedia are pretty clear on the distinctions.)

As I understand it, vertigo is a symptom of migraine that certain people experience and others do not. (I realize that nothing is conclusive yet, scientifically speaking.) It is sometimes combined with other symtpoms, including the classic headache. It is sometimes the sole symtpom of migraine. I write that to say that where the article overlaps with the articles on vertigo and migraine, we need not include too much techincal detail in this particular article.

Some of the earlier edits seem very confusing and seem to have distorted the material quoted. I do not believe that the original contributor/editor of the article had the original source material in front of him or that he understood it very well. --Logophile (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Forum

Does anyone object to a legitimate and neutral support forum being added to the "External Links"? The forum (www.mvertigo.org) has been online for over 5 years, has a link at Johns Hopkins, and is referenced in patient information sheets at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. There is input on the forum from two top specialists in the migraine field. Furthermore, the site is grounded in science-based information (i.e. evidence) and does not tolerate the promotion or sales of any products –– particularly of the MLM type. studio34 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Migraine-associated vertigo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907135416/http://www.mvertigo.org/forum/ to http://www.mvertigo.org/forum/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Change title of article to Vestibular Migraine?

As vestibular migraine has gained credibility and wide acceptance in the medical community as a stand-alone migraine variant disorder, most contemporary academic discussions of the disorder refer to it as "Vestibular Migraine" and not "Migraine Associated Vertigo". I believe it is useful to change the title of the article to reflect this phenomenon. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Vestibular migraine is the official term in both neurology as well as neurotology circles. A title change would be appropriate. 62.216.208.133 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)