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)

[edit] Brassieres and Cancer Risk

I saw the new section you added. Given it offers only one source (and a non-medical one at that), this may be a very controversial claim. I would like you to consider reducing the prominence of this paragraph. I think it's OK in one to two sentences, but beyond that it distorts the relative importance and authority of that particular authors claims (and agenda). Quoting the authors of the book:

"While more research is clearly needed to further study this link, we believe it is prudent medicine to recommend women abstain from bra wearing as a precaution. There is no reason for wearing a bra, apart from fashion. The human body was not designed with a flaw that requires modern lingerie for correction. Like the absurd and destructive fashion of foot binding in China, women in the West bind their breasts. Surely, we believed, once women understood how this practice is threatening their health and lives, they will stop wearing bras."

Equating bra wearing to foot binding is somewhat outside of conventional and scientific wisdom. I'd prefer we include offer other supporting evidence of the claim before giving this book such a large portion of the Wikipedia article.

Let me know what you think. Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)