Talk:Mucoid plaque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Other thoughts

On subjects like these, it is often best to keep an open mind. Analogous to a legal system where an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty, there is no harm in treating this subject as "possibly true, or, likely until proven false". I would have to ask if any definitive studies have been conducted to prove this phenomenon is entirely false. If not, the concept should remain on Wikipedia to raise awareness and instigate unbiased scientific inquiry until a time when definitive proof is available.

[edit] Re reversion

I've reverted because this needs discussion and consensus. This anonymous rewrite [1] appears to be an entirely biased revision aimed at promoting the existence of mucoid plaque, padding the references with promotional links, and minimising the evidence against its existence.

A particular inaccuracy was the conflation of the observed reality that the bowel produces a thin layer of mucus (like other mucous membranes) with the claims for a vastly thicker layer of mucoid plaque. Tearlach 09:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is retrieved from the history talk that I accidently deleted: The first inaccuracy that I observed was your bizzare claim that I padded the reference section with "promotional links." The only two links I put under the reference section are to Edward Thuman, MD and Ed Friedlander, MD, two prominent skeptics. As for the books under the reference section, they are the primary, original sources of this mucoid plaque theory and they do not advertise any merchandise. I know this because I own them. The other three are simply conventional medical sources that Richard Anderson cited to support his thesis. If you are suggesting that I am associated with a company that is peddling products, let me clear up this misunderstanding. I am simply a well versed college student that has no association with any company. Concerning your claim that those medical excerpts I posted describe a thin layer of mucus rather than a thick layer of mucus, it appears that you have misread them. Those three medical excerpts I posted never explicitly described a thin layer of mucus. On the contrary, the last medical excerpt clearly describes "copious quantities" of "thick" viscid mucus, which "in turn" forms a gastric barrier. Furthermore mucoid plaque is claimed to swell up in size when exposed to mucoative agents. I would like to point out that my version is not any more biased than the previous version. It is easy to make the case that the previous version is also entirely biased. I offer to work with you or anybody else to create a well written NPOV encyclopedic article. Heelop 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia's verifiability, no original research and reliable sources guidelines state the following:
"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
"attribute the views to their adherents."
"Keep in mind that many articles are about characterizing the various factions in a dispute. This means that you will be looking for reliable published reports of people's opinions. . .that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.
"self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Heelop 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Commendable. Also remember not to remove other editors' comments from the Talk page. [2] Tearlach 10:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The Guyton reference (I'm not sure what the current edition is) clearly relates to the stomach, which is not the colon. The stomach needs armouring against strong hydrochloric acid, the colon needs to be a bit slippery. Seeing a reference to one being used to draw conclusions from the other causes me to note that not knowing colon from stomach is very like a confusion between arse and elbow. Midgley 14:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The same applies to the whole Anderson source [3]. It's akin to my coining a new and unrecognised skin condition, "dermomolecular plaque", and then citing medical references to every flaky or oily skin phenomenon I can find - acne, sunburn, boils, eczema, dandruff, etc - as verfication of its existence. Tearlach 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
His reference to mucoviscidosis - cystic fibrosis - is completely irrelevant, and the meconium ileus that occurs in CF is wholly unlike anything here. THe page conforms to the norms for health fraud, with technical words scattered around in an impressive fashion which doesn't convey meaning. I do not believe this topic belongs in an encyclopaedia except with a prominant label of fraud attached to it. Midgley 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

Is there any reason to regard this as anything other than a health fraud, and assume the anonymous editor with edits only of this topic is a practitioner of it for profit? Midgley 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy

Gray

http://www.bartleby.com/107/pages/page1186.html and http://www.bartleby.com/107/pages/page1187.html describe the mucosa of the colon. The alleged plaque is not present. (It is not a sensible requirement that standard anatomical textbooks list all teh things that are _not_ found, what they list are the things that are found.) There is a cross-sectional diagram at http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject?id=249#p1180 Presumably we have access to a copiable or linkable copy of that old Gray?

Colonoscopy

http://www.webworldinc.com/VisualMarv/Medical/colonoscopy_view1.jpg http://www.webworldinc.com/VisualMarv/Medical/colonoscopy_view2.jpg http://www.webworldinc.com/VisualMarv/Medical/colonoscopy_view3.jpg

http://www.hemorrhoidsinplainenglish.com/hemorrhoid/pictures.htm

There is no requirement in WP policies to present fraud and false claims as though they were anything but fraud and false claims. Midgley 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember, at least one of the editions of Gray's anatomy is in the public domain? enochlau (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

Did Anderson originate it? If so this is mroe relevant than that he is the main promoter of the fraud. Midgley 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did. The very term "mucoid plaque" is his invention. (That itself is a pretty strong clue to the source of the so-called "problem". He has coined a term for something that **HE** created and found.):
"I coined the term mucoid plaque, meaning a film of mucus, to describe the unhealthy accumulation of abnormal mucous matter on the walls of the intestines. Conventional medicine knows this as a layering of mucin or glycoproteins (made up of 20 amino acids and 50% carbohydrates) which are naturally and appropriately secreted by intestines as protection from acids and toxins." from "What is Mucoid Plaque?", by Richard Anderson
We're dealing with an article about original research. The only reason such an article is allowed here at Wikipedia is because it has become notable as a well-known and believed form og quackery. -- Fyslee 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia: No Original Research: “it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages.” Heelop 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possibly useful reference

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=25218&dopt=Abstract It doesn't have anything to do with mucoid ropes, of course, but it is about mucin. Midgley 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


You people have repeatedly and grossly violated Wikipedia's verifiability, and no original research policies. You college educated people are smart enough to know what these rules are and how you have violated them. I do not need to waste my time explaining them to you. I have fully studied each of these policies. You act like you have never read these policies. I have gone completely by the rules. Why can't you do the same? Heelop


Take this for example: "A feeling that something inside must be got rid of is common in depressed people, and techniques for producing the appearance of clearing something from the gut give some satisfaction to this." Do I really need to explain how this violates Wikipedia's verifiability, and no original research policies? No published source. Original idea invented by the editor. The "administrators" will readily agree that this violates policy. So stop calling me a vandal because I choose to delete it. Furthermore, everyone can see how immature and unethical this statement is. I make sure that everything I upload conforms with Wikipedia's verifiability, and no original research policies beforehand. Heelop

Also, please stop deleteing and/or editing over my contributions, which clearly conforms with Wikipedia's verifiability, and no original research policies.Heelop

[edit] AfD?

This is in my opninion absolute quackery. Since other unsupported therapies are discussed in Wikipedia I am not sure if it warrants deletion. I'll think on it, but may decided to AfD this rather ridiculous article.Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to see that the article is not being deleted. The very existence of the concept, regardless of its quackiness, is grounds enough to keep it, since it has a degree of notability. Thus the article can serve a useful purpose - as a debunking source, where the facts can be presented for those searching for information. -- Fyslee 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please don't delete this article. I came across it after several friends and I had seen or heard several infomercials related mucoid plaque and promoting treatement products. This article answered the questions I had about the veracity of the claims in these advertisements. As long as these ads are running, the is a good course for debunking any fraudulent claims. One claim that is featured in several such ads is dubunked at http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/fecalcolon.asp66.64.24.14 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


I have personally done Richard's cleanse and had ropes of plaque come out of me. The article claims it happens because the psyllium and bentonite harden into the shape of the bowel. This is not true as I had plaque come out when I didn't take the clay and psyllium. I also have other friends who had the same. Not to mention the fact that in all cases I know of, including my own, our health dramatically improved after the cleanse. Bernard Jensen's cleanse is really the original cleanse that Richard's was based on. Bernard cured multitutes of people of illness using this cleansing tecnique. His book, like Richard's, also gives numerous pictures of the stuff. And trust me if you persoanlly see the stuff you know it's not clay and psyllium. I find this wikipedia article false and misleading and based on claims by people who have not had any persoanl experience on the issue.
Welcome to the Placebo effect. --mboverload@ 01:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere in placebo effect documentation can I find a case where someone actually synthesized something something physical (like mucoid plaque) to expel from the rectum. Ettu

I have also seen mucoid plaque come out of me without taking any psyllium nor bentonite. I've seen it come out with an apple juice fast and even more when I take the herbs and psyllium. I never use the bentonite though. Furthermore, Richard Anderson cites a credible conventional source describing mucoid plaque coming out without psyllium nor bentonite:

"There is a photograph of mucoid plaque in Color Atlas of the Digestive Tract, plate #439. The authors comments: 'a particularly bizarre stool, from a young woman with irritable bowel syndrome'. (Avona heard about plaque coming out of people long before she knew about a cleanse. These reports came from people who had done 40-day water fasts. Late into their fasts they suddenly expelled long black rubbery ropes (as they described them)."

I tried to edit it to create a NPOV, but they kept editing over it and accusing me of having a financial interest even though I am just a college student. I left it alone because I did not feel like getting into an edit war and I am busy with classes. I figured that any intelligent person can see how bizarrely illogical and illegal their article is anyway:

(a) After Richard Anderson explains that the term mucoid plaque is his convenient catchall phrase for various substances in the body such as gastrointestnal mucin, the skeptic is silly enough to try to counter it by saying that conventional sources do not use the term mucoid plaque. Of course they don't. As Richard Anderson explained, it is a convenient term he uses to describe various substances such as gastrointestinal mucin.

(B) They claim that Richard Anderson used that Guyton source to support his assertion that it exists in the colon. Anybody that reads his research paper can absolutely see that this is not true. He clearly uses it to show that it exists in the stomach and clearly uses other conventional sources to show that it exits in the colon as well.

(c)They grossly, and I mean grossly, violated Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Everyone can clearly see that they made up stories about psyllium and bentonite forming into mucoid plaque, etc.. These stories that they made up from their own creative imaginations are the editor's own synthesis and are thus not allowed by Wikipedia's rules. Furthermore, they contain no references. Even though the one about somatisation contains a reference, it still is the author's own synthesis because the article does not say anything about mucoid plaque and is misinterpreted.

What is so shocking is that these people have apparently been promoted to an administrative position because they are supposedly respected members of the community being medical doctors yet they have absolutely no respect for Wikipedia's rules. Heelop

If you can cite sources, go ahead and edit the article 'WITH the sources included. You seem a little bent on making sure people think you're a college student, it's even the only thing on your user page. Your edits are also only to this talk page. Oh yeah, and It doesn't matter if Bulbasaur came out your butt, we need reliable sources. If it's so untrue stop complaining about it and fix it in a NPOV manner. --mboverload@ 07:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to cite sources? I cited everything in perfect MLA format, but you people tore them down claiming that it was not cited properly. Midgley, for example, took down the in-text citation "(Gray 31)" claiming that it has the appearance of a reference but it really is not. Do I really need to explain to you supposedly college educated people what MLA format is? It is very similiar to Harvard referencing format. The first part, Gray, is the last name of the author. The number part is the page number. You find it by looking for the word Gray in the list of references at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia allows both MLA and Harvard referencing formats, and, in fact, prefers them over sloppy embedded HTML links. If you go through the history, you will see that I cited everything in perfect MLA format, but you people tore them down then criticized me for not cite anything. Unbelievable. You people also repeatedly edited my paragraphs to make them sound different. Heelop

Clearly I shall have to apologise for that - it being something I didn't know... I'm used to using the style of references which uses <ref>reference text</ref> at the point in the article, and then places the <references /> XML tag at the bottom of the page.. It'll work as well with any form of notation of the references, and uses the hypertext nature of the Web and of WP effectively to aid the reader, rather than inviting readers as in a paper book to go and read somewhere else. When pointing people toward WP policies and habits, including a link to the one cited is very helpful ... As I understand it, WP is adopting a citation template, which handles the format of the reference. THis is quite distinct from inline HTML links though. Midgley 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have taken stuff down that has violated Wikipedia's verifiability rule. The Wikipedia: Verifiability page states the following: "Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Heelop --72.227.95.236 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the gripe with describing mucoid plaque as a cast of the colon? If it matches the internal shape of the colon, then a cast is a straightforward factual description of it. Here (image) is the colon as shown by barium enema contrast x-ray. Note especially the shape of the transverse colon. Here (image) is some mucoid plaque. Look familiar? Tearlach 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


The user Midgley, who identifies himself as a medical doctor on his user page, added on May 24, 2006 09:19 a reference to a journal article titled “Frequency of constipation in major depression: relationship to other clinical variables” claiming that it was about somatization when, in fact, it is about psychosomatics. That is, the article is about depression causing very real constipation not about a patient imagining that he or she has constipation. Note that the name of the journal is psychosomatics and the article does not talk about somatization. Any medical doctor that does not know the difference between psychosomatic and somatization and does not bother to read the journal article that he gives reference to frankly should not be writing medical articles and should not have a license to practice. Furthermore, the paragraph that he futilely tried to support with this reference violates Wiki’s no original research policy because it is a new synthesis of published data. WP:NOR clearly states that Wiki articles may not contain “any new analysis or synthesis” of sources, that sources must be “directly related to the topic of the article,” and that you must “adhere to what those sources say.” The journal article has absolutely nothing to do with somatization nor mucoid plaque. Heelop --72.227.90.34 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"soma" the body. "somatization" feeling, generating, or ascribing some bodily symptom which doesn't have a physical basis. "psyche" the mind. Psychosomatics the process by which th mind generates or symptoms identifies to the body. In other words, somatization and psychosomatization and the study of them, psychosomatics, are not obviously different things. The rest of the rant above is similarly wide of any point. As far as I can understand the diatribe, there seems to be a suggestion that my paragraph noting that a feeling of (constipation) is common in depression is cause for striking off since constipation is observed in depression. Such feelings are common in depression, and along with sleep disturbance and psychomotor retardation measurable changes occur in some people. It is entirely possible that other references may be useful to add to it, since the authors of the paper cited have not covered every aspect of everything. A better reference is probably not going to be a research paper, but rather an undergraduate textbook. Midgley 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


“A feeling that something inside must be got rid of” describes a disorder called hypochondria not a disorder called somatization disorder. If you study the Wiki articles, you will see that hypochondria and somatization are distinct subcategories of Somatoform disorders. Hypochondria is characterized by an unfounded “preoccupation with one’s body” whereas somatization disorder is characterized by very real physical signs having a psychiatric origin rather than an organic origin. You, expressing a strong desire in the history that WP be “written in English,” will appreciate me clearing this up for you.

Furthermore, a psychosomatic illness is defined as a very real physical illness having a psychiatric origin. The article contained in the journal called Psychosomatics is clearly about a psychosomatic illness, that is, about very real constipation having a psychiatric origin, not about hypochondria, that is, “feeling” you have something stuck in your body when you really do not.

Thus, the journal article about psychosomatics does not support your paragragh about hypochondria. That is, the journal article about depressed people experiencing very real constipation does not support your paragragh that it is common for depressed people to have an unfounded preoccupation that something inside must be got rid of. Consequently, your paragraph violates WP:NOR which states that you must “cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.” Furthermore, WP:V states that “It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.”

Even if you were to find a reliable source about an unfounded feeling that something inside must be got rid of in depressed people, Wiki would still not allow it because the article must also be about mucoid plaque. WP:NOR states that “Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.” Thus you cannot use an article about cleansing programs and another article about depressed hypochondriacs to produce your new synthesis that people who do cleansing programs are depressed hypochondriacs. The article must actually say that people who do cleansing programs are depressed hypochondriacs.

A common criticism of conventional doctors is that they abuse psychiatric terms in order to not have to admit their failings. Not understanding the definition of the very psychiatric terms that you use will simply add weight to their criticisms. Heelop --72.227.90.34 08:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me it in a textbook or peer reviewed journal that says this thingy exists. Then we can talk. --mboverload@ 09:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
“A feeling that something inside must be got rid of” describes a feeling. Going from that to a diagnosis applied to every patient with that feeling on the basis of not having seen them is unwise, and certainly not something that I've done. Accordingly the rest of the passage above based on an assumption that all such feelings can be dismissed as hypochondriasis is entirely irrelevant. I had it from a lecturer in Psychiatry, a practicing psychiatrist, at the London Hospital medical school some years ago, I agree it needs a reference even though "I feel as though I'm full of shit" is a common experience for those who meet or deal with people who are depressed (and don't worry, I can cure it with this special treatment is a temptingbit of quackery...), so turning to my bookshelf as I undoubtedly should have done to in my copious free time in earlier weeks, I find the Concise Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry refers to this on page 136. That is Gelder, Gath & Mayou, IBN 0 19 262032-0 published 1994. THey phrase it as "complaints about physical symptoms are common in depressive disorders, they take many forms, but complaints about constipation {.....etc} are common."
As noted, this is not an article about depression, so excessive detail should be avoided, however this seems to me relevant.
"Somatisation" is the text. Somatisation disorder may or may not be a good link for it, it would probably be dicdef to have a definition for this common, behaviour. Midgley 10:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


If it is really a “common experience” for depressed people to say “I feel as though I'm full of shit," why is there absolutely no documentation of this anywhere? It is because you made it up. By putting these words in quotes, you are claiming that these are actual words that depressed people “commonly” use to describe how they feel. Yahooing the words “feel,” “full,” “shit,” and “depressed” or “depression” reveals that there is absolutely no mention that depressed people say they feel full of shit. Instead, the Yahoo search engine reveals that depressed people commonly say the following:

“I feel like shit. I look like shit. I act like shit. By god, I am shit. Heh. I'd smile or laugh...but because I feel like shit, etc, I can't. I didn't take my Zoloft today.”
“I feel like shit right now. I am so damn depressed and I dont know why. I feel like my life is going now where”
“I decided what the bipolar world needed was someone who not only understood the disorder, but also knew how to do a seminar. . .I told my shrink about my new workshop idea and he replied, "You should leave that to the professionals," meaning those with a Ph.D. who didn't actually have any first-hand experience. I decided that he was full of shit and set out to put together my own seminar that was going to give people hope.”
“Zyprexa shouldnt cause an elevated pulse, but if your doctor said there are no cardio side effects he is full of shit. As Zyprexa is so connected with diabetes and causing obesity it is unreal.”
“depression can be a horrible illness. A co worker of mine hung himself a few years back. His company went belly up, his wife left him and he owed money to the wrong people. He got hooked on prescription medication and just lost it. I will never put that shit in my body.”
“My experience is all of this is fairly unique. I've taken my meds without fail for 17 years even when they weren't giving me more than half results. Only for four months did I do a med-free experiment and then I was back on three meds that were beating the shit out of my body and mind and not working with a damn. It was only a couple of years later that, out of desperation, I went to my doctor and said I wasn't going to take all my meds anymore, that they were eating me alive and not giving me the kind of results I had a right to expect.”

You told me that you wanted a definition for this common behavior. This behavior that you find so difficult to understand is called figuratively speaking. I’m surprised you are not familiar with it given that it is an extremely common human behavior. Shit is an extremely popular American swear word that is used in very creative ways. Americans are much more creative with this word than the British are with their word “bloody.” When Americans say they “feel like shit” it means they feel bad. It is not meant to be taken literally. Likewise, when an American says a psychiatrist is “full of shit,” he is not suggesting that the psychiatrist is constipated but rather that the psychiatrist is full of stupidity or lies. It is not meant to be taken literally. When an American refers to your medication as “shit,” he does not literally mean that the medication is shit. He simply means that it is as worthless and dangerous as shit. Any doctor that cannot pay attention to what the patient is actually saying and does not understand the normal day-to-day nuances of figurative language should not be handing out psychiatric labels.

In the Wiki article, you are clearly claiming that depressed people typically have unrealistic or undue feelings of contamination or constipation. The only references that you did give to support this are those two sources referring to somatization (psychosomatics). All the medical sources, such as the ones you have given, describe constipation in depression as a psychosomatic (somatization) disorder:

“Individuals who are depressed frequently have such physical complaints as headaches, indigestion, constipation, dizzy spells and general pain. . .they frequently are expressed in somatic (symptoms related to the body) or psychosomatic (interaction between the mind and body) ways.” http://www.seniorcareservices.org/symtoms_of_depression.htm

A psychosomatic or somatization disorder is characterized by very real physical signs being caused from psychiatric turmoil. Thus, those sources you have given about depressed people commonly complaining about very real constipation caused from psychiatric turmoil does not support your claim that depressed people typically have unrealistic or undue feelings of contamination or constipation. Because the paragragh is not properly sourced, it violates WP:NOR and WP:V and according to WP:V it “should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.”

Furthermore, anti-depressive medications that you doctors give out typically cause constipation:

“Drug-induced constipation is a well-known phenomenon accompanying the use of antidepressants” G. Bassotti Motions and emotions: the treatment of depression causes constipation Neurogastroenterol. Mot. (2000) 12, 113-115

Heelop --72.227.90.34 08:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not all people who have been depressed have posted, in American or English, on the Web about it? And perhaps they do not all communicate with their medical attendants by posting undirected comments on tehir blogs. Midgley 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just cut someone open...

Seriously, there shouldn't be a debate about the existance of this... just take someone who has donated their body to science, grab a scapel, and put this debate to rest.

I have read a few Taoist books, written years before anyone was making a profit off the idea, and I believe it. But I could be wrong, I'll withold judgement until we can slice up an old dead guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.227.111 (talk • contribs).

1510 for instance
1510 for instance

There isn't really a debate, there are some people making claims that a condition exists which they can treat, and many many old dead people have already been cut up[4], as well as many people having their guts looked into in life (proctoscopy;sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, MRI) which is why pathologists and gastroenterologists know that it is not a genuine condition. They spend a lot of time describing things that are seen, and condition s that do exist, it is neither credible that they would not describe this if it occurred, nor reasonable to expect us to describe all the things that don't exist and say they don't exist. Health frauds are tedious, but this one is more tedious than some. Midgley 11:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The following is a detailed explaination for my 15:25, 1 October 2006 revert documented in the history. The edit summary did not offer enough space for my explaination, so I am explaining it here in the talk page. Midgley removed all of my edits even though my edits did not violate any of Wikipedia’s policies. For example, in order to comply with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, I created a proponent section as well as an opponent section so that both sides of the issue may be presented. Please note that in doing this I have, in good faith, preserved all of the opponent arguments. That is, I did not delete nor edit anybody else’s contributions. Heelop 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The following is a response to Midgley’s 11:58, 1 October 2006 edit to this talk page. The fact that those particular pathologists, etc. claim that they do not see a thick plaque of mucus that causes digestion and absorption problems just demonstrates how incompetent they are. As I already noted in the article, many other conventional pathologists claim that they see it. For example, that conventional medical journal I cited in the article says the following: “the mucosal surface is covered with a rather thick layer of mucus. . .with increasing age, the mucus layer becomes more pronounced and widespread. . .The increased production of intestinal mucus and its layering over the mucosal surface results in the formation of a physical barrier which should impair digestion and absorption of macro- and micronutrients, as well as of medications.” Furthermore, on page 155 of the conventional medical textbook titled Color Atlas of the Digestive System there is, in fact, a picture of a long, black, ropy piece of bizarre stool that came out of a young women with irritable bowel syndrome without taking any psyllium, herbs, nor bentonite. It looks exactly like those pictures of mucoid plaque. Heelop 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The following is a detailed explaination for my 17:59, 1 October 2006 revert documented in the history. The edit summary did not offer enough space for my explaination, so I am explaining it here in the talk page. The editor with computer ID number 213.120.158.228 supported his removal of my NPOV edit with Wikipedia’s undue weight clause [5], claiming that minority views should not be represented. However, Wiki’s undue weight clause [6] clearly says that “views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” The whole article is about mucoid plaque, which is a minority, alternative medicine concept. The article is clearly devoted to the minority views of Richard Anderson and other alternative medicine practitioners and supposedly how opponents dispute those views. How can you dispute their minority views if you do not know what they are? One of you opponent editors clearly said that mucoid plaque is “a non-medical concept invented by naturopath Richard Anderson”, who is in the minority. Accordingly, the prepositional phrase “except in articles devoted to those views” applies in this case, and thus the views of the mucoid plaque proponents is not undue weight. Heelop 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Was any of the above intended to ba reply to something in particular? It seems entirely disconnected. (And also wikilawyering). Midgley 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Calling a normal and encouraged Wikipedia chore a derogatory name such as "wikilawyering" is silly and abusive. I mean it is really silly. Wikipedia policy highly recommends editors defend their edits with detailed explainations from others that want to remove them. This is what the talk page is for. Heelop 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering see also RFC and RFArb. Midgley 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
silly and abusive
Like hysterial edit summaries calling edits you dislike "vandalism, profoundly extreme irrational behavior, and refusing civilized discourse". Heelop, you are clearly a vendor of this scam. It bears no relation to medical reality. There are no reliable sources, only sites by scammers selling its existence. I agree it's time for an RFC. 81.153.214.131 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Like hysterical edit summaries such as “scam apologist”. This is what WP:PA says about this behavior: “Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.” Pointing out that it is highly regarded as childish and irrational behavior to fill edit summaries with hysterical personal attacks rather than logic explainations is not in itself an hysterical personal attack. This truly demonstrates some sort of disturbed logic. Was this response actually meant to prove that you are not, in fact, irrational? Furthermore, you and Midgley have been engaging in Wikilawyering by hiding behind misinterpretations of Wiki’s NPOV policy to justify writing extremely biased articles. In this talk page Midgley says “There is no requirement in WP policies to present fraud and false claims as though they were anything but fraud and false claims.” Yes there is! WP:NPOVFAQ clearly says “How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention? If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. . .A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.” He is talking about you! The reason you resort to hysterical name-calling is because you are not able to “clearly, fully, and fairly” counter the scientific evidence supporting the mucoid plaque theory. The pattern of your behavior shows a flamboyant contempt for the spirit of Wiki’s policies and you should therefore be banned from editing. Heelop 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pull the other one. Your edits unfortunately fit a different classic pattern: the single-topic scam-product apologist whose absence of interest in anything else on Wikipedia gives away a personal involvement in the topic concerned. RFC time, Midgley? 213.120.158.228 02:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I have already explained that I am simply a college student and have no financial interest in this subject. My health has been greatly improved by removing this mucoid plaque from my body. Your edits, unfortunately, fit a classic pattern: paranoid personality disorder. These individuals typically suspect, without sufficient basis, that others are deceiving them, become preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the trustworthiness of people, are often involved in excessive litigation, and are quick to react angrily or to counterattack. This is considered a disorder because individuals afflicted have difficulty following the norms of society. Indeed, you have repeatedly resorted to name-calling counterattacking, character assassination, and have demonstrated flamboyant contempt for the spirit of Wiki’s NPOV Policy. As yet another reminder, WP:PA says that “using someone’s affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views – regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme” is an example of a personal attack and that “users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks.Heelop 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
1. A process note. It is generally useful to folow the standard of using colons to indent replies. I've added some above. Don't worry, they are clean punctuations. 2) I'll accept there is an appearance of youth here. I've met more civil ones. 3) above here is an explicit statement of original research (WP:OR) represented by one contributor's entries. Midgley 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque is totally verifiable. I see lots of words attesting to the "fact" that it doesn't exist, but no actual research. So try this - no you don't need the products - just drink juice for a few days and see that you will still be producing much more fecal matter than you should be given your intake. Go for longer and you will undoubtedly know there are things up there that have been rotting for a long time. Until then, I suggest you discontinue your propagada campaign.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.244.4.109 (talk • contribs).

Research findings indicating something as bizarre as this exists, not research findings indicating that each individual thing thaty does not exist does not exist might reasonably be asked for. The unsigned remark above by 71.244.4.109 gets a simple explanation, that is just shit, nothing special. The suggestion that what comes out of everyone is "much more than ... should be" has more to do with the unhealthy fantasy that fuels this scam than logic - most people would say that if you want to know how much should be expected to come out of people's bottoms you should take a set of them, and observe it. Oddly enough this has been done by many people and the results are used from latrine diggers to designers of submarines and spacecraft. Midgley 18:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion that what comes out of everyone is "much more than ... should be" - What? You're not making sense. You seem to be overlaying what I wrote with what you can respond to. Ettu 18:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You probably need to be able to make sense of this before seeking to advise the population of the world on medical matters, particularly if the view you are proposing is that all the doctors know nothing about, or are completely wrong on a claimed pathological process and the normal functioning of the gut. Thank you for confirming your identity with the IP address noted above, please ensure you understnad the 3 revert rule in WP.Midgley 18:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not seeking to advise the population of the world on medical matters. I am trying to make this article less biased. It is the antithesis of what an encyclopedic article should be - it is sensational and poorly written. It backs up only one viewpoint and completely disregards the experiences Naturopathic, holistic, chiropractic, and yes, even some of your allopathic medical professionals, have had. Not to mention the evidence of the people who have cleansed for several millenia. I think all viewpoints should be presented and this article more of a knowledgebase, than a slam page. A skeptic is just another form of zealot, neither will listen to reasonable arguments and are only interested in sensationalism. Until such time as you can refrain from editing or reverting with biased language and factoids, I will continue to do the best I can to correct the situation. What is the three revert rule?Ettu22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Several points: You have already broken the three revert rule and can be blocked from editing all articles at Wikipedia at any time without warning. We are being very patient with you. Familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia works before any further editing. Here is the rule: WP:3RR. Your edits under all your user names or IDs count as being from you, and your privileges here are in jeopardy. Your continued accusations of bias work both ways. Your views are just as biased, and you have a vested financial interest in this matter, unlike us medical people. All viewpoints are mentioned, but deception and misunderstanding must not be presented as fact. Unless you can provide scientific evidence from peer reviewed journals to back up its existence in normal people, then the beliefs of believers can only be presented as just that, not as fact. BTW, this article is not about bowel cleansing, but about mucoid plaque. It exists primarily as the product of its inventor, Richard Anderson, and the sellers of similar products. -- Fyslee 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"You have already broken the three revert rule and can be blocked from editing all articles at Wikipedia at any time without warning. We are being very patient with you...and your privileges here are in jeopardy" - oh noes. Haha, thank you oh so much for your generosity. "Your views are just as biased" - Hmmm, if you actually read my edits you will notice that I really only added one paragraph and the rest was just deletion or rewording of biased language, as I am not yet ready to write a full article. "you have a vested financial interest in this matter, unlike us medical people" - Excuse me? Could you enlighten me on my alleged "financial interest" please? As far as you "medical people" go - you stand to lose a lot of money if people start curing themselves, don't you? No more drugs, no more ridiculously high cost visits to the clinic or the hospital. Imagine, if people are learning how to live healthily, where does that put your industry? And mine for that matter (being a massage therapist), the difference is that I work hoping to put myself out of business. I've seen your kind before, I've actually had interactions with people paid by various interest groups to propagate slander and block from public awareness things that could help them. So tell me, who is paying your bills? Ettu23:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A data point for consideration: one strong reason for this being called a scam is that psyllium is perfectly well-known in mainstream medical circles - products such as Metamucil - where it's known for what it is, a form of soluble fibre that acts as a gel-forming bulking laxative. If you want people to live healthily, tell them to get exercise and eat fruit and veg (an idea strongly promoted by the medical profession). It's the scam merchants who insist we need all kinds of supplements and special cleansing routines. 82.25.228.195 11:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct about psyllium. Just like all dietary fibers, is passes through the digestive system and binds fecal matter to it, helping it on through. But psyllium and the bentonite clay are not necessary when cleansing, as stated by Dr. Anderson on his website. They only make the experience more comfortable. The herbal combinations are what do the work. Herbal combinations that he lists out on the website. Eating fruit and vegetables and excercising is some of the best health advice you can give a person. However, this in no way ensures abundant health. That would be like running bad gas through your car for years, then switching to good stuff, thinking all the clogs and debris will magically disappear. Yes there are some sensationalist scammers out there, and I believe their existence should be duly noted. But to disregard this whole field as "quackery" is doing a great diservice to the research that has been conducted. Can you really still believe that the legit cleansing programs out there are scams when they reveal exactly what goes into their products and what effects they have? All you need do is go buy the ingredients yourself and follow the recommended diet to know. There are no proprietary formulations (as in the drug industry), and no secret ingredients. Should you still doubt the existence of plaque in the intestines, look no further than the teeth ang tongue of most people - why would it be there and not further down the line? You could also look to studies done on fasting to see what gets expelled when the body has a chance to clean house. Ettu21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborative editing

Ettu, Wikipedia works by presenting all sides of the issues, using good sources. That requires collaboration between editors who approach the subject from different POV. Making large edits and reverts is counterproductive to collaborative efforts. Please start making smaller edits and discussing them here first. -- Fyslee 12:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See, the thing is, I have done that, as have other editors. Editors like you and Midgley however, seem to be on a mission to denounce whatever you deem to be "quackery". So any edits made, no matter how small and documented, are quickly removed, and opinions of single persons (Ed thuman for example) are presented as concrete fact. Who is Ed Thuman? How do we know we can trust him and not Richard Anderson? Your duty to WP is to present articles with a NPOV. Words like "alleged" and "claims" are not neutral when presented in this context. You are assuming the non-existence of the very topic we are presenting. Ettu 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Now we're at least talking. Reverting is not collaboration. You want to edit this article? Fine. What particular parts are in question? Bring it here and we'll discuss it. If you can source your quotes well, then they have a chance of sticking. All POV should be presented, but the majority scientific viewpoint is based on documentation, not anecdotes from users. Anderson is just a naturopath, not a real doctor, much less a gastroenterologist. Let's talk about it and take it a little bit at a time. -- Fyslee 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing the reference and associated quote of Edward Thuman, MD, as no entry can be found anywhere on the UT System ( http://www.utsystem.edu/ ) website nor its affiliated medical school sites and directories of his name, published research, etc. No reference was found in a search of the internet except in regards to the quackwatch article. This therefore constitutes original research as it has not been published by a reliable source, and is simply the opinion of one person that we get secondhand from a website with an admittedly biased standpoint. Ettu 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn more about WP:RS. The Thuman reference qualifies. WP:NOR refers to OR by editors, not by outside sources. As far as the removal of the external link, that is downright suppression of opposing POV, which is definitely forbidden here. It's an article on a reliable website placed in the external links. Read about WP:EL. -- Fyslee 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right about the external link. As for WP:RS the page states:
"Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public. Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites associated with reliable publishers."
Along with listing what makes a source credible. The maintainer of quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, MD, is a retired psychiatrist. He appears to have no direct experience with bowel pathologies, as the only entry posted on his site in regards to bowel cleansing is a short Q&A with the unknown Edward Thuman. In his answer, Dr. Thuman states:
"I have seen several thousand intestinal biopsies and have never seen any "mucoid plaque."
Not original research?:
"The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."
"Reliability is a spectrum" and is subjective, but Thuman did not state this in a reliable published source. We find no record of Thuman at all except in this website. This qualifies as original research as the editor has not come up with verifiable proof of this person or his authority. This reference has been up a long time, and editors have had a chance to supply additional information. Therefore I will remove it and hope to not see it again until it appears as a reliable source. Ettu 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:OR only refers to editors here, not outside sources like Thuman. He's an expert on the subject. -- Fyslee 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct in that it refers to editors. This is original research of an editor because:
Thuman has not published a paper for review by his peers stating this. We don't even know if he exists, because all we have is the word of whoever relayed the Q&A to us on QW. The internet is a place where we tend to take a lot of things at face value, in spite of the ease of their manufacture. This, however, pushes the limit. Perhaps he is an expert, but we need proof he exists, we need proof of studies he has done. Without these things, WP:OR says:
"The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."
Where is the reliable published source? Produce this and send the Thuman quote back up. Until then, it is clearly not admissible. Ettu 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've only been watching this topic, so this is my first post. =) But I am curious as to where you find that Dr. Thuman is an expert on the subject - I've only been able to find scant mention of him, and certainly nothing reliable. It'd be great to have his professional links to back up and support his claims. Thanks! Kaffine23 15:23, 27 November 2006 (CST)

[edit] Disputed banner

I think we should remove the "disputed" banner from the top of the page. What factual accuracies are under dispute? There seem to be none on the detractors side (whose language and opinions dominate the text), and I for one would rather see it gone and all disputes settled here.

I also think we should remove the article from the "accuracy dispute" category for the same reason. I am removing it from the "fraud" category as there exists no proof of this, only opinion. I am removing it from the "quackery" category as this article does not qualify per the precedent set for quackery as determined in the QW discussion page. Ettu 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The banner creates the category. Removing the banner removes the category. As long as this discussion is going on, there is an accuracy dispute, therefore it should stay. Its function is to alert other editors and admins that this is an article to watch and it also attracts help from other interested editors. -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Ettu 22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as the fraud and quackery categories, it might not qualify for the fraud category, simply because Anderson has disappeared and isn't answering questions, so it's hard to prove hs intent. He's just counting his millions in private.
The quackery category definitely applies since this subject is all about making exaggerated claims for a dubious phenomenon. -- Fyslee 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "dubious phenomenon"? And "exaggerated claims" are simply your opinion. Can you cite sources proving your claims? Until you can, your opinion is not relevant to WP. Ettu 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The intro states:

"...only found as a unique form of feces produced primarily by consumers of bowel-cleansing products based on psyllium seed husks (a gelling agent) and bentonite clay..."

This simply contains misinformation. It is common knowledge that the psyllium husks and bentonite only aid in the removal of fecal matter, and are not necessary, supporters having found the same mucoid plaque being expelled without the use of these ingredients. I will leave this statement intact for now only because I would like some collaborative discussion on how to reword it. Ettu 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What wording would you propose? -- Fyslee 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mispelling of Uthman's name

The confusion is caused by Dr. Uthman's name being mispelled at Quackwatch, where it is spelled in two different manners:

Documentation for mispelling at Quackwatch:

"Mucoid Plaque" Edward Thuman, M.D. (wrong spelling)


Correct spelling:

Edward Uthman, MD Adjunct Assistant Professor of Pathology University of Texas School of Medicine Houston, Texas


Right spelling:


Alternate spellings:

  • Edward O. Uthman
  • Edward Uthman, MD
  • Ed Uthman, MD
  • Ed Uthman
  • Ed O. Uthman MD

Diplomat American Board of Pathology

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=2381281

Books:

From the author:

Since the publication of Understanding Anemia, my e-mail address and Web site URL have changed. As of 24 Nov 2005, the current addresses are:

  • uthman@airmail.net

Hope you enjoy the book, but either way, let me hear from you! Ed Uthman, MD, Houston, Texas, USA


His research can be found here:

While you're at it search PubMed for mucoid plaque. There is nothing for this concept.

I doubt that he's written about mucoid plaque anywhere else than Quackwatch, since scientists aren't in the habit of doing research on pseudoscientific or dubious subjects (except for homeopaths!). That explains the paucity of information from medical and scientific sources. If it were a commonly observed phenomena, then they'd throw themselves all over it in an effort to understand and research it. Since it's only an anomalous phenomena easily explained by it's being caused by bowel cleansing, and is not found in normal people, then it has no interest for them. -- Fyslee 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor in sick people, either. Midgley 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course. It's only found in people who do bowel cleanses, and it certainly isn't found in most people, as the sellers of these products claim. The "cure" creates the "problem", and then the cure is used to treat the problem, ad infinitum. It's quite the scam, since there never is an end to it. -- Fyslee 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Misrepresentations of Proponent View

The following statement: “As an example, he points to a reference to the gastric mucosa in the 7th edition of Textbook of Medical Physiology by A.C. Guyton, suggesting that this applies to the colon as well” was removed because it is not true that he is “suggesting” that this reference applies to the colon. In his research paper he clearly is using this reference only for the stomach. Throughout his paper, he gives references for the colon and the rest of the intestines as well thus supporting his claim that it can be found in both the stomach and intestines. Note that in his book, Richard Anderson claims that mucoid plaque can be removed from the stomach and that the majority of what people see come out(the long ropes) comes from the small intestines. Heelop 05:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The following statement: “but the suggestion that thickening the lining of the colon would inhibit digestion is unsupported by medical evidence. The experience of those whose colon does not absorb (eg those with ulcerative colitis) is of drastic diarrhoea as the volume passing through is not diminished sufficiently” was removed because no one is “suggesting” that mucoid plaque in the colon inhibits digestion or absorption. Richard Anderson is suggesting that mucoid plaque in the stomach and small intestines inhibits digestion or absorption. Heelop 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Heelop: note that edit summaries exist to explain what change you made, not as a vehicle for adding polemic to the edit history (such as [7]). 86.139.230.25 02:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

86.139.230.25: note that edit summaries also exist to give a logical and wiki-legal reason for the edit. Such was not donehere.Heelop 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiably Untrue Statements

Statements claiming that stool that resembles mucoid plaque is only found in people taking bowel-cleansing products and that there is no mention in the medical literature of a thick coating of mucus-like material lining the alimentary canal have been removed because these are verifiably untrue. In a conventional textbook of pathology titled “Color Atlas of the Digestive System” dated 1989 by Pounder, Allison, and Dhillon on page 155, there is a full color photograph of a long, blackish-brown, rope-like rubbery looking stool that takes on the shape of the intestines. The author comments: “A particularly bizarre stool, from a young woman with the irritable bowel syndrome.” This photograph looks exactly, and I mean exactly, like those photos of mucoid plaque removed from cleansers. I can’t overemphasize how exact it looks. By the way, this young woman was not involved in any type of bowel cleansing practices. I have a copy of this textbook in my possession. You can find this textbook in conventional medical libraries throughout the United States. Go to http://www.worldcat.org/ to find the library nearest you. Also, the claim that there is no mention in the medical literature of a thick coating of mucus-like material covering the alimentary canal is not true as proven by the following passage from a conventional medical journal:

“The ‘mucosal barrier’: excess mucus covering the mucosal surface. Situations such as the one mentioned above are encountered quite often and, because of the lack of appreciation of surface details with the light microscope, are ascribed to so-called patchy lesions. . .Indeed, in such instances, the mucosal surface is covered with a rather thick layer of mucus. . .This layer of mucus, when adhering closely to the mucosal surface, probably functions as a barrier to membrane digestion and most likely also to absorption. This mucosal barrier has been observed in chronic nonspecific diarrhea, in giardiasis, in food intolerance, and particularly in cystic fibrosis where, with increasing age, the mucus layer becomes more pronounced and widespread. . .The increased production of intestinal mucus and its layering over the mucosal surface results in the formation of a physical barrier which should impair digestion and absorption of macro- and micronutrients, as well as of medications.” --- Poley, J. Rainer. “The Scanning Electron Microscope: How Valuable In The Evaluation of Small Bowel Mucosal Pathology In Chronic Childhood Diarrhea?” Scanning Microscopy Vol. 5 No. 4 1991 page 1040.[8] Heelop 03:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The gelling properties of psyllium

Why are you afraid of the gelling properties of psyllium being mentioned? Bothered people might get wise to the scam? 86.139.230.25 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Doctors that prescribe metamucil to their patients are not afraid of the gelling properties of psyllium so why should I? Psyllium has been studied just like any other "drug" and the PDR reports that it produces bulky, well lubricated stools and does not describe mucoid plaque--even in toxicity studies. Anybody with a biology background knows that in vitro experiments often produces different results than in vivo experiments. Every doctor knows that their metamucil that they prescribe does not come out like mucoid plaque but rather produces bulky, well lubricated stools. This is an extremely silly claim. We should put warning messages on bottles of metamucil: "may cause long, black, ropes of hardened plaque to come out." Heelop 04:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Concerning Paul Lee’s Blog Site

The blog site titled Mucoid Plaque – a dubious idea [9]created by Paul Lee (a.k.a. Fyslee) has been removed because it violates the following guidelines found on WP:EL concerning external links normally to be avoided:

“Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority”
“Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research”

The following are the violations of these guidelines:

It is a blog site and Paul Lee is not a recognized authority.
The blog site suggests that stool that resembles mucoid plaque is only found in users of bowel cleansing products. This is verifiably inaccurate. For the explanation, go to the heading in this talk page called “Verifiably Untrue Statements.”
The blog site claims that modern medicine and science know nothing of this “problem,” the “problem” being an “unhealthy accumulation of abnormal mucous matter on the walls of the intestines” or “a layering of mucin.” This is verifiably inaccurate because Richard Anderson’s research paper [10] lists a number of conventional sources describing a layering of mucin. What makes this particularly bizarre is that the blog indicates that Paul Lee actually read this research paper!! The conventional sources describing a layering of mucin is right in the research paper that Paul Lee read and criticized for not having any!! This makes the article look very dumb!! Furthermore, go to the heading in this talk page called “Verifiably Untrue Statements” to read an excerpt from a conventional medical journal describing an abnormal mucous matter on the walls of the intestines.
The blog site claims that mucoid plaque is actually psyllium and bentonite which make a soft, rubbery, cast of the intestines. This is unverified original research. Even worse, this blog site has been used to mislead readers into believing that “the mucoid plaque people have passed have been analyzed” and determined to be nothing more than the psyllium and bentonite that cleansers ate. [11]This, of course, is absolutely not true. Even more, Paul Lee is actually caught bragging about misleading this reader: “Read and weep!” he says. [12]
The blog site claims that psyllium produces lots of mucus-like material. This is verifiably inaccurate. Psyllium has been throughly tested just like any other “drug” and the Physicians Desk Reference under the brand name Metamucil does not report such a thing.
The blog site claims that Richard Anderson says that mucoid plaque is the disease cystic fibrosis. This is inaccurate. If you carefully read it you will clearly see that Richard Anderson says that the medical definition of mucoviscidosis describes an advanced condition that is an example of mucoid plaque. That is, mucoviscidosis is not defined as mucoid plaque but rather the definition of mucoviscidosis describes a mucoid plaque build-up by which it got its name. Go to the heading in this talk page called “Verifiably Untrue Statements” to see that it is indeed true that an unhealthy accumulation of abnormal mucous matter builds up on the intestinal walls of cystic fibrosis patients.

In short, this blog site needs to retire – YESTERDAY!! Heelop 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious warning though...

I looked through the AfD, and quackwatch was cited for establishing notability of this article, yet this source is no longer cited in the article. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways, you can't use a critical source to establish notability and then not include that source in the article. Please remedy this situation, or I will file an AfD to enforce all sources that establish notability to be included in the article. I have otherwise found no news coverage of this issue and google scholar yields some dubious results....

  • [13] -- uses the term in a dental context
  • [14] -- is a semantical study of how the language of customer correspond to medial language, and it only mentions "mucoid plaque" as an example of a "nonsense concept".

Anyway, the point is this: the sources used to establish notability must be used in the article. If they are not reliable enough to cite in the article, they are not admissible to establish notability either. --Merzul 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical journal

Please provide the article in any medical journal to prove that doctors use the term. And no, Scanning Microscopy is NOT a medical journal. Examples of relevant journals are given in the criticism. Try finding any article in NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, Gastrology: those and not others like Law review, paleontology, Mathematics, Biology. Those clearly are NOT medical journals, certainly not leading and notable medical journals. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 04:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Have looked at the abstract from Scanning Microscopy, as a physician I have only access to medical journals an not to this non-medical journal, and it does not mention the term! Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You, as a college educated physician, never heard of interlibrary loan? What's the matter? Do they restrict you to only certain journals that they want you to see? How pathetic! Scanning Microscopy is a very scientific and very conventional medical journal found in the very conventional and very reputable Medline database. Concerning your weird argument in the edit summary that microscopy is not a medical journal because it does not have the word medicine in it, it would be interesting to see how you explain journals such as Lancet that don't have the word medicine in the title. Thank you for identifying yourself as a medical doctor. You further illustrate my point that medical doctors, for the most part, are incompetent.Heelop 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The journal you advocate is not commonly used as reference within the medical community. Further, the article does not even use the term mucoid plague, so it surely is not evidence of its use. Evenso, one article in a uncommonly used journal does not establish the fact that this concept is known or even accepted within the medical community! Untill you prove otherwise the paragraph you object to is exactly how the medical community sees this. Case in point, the Lncet published an article about homeopathy. That fact alone does not prove that doctors now all think homeopathy is sciense and a real accepted form of medicine. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You, sir, are proving yourself to be manipulative. First of all, you have previously said that it needs to be published in a journal such as Lancet in order for it to be relevant; but now, you reveal that even if this happens, it is still not necessarily relevant, citing homeopathy as an example. Ironically, I do not believe in homeopathy; I am just pointing out that you are contradicting yourself. If articles in journals such as Lancet are not, as you have suggested, necessarily anymore relevant than articles in journals such as Reader's Digest, why do you insist on limiting yourself to just these types of journals when there are other more scientific journals? Second, your repeated rants that this is not accepted by conventional medical doctors is redundant and weird because this is an alternative medicine concept not a conventional medicine concept: alternative medicine means medicine not practiced by conventional medical doctors. Duh! The thesis is that there is independent reputable conventional scientific medical evidence that this described concept exists despite it not being "accepted" by medical doctors. Your labyrinth of logical fallacies does not fool me.Heelop 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Please do not misrepresent my words:

  1. The article is not from a journal that vis used by doctors to find diseases and therapy.
  2. The article does not mention mucoid plague, so to claim that it describes that concept is OR.
  3. Even if ONE obscure article mentions that term it does not represent consensus among gastroenterologists!
  4. Please stop making misleading edits and revert yourself.

I am trying to AGF, but you clearly refuse to accept that you have not provided ONE source proving the concept is used by medical doctors. I will not editwar so ask someone else to undo your tendentious edit. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nescio, how can you doubt this? Mucoid plaque is very similar to the well-known dermoid plaque that covers all normal persons' skins to a depth of an inch or more. It can only be removed by my special Dermoklenz mixture of mud and green Jello; if you smear this over yourself and let it set, it combines with the dermoid plaque, which can be peeled off as a green muddy gel. It looks just like normal skin, only doctors are too dull and badly-trained to recognise it, or else use other names for it. The many references in health and beauty publications - terms such as sweat, sebum, dandruff, greasy skin, dry skin, suntan, sunburn, zits, freckles, warts, calluses, dirt, etc. - are proof of its existence. 81.155.125.234 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nicely done, sir (ma'am?) MastCell 20:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So it should be trivially easy to cite chapter and verse from a reliable medical source. For some unaccountable reason it doesn't appear to be i my copy of Black's. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

Heelop please provide an article discussing this concept AND using the term mucoid plaque. Claiming that an article discussing several diseases and the use of special diagnostic techniques proves this concept exists is obviuosly not a correct assertion. Untill such time leave the article as it correctly depicts the current status of this subject: unsupported rethoric.

As an aside, the difference between conventional and alternative medicine is that alternative medicine is unable to support their claims supposed conditions and remedies with objective and verifiable evidence. This is therefore impossible to distinguish from plain fraud. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Concept:

Thick coating of mucus-like material that builds up on the intestinal walls as the body attempts to protect itself from various toxic substances and reducing the absorption of nutrients. It is sometimes referred to as "mucin".

Objective and Verifiable Evidence:

“The ‘mucosal barrier’: excess mucus covering the mucosal surface. Situations such as the one mentioned above are encountered quite often and, because of the lack of appreciation of surface details with the light microscope, are ascribed to so-called patchy lesions. . .Indeed, in such instances, the mucosal surface is covered with a rather thick layer of mucus. . .This layer of mucus, when adhering closely to the mucosal surface, probably functions as a barrier to membrane digestion and most likely also to absorption. This mucosal barrier has been observed in chronic nonspecific diarrhea, in giardiasis, in food intolerance, and particularly in cystic fibrosis where, with increasing age, the mucus layer becomes more pronounced and widespread. . .The increased production of intestinal mucus and its layering over the mucosal surface results in the formation of a physical barrier which should impair digestion and absorption of macro- and micronutrients, as well as of medications.” --- Poley, J. Rainer. “The Scanning Electron Microscope: How Valuable In The Evaluation of Small Bowel Mucosal Pathology In Chronic Childhood Diarrhea?” Scanning Microscopy Vol. 5 No. 4 1991 page 1040.

“Intestinal mucins are complex glycoproteins which are secreted from goblet cells, and form a gel-like covering over the mucosal surface. . .Implications for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, peptic ulcer, malignancy and inflammatory bowel disease are briefly discussed. . .The present review will be concerned with the major organic component(s) of mucus, namely the large glycoprotein mucins of the intestine. . .Following its release from goblet cells, mucin normally forms a continuous blanket over and between the villi. The blanket is composed of a randomstructured fibrillar network arranged in layers. In vivo it forms a loose gel, with the complexity and thickness of the meshwork increasing as the volume of secreted mucin increases. . .in vivo, a situation of lowered intestinal pH and/or increased luminal serum proteins might cause normal mucins to undergo a pathological transformation into either a viscous gel or an insoluble precipitate. . .These findings suggest that mucin secretion may be a physiologic mechanism by which harmful toxins or immune complexes are cleared from the intestinal surface." --- Forstner, JF. “Intestinal mucins in health and disease.” Digestion 1978 17(3) 234-63.

I can't dumb it down anymore for you. Heelop 06:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does either article mention "mucoid plaque." To claim that any article discussing mucus is about mucoid plaque is ipso facto OR. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy tag

Any objections to removing the "factual accuracy" tag? Everything should be pretty well sourced at this point. MastCell 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Make it so. Raymond Arritt 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. MastCell 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As a person with Crohn's disease would someone explain this subject?

I have Crohn's like I say in the title. I have passed what is shown in pictures via Google both through the bowel and vommit. What is this article supposed to mean, that everyone has this problem? Does it mean that taking the herb suggested will stop the passing of this goop? I pass this stuff when I have a partial blockage do to a stricture. I am just trying to understand. Thanks, --Crohnie 12:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have Crohn's
Sorry to hear that, and welcome to Wikipedia. What the article's saying is that many vendors falsely claim that just about everyone has this problem, and that in healthy people the goop is made of the very stuff they sell claiming to cure it. No-one can offer you guidance on your condition: Wikipedia isn't a discussion group. Tearlach 11:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on the article because it didn't make sense to me at all. I agree that what the vendors are selling might cause this in a healthy person. As for guidance of my condition, I am not asking for any. I totally understand my condition and what it involves. I was just using it as an example about the links I went to and the pictures I saw, which I have seen myself during partial blockages. I don't expect to have my crohn's explained, thanks for clarifying the article for me. I hope to see you around, thanks for the welcome too.--Crohnie 11:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/c/Talk%7EMucoid_plaque_f609.html"