User talk:Chrispounds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I am working on keeping the Alzheimer's posts up to date. I would like to see Phase 3 compounds developed and all other research which has not been shown to be safe in man to get shorter mentions.

I will also keep working on some of the math and statistics related articles.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Chrispounds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --WS 00:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine manual of style: drugs

I would propose the following sections for new drugs. --Chrispounds 02:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

==Indication==

Indicate the approved usage in US/EU/Australia.

==History==

==Chemistry==

Could include Pharmacology, Pharmacokinetics, Metabolism, Absorption and Distribution, and Mechanism of Action. If this is going to be a short article, then these might just be 1-2 sentences.

==Cautions==

This follows the British National formulary. Serious side effects, “black box” warnings, followed by contra-indications and commonly found side effects would be in this section. If there are sub-populations at risk with this drug, it could be included here.

==Dosage and Formulations==

List the recommended dose and if there are titration schedules. When should this be taken? With meals? At bedtime? Let’s a list of the formulations available but let’s not get crazy with NDC numbers, colors, nor pictures. I do not think this should be the pdr.

==Veterinary use==

This is a nice to have, but I would expect that this is going to be one of the more “optional” sections.

==Legal status==

I assume this might address patent issues or lawsuits related to the use and or abuse of the drug.

==Cultural references==

==References==

==Footnotes==

{{subst:reference}}

==See also==

==External links==

[edit] Boston study

Thank you for your message. I didn't look at the study in detail so didn't realise it was so small: I was more trying to get something going on the design issue, to help our Spanish friend. I appreciate your desire to eliminate small studies, which can prove almost anything and are often used to promote expensive quack cures of dubious value. (Though if someone buys some coloured plates and mugs, it's unlikely to break the bank.) I'm not sure what the way forward is – perhaps a page on the small studies that we wouldn't want in the main article? Nunquam Dormio 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would propose that not everything needs to be in Wikipedia. Regardless of how hard you, and I and 1000s of other contributors work, things will fall through the cracks. If we have significant repeated information on something, or something is a huge change to the status quo, then we should look at adding it to the entry. Would you like to remove it? Thanks for your other clean-ups on the page. Have you seen the comments on the Peer Review page? would you care to add to those or to help work through them? --Chrispounds 18:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alzheimer's disease

I noticed that you nominated this article for SCOTM, but there's not much chance of it getting through the nomination phase by Nov 3, especially not with enough time left to get much work done. I rewrote some of the pathology section with more biochemical information and references, but I've left the disease process hypotheses section for now. Do you have any sources to point to regarding the tau-causation hypothesis? I've found a few papers, but most seem to be in support of amyloid. Opabinia regalis 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, I will have a look at them. I am very weak on biochem but I know where to dig things up. I am an amyloid guy, but I saw a series of articles on tau in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease see Avila J (2006). "Tau protein, the main component of paired helical filaments.". J Alzheimers Dis 9 (3 Suppl): 171-5. PMID 16914856. for example. Tau was only discovered back around 1986 or so, and thus the research on it is not as robust as it is for amyloid. This next reference is a review of tau from the Internal Medicine perspective and is probably a good place to start. Williams D (2006). "Tauopathies: classification and clinical update on neurodegenerative diseases associated with microtubule-associated protein tau.". Intern Med J 36 (10): 652-60. PMID 16958643.. This article from Nature talks about caspaces as being another mechanism. This may or may not be something we want to add. As for SCOTM, I think the article will be fine with just a couple more people working on it with broad backgrounds. --Chrispounds 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but I fear my time on Wikipedia is so limited these days that I will not be able to devote the proper attention to the article. If you haven't already, I would suggest inviting feedback at WP:MED and/or WP:CLINMED; I'm sure someone would be interested in taking a look at the article. Good luck with it, and I hope I'll be able to contribute! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS temples are not Churches

LDS temples are not churches and should not be categorized as such. LDS use the terms church and meetinghouse synonymously to refer to the building used for their weekly sabbath services and other common meeting which do not take place in the temples. For more details please see Temple (Mormonism)#Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Likewise neither the LDS Conference Center nor the Salt Lake Tabernacle properly fix in the "Church" category, as these buildings are not used for common worship services. Thanks, -- 70.57.102.250 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not up to creating a "Place of worship" category, but someone seems to have done that now. Since a most definitions of church state that they are public spaces, Temples do not qualify. My mistake. --Chrispounds 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't feel bad. It's hard to categorize temples in relation to churches. While on one hand they are seen as symbols of the faith, similar to a Catholic cathedrial. On the other, they are not used for Sunday worship and they are not open to the public, which means more or less that those who attend temples are held to a higher standard of worthiness than a church. The LDS Church really has no meeting houses that are more elaborate or prestegious than any other. They are mostly cookie cutter churches built from the same general design. Of course there are a few historic buildings, but I don't know how that fits into your list. Maybe you could have a "See Also" section referencing the List of Temples page. Bytebear 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can you help to get the access to the "The public health impact of Alzheimer's disease, 2000-2050: potential implication of treatment advances" that you cited on AD page? It has a catchy title so I am interested in reading in. Thanks in advance. Igoruha 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCOTM

I removed it. You've made a great job! :) Rock on! NCurse work 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:204.98.2.30

Sorry, but i am not an administrator and cant block anyone. You can use WP:AIV to get attention to vandalism from an administrator. --Rettetast 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/User_talk%7EChrispounds_111d.html"