Talk:Wiley Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Wiley Protocol, has edited Wikipedia as
Nraden (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1 - Start to Dec. 2007


Contents

[edit] how it works

I'm trying at a description. My main sources would be the senate testimony and the patent application I think. Quickly reviewing the senate testimony I didn't find anything clear enough to have a description, but the patent application did. There's only one real paragraph which is useful, 0006, and it's bascially got the same information that's already on the page in Wiley Protocol#Hormone delivery, which makes me wonder why I'm writing this... Anyway, I'm trying to avoid the testimony, it's very POV-ish, very conspiracy theory, and in the 48 pages there doesn't seem to be much on the protocol itself. From the above, here's some things I wouldn't mind including, were it to have a source:

  • The actual dosage levels are higher than is typical because the goal is to approach targeted serum (blood) concentrations.
  • Women on the protocol who have not had a hysterectomy resume or continue menstruating. Those who have had a hysterectomy follow a lunar calendar.
  • The compounds are dispensed by compounding pharmacies who have contracted with Wiley Systems to adhere to strict conformance with the ingredients, methods and materials specified by Wiley.
  • Estradiol levels peak at day 12 then drop to a low level for the remainder of the cycle, while progesterone is not administered until day 13, peaking onday 21 then falling rapidly
  • The protocol is standardized for the first three months, after which it is tailored to the specifics of patients based on a manual produced by Wiley. Prescribing physicians who modify the protocol beyond certain proscribed limits must discontinue referring to the program as the “Wiley Protocol” and pharmacies may not dispense Wiley-marked materials.

I'm trying to not us Sex, Lies and Menopause as a source and I refuse to use Greg Wolf - the first isn't accessible (or needed to date, but if no other source can be found then it could be used for the above) and Wolf just isn't reliable, doctor or no. I'm done with the re-write, I've tried to source just about every sentence so it's clear where everything comes from. WLU (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks neutral and accurate, except that the lead doesn't yet reflect WP:UNDUE; it reflects the claims, but not the criticism. Once the lead is balanced, I would think the neutrality tag could be removed. Also, as long as there are no actual COI edits to the article, can the COI tag be moved to the talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the COI protocol, but given Deb & Neil's restraint from any direct editing and willingness to make their demands known to other editors, I'm OK with that. Though we haven't heard feedback from them about the latest version... WLU (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently had a similar situation at Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and the admin who placed the COI tag agreed that it could be removed to the talk page, because I was watching the article. It the "peace" holds, it seems like the article wouldn't need to be tagged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, done. WLU (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] changes to talk page

I've archived the stuff from months past, and added some headers - even though it's been calmer here than in the past (thanks to both Debv and Nraden for showing quite commendable restraint and patience after a very rocky introduction to wikipedia, it is appreciated) I expect it'll be controversial in the future until there's a couple years worth of science to support or refute. It's also under WP:MED as far as wikiprojects go I think (and of low importance until mainstream medicine and research have had a go at it), plus an additional reminder to stay cool. I'd say this isn't aimed at the 'current' contributors, who again have managed a very nice 175° turn-aroud (it's only 180° when you become friends :) and have kept things cool. Good job. If there are any issues that are left in the archives that people feel still need to be addresesed, I ask that you create a new section and put it there with a prose summary of the issues involved. WLU (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and taking the time. It's not all that I'd like to see, but it's better. I will try to give you sources for the elements you listed above but did not get into the article. As for debv and me becoming friends, I wouldn't wait under water if I were you. There are some things that still bother me. Suzanne Somers is not a spokesperson. I saw her give a speech in Las Vegas just a few days ago, and she described the WP but never mentioned it by name because she has her own business now, Menopause Centers of America, or something like that, her medical director has modified the WP and is selling it under Suzanne's name. If you go to www.suzannesomers.com and search for "Wiley," there are no hits. So please, you cannot source this statement, so let's remove it. The statement "...follow-up program to monitor the serum of the bioidentical hormones," should read "(blood) serum levels." The reference #3 about ACAM and the "serious" concerns was discussed before, check the archive. I spoke to one of the authors of that report last week, Ellie Highnote MD when she attended Wiley's 2-day training class and she was quite surprised that the summary was being interpreted that way. She is, by the way, the President-elect of ACAM. These concerns were raised by only one doctor and a friend of Debv (not a doctor) who attended solely to heckle and disrupt Wiley's keynote, not the doctors in attendance and not ACAM as an organization.
Anyway, I don't think we're going to have to wait a couple years, all sorts of interesting things are happening. I am a little put off by your comments about Dr. Wolf. Just because his site mentions homeopathy, you feel that you can dismiss his comments. I think that's wrong and maybe another editor should look at that. I think chemotherapy is mostly a waste of time, money and people's quality of life, so if I edited an article and removed a thoughtful reference just because the doctor was an oncologist, whould that make sense? Wolf described receptor anticipation very well and it's not something you will find discussed in ANY hormone replacement therapy. It's central to understanding why the WP is designed the way it is. Neil Raden (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promoted By

I was not content with the first paragraph as User talk:WLU wrote it, but User talk:Invertzoo came along to "clarify" it and made it even worse. Here is the way it reads now: "The Wiley Protocol is promoted as being a means of restoring or preserving health, which its proponents claim is a step beyond the symptomatic treatment of conventional hormone replacement therapy. " I don't see how the phrase "as being" clarifies anything, it isn't even good writing. But I'm more concerned about this word "promoted." As I've learned, there has to be a source for everything and I can't find a source where the the "proponents" (who are they?) are "promoting" the WP as a means of restoring health, etc. What is DIFFERENT about the WP is that it is a therapy that was designed to improve health, not just just relieve menopausal symptoms. period. No one has claimed that it has, other than anecdotal evidence. So you need to rewrite this and User talk:Invertzoo, if you're going to contribute here, show a little courtesy and respond to comments in your talk page rather than deleting them. Neil Raden (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes look fine to me - since there's no proof, and since Wiley thinks it's better than just HRT 'cause it aims to do more than relieve symptoms, it seems accurate. You can't say 'proven' 'cause it's not. All we have is Wiley's word saying that's what she thinks it should do and that's what she's going for. She would be the proponent. Tried to clarify. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS, I also emphasized that it has not been empirically tested or verified yet.
Incidentally, I looked over Invertzoo's talk page history and couldn't find you anywhere. It doesn't look like s/he deleted anything (only admins can delete history versions I think) so you may have done something wrong, but I've no idea what. WLU (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's not about being bioidentical

I made this comment before, but here it is from the horse's mouth: "We don't know if bioidenticals are better. My argument is that they probably aren't much better, unless they're dosed naturally. I think the dosing schedule is the key to the whole thing. Hormones act in a dose-dependent way. So, if you don't reach a crescendo of hormones in your bloodstream on day 12--all the things that are supposed to happen to facilitate using the progesterone in the second half of the cycle never happen. And I don't know why no one has ever approached that idea before, but they haven't." The importance of the WP is not that it's BHRT, it's that it's the cycle how hormones and receptors work. None of this comes out in the article. There is a long interview (WP:EL) with Wiley at [1] Neil Raden (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't work as an EL for this page, but could work as an EL on Wiley's if the EL section isn't that long. I'll adjust the dosing section to demonstrate that Wiley believes it is the dosing, and change in dosing over time, that is the important part. Is there a text summary that could be used instead of the podcast? WLU (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made the changes - I can't access the interview right now, so that's the best I can manage for the citation template. I may try again later if I remember. WLU (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FDA

The FDA sent warning letter to a number of large compounding pharmacies that they should stop using Estriol (E3) in compounded hormone replacement therapies and they should desist from using the word "bioidentical." They #1 most popular compunded HRT is something called bi-est, originally devised by Jonathan Wright MD. It's called b-est because it combines estradiol (E2) with estriol. That is now banned. The Wiley Protocol, on the other hand, only uses E2, not E3 or E4 because Wiley always argued that E3 and E4 are metabolites and if E2 is present in the proper amounts, the normal metabolic processes will produce the correct amounts of E3 and E4 (this is because sex hormones that are metabolites are produced by the action of enzymes, not produced by adrenals, gonads, etc.) This is one area where the WP has been at rather extreme variance with most other BHRT. As for the bioidentical label, Wiley said, on the record at the Senate hearing, that the correct term should be biomimetic, because even molecules with the identical chemical composition can be differnt in other ways, which she explains in the pharmacists' and doctors' manuals for the WP. Neil Raden (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs sources to be added to the page. WLU (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've made some errors here. Estrace is not a hormone, it's a branded drug that contains estradiol. E1 is estrone, E2 is Estradiol and E3 is Estriol. E3 is a spent metabolite of E2. Source? I wasn't including this for the article, just something that is very relevant to this subject, but here is a source from the NYT about the FDA's actions: [2]. For a discussion by Wiley about estriol, see [3] Neil Raden (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your input and the self-published website of the protocol in question aren't reliable sources of medical information. The FDA's statements do not mention the Wiley Protocol. What kind of content are you hoping to get out of these would-be sources that belongs in this article and is reliably sourced, and not a conclusion you are drawing? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheeser, please watch civility - Neil has repeatedly acknowledged his involvement in the WP, and also agreed to not edit this or T.S Wiley's page, instead suggesting edits to third parties. He has demonstrated his dedication to this repeatedly and with good patience. He ain't perfect, but he doesn't deserve scorn heaped upon him.
The NYT blog doesn't seem to be reliable enough for inclusion, and if it fails to mention Wiley specifically, it's not really suitable. Given that, and that there's no mention made that I've seen of the WP by the FDA regards this announcement, there's no real point in having a Wiley protocol reply to the FDA's announcement.
Also note that this is not a forum, so if you're just discussing, then it's not appropriate. Naturally, it would be suitable over at estriol and compounding, though specific mentions of the WP would not be kosher. WLU (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain where I have been uncivil? I made a statement regarding the lack of reliable sources, and pointed out that drawing conclusions is original research (synthesis). I'm sorry, but my comment was well within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. I made no statements regarding Nraden or his involvement with the protocol. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Sorry, the talk page has been full of incivility in the past and perhaps I was quick to judge because of it. Struck through. I will point out that on-wiki, calling something OR and putting in easter-egg links to policies like SPS and COI can get people's backs up, particularly if they're aware of what those policies mean in the community. WLU (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider those easter eggs. "self-published website" linking to WP:SPS is hardly a trick or difficult to see where it's going. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Though it may be misplaced in this instance, I'm pleased to see an expression of concern about the civility issues here. Debv (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps then we'll see some of that civility leak through to your website Neil Raden (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do not make personal attacks. This comment has no bearing on the article or discussion at hand, and is completely unacceptable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

About this FDA thing, I thought it was useful to point out that the two items the FDA came out about, estriol and the use of the term bioidentical, may not affect the WP. If that was making this page a forum instead of a discussion, I'm not sure I see the difference. And as for Cheeser1, we've been through this before. The WP is notable and is, in most cases, the only source. So the choices are to allow it's inclusion judiciously, or to delete the article. As for the your comments about sources, on page 198 of "sex, Lies and Menopause," a book written by Wiley with the contribution of a PhD and an MD and published by a major publisher in hardcover in 2003, Wiley goes into detail about estriol and why it has no place in hormone replacement therapy. So, what is notable here is that most established BHRT's use estriol (bi-est and tri-est), but the WP never has. That's significant given what the FDA said, and that's why I brought it up. Now if you were doing an article on, say, Kimberly-Clark and the EPA just released a report that it was banning a paper manufacturing process that leaked dioxin in the environment, but K-C was the only manaufacturer that used a different process that didn't leak dioxin, wouldn't that be notable?Neil Raden (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I question the notability of this protocol. Please refer to WP:SYN. Also refer to WP:N. "Notability" has nothing to do with what particular content or claims are included in an article. You need to become more familiar with policy, otherwise you'll find yourself talking past everyone. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. It wasn't that the Wiley Protocol is or isn't notable, that has already been established. It was, that the FDA story was notable vis-a-vis the WP not using estriol. We've already agreed here that if the subject is notable but there is little to no non-original sourcing, then we have to carefully use the original source. See the comments by User:SandyGeorgia. Wiley's book, a published podcast, New York Times blog by one of their leading science writers and an official document from the FDA, have been suggested. The fact that the latter two do not mention the WP is beside the point. Wil;ey has been clear from the outset about estriol and now it is banned, Thjat's notable. As for me getting more familiar with policy, I'm more concerned with content, and so long as I'm not an editor of the article and there are policy experts on board, I suppose that will take care of itself. If a substantiative discussion of the subject matter is "talking past" people, then I despair for the future of this enterprise. The point of policy is to get to the desired outcome. That isn't happeneing here - it's still a very weak article. If you have some comments about the actual information I've supplied, I would be happy to hear it. We're here to discuss the WP article and the issues around it. Neil Raden (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, the FDA news release is not the subject of an article. It can't be notable or not, that's not what notability is used for. Drawing conclusions by combining information from two sources (e.g. the protocol's website and the FDA release) is synthesis, a form of original research. Please read these policies. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I've been trying to do is to get this article written in a way that readers can come away with an understanding of what it is. We spent the last nine months fighting over the inclusion of negative points of view, but it seems that has finally died down a little. Why this estriol thing is important goes to the heart of understanding what the WP is all about. Estradiol (E2) is the big daddy of the estrogens, but most doctors (and most people I suppose) are afraid of it because they think it causes cancer. The major thrust of Sex, Lies and Menopause was about that and why it isn't the case. Even debv's friends agree about that. But timid doctors, feeling estriol was a "weaker" estrogen, presribed it instead but there is no science behind it. Dr. Wright claimed that a woman in her third tri-mester of pregnancy was pretty healthy, so getting a "balance" of the three estrogens in serum for all women to match that was a good idea. Besides being a questionable premise to begin with, it's the fetus that produces the estriol, not the mother. Wiley spelled out the science in S,L & M and it is to my continuing dismay that it isn't reflected in this article. I'm making no claims as to its effectiveness here, just stating the facts - what it is and why it is what it is. The article as it stands is a disservice to the WP and needs to be completed. Neil Raden (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of the Article

A re-write of the article has been written/moved to User:Nraden/WP re-write to allow for wikification and formatting. WLU (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI vs POV

An editor who may have some opinion, positive or negative, about the subject of an article does not have a conflict of interest. An editor who is married to the subject of an article does. WP:COI is very clear. No user should be removing the appropriate COI tags, or disruptively adding one for a user who allegedly has a negative opinion of the Wiley Protocol. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Debv has a COI. It's already been established here. We both agreed to not edit the article, only the discussion. You are apparently unaware of this. Debv does not just have a negative opinion, she is the master of a website desinged to discredit Wiley. She is actively involved in a campaign to stop Wiley, on a regular basis. She has skin in the game. She is not just someone with an opinion. Let mer put this in terms that even you might understand. I don't like John McCain. That's an opinion. If I'm Mitt Romney, I have a COI. Debv is campaigning against Wiley in the media and all over the internet.
Now, either add the template for debv, or delete mine, then go away, otherwise I will do it myself. If you keep reverting, I'm taking you to 3RR. Given the agreements we made here long before yuo got here, it's you who is disruptively. You have no business here. I'm going to see about getting you blocked if you don't stop this. You're clearly retaliating for my pushing a WQA about you and acting like a bully because you've read more procedures than I have, but I'm a quick study. Neil Raden (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, read WP:COI. Then try reading WP:3RR. It doesn't apply to my re-instituting an obviously applicable COI template that you (the subject of the template) demand removing. If you want to explain to everyone how good you are at "studying" the system, so that you can game it so well, feel free, but threatening me with nonsense is not going to get you anywhere. Your complaints against me have no merit, your abuse of the COI template is out of line, and you're seriously not doing yourself any good by telling me that you're "going to see about getting [me] blocked." --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a comment for both of you on my talk page. It is arguable that Debv has a COI per the policy (and her website is very critical of the WP, it's not an allegation), I could see reasons to have it and reasons why it's not needed. However, Raden has a clear one, so the template at the top is definitely warranted. BUT, since both have agreed to not edit the main page, I've not seen either edit the page since agreeing not to, and I am monitoring to ensure they don't (and have agreed to edit in response to their edits), it's kinda immaterial if there's one or two templates. If Debv edits the page, you now have two editors you can bring this up with, me and SandyGeorgia. Possibly Cheeser if s/he's willing. If you want to settle the template, go ask an admin or bring it up on a noticeboard. I certainly don't see a reason to edit war over a talk page, that's just lame.
Also, Raden, you're falling back on your old ways. Wikipedia is not a battleground. The blocking policy is not a stick to be waved, particularly at editors with much more experience than you (the community is going to look much more sympathetically on an editor with much broader interests, editing experience, and no COI, than a near-WP:SPA with COI. Waving WP:BLOCK is not going to get you much positive attention). There are much better ways of conflict resolution - at the first instance of a reversion, talk to the other editor and give you reasoning. If you can't resolve it through discussion, agree to disagree and go to WP:3O or WP:RFC. Edit warring is pointless. I'm not commenting on Cheeser 'cause I'm not as familiar with him/her, and he's not threatening to have people blocked. WLU (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a deal with you. I will stop communicating with Cheeser1 if you can get him to stay away from this article. He has no interest in the subject matter, he is only here to fight. Neil Raden (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not WLU's responsibility to keep me from contributing to Wikipedia as I see fit (you know, since I contribute to many articles of different sorts, and help with non-content parts of Wikipedia, instead of tendentiously editing a single article that I have COI issues with). If my actions are inappropriate, they will be dealt with (and not by you and your empty threats and system-gaming). The fact that you are holding an overblown grudge against me because I responded when someone reported you for your highly inappropriate conduct is really growing quite tiresome. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to not engage you, so this will be the last time. You're wrong as usual. I edit 8-10 different articles, and I've only had problems on this one. Also, Debv, in her complaint, said "Both of us are obviously COI," but you singled out only me for the template and reverted the one I inserted for her. Your behavior is patently unfair and unwarranted. It's been pointed out to me that you are a much more experienced editor than me, so it is very unlikely that other editors would take my complaints about you seriously, which has been the case so far. So I'm just going to turn you off and appeal to any other editor here to please straighten out the COI template mess here. Get the last word if you like, but I will not communicate with further (though I will keep an eye on you). Neil Raden (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Neil, nobody takes your complaints about me seriously because they are more-or-less frivolous backlash because I stepped in when you made highly inappropriate comments to another user. And that isn't change by the fact that my approach to intervening was too blunt for you to resist starting some ridiculous conflict. Don't hide behind some "oh gosh, I'm the inexperienced editor who's being ignored and suppressed." The fact that you're a 100% SPA is interesting and relevant (as well as blatantly obvious, despite your denial), but even that isn't the reason people are dismissing you when you demand that I be blocked, sanctioned, or whatever else - they're being dismissed, ignored, or taken lightly because they are without merit. And you feel free to "keep an eye on me" if you'd like, but I will warn you that continuing to harass me or demand that others take obviously unnecessary administrative action against me can actually get you in trouble. As for the COI thing, Debv has a negative opinion of the Wiley protocol, and the fact that s/he said "COI" doesn't change the fact that unless s/he's advertising her website here (which is more spam than COI), she's only got a negative POV of the article's subject. It's a common misunderstanding of "conflict of interest." Rather than read the policy, why are you citing Debv's incorrect use of the term COI? You have a COI. It has been acknowledged and you removed the template to make a point about using a similar template for Debv, which is clearly not warranted. This isn't the article about Debv, or Debv's website, or Debv's hormone therapy, or Debv's wife, or her hormone therapy. And as you have been told now by others, do not assert ownership of this article. You are not in charge of who contributes here - you especially, since you shouldn't be editing the article pretty much ever. After all, if you hadn't made those hostile and grossly inappropriate comments to Debv, you would never have attracted this much outside attention anyway - you have no one to thank but yourself for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I take Neil Raden's complaints about Cheeser1 seriously. So much for Nobody. Apart from me, there is also ample proof on Cheeser's talk page that his civility is not equally appreciated by everybody. --Achim (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a lonely outpost here. Neil Raden (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help. --Achim (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have a valid complaint to make, make it. But wait, you don't. Are you going to hunt me down every time someone else retaliates against me for a WQA complaint like you did, just so you can join in? Seriously? --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove COI from Main Article

In point of fact, the creator of the page was WLU, so it is factually incorrect to have that template there. In a ddition, the two editors who are COI never edit the article. So let's take it down. Neil Raden (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm referring to the COI banner on the actual article, not the talk page. Neil Raden (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
While you're missing the part about "main contributor" (you are one on this article) that comes right after "creator," you have not contributed to the article for long enough that it has changed substantially in that time. This tag is not necessary, as far as I can tell. If anyone has specific concerns about content from the article prior to Raden's most recent edit to the mainspace, point it out specifically and re-add the tag. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Somers

Finally a source. In the December 2007 issue of Discover magazine, Somers said, "I don't advocate Wiley. I don't get my hormones from her." Now will you PLEASE remove the references that she is a spokesperson in Wiley Protocol and T.S. Wiley. Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Discover reference is Susan Kruglinski (December 2007). "Forever young. Suzanne Somers says special hormones can keep women young. Should they listen?". Discover Magazine.  Nraden, can you propose a properly-qualified replacement for the current reference to Suzanne Somers? I gather she was never an actual spokesman for the protocol, though she refers to Wiley in her book Somers, Suzanne (2006). Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 0-307-23724-9.  Apparently Suzanne Somers has appeared on the Larry King show along with T.S.Wiley. These details might properly belong in the Suzanne Somers article, but I don't know yet if there's a strong case for including them here. In any case she shouldn't be identified as a spokesman if there's no source to show she was. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
They appeared together on Larry King because of the controversy started by Erika Schwartz. Somers has never been a spokesperson for anything but Somers. She has said in public many times that she chooses the Wiley Protocol for herself, but she never promotes it. And lately, she has stopped talking about the WP at all, using only veiled references such as rhythmic dosing. I would say only that Suzanne Somers was clear about her use of the Wiley Protocol in Ageless, that Wiley and Somers have a personal relationship, but that is the extent of her involvement with Wiley and the Wiley Protocol. I found her comment in Discover odd, though, when she said she doesn't get her hormones from Wiley. Wiley doesn't provide hormones, pharmacies do, and Wiley doesn't provide hormones to pharmacies. Neil Raden (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of that. I believe there is a similar statement at T.S. Wiley. You mind having a look? Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical problems with bioidentical hormone therapy

http://origin.www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v20/n1/full/3901622a.html

Ethical problems with bioidentical hormone therapy

M S Rosenthal

Program for Bioethics and Patients' Rights, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA

<redacted copyright violation, abstract>

M. Sara Rosenthal (December 2007). "Ethical problems with bioidentical hormone therapy". International Journal of Impotence Research 20: pp. 45-52. 

37. Levine RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research 2nd edn. Yale University Press: New Haven, 1988.

39. Suzanne Somers debates doctor. Transcripts.Larry King Live: CNN, A Time Warner Company; November 16, 2006.

41. What is the Wiley protocol? The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 16, 2007, at http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

56. Somers S. TS Wiley: rhythmic cycling. In: Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones. Crown Publishers: New York, 2006, pp 154–165.

57. How hard is it to get the Wiley protocol? The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 17, 2007 at http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

58. Schwartz E, Schwarzbein D, Rosensweet D, Randolph Jr CWR, Northrup C, Murray J et al. Letter to Managing Editor, Crown Publishers,October 11, 2006. Posted at: http://drerika.typepad.com/notepad/2006/10/letter_to_suzan.html.

59. Finding a Wiley protocol doctor or prescriber. The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 17, 2007 at: http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

60. Participate in data gathering. The Wiley Protocol, Accessed March 17, 2007 at: http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

61. Feig S, Hynote E, Speight N, Magaziner A, Miranda RA, Schachter MB. Summary of the American College for Advancement in Medicine May 2005 Conference. Evid Based Complement Altern Med 2005; 2: 413–419. | Article |

62. Somers S. Effects of aging; bioidentical hormones and aging; sex, sleep and stress; Dr Julie Taguchi: breast cancer; TS Wiley: rhythmic cycling.In: Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones. Crown Publishers: New York, 2006,pp 86–87;105–9; 18–29; 54–65; 232.

63. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Drugs for Human Use 21 C.F.R., Part 312.60.

64. Why the Wiley protocol? The Wiley Protocol. Accessed March 17, 2007 at: http://www.thewileyprotocol.com.

65. Our Wiley protocol history. RhythmicLiving.org. Accessed March 27, 2007 at: http://rhythmicliving.org.

66. Wiley Systems. Wiley Protocol Registered Pharmacy Registration Agreement 2007.

67. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Drugs For Human Use 21 C.F.R., Part 312.7(d).

Debv (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've redacted the abstract as a copyvio, but placed a link instead. Reliable source, therefore suitable for inclusion. Neil, if Wiley produces a rebuttal, it'd probably be legit as a source as well though any science she quotes would be more tenuous. WLU (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added the reference. Before any hooplah starts up, this is a peer-reviewed, pubmed-indexed journal article, meaning it is pretty much THE BEST reliable source that we have, in keeping with the much higher standard of WP:MEDRS. It can not be removed due to any challenge of reliablility and since it mentions the Wiley Protocol specifically it is 100% appropriate for the page. Any arguments should be restricted to interpretation, wording, and how to best represent it. Any rebuttal that has been raised by Wiley to this article is welcome for inclusion, but the source itself has been summarized and can not be removed completely. WLU (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
NO ONE in this industry is without an agenda. I won't discuss Rosenthal's, but most of what she says about is completely false. There isn't an IRB approval for a study, THERE ARE TWO. Pharmacists don't buy pharmaceuticals from Wiley. There are two studies underway, both from qualified PI's. But I've grown weary of the fight and I've even blogged about my low opinion of and disappointment in Wikepedia. If this kind of misrepresentation is reliable because it's published, well, I guess Wikipedia believes there were WMD's in Iraq.
So I'm off. I'm not doing this anymore. I'm soured and bitter fron the experience. See you around, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. As I have said before, if there are counter-claims that can be sourced, even to Wiley's own webpage, they can and should be added (though a third-party source is of course preferable). The Protocol has received attention from a scientific journal, which hopefully will raise its profile and scientific interest, making it easier to write a decent page with information fairly representing all 'sides'. Simply put, a scientific journal article that mentions the Wiley Protocol specifically must, as much as anything is a must on wikipedia, be added to the page. It's the best source available. If it's truly a misrepresentation of the Protocol, hopefully a rebuttal can appear in some official medium and be reported here as well. I'm very pleased to see such an unequivocal discussion of WP, and only wish there were something similar discussing the background and mechanism in a more favourable manner. WLU (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)