User talk:Jonathan108

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Appendicitis

I thought it was an interesting idea, if unspported by current evidece. You've probably noticed that we're still working on this section of the article, trying to find a happy medium between saying nothing and having several paragraphs. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So, about those sources. I honestly can't remember, but if you poke around in the history of the Appendicitis article around the end of August, it should be in with the revisions. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the previous language suggested that Burkitt's theory is unknown, which isn't the case. It's a simple statement of fact that the theory is unverified and most health practicioners wouldn't agree with it. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has reached a happy medium. We include more detail without more scientific evidence from a peer-reviewed journal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there simply isn't any. You'll notice that there is a third theory involving sanitary conditions. There has been no research to support it either, and it is presented as such. We can't give Burkitt's theory more space without presenting an unbalanced view. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the language, though I still disagree with you. I thought that the wording was rather ambigous, so I changed it. I would challenge your opinion that most health care practioners are ignorant of this theory. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squat toilets

You have edited a number of articles to reflect this view, which you've been trying to get into Wikipedia for some time now. I've removed it from diverticulitis and colorectal cancer because of a complete lack of evidence and because it is generally not recognised at causative in any of these diseases. The only way to mention it would be to mention it in the broader context of a historical overview. Neither article has such an overview.

I can understand why diverticulitis could theoretically be linked to the way in which people defaecate, but colorectal cancer is due to cumulative DNA damage - something I can not logically link to intraluminal pressures or anything even remotely connected. In you cannot give some references to serious papers that have examined the evidence, will you please stop pushing this historical artefact as medically sound? JFW | T@lk 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)