User talk:Nraden

/archive 1 /archive 2

Interested? WLU (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you seem to have expertise in business areas. Category:Business, Category:Business_stubs and Category:Management could probably use attention (particularly the middle one). I'm guessing the whole area is rife with self-promotion and spam that needs to be culled. And you gotta admit, edits like this are satisfying - smackdown! WLU (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Neil, I looked for something new on WP, most of it is the arguments over COI stuff. I also checked your recent contributions and found nothing. Is there a sub-heading you could link/point me to? Feeling lazy about reading the whole page. WLU (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cheeser's comment, I've created and pasted your revisions to a sub-page, User:Nraden/WP re-write, and have wikified and re-written. Because of how you added the information to Talk:WP, it was hard to see where the reference were being used. If you can, replace the ones that were removed. Otherwise, we'll discuss there, I'll mention it on the WP talk page. WLU (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the education to comment, as I am a board certified pediatric endocrinologist. Serum or saliva hormone testing to adjust replacement therapy is not recommended by current evidence based guidelines. I'm trying to save people grief from tharapies recommended by ex-actresses with no academic training in endocrinology. Pustelnik (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget that the book, Sex, Lies and Menopause was written by Wiley with a molecular biologist and an board-certified oncologist.

I asked you nicely, I didn't accuse you, and look how you responded. Does nothing Wiley's done in the ensuing 30 years since she was an actress matter? Do yuo know anything about her? Have you ever read Wiley's material, her papers on Medline? Have you investigated it? If only board-certified endocrinologists have the answers, then where is yours? There are board-certified endocrinologists taking Wiley's course and using her protocol. Did they take the wrong boards? Did they go to the wrong medical schools? Forgive me, doctor, but you are being very arrogant here. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but quite another to call them names. By the way, Wiley hasn't been an actress in over 30 years. What were you 30 years ago so I can call you an ex-waiter or an ex-security guard or whatever you did before you grew up? That's like calling Michael Dell an ex-dishwasher or Pol Pot the ex-teacher or Stephen King the ex-janitor or Rush Limbaugh ex-shoe shine boy. Using someone's early job to demean their capacity in a current role is just wrong. If you were an authentic healer, you'd be on the phone with her or one of the endo's whe works with to investigate. I'd be happy to provide you with a leading endocrinologist at Harvard or one of the PI's from the WHI who is quite interested in the Wiley Protocol, but I would not do it here on Wikipedia.

Wiley chose serum because it was the only benchmark available for levels of younger women. BTW, there are no evidence-based guidelines for HRT, only Premarin and Prempro and those guidelines should be...NONE.

I don't know why you have to be so high-handed and dismissive. If you were a true healer (and maybe you are), I think you'd want to know why so many people are doing well on this protocol and not be so concerned with who's idea it is and what their formal credentials are. There is a legion of researchers and doctors out with great credentials who haven't made any progress on this.

Believe me, Wiley wished the doctors never put her name on it. Suzanne Somers wrote about it because of her experience with it. Wiley regrets ever being inserted into the middle of this and taking the heat.

BTW, why is a pediatric endocrinologist interested in treatments of menopause?

Neil Raden (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil,

You may find the following template useful - it's for edits to pages that the requesting editor can't edit because of a conflict of interest. This way you don't have to wait for me to edit the page, and I don't have to feel guilty about not doing it. In addition, it should take you out of the rather limited group of editors you have encountered to date, which will probably be good for all involved. I think it's used by pasting it into a section on the mainspace article's talk page, possibly your talk page (but I'd guess the former). I would obviously also include a rational for why the edit should be made and any sources to justify the edit. Paste the text you see on the page, not the text that appears in the edit pane (that will link to the template, but won't actually use it).

{{request edit}}

WLU (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm out of here. This has been a colassal waste of time. Rosenthal's "journal" article was so full of errors, it was sickening. I remember her interviewing Wiley over a number of days. She had all the right information but chose to misrepresent it because she had prejudged the situation. After all, if you're a medical ethicist, you have to find things you think are unethical or you have nothing to do, even if you distort the truth. Don't you think that a journal editor would do some fact checking? Never heard fron them. I'm just so tired of this. I think Wikipedia is failure. Not because of these few articles, but because of the overwhelming burnden of policy and policy enforcement. That's what happens when you deal with the public - everyone nut with an agenda crawls out of the woodwork. I know wiki's work in more controlled environments, where the "policy" comes fromm the organization and the wiki isn't responsible for it. But I don't think Wikipedia is tenable and I don't have any faith in the value of it's content. The Wiley mess is just one good example. So I'm signing off. Neil Raden (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? --Achim (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your question.

Just wondering if you had any input on the Joint (building) article deletion request. --Achim (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the New York suggestions, much appreciated! WLU (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article and it needs citations to reliable sources that assess the safety and effectiveness of the medication. PubMed is a good place to start, although Google scholar covers a wider range of articles. The most valuable articles are neutral reviews by people who have no interest in the product itself. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I'm not looking for comments about safety and effectiveness. I want to remove statements that are incorrect. There are comments that it's "dangerous" and "Super high dose." For the former, there is no reliable source and for the latter, there is evidence to the contrary that WLU not consider. I cannot edit the article myself. Neil Raden (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just asked some questions on the noticeboard that relate to you not being able to edit the article yourself. I just want you to know that I plan on looking at all the issues very closely and, if they are justified by the sources and within policy, implementing your suggestions. Of course I may also end up telling you that I don't think you are right -- I really don't know yet as I am just starting to look into this. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is all I asked for, for someone other than WLU to look at this. I appreciate your taking the time Neil Raden (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]