nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Talk:Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy (view source)
Revision as of 22:24, January 12, 2009
, 22:24, January 12, 2009→Please...: pasted in TerryH's thoughts
::::I've read it. And based on your comments, I don't think you have any specific knowledge of this subject. That is you don't appear to have read anything about it or to have bother to find information on it. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 16:39, 12 January 2009 (EST)
::::I've read it. And based on your comments, I don't think you have any specific knowledge of this subject. That is you don't appear to have read anything about it or to have bother to find information on it. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 16:39, 12 January 2009 (EST)
:::::[http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_PageID=1073&i_ToolbarID=2 source stating that clioquinol isn't solely responsible for SMON]. I've yet to find a source that says it's neurotoxic at normal doses, merely at high doses. It's also not injected, it's an oral composition. I'm really trying to compromise, Rick. I'm okay leaving the article as-is. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)
:::::[http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_PageID=1073&i_ToolbarID=2 source stating that clioquinol isn't solely responsible for SMON]. I've yet to find a source that says it's neurotoxic at normal doses, merely at high doses. It's also not injected, it's an oral composition. I'm really trying to compromise, Rick. I'm okay leaving the article as-is. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)
*I am pasting here, from my talk page, the post of our expert here......
::"The compromise looks acceptable to me. The article now has a reference that purports to doubt the cause-effect relationship between the drug cloquinol and the disease known as subacute myelo-optic neuropathy. While I wouldn't be surprised to find that cloquinol is ''a'' cause of SMON, the onus is now on [[User:RickD]] to provide any sort of published report, from any source, that contradicts the government's claim.
::To speak more broadly: alternative medicine is a legitimate area of research. (Alternative medicine becomes relevant here because one of the most salient claims of alternative medicine as a movement is that traditional treatments end up causing more diseases than they treat.) Even some hospitals are now granting credentials to alternative practitioners and offering alternative services, now that someone has actually spent serious money to find out that many alternative therapies do work. The papers are out there for any properly industrious student to find. Therefore, one cannot reject alternative medicine out-of-hand, but everything we publish in that regard must have solid sources. Acceptable evidence can include actual experience in offering advice to patients or friends and having that advice pay off. It must, however, involve more than claims that "the regulatory agencies are in bed with the industries that they regulate." That sort of claim is more suitable for an essay than for an article."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 16:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)