User talk:Bcameron54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of prostate cancer

I'm responding to your message on my talkpage. Firstly, I find your style unpleasant and extremely patronising. I presume you are referring to my informed removal of the phrase "The actual cause, or etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, as for most cancers" [1]. My objections were actually for more reasons than just the ones I mentioned in the edit summary.

Firstly, it is a stylistic issue: it reflects an unwarranted ignorance. "Oh, boys, we don't know what causes cancer." That is a statement that is fully without merits.

Secondly - we actually know a lot about chromosomal damage, oncogenes, tumour-suppresion genes, gene silencing, cancer immunology. But do we know more about heart attacks? Just about as much. It's caused by plaque rupture and coronary thrombosis, leading to myocardial ischaemia. But what causes plaque rupture? Why does a plaque become unstable? Why are the plaques there in first place - what initiates atherosclerosis?

Instead of de facto forcing me to place back that mindless sentence please engage in a discussion that assumes good faith and remains civil. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not offended by your directness. So, tell us about the actual cause, not about the pathogenesis of prostate cancer. Or, is it not known? How would you phrase it? It is worth stating the unknowns precisely and directly, so as not to mislead the reader or ourselves into thinking we know something that we don't, and to direct our thoughts towards important unknowns. Best regards, Bcameron54 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Does every condition have an "actual direct cause"? There are numerous conditions where I am confident that we will never find a single etiologic agent. These are simply multifactorial, and only a "final common pathway" explains the illness. In cancer, external and internal risk factors predispose to DNA damage, leading to a mitotic intracellular proteome and lack of normal inhibition. To attempt to capture this well-known paradigm as "etiology unknown" is a misrepresentation, at least in my view. Obviously there are important unknowns, but one should first outline the prevailing theory before pointing out the lacunae in that theory. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I do not share your confidence. Why should mice get a specific cancer clearly due to a specific etiology, but in the analogous human disease no specific etiology will ever be found because the disease has complex genetic pathogenesis and is "simply multifactorial". To say the etiology is unknown is not to insist on a single cause. Peptic ulcer disease (etiology: H. pylori; cofactor: acid - which used to be the cause, remember?; promotors: stress, steroids, NSAIDs), Kaposi's sarcoma (etiology: HHV-8, or KSHV; co-factor: immune deficiency of age or HIV), cancer of cervix (etiology: HPV; promotors: tobacco, other STI's), oropharyngeal and anal cancer (probable etiology: HPV, co-factors or promotors:EtOH and tobacco) and a string of others are past examples of what serendipitous or actively pursued research can produce in the way of etiology where complex pathogenesis had to suffice before. If we disbelieve the existence of etiologies of common diseases of complex and unknown origin, we will unlikely look for them. To deny these unknowns in favour of accepted but inadequate theories based only on existing knowledge is arbitrary, misleading and no more valid than confessing 'unknown'. In articles on breast or prostate cancer, or atherosclerosis for that matter, it would be useful to state the prevailing theories of pathogenesis to which you have alluded, and then include the point about unknown etiology, with its place in conceptual models of pathogenesis. Pathogenesis which you describe is not etiology, but may be included in a 'chain of causation' beginning with etiology and ending with disease, including 'multiple hits' theories. It would be very easy to reference the unknown status of etiology, with concrete historical examples of discoveries, and a point to a good literature on causation in disease as well. Or, until someone makes a stub for a new article, we could settle for 'unknown.' Best regards, Bcameron54 03:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As an analogy there is the point-to-point analysis of critical incidents as performed by managers. Some incidents have one attributable cause (e.g. pilot was drunk, pressed wrong button & crashed plane), but the vast majority are due to failing compensatory mechanisms reinforcing each other, and no single event can justifiably be labeled as truly causative. I think this is a suitable analogy for the discussion we are having, which goes to the heart of many multifactorial conditions. Many forms on cancer will fall into that catagory where it will simply be impossible to pinpoint the initiating event. Cumulative DNA damage by ionising radiation, dietary carcinogens, radical oxygen species as part of chronic inflammation are all contributory causes to many malignancies.

Meanwhile, I'm a bit hesitant to label a disease: "CAUSE - UNKNOWN" because the reader will make the same "mistake" as me, namely to confuse cause with mechanism. They will get the impression the subject has not been studied well enough. JFW | T@lk 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Dear Dr Wolff - Here is an immediately accessible reference from a credible source (only the latest of very many), which I believe lives up to Wikipedia policies on verifiability. It supports the reasonable statement that the etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, that pathogenesis is distinct and complex (but inextricably intertwined if you wish), and that there are needs for much further study. With your blessing, I may compose a paragraph on etiology for your approval, then to add to the article on prostate cancer. Thank you for your input.

Frontiers in Bioscience 11, 1388-1413, May 1, 2006

Prostate cancer epidemiology

Ann W. Hsing 1 and Anand P. Chokkalingam 2

1 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20852-7234, 2 School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720-7380

ABSTRACT

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among men in most western populations, and it is the second leading cause of cancer death among U.S. men. Despite its high morbidity, the etiology of prostate cancer remains largely unknown. Advancing age, race, and a family history of prostate cancer are the only established risk factors. Many putative risk factors, including androgens, diet, physical activity, sexual factors, inflammation, and obesity, have been implicated, but their roles in prostate cancer etiology remain unclear. It is estimated that as much as 42% of the risk of prostate cancer may be accounted for by genetic influences, including individual and combined effects of rare, highly penetrant genes, more common weakly penetrant genes, and genes acting in concert with each other. Numerous genetic variants in the androgen biosynthesis/metabolism, carcinogen metabolism, DNA repair, and chronic inflammation pathways, have been explored, but the results are largely inconclusive. The pathogenesis of prostate cancer likely involves interplay between environmental and genetic factors. To unravel these complex relationships, large well-designed interdisciplinary epidemiologic studies are needed. With newly available molecular tools, a new generation of large-scale multidisciplinary population-based studies is beginning to investigate gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Results of these studies may lead to better detection, treatment, and, ultimately, prevention of prostate cancer. http://www.bioscience.org/2006/v11/af/1891/fulltext.htm

Best regards, Bcameron54 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the abstract. If you insist on mentioning that the etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, I will not object. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the way it looks now[2]. Perhaps this kind of discussion is best conducted on the article's talk page, so other editors can offer their opinion. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your update to Jiffy

I just wanted you to know that I mean no offense, but have removed your addition to this page. I believe that the dab pages are only supposed to contain links to the other articles. The note about 0.01 seconds can be found at the Jiffy (time) article which is linked on the page. Regards. --Brian G (Talk) 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but I recall no update by me. Maybe another? Bcameron54 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

changed my password. thx. Bcameron54 00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution

I reverted your last addition to Prostitution simply because the nature of the addition requires it be added with its reference work. However, the addition is not just appropriate but a necessary part of the text of a good article about prosititution, so please simply source and add it back. Good work. Thanks. KP Botany 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comment. I know this is a sensitive area. We might also consider deleting the unreferenced (and false) statements, then. Bcameron54 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is deeply problematic, but is well-guarded by the folks who want to keep the picture of the German photographer because, and oh is this not PC of me, I assume it's their fantasy view of what a prostitute looks like. There is a lot that need deleted from the article, but come armed with excellent sources and neutral tone or you won't get anywhere. You might not, even if you are well-armed. It's a bad article. KP Botany 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • thanks. that's funny. Bcameron54 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It takes all kinds. KP Botany 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Get the references up with the content, though! And good luck. KP Botany 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin-Bagdad Railway

When will you be able to make the edit you promised on July 22 to the origins of World War I covering the Berlin-Bagdad Railway? This edit is required to remove the "unbalanced" symbol from the article.

Werchovsky 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the gentle reminder. I have been thinking about it, and I will get to it. I hope it will not be removed again and again as it has in the past, if I get the consensus of opinions and 'permissions' of the serial removers right this time. Bcameron54 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:mulroney

The policy the edit violates is neutral point of view. You can't claim that his attempt at constitutional reform was a "dramatic failure" or that it's what he's remembered for, without citing a reliable source. You can, however, state that someone notable claimed that it was a dramatic failure, as long as you have a reference to back it up. ... discospinster talk 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)