Knowledge talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

3576:(a Russian-led, much-criticised sport organisation) because (they claimed) she has XY chromosomes. She waived her appeal against that decision and never released a medical test showing that she has XX chromosomes. In 2024 the International Olympic Committee took the athletes' passports at face value and did not carry out gender testing. So some sports journalists and commentators took it for granted that Khelif has XY chromosomes. Some sources have reported either that she is intersex (Italian press) or that she may be intersex (BBC, New York Times - all major English-speaking NEWSORGs). Even if that were the case, it doesn't mean that she went through male puberty and had a competitive advantage at the Olympics: certain forms of 4192:

Elsewhere we have seen what I would regard as opinion pieces but not always labelled as such, because they are more some kind of intellectual academic thought piece. Again, there's a misconception that the author's thoughts are thus held to be factual rather than "Hmm, that's an interesting and coherent argument you made". Understanding these different kinds of academic works, and their limitations, is outside of my education. I don't know who might know better. But I think it might be useful if wiki had some kind of guideline on the different sorts of academic works, and what peer review means for each of them, to help people know what is "appropriate". --

3250:). So, if I'm not mistaken, there's nothing to stop a local consensus being reached that diagnoses in a particular BLP (because it's particularly controversial, because the diagnosis is difficult, because news organisations don't seem reliable enough...) require MEDRS-level sources. But in general there seems to be no doubt that MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses: the medical conditions of a living person can be covered with the usual WP:RS and the usual policies and guidelines, including WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:INTEXT (if the diagnosis is controversial or just "rumours" or "accusations"). 3546:) we have some pundits, some of whom happen to have degrees in adjacent areas and one or two that are subject matter experts, either engaging in commentary (in sources) which are presumptive or speculative about the subjects medical conditions when it would be unethical for them to discuss a patient diagnosis when they are not the treating doctor or illegal if they are. Editors, such as the one who started this discussion, have tried to push the comments of those pundits as evidence that there is reasonable discussion about the subject's diagnosis and not a whole bunch of misinformation. 412: 3901:

report said she was totally blind as a result of brain damage.) So I think you also want some judgement call about credibility. Someone looking to score political points is less credible than someone who isn't. Someone with relevant expertise is more credible than ordinary people. Someone with more information is more credible than someone less information. Someone whose voice was elevated by a high-quality publisher/source is more credible than someone whose claim only got published because a junky source thought it'd drive traffic.

3073:

to general biomedical knowledge. To include content about a diagnosis in a BLP, we need sufficient coverage from generally reliable sources to ensure due weight, but MEDRS-level sources aren't strictly necessary; 2) Or, "Given the contentious and complex nature of this topic, we should require MEDRS-level sources - the usual NEWSORGs are not sufficient". This would be a suggestion, not a policy requirement; it may gain consensus on the talk page, but doesn't reflect the standard use of MEDRS.

2439:

guidelines and textbooks. Our model, of relying on existing publications and a crude grading system for those publications, isn't perfect. It is too easy to find oneself reading a journal by a bad publisher. As you point out, it is possible that some apparent authorities are merely fronts for vested interests. But this surely also malignly affects medicine as a whole, so is something the real world needs to fix for itself, rather than us hope we can work around the problem. --

2225:"As you prepare your manuscript for submission to another specialty journal, you may be able to improve it by following one or more of the EQUATOR Guidelines's checklists (https://www.equator-network.org). Mendelian randomization studies must adhere to the best practice as described in the following guideline https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/4-186/v3 and be accompanied to MR-STROBE checklist (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe-mr-statement/)." 1895: 1877: 2911:? These subjects are notable and the content is potentially contentious. It would be impossible to write these articles if MEDRS-compliant sources were required. This suggests that WP:MEDRS does not apply to diagnoses of individuals, but only to content that presupposes or explicates biomedical knowledge. It seems that the purpose of WP:MEDRS is not to protect the privacy of living persons, but to ensure that reporting on biomedical topics reflects scientific consensus. 1970: 1945: 2034: 2016: 1764: 2090: 3169:). "She was accused of..." is not the same as "She had..." We don't need a medical journal to say that some athletes get accused of having the "wrong" type of body, or that the accusations, even if completely unfounded, can lead to real-world consequences for the accused athlete. In such cases, the article content should focus on the fact that the accusations historically happened, without implying that the accusations are medically true. 454: 262: 2775:

enduring significance to public life of the individual concerned. In such a context, I'm finding it hard to see how a non-medical source could be used for sourcing in very many circumstances, beyond possibly the subject themselves stating that they had been diagnosed with something. Knowledge certainly shouldn't be republishing tabloid speculation without good cause, even if framed in text attributing it to said tabloid sources.

902:- This book contains information on the NLM Catalog, a database which provides access to NLM bibliographic data for journals, books, audiovisuals, computer software, electronic resources, and other materials via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Entrez retrieval system. The NLM Catalog includes links to full text materials and the library's holdings in LocatorPlus, NLM's online public access catalog. 377: 660:

such as reporting a study result as a conclusive "discovery" before it has been peer-reviewed or tested by other scientists. They may also exaggerate its significance; for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. The sensationalism affects both which stories they choose to cover and the content of their coverage.

1813: 1795: 4564:

drug from Big Pharma to be notable on the grounds that it's in the business news, but we still have to describe what it is, and that's (a) often going to be based on primary sources and (b) always going to be based on sources connected to the drug developer/manufacturer. Independent researchers can't get their hands on experimental drugs to run totally independent tests. We manage with the whole of

4418:

story. And for an encyclopaedic POV, it is awful because the deluge of stories is based around editorial policy/position rather than what the current best sources say. We are at the mercy of whether some newspaper editor wants to run with the Evil Nurse angle or the Miscarriage of Justice / Cover Up angle. Which angle sells more papers or suits our political agenda? -- 14:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

2267:

significant illness, their view has very little to do with science and quite a lot to do with their emotional state. Some people with "random bad luck" diseases blame themselves, when that is absolutely not warranted; some people blame others when it was their own fault; some people blame irrelevant body systems. Fervent belief that something is (or isn't) a biological illness does not make it so.

1823: 292: 3143:. Nothing here remotely resembles a "proper diagnosis", which in the case of the Press sisters was never made. At best, we should write something like "The Press sisters retired in 1966, coinciding with the introduction of required gender verification in track & field. This led to widespread, yet never proven, rumors regarding the Presses' genders" (from the last cited source). 581:

source may produce a different result to what multiple other primary sources suggest, even if it is a high-quality clinical trial. Secondary sources serve two purposes: they combine the results of all relevant primary sources and they filter out primary sources that are unreliable. Secondary sources are not infallible, but they have less room for error than a primary source.

1167:(DOI) assigned to them. All articles included in PubMed are assigned an eight-digit PubMed identifier (PMID). These identifiers can be used to refer to articles, which is preferred to URLs as it makes a reliable link which is resilient to changes beyond our control – i.e. the publisher being acquired by another publisher and it's "normal" web URLs changing as a consequence. 3584:(which would give her a competitive advantage) based on observations such as visual evidence of high levels of testosterone and the like. On the Imane Khelif talk page, there was a broad consensus (myself included) that she should not be described as intersex, not even hypothetically or with attribution ("some have argued that ... she may be"). The point of contention in 2561:, the most important thing to do is to use the best sources that you can. Most of MEDRS is directed towards questions about whether a particular medication is safe and effective for a particular condition, and is not relevant to content about whether people in a small profession have shorter lifespans. There is relatively little formal research available. 4118:

their expertise. So some Oxford University Press history book could well diagnose an illness or cause of death and I actually think historians would be more professionally motivated to get their history right vs some random consultant neurologist attempting an entertaining introduction to their latest review. --

4161:

work, and that would be just fine as long as the analysis is self consistent. It seems to me that using it to say something about the real world is as much a conceptual error as using an academic theology paper about some Hindu script's story about a god, is evidence that this god does or does not exist. --

2245:

inherent bad science (not new data). And academic books do not necessarily represent proper science (e.g. often occuring in psychosomatic literature). A book can be more easily published compared to an article in a serious journal. Yet, the guideline would favour a random academic book over a Nature article.

4417:

Per Bon courage, yes it has got something against citing the news or keeping the articles up to date. It has multiple statements to the effect of "Knowledge doesn't want everything you read about in the news" in it. But as Bon courage notes, editor enthusiasm is hard to contain while it is an ongoing

3900:

article? I remember a physician-turned-politician saying that he was convinced she was conscious on the basis of a very brief video clip. It turned out that the video clip was carefully chosen because if you saw those few seconds alone, she looked like she was watching a balloon move. (The autopsy

3527:

My assumption was it would be sourced. I have no interest in this particular case (and have not followed it) but, hypothetically, if Doctor Dave says something about biomedical about Athlete Alice (or Paul Politician, or Celebrity Caleb) along the lines of "I can see from observation X that they have

3072:

Yes, I understand. Let me expand on what you've said. In a talk page discussion, when an editor says "we need WP:MEDRS sources for this statement", this might mean either: 1) "WP:MEDRS applies here". Based on our discussion, this is wrong if the statement is about an individual's diagnosis as opposed

2976:

suggested that if I felt the policy needed clarification (which I do), this should be sought at WT:MEDRS rather than in the unblock request. But this discussion has no direct bearing on my block: even if everyone agreed that WP:MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses, my block would still remain

2833:

I agree with all the comments above, but I'd like to understand if there's anything specific to medical diagnoses (e.g. the high level of expertise required to make one) that makes their coverage different from other sensitive areas of a BLP such as, say, sexual orientation. If this is the case, then

2297:

Or that the American Pain Society, this time a non-profit society that nominally advocated on behalf of patients by publishing clinical practice guidelines, actually instead acted on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to propagate a treatment mandate to prescribe more products, in essence acting as a

2248:

This problem is most evident for many Wiki pages where the origin of a disease is not well known. Where you often have a group of psychiatrists asserting a psychosomatic root cause vs a group of biological proponents. In this case, psychiatrists reviewing themselves doesn't give any more credibility,

1146:

for Chrome or Firefox to immediately identify articles with a free version. After you install the extension, look to the right side of the page (when you are on the website for an article) for either a grey locked symbol (no free version) or a green unlocked symbol (click on that symbol to access the

713:

website by an author who is an expert in problems with complementary and alternative medicine. Whenever possible, you should use a scholarly source instead of Quackwatch. However, if no scholarly sources are available, and the subject is still notable, then it might be reasonable to cite Quackwatch

4364:

situation: Just because you can find a source that quotes someone who says ____ is/isn't evidence of guilt/innocence doesn't mean that an encyclopedia article needs to include it. We need more bottom-line summaries ("She was convicted, though some experts have doubts") and less blow-by-blow detail

4156:

Maybe the thing to think about is what would the peer reviewers (and editors and publishers) be concerning themselves with? A neurological paper, outlining the state of understanding of a condition and its treatment, is concerned with whether that is an accurate and comprehensive medical review, not

4117:

I'm not sure there is good evidence that for historical figures, supposedly MEDRS sources are any better than a serious history book. Possibly a serious historian has dug up detailed descriptions of their illness and described them to a medical expert like any scholar might about any fact outside of

3053:

On the Trump RFC outcomes: The community is allowed to set higher rules for an individual article, particularly when repeated discussions are wasting the community's time and wearing on its patience. "Come back when you've got a MEDRS source" is not very different from "One-year moratorium on this

2438:

Knowledge has a unique editing model where anyone can edit but the consequence of this is we agreed to make the selection and summarising of primary research studies into "somebody else's problem". We found alignment with Knowledge's preference for "secondary sources" with readily available reviews,

826:

In other words, is it necessary to say in the article's text the source which supports a medical statement (with attribution)? Or can it simply be stated as an unchallenged fact, with the source only mentioned in the citation (without attribution)? A statement without attribution will come across as

819:

Reports may conflict with each other. For example, a clinical trial may produce no evidence of an effect, but the treatment's manufacturer might produce testimonials claiming a positive effect. You should follow the lead of review articles and other secondary sources for determining how to balance

659:

Secondly, media coverage of medical topics is often sensationalist. They tend to favor new, dramatic or interesting stories over predictable ones, even though studies that reflect the current scientific consensus tend to be predictable results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result,

580:

Primary sources aren't completely banned, but they should only be used in rare situations. An individual primary source may be flawed, such as being a clinical trial that uses too few volunteers. There have been cases where primary sources have been outright fraudulent. Furthermore, a single primary

525:

Different types of sources have different strengths and weaknesses. A type of source that is good for scientific information is not usually as reliable for political information, and vice versa. Since Knowledge's readers may make medical decisions based on information found in our articles, we want

4507:

is a traditional herbal anxiolytic. Our section on its uses is self-contradictory (there's no proof that it works; also, it's a central nervous system depressant ...which means that it works). We cite an 18-year-old Cochrane report that declined to draw any conclusions, and we use that to present

3732:

As for your other comments: the athlete's body has always been a subject of public debate. Ideals of beauty and physique, performance enhancement and doping, gender and sexuality, body image and eating disorders... you name it. It's part and parcel of being a professional athlete, it's not a matter

3379:

Of course it exists. These armchair diagnoses got so much attention in the press during the previous elections that I heard the APA put out a warning to its members about it being unethical to claim you've diagnosed someone who isn't your patient (and illegal to disclose your diagnoses if he is).

2818:

Agreed. MEDRS does not apply to an individual's diagnosis, but BLP/RS does. In the Trump case you quote, there's an "or" as an announced formal diagnosis in a regular RS would be fine. We should generally strive for the best sourcing available, so MEDRS-level sourcing is to be encouraged generally.

2774:

Firstly, to state the obvious, even if WP:MEDRS didn't apply, both WP:RS and WP:BLP would. Which implies that we shouldn't be making statements regarding any diagnosis concerning a living individual without (a) very good sourcing, and (b) a legitimate reason to consider such diagnosis to be of real

2394:

Further, there is simply no blanket ban on primary sources. For instance, there is actually not even a recommendation to refrain from using secondary summaries from within primary sources (i.e. background sections or well chosen parts of discussion sections). One of the problems to allay is keeping

2301:

I think it might be beneficial to re-investigate the ultimate authority of the organizations/publication guidelines we choose to let pass uncritically with more ability afforded to well-informed individuals to make their case that enough primary research exists to effectively include a consensus on

2221:

A number of journals now require (or at least strongly encourage) articles to follow appropriate guidelines including completed checklists (usually as part of Supplemental Material). EQUATOR has guidelines/checklists that cover many types of articles. For example, here is part of my boilerplate for

2173:

Of the 22 studies cited by the meta-analysis, 11 were by the lone author of the paper itself. The meta-analysis "failed to meet any published methodological criteria for systematic reviews" and failed to follow recommendations to avoid statistical dependencies, according to a criticism published in

775:

When fringe claims have been widely reported in the press, have a large popular following, and/or have a long history, it may be appropriate to describe them in terms of that reporting, popularity, or history. However, weight should be determined by MEDRS-compliant sources, and the context (or lack

584:

This follows a principle that guides the whole of Knowledge. If a company announces a notable new product, Knowledge would not cite a press release on the company's website (a primary source) but instead would cite a newspaper article that covers it (a secondary source). The difference with medical

4479:

I agree that many such cases call for application of PARITY. If it's possible, it's almost always preferable not to mention a fringe medical claim, rather than mention it and draw from non-MEDRS sources to counter it. It's not always possible, since non-medical sources have an attraction to fringe

4113:

source is sadly typical of superficially "MEDRS" sources, where a famous name is dropped in the introduction to a more serious article that isn't about them at all. Presumably journal editors/reviewers permit this kind of speculation as "harmless" and don't stop to think "but some Wikipedian might

4006:

that somebody has (or might have) such a condition. Right so; to repeat: For Knowledge to say any living person has a serious medical condition there would need to be a proper diagnosis and (in reality) that private information would need to be made public in a decent, reputable WP:RS. Speculation

3962:

I agree with what others are saying. I'm not sure that whoever said a MEDRS is required for saying an individual has a medical condition has really thought it through. We have other guidelines that deal with speculative, negative information about individuals. We likely have countless biographical

2784:

apply, I'm doubtful that it could in practice. Very few medical diagnoses will involve peer-review etc, or be discussed in systemic reviews. Quite possibly what we need is an amendment (or rather clarification) to 'WP:BLP policy, making it clear that speculation about a living individuals' medical

2138:

from Knowledge predominantly rests on established guidelines. Chief among them is one known by editors as WP:MEDRS. It refers to the referencing of "biomedical" information on Knowledge, stating sources must be "reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current

834:

If there have been two recent secondary sources that contradict each other, then you should attribute the disputed findings. On the other hand, if the findings of one or more recent secondary sources are disputed by one or more secondary sources from many years ago, but not by any recent ones, the

4563:

In a lot of cases, the correct answer is just not to mention it. But if the fringe-y subject is also a notable subject, then we've got to say something. My inclination is to do the best we can, just like we have to do the best we can with experimental "scientific" drugs. We may declare a hyped

4160:

A literary analysis would seem to be utterly unconcerned with truth, facts, or indeed the real world, but seeks to view a piece of writing under various conceptual frameworks and thought processes. It seems that two literary analysis papers could produce entirely contradictory conclusions about a

4133:

lists several possible diagnoses. We would presumably accept a med school textbook saying that he might have had Marfan's (or, perhaps more likely, depression), and perhaps a similarly serious work of history would also be appropriate. I think it's worth thinking over, but right now, I'm having

3847:

How can I, a lay person, make such a strong medical claim about a person I've never met, much less examined, and actually don't know anything about except that her name turns up in lists of actresses with naturally red hair and green eyes? It's very simple: Every single human with naturally red

2614:

The second paragraph is where I'd be looking for more medical related sources though. Really anything that says that X results in higher incidence of Y for health issues is something pretty squarely needing medical sourcing. That said, this can be a gray area where you might range from commentary

2507:

Tens of millions of heart surgeries were conducted across the US and Europe during the years from 2009 to 2013 when those misguided guidelines were in place. One provocative analysis from cardiologists Graham Cole and Darrel Francis estimated that there were 800,000 deaths compared to if the best

2399:

prohibiting us from summarizing these (which would be a problem due to evidence grading). This becomes less of a problem upon listing authoritative secondary sources, as they already do summation for us, and readers are likely to want to know what, for instance, both the CDC and WHO think about a

2266:

The difference between a good type of source and a good source is an important but sometimes subtle distinction – similar, you might say, to the difference between discussing science vs repeating claims that I personally believe. I often find that when a person has recently been diagnosed with a

848:

It is common for scientific publications to say something like this, either directly or indirectly. There are several reasons for this. It could be argued that more research is always a bonus, even if the topic has already been thoroughly researched. Sometimes, these statements may be made partly

518:

Yes, but the guidelines for medical information follow the same broad principles as the rest of Knowledge. Examples of this include the requirement for reliable sources and the preference for secondary sources over primary sources. These apply to both medical and non-medical information. However,

3963:

articles that note people got cancer or had epilepsy or died of a stroke that are sourced to newspapers, and those aren't MEDRS. Contentious extraordinary claims require high quality sources. Wrt historical figures, even medical journals can be prone to armchair diagnoses of dubious quality. --

3359:

O God that exists eh? An "ideal" MEDRS source is never going to exist for such material but I do think a MEDRS source of some sort is needed for diagnosis of a medical condition in a BLP, a source sufficient to support the weight of the claim made. I suspect the real issue here is AP2/GENSEX and

2434:

Coming back to the original question about our favoured MEDORG guidelines having a malign influence behind them. Consider then if we let editors build our medical articles much like someone might write their own review from the primary research studies. That same malign influence would appear on

4281:

Another area where this sort of question comes up is around Lucy Letby, the nurse who was twice found guilty of murder/attempted murder. There has been considerable media discussion about the safety of those convictions, often revolving around expert issues of medicine and statistics. How do we

4191:

That's probably too vague a word to be useful. I think the problem we had with that literary analysis was that even non-literary-analysis claims (like factual claims, some of which were inaccurate) were held to be true because it was published in a scientific journal and had been peer reviewed.

3851:

We wouldn't want to put this in an article about her (unless, e.g., she announced that she had skin cancer, or got involved in skin cancer prevention advertisements), but that's because it'd be UNDUE, not because it's untrue. But this is such a lightweight claim that any barely passable source

2244:

It puts too much emphasis and trust in academic books & reviews, neglecting that these need careful scrutiny as well. It's not rare in the medical field to find reviews where authors review themselves (or collaborating academic colleagues). There are Cochrane reviews that got redrawn due to

815:

In the first case, we cannot say that it does not work, but we can say that there is no evidence to determine whether it works. After multiple, high-quality independent studies have been published, the understanding may transition from "no evidence" to "some evidence" of either an effect or no

556:

and not to articles: biomedical statements in non-medical articles need to comply with MEDRS, while non-medical statements in medical articles do not need to follow MEDRS. Also like BLP, the spirit of MEDRS is to err on the side of caution when making biomedical statements. Content about human

3322:

Yes, I think that the point is whether WP:MEDRS prevents these editors from making this case, or whether it's just a normal dispute about WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Do they need Dave the Doctor to have published his theories in a reputable medical journal, or is it enough that Dave's views have been

2566:

You might consider whether some of the sources used in that section are out of date. For example, the sentence about body fat percentage is cited to a 30-year-old book, so it might not have up-to-date statistics. (20% body fat is probably an appropriate obesity cutoff for East Asian people.)

2430:

Lots of people worked on the early drafts of MEDRS. My significant part was realising the medical project's guideline, which was becoming MEDMOS, needed the RS stuff pulled out of it into a new page. But the key battles we had then were editors who thought they knew better than these secondary

849:

because authors need to convince readers that the topic is important in order to secure future funding sources. As such, saying this does not communicate much information, and it may also mislead readers into thinking that the existing information on a topic is less reliable than it really is.

4080:

For that second category, I'd expect "some MEDRS chops" to be generally on the lower side (perhaps a peer-reviewed primary source), and I think we need to use sensible judgment, so that things that are more common and obvious don't require much, but wild speculation requires stronger sources.

4451:

medical treatments that are so out-there or obscure that no peer-reviewed coverage of them exists; editors will occasionally then argue that we cannot say that there is no proof of their effectiveness (or that we cannot otherwise describe them as fringe in ways that might touch on biomedical

3904:

And then sometimes we have to throw this all away and say: So much has been written about speculations on Donald Trump's mental and physical health that the speculation should be covered one way or the other. The question there is not whether the speculation is true (e.g., "Is he really a

1113:

in contravention of Knowledge's policy. In general if you find such a copy and it is not accompanied by text explicitly stating that it is made available with the permission of the copyright holder, assume that it is potentially infringing, and do not link to it. This holds for all edits in

2293:

Did you know, for example, the American Psychological Association, known for such works as the DSM-V and numerous textbooks likely to pass as verified work through here without a second thought, is actually a trade organization with the express intent of lobbying on behalf of practicing

1077:. (Note that immediately above "Search Results" on that page, you can change the default "20 per page" to as many as 200 results per page, and you can change how the results are "sorted", e.g., if you are looking for a specific journal, you can sort by Title, instead of the default.) 1062:. (Note that immediately above "Search Results" on that page, you can change the default "20 per page" to as many as 200 results per page, and you can change how the results are "sorted", e.g., if you are looking for a specific journal, you can sort by Title, instead of the default.) 4042:

And (perhaps? are we agreed?) multiple decent sources (e.g., news and magazines) to say that Chris Celebrity has been the subject of speculation about health conditions, but these should not say that the speculations are either true or definitely false. See, e.g., basically all of

3588:

is whether to include in the lead that she's been the subject of public debate about her eligibility to compete with women (and also about the soundness of the IOC policy of "stick to the passport, no testing"). In the context of that discussion, I was partially blocked for making

3892:

Self-disclosure should be another. People do sometimes lie about their health, and misdiagnoses happen, so a press release saying that Chris Celebrity can't eat gluten should never be taken as the final word, but generally you assume that a qualified healthcare professional was

830:

A result or statement from a reliable secondary source should be included without attribution if it is not disputed by any other recent secondary sources. You should do a search to check that the secondary source you are citing is the most up-to-date assessment of the topic.

1393:

Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362.

3837:

hypothetically, if Doctor Dave says something about biomedical about Athlete Alice (or Paul Politician, or Celebrity Caleb) along the lines of "I can see from observation X that they have condition Y" I don't think that's okay to relay that if it just comes from a lay

2608:

is a primary source and looks to be a short communication rather than a full research article. I checked Web of Science, and it only has 5 citations, but one of them is a review that may be worth using where it mentions sumo, especially in the context of the previous

4305:

Well I'm not going there, but I'd have thought Knowledge should stick to a summary: i.e. that's she's been convicted but doubts have been raised about the safety of that conviction, without going into the weeds about breathing tubes, statistical analysis and so on.

2390:

I think something needs to be said of primary sources often also overwhelming both the average reader or editor, owing to both their sheer number, and the fact that even many well-intentioned editors are not deeply knowledgeable about all issues they write about.

795:, medical statements are often derived from an underlying belief system, which will include many propositions that are not subject to MEDRS. These propositions are subject to the usual sourcing requirements and the usual requirements for determining fringe status. 656:, which as explained above makes those articles generally unsuitable for medical information. These articles also tend to omit important information about the study. If a medical primary source is to be cited at all, the academic paper should be cited directly. 3856:(Why did I pick that as an example? Because a few years back, the California legislature has decided that students should not be exposed to their own genetic information as part of a class, and a professor gave that as an example of an unintended consequence.) 3030:

Do you just want to provide "further context" or do you also have an opinion on the topic of this thread? I remember you arguing that we need MEDRS-level sources to include a diagnosis in a BLP if it belongs to the GENSEX topic area (or something like that).

855:

As noted above, Quackwatch does not meet the usual standard as a reliable source, but it can be used (with attribution) for information on a topic of alternative and complementary medicine if there are no scholarly sources available for the same purpose. The

2785:

status does not belong in articles except in very exceptional circumstances, and that repeating poorly-sourced 'diagnoses' is an unacceptable breach of the requirement to respect the privacy of individuals etc, regardless of how it is attributed or framed.

2302:

matters of pathology and lines of inquiry related to potential treatment paradigms. We do ourselves a disservice when we shut out promising potential, and similarly to our readers too when academic literature acts more like a thicket than it does pathway.

3091:

I think there's a danger of over-thinking this. For Knowledge to say any living person has a serious medical condition there would need to be a proper diagnosis and (in reality) that private information would need to be made public in a decent, reputable

2206:

for non-randomized studies; the most relevant checklist for the subject matter could be agreed upon by the reviewers and the editor) and the results published alongside the article. It might make it easier to discover junk science before publication.

4065:

Yeah something like that. In the second case obviously a strong MEDRS isn't needed to say (e.g.) somebody 'sounded hoarse' while singing; but to say their gait was characteristic of a neurological condition would need something with some MEDRS chops.

3615:, sourcing and behaviour needs to be impeccable or sanctions will likely follow. Personally speculating on a Talk page about somebody's medical condition(s) is really irrelevant to this discussion and not anything WP:MED or MEDRS can influence. FAFO. 649:, sometimes with significant caveats. It also includes media outlets which are discouraged in all cases because the quality of their journalism is inadequate. However, even high-quality media outlets have disadvantages in the context of medicine. 3683:

e) the point of the RFC is to insert language into the article which paints the picture that there has been legitimate concerns, when there has not. Legitimate concerns are based of reliable evidence/facts and there is an abundant lack of those.

2721: 3391:

A published presidential exam would be a primary source, which is not the MEDRS ideal. Based on the media kerfuffle around one of Trump's published reports allegedly having been written by his (political) staff, we should probably insist upon

2403:

This guideline already discusses pitfalls of relying on industry and industry-funded sources, and I would not object to a well-thought out extension on issues of industry influence on practice guidelines or biases in professional associations.

3307:

I'm not familiar with the backstory here but isn't the problem from the other direction – that is with editors wanting to say that Dave the Doctor has said Paul Politician obviously has dementia or that Alice the Athlete is a man, actually?

2289:

The express reason given is essentially a re-hash of the "reproducibility crisis," but I have to say, should we even be trusting these "fact-checking"-like organizations for whom we essentially defer the power of keeping out bad knowledge?

864:: if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by self-published sources, then verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory does not need to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It only needs to come from a better source. 3860:

I don't think that all medical claims need the same level of sourcing. Sometimes a person's appearance alone is sufficient; often it's not. And some conditions are more stigmatized, which, as you indicated, has BLP and DUE implications.

2501:

a new meta-analysis was published in 2014, evaluating whether to use beta blockers before cardiac surgery. It found that a course of beta blockers made it 27 percent more likely that someone would die within 30 days of their heart

3629:

Fair enough. This thread, however, is significant if the issue comes up again in talk page discussions, as it's likely to happen. In my view, there is a clear consensus that WP:MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses (as per

663:

High-quality media outlets can be good sources of non-medical information in an article about a medical topic. Another acceptable use is using a popular press article to give a plain English summary of an academic paper (use the

2339: 1412:"Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." 883:

Tutorial videos from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), part of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Includes presentations and tutorials about NCBI biomolecular and biomedical literature databases and

746:, which are generally accepted as authoritative in their fields, NCCAM has been the focus of significant criticism from within the scientific community. Whenever possible, you should cite the established literature directly. 3454:

You need a MEDRS-quality source to say, e.g., that human sexual differentiation exists on a spectrum rather than a binary, and therefore at some level we are all intersex. You do not need a MEDRS-quality source to say that

3110:

I think that if there is a consensus on this approach, then we should write it down somewhere in unambiguous terms, because I keep coming across BLPs that do not follow it. From the article about a recently deceased woman,

3364:

which delightfully has "No signs of cognitive decline or dementia were noted.". It seems to be attempting to source stuff to the Whitehouse's published presidential physical exam, which would be some sort of MEDRS, FWIW?

2834:

perhaps a few lines could be added to either WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP to make it clear. Otherwise, the usual WP:BLP + RS apply, including WP:BLPGOSSIP, and if multiple news organisations report, for instance, that according to

623:, uncommon procedure, etc., for which no high-quality secondary literature is available, or for which the available secondary sources do not cover all of the information normally included in an encyclopedia article. 333: 2729: 2615:

from coaches to those trained in sports medicine. At a glance I can't really assess the sources used there, but it's probably worth searching for more up to date sourcing while looking for medical sources there.

2508:

practices had been established five years sooner. While that exact number is hotly contested, a 27 percent increase in mortality for a common procedure for years on end can add up to an extraordinary death toll.

2257: 3679:

d) any expert who isn't her doctor speculating about medical diagnosis is engaging in unethical behaviour. They can't claim high levels of testosterone when they are not her doctor and there are is no reliable

2724:); however, this was a brief discussion with few comments and no formal closure. The issue was also raised on the Julian Assange talk page, and different views on the relevance of WP:MEDRS were expressed (see 1590:"NCCAM funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance" 629:

when describing major research that has made a significant impact (i.e., continued and substantial coverage). While recent research results are normally omitted, it is sometimes necessary to include them for

4464:, we don't need highest-quality sources to broadly dismiss it. I propose adding a note about PARITY to MEDRS somewhere, along with perhaps a bit of loose guidance for how such coverage should be handled. -- 2799:

Yup, and I think common sense applies. The yardstick is whether or not the statement implies anything about biomedicine. Saying Taylor Swift had a cold (say) does not; saying a celebrity was diagnosed with

3769:

I am partially blocked, not topic banned. Anyway, you're right - there's no point in continuing to discuss Khelif here. The issue raised by my original post also seems to have been sufficiently clarified.

2117:

Knowledge shows, however, that extreme circumstances, especially when related to public health, require different, more stringent rules, not better application of existing rules. The stakes are simply too

2733: 2551: 1108:

Note that paywalled articles are frequently pirated and made available on the open web. When linking to a journal article, care must be taken not to link to such a pirate copy, as such a link would be a

4235: 3735:

The onus isn't on her to disprove ... any expert who isn't her doctor speculating about medical diagnosis is engaging in unethical behaviour ... Legitimate concerns are based of reliable evidence/facts

2529: 3889:

I think the decision needs to be multi-factorial. "Obviousness" is one factor (e.g., "He has a bad sunburn"). Part of the difficulty here is that what's obvious to "me" isn't obvious to everyone.

2252:

In the end, as mentioned before, all sources need to be checked for credibility. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do on Knowledge, where scientific "discussion" is not desired on the talk page.

50: 3384:

to exclude it, but impossible to source statements like "He's scientifically proven to have _____". Therefore the contents end up being some variation on "Alice claims he has _____", and editors

3125:

Some have suggested that the Press sisters were male or intersex. Another allegation was that they were being injected with male hormones by the Soviet government in order to make them stronger

4557:

says it depends on the quality of the product. I'm not sure what we should be saying, but I don't think that declaring "FRINGE, so I can use weak sources as long as they say it doesn't work".

3984:

that discusses one individual's personal medical information without citing a single medical journal, reference book, or anything similar. Instead, it relies almost entirely on news stories (

3432:

What has prompted this discussoin is editors, Gitz included, wanting to include material in an article that includes speculation about a medical diagnosis in the absense of reliable evidence.

4177:

A gold-plated scientific source is not appropriate for information about movie ticket sales, and a source that's appropriate for box office success is not appropriate for scientific claims.

3342: 776:

thereof) should not make implications about medical statements that are not supported by such sources. Guidance on the additional considerations relevant to fringe subjects can be found at

327: 4299: 2768: 3714: 2838:

Putin may have Parkinson's, we can do the same. If they report that a public figure may have some medical condition (something that does imply questionable biomedical statements: not

3970: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 3791: 2435:

Knowledge as editors cherry picking primary sources. There isn't a mechanism whereby Knowledge might be expected to do better, and a fair amount of evidence that it would do worse.

2715: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 2276: 3905:

narcissist?"), but whether the speculation is impactful (e.g., "Did the claim that he's supposedly a narcissist have any effect on whether people are likely to vote for him?").

2408:(part of this guideline, which I worked extensively on) points to industry guidelines or guidelines from patient advocacy groups being considered below the threshold of MEDRS. 2431:

sources or who thought journalists on their favourite paper did better. Citing the secondary literature was something academics are taught to avoid so it didn't come naturally.

2193: 2311: 2370:

plus, of course, all the problems with the reproducibility crisis and the general difficulty of figuring out which primary source to 'believe in', if the data is conflicting.

2151: 3725:, "Both athletes were afforded the chance to appeal the DQs to the Swiss-based Court of Appeal. Lin did not. Khelif did but then opted last July not to pursue the matter"; 4157:

whether the introduction correctly identifies some long dead historical figure. Whereas presumably a university press history book is concerned with getting history right.

4002:

I don't think anybody's arguing (are they?) that MEDRS is needed to relay the knowledge that somebody has a medical condition. What's at stake is the sourcing required to

2452: 2335: 4480:

claims. In principal, I'd support some PARITY guidance here, perhaps with a recommendation to start a discussion at this talk page or FTN if unsure about best practices.

3722: 411: 253: 2261: 4175:

Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

1546:"The criticism repeatedly aimed at NCCAM seems justified, as far as their RCTs of chiropractic is concerned. It seems questionable whether such research is worthwhile." 2253: 652:

Firstly, news articles on medicine will frequently be reporting a new medical primary source, such as the results of a new study. This means that they are effectively

4360:

NOTNEWS is opposed to Knowledge creating original news reports. It's got nothing against citing the news or keeping articles up to date. I think this is more of a

2424: 2355:

editors using obviously bad primary sources (e.g., the patent claiming that colloidal silver cures HIV, but it didn't test whether people had HIV in the first place)

1976: 1950: 3976:

We have a lot of articles that cite newspapers or obits to say "Alice died at the age of 67 from cancer", which are entirely acceptable and not MEDRS' ideal. See

2330: 805:

No evidence exists, either became no studies for the treatment have been published, or because the studies published are too small or weak to draw any conclusions.

732: 346: 4585: 3025: 2382: 422: 2594: 2576: 1658: 1563: 765:

A fringe medical claim is one that differs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in the scientific medical community. This is similar to

4493: 1738: 1686: 416: 2990: 2966: 1153:

An article by librarian John Mark Ockerbloom, titled, "Why Pay for What’s Free? Finding Open Access and Public Domain Articles" offers helpful suggestions.

4637: 4508:

the conclusion that "Valerian has not been shown to be helpful" for anxiety. Is valerian's traditional use as an anxiolytic truly FRINGE? I don't know.

3468: 2707: 2685: 1713: 3563: 3528:

condition Y" I don't think that's okay to relay that if it just comes from a lay source, as much for reasons of BLP/NPOV as for weakness of the sourcing.

3449: 3302: 4392: 4374: 4090: 4075: 4060: 4020: 3932: 3914: 3884: 3870: 3500: 3482: 3419: 3405: 3374: 3317: 3207:

Seems like the answer to the question in the title to this section (Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?) is already covered by

3192: 2813: 1703: 526:

to use high-quality sources when writing about biomedical information. Many sources that are acceptable for other types of information under Knowledge's

4257: 2234: 692:. Searches on PUBMED may be narrowed to secondary sources (reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, etc.) so it is a useful tool for source hunting. 4410: 4355: 4337: 4315: 4286:

and input would be welcome. I feel parts of the article spend too much time on discussing individual commentaries by experts that are getting close to

3818: 3750: 3701: 3606: 3537: 3522: 3208: 3044: 2828: 769:. A claim can still be a fringe medical claim even if it has a large following in other areas of public life (such as politics and the popular press). 3354: 3284: 3263: 3241: 3178: 3140: 3086: 3067: 2924: 2898: 2889:?) would look like if the standard was "One unreliable source said it, and a bunch of media companies decided that they wanted some of that traffic". 2794: 2624: 1132:= the number of available versions of that article) at the bottom of a listing. The resulting page might contain PDF or HTML versions of the article. 3661: 3647: 3624: 3336: 3156: 3105: 2284: 1681: 466: 302: 35: 2863: 4642: 4602: 4425: 4365:("Well, Dr. Expert says that discoloration alone isn't proof of air embolism, but Dr. Authority said that discoloration wasn't considered alone"). 4229: 4199: 4186: 4168: 4151: 4125: 3997: 2904: 3783: 3764: 3737:. Your questionable reading of BLP+MEDRS+GENSEX denies and trivialises a significant public debate in sport, preventing its coverage based on RS. 3726: 2666: 2216: 2050: 626:

when mentioning a famous paper or clinical trial that made a recognized substantial impact, as part of a purely historical treatment of a topic.

4473: 3634:), unless they based on or express controversial biomedical theories. If I were not involved, I would venture to close it with this statement. 2739:, implying that WP:MEDRS applies to medical diagnoses. I suspect that this issue has arisen elsewhere (e.g. regarding the athlete Imane Khelif 2523: 835:

recent findings can be stated without attribution. You should also take into account the relative weight secondary sources have. For example,

4142:

concerns me. Perhaps the latter is closer to the concept of using a primary source to debunk a secondary one. I'm still thinking about it.

3568:

I don't want to go into the specifics of the case as this is a general discussion, but some background information might be helpful. In 2023

2903:

I agree that the example from Putin is a bit extreme - we should probably remove that content from the article. But what about articles like

700: 3710: 2562: 4627: 4622: 2446: 4035:

MEDRS-level article to say that, according to people who have never examined them, Chris Celebrity appears to have scaryitis. See, e.g.,

4007:

about a condition, or armchair diagnosis – if ever due – would need to come from a MEDRS source of some sort. I don't think any change of

3585: 2972:

This "context" is irrelevant: the issue is of general interest and does not concern me or my partial block. I opened this thread because

2646: 1097:

Most scholarly journals are behind paywalls. Some options to access these articles include visiting a local university library, visiting

816:

effect. You should follow the lead of review articles and other secondary sources for determining when this threshold has been crossed.

756:

which may be helpful. Alternatively, a more experienced editor may be able to help you find them (or to confirm that they do not exist).

361: 4632: 4044: 4028:

Pretty much any reliable source to say that Chris Celebrity has been diagnosed (e.g., by their own doctor) with scaryitis. See, e.g.,

2908: 2736:), the consensus was "Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided" 2486:'s use of apparently fake data in studies that then led to a faulty conclusion that beta blockers were beneficial before heart surgery. 2041: 2021: 1728: 1708: 1676: 1651: 85: 3919:

Yes, there are people who have been 'cured' of cancer but where the diagnosis was questionable in the first place. I don't know about

462: 4489: 3513:

apply there? We shouldn't be drawing conclusions. If RS have drawn conclusions, we report what RS said, subject to normal BLP rules.

2326: 930: 703:(NCBI), or the US government. These organisations support the search engine but lend no particular weight to the content it indexes. 2878:, speculates that a public figure has a medical condition, and this gets repeated by other media companies, then we should probably 2125: 4612: 4607: 4234:

Thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion. I've recently come to analogous thoughts in a very different topic, which was

2202:

I have been wondering recently why peer review doesn't involve putting each article through an evidence-based checklist (e.g., the

1733: 4220:

in the past. Maybe a section on types of articles and what to expect from them would be an appropriate expansion of that page.

3271:

If you run into problems that you can't resolve on your own (POV pushing comes in many guises), then I suggest asking for help at

1414:

Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), "Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials.",

4617: 3361: 1911: 937:

If you know the full or abbreviated name for a journal, and you want to see if it is indexed in MEDLINE, see the instructions at

392: 3670:

a) A reliable sources don't say she waived her appeal. A reliable sources say she couldn't continue due to not having the funds.

2340:

Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies

574:. The very similar names are easily confused. For most (not all) purposes, the ideal source is a peer-reviewed review article. 3218: 549: 384: 3132: 1180:

On Talk pages, when referring to journal articles, is it good practice to make any link using these types of identifier also:

1644: 91: 4398: 4283: 3096:. Speculation about a condition, or armchair diagnosis – if ever due – would need to come from a MEDRS source of some sort. 2725: 261: 17: 4383:'s "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Knowledge", but sure this overlaps with a long of other NOTs. 921: 3272: 2740: 2673: 1842: 1723: 388: 2108: 1594:"NCCAM is unable to implement a research agenda that addresses legitimate scientific opportunities or health-care needs" 638:

sources. Later, these primary sources can be replaced or supplemented with citations to high-quality secondary sources.

1902: 1882: 857: 3246:

I had noticed this page, which is indeed quite relevant to this discussion. However, it is only an explanatory essay (

2720:

In a previous discussion on this talk page, some editors concluded that no, WP:MEDRS does not apply to diagnosis (see

2463: 2352:

the one source that says something completely different from all the others (e.g., cigarettes don't cause lung cancer)

3676:

c) Italian sources posting that she is intersex are obviously engaging in disinformation on the basis of nationalism.

695:

It is a common misconception that because a source appears in PubMed it is published by, or has the approval of, the

475: 634:

weight. In this case, it is usually preferable to read and cite the primary scientific literature in preference to

4253: 3729:: "Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but then withdrew the appeal". And so on... 2162: 2049:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1696: 563:

I used a peer-reviewed source, but it was reverted, and the editor said I needed to use a review. I did, didn't I?

545: 3580:

don't provide any advantage. However, some (more or less WP:BIASED) "experts" ventured a speculative diagnosis of

3136: 2642: 3573: 3459:

has been accused of having a medical condition that could render her ineligible for competing in women's sports.

2743:). The intersection between BLP and MEDRS has far-reaching implications for content (e.g., should we remove from 1098: 728:. Such sources should be used with caution. The problem also includes issues with the academic system in China. 474:

This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of

3779: 3746: 3643: 3602: 3332: 3259: 3152: 3082: 3040: 2986: 2920: 2859: 2843: 2764: 1836: 1800: 1718: 31: 4460:

exists for - if no high-quality academic sources touch on a fringe topic at all, then, provided it is plainly

1177:

In article references, the "doi" and "pmid" parameters are preferred to the "url" parameter for such reasons.

557:

biochemistry or about medical research in animals is also subject to MEDRS if it is relevant to human health.

4485: 2847: 2361:

authors spamming their own publications into as many articles as possible (this happens much less often with

2322: 911: 873:

National Library of Medicine (NLM), PubMed, NCBI, & MEDLINE help, tutorials, documentation, & support

743: 696: 479: 276: 80: 1015: 3977: 3360:

editors wanting to advocate positions, which is something this WikiProject cannot fix. I see we also have

2962: 2135: 1775: 725: 4098: 4036: 3488: 1074: 1055: 4565: 4217: 4101:

are "celebrities" and I would hope medical journals would have better things to do than speculate on the

2590: 2547: 938: 916: 645:

The popular press includes many media outlets which are acceptable sources for factual information about

71: 3796:

Three months later, CAS issued a termination order because Khelif could not fund the costs of the matter

3721:, "Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), but then withdrew the appeal"; 1537:"the subject of rancorous scientific and political debate over its mission and even continued existence" 3128: 2203: 1291:"How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? an evaluation of 500 stories" 753: 519:

there are differences in the details of the guidelines, such as which sources are considered reliable.

124: 4242:

published what I would describe as right-wing confabulation about who perpetrates sexual abuse. Hmm.—

2610: 4130: 3473:

But what about that she has all the signs of having that condition, so the diagnosis surely follows?

3290: 3161:

I'm not sure that there is a problem with this (other than the last sentence probably needing to say

3001: 2955: 2601:

Statements about life expectancy are getting into the realm of MEDRS, but the following phrase about

1164: 4325: 4481: 4324:

the current approach being taken! It is 100% in the weeds, lots of "this expert said this", a huge

2869: 2493:

xperts who study scientific misconduct believe that thousands of people may be dead because of him.

2395:

Knowledge from reading: xx et al. found 80% mortality, while xy found 79%, and zy found 81% - with

2373:

Primary sources are more likely to be tolerated in veterinary content or for very rare conditions.

2349: 2318: 2307: 2098: 530:, such as the popular press, are not suitable sources for reliable medical information. (See also: 3652:

Well yeah, where that is a proper 'diagnosis' and not pundit speculation and/or in a weak source.

1910:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4498:

I wonder if we need to address things in different ways. For example, consider these use cases:

4106: 3343:

Age and health concerns about Donald Trump#Allegations of mental illness by medical professionals

2958: 2175: 2163:"Junk science is cited in abortion ban cases. Researchers are fighting the 'fatally flawed' work" 1191:

Any DOI can be turned into a resolvable web address by prepending "https://doi.org/" to it (e.g.

1073:

to find all journals indexed in MEDLINE (5266 journals as of 29 May 2020); or go directly to the

4581: 4439: 4370: 4225: 4182: 4147: 4110: 4086: 4056: 3993: 3985: 3910: 3866: 3496: 3464: 3401: 3350: 3298: 3280: 3237: 3174: 3063: 3055: 2894: 2790: 2681: 2586: 2572: 2558: 2543: 2378: 2272: 2212: 1541: 836: 1532: 1441:

Ernst, Edzard (2012). "Acupuncture: What Does the Most Reliable Evidence Tell Us? An Update".

109: 4569: 4388: 4351: 4311: 4071: 4016: 3928: 3880: 3657: 3620: 3533: 3478: 3415: 3370: 3313: 3188: 3101: 2809: 1781: 1691: 1631: 785: 672: 653: 635: 905: 4406: 4333: 4295: 4249: 3718: 3518: 3183:

Agree, that example does not seem to be about 'diagnosis' or 'serious medical conditions'.

3054:

subject, because the answer is not changing" or "All future discussions will be subject to

2824: 2630: 2230: 2046: 1981: 1955: 1550: 1485: 792: 341: 3840:. To illustrate why, I'm going to give you my own totally non-RS diagnosis about a BLP: 877:

Full, searchable list of all tutorials - training materials in HTML, PDF and Video formats

440: 8: 4469: 3841: 2303: 61: 2606: 1342: 3803: 3775: 3760: 3742: 3686: 3639: 3598: 3548: 3434: 3328: 3255: 3148: 3078: 3036: 3010: 2982: 2916: 2855: 2760: 2692: 2651: 2519: 1626: 1514: 1316: 1290: 1267: 1243: 535: 432: 101: 76: 3875:

Okay, so would you agree if the prohibition applied only to "non-obvious" statements?

2358:

editors believing the media hype (can result in bad content and unbalanced articles )

1581: 1454: 1427: 4577: 4551: 4544: 4537: 4530: 4523: 4516: 4509: 4366: 4343: 4287: 4221: 4178: 4143: 4135: 4082: 4052: 3989: 3906: 3862: 3492: 3460: 3397: 3346: 3294: 3276: 3233: 3170: 3059: 2890: 2786: 2677: 2638: 2631: 2582: 2568: 2514:

Note the clarifying & corrective effects of secondary sources in this situation.

2374: 2268: 2208: 1517: 1507: 1465: 1458: 1431: 1395: 1377: 1321: 1272: 1110: 724:

As of 2014, there are concerns regarding positive bias in publications from China on

57: 490:

Explanatory essay about the Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) policy

4461: 4457: 4448: 4441: 4397:

If either of you, or anyone else, would like to input those, or other, thoughts at

4384: 4380: 4347: 4307: 4213: 4139: 4134:

trouble explaining why a scholarly history book feels okay, but the "peer-reviewed

4067: 4012: 3924: 3876: 3832: 3653: 3631: 3616: 3529: 3506: 3474: 3411: 3393: 3366: 3345:? I don't expect editors to restrict themselves to MEDRS' ideal in such articles. 3309: 3184: 3097: 2875: 2805: 2405: 2112: 1499: 1490: 1450: 1423: 1369: 1360:

Dentzer S (2009). "Communicating medical news—pitfalls of health care journalism".

1312: 1302: 1263: 1255: 1206: 781: 777: 766: 715: 531: 1094:

I found what looks like a good source, but can't access the full text – what next?

1091:

Besides being a secondary source, what else indicates a source is of high quality?

4504: 4453: 4423: 4402: 4329: 4291: 4243: 4205: 4197: 4166: 4123: 3968: 3673:

b) The onus isn't on her to disprove the IBA which is unreliable and discredited.

3514: 3381: 2947: 2820: 2542:

requires MEDRS? This is for a Good Article nomination that is currently ongoing.

2444: 2362: 2226: 1828: 1575: 1307: 1239: 689: 571: 498: 4029: 2539: 842:

In the rare cases where primary sources can be used, they should be attributed.

4465: 4361: 3755:

You were banned from the article for a reason. Why are you discussing it here?

3612: 2886: 2744: 2483: 2420: 1636: 1216: 876: 646: 593: 307: 3004:

as they did not provide a convincing reason why they should be unblocked from

1202:

Are there special considerations for conflicts of interest for health content?

1083: 899: 272: 4596: 4008: 3920: 3897: 3771: 3756: 3738: 3635: 3594: 3388:

negotiate about which claims are necessary to include and how to phrase them.

3324: 3268:

There's nothing in MEDRS that says BLPs are "biomedical information", either.

3251: 3144: 3074: 3032: 2978: 2951: 2912: 2851: 2756: 2737: 2620: 2515: 2294:

psychologists, in exchange extracting registration dues, and licensing fees?

2189: 2139:

knowledge." It's a guideline that has launched a thousand Talk page disputes.

1461: 739: 710: 631: 599: 506: 3542:

Exactly, and in the content dispute that has brought about this discussion (

2605:

is where it is making medical claims (although vague). The source used there

2298:

marketing channel where physicians were not primed to regard it critically?

4554: 4547: 4540: 4533: 4526: 4519: 4512: 4236:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

3981: 3569: 3543: 3510: 3456: 3112: 3093: 3005: 2943: 2459: 2411:

Perhaps, in the spirit of giving background to a well-though-out question,

2396: 2167: 1907: 1510: 1468: 1398: 1380: 1338: 1324: 1275: 1143: 1102: 1066: 1043: 620: 608:

So if primary sources can be used in rare cases, what are those rare cases?

527: 1559:"Many US researchers still say such funding is a waste of time and money." 1434: 976: 945: 4209: 4102: 3120: 2973: 1373: 567: 1259: 891: 882: 688:

is merely a search engine and the majority of content it indexes is not

277: 4419: 4193: 4162: 4119: 3964: 2839: 2801: 2753:

reported that based on video footage Putin may have Parkinson's disease

2453:

Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources

2440: 2412: 2336:

Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources

1894: 1876: 1608:

Why Pay for What’s Free? Finding Open Access and Public Domain Articles

1026: 4447:

This has come up a few times in the past. Sometimes there are plainly

4346:

goes out the window while the media is pumping out volumes of stuff.

4239: 3848:

hair and green eyes has a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer.

3844:

has a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer due to her genetics.

2416: 2126:"Inside Knowledge's endless war over the coronavirus lab leak theory" 798:

If a treatment hasn't been shown to work, can we say it doesn't work?

355: 3209:

Knowledge:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?

2033: 2015: 1503: 1192: 3590: 3211:. A relevant excerpt of examples of what is not covered by MEDRS: 3117:

Both sisters were accused of being either secretly male or intersex

2616: 2249:

neither does a review by psychiatrists on psychosomatic literature.

2185: 1969: 1944: 1142:

for journal articles available without a subscription. Install the

839:

reviews provide stronger evidence than a regular secondary source.

274: 3227:

Examples of people with the disease in literature, video, or songs

2089: 1084:

MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different?

1080:

MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different?

1054:

journals (5021 journals as of 29 May 2020); or go directly to the

975:

If you know the journal’s NLM Title Abbreviation, enter it in the

4025:

If I've understood the distinction you're drawing, then we need:

3058:

rules, because we've wasted enough time on throw-away accounts".

2531: 2109:"How Knowledge Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation" 502: 1840:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at 585:

information is that the popular press are not suitable sources.

2415:

has input on considerations when MEDRS was originally drafted.

2345:

We have had multiple problems with primary sources, including:

1160: 685: 588:

Whenever possible, you should cite a secondary source such as:

322: 1174:

which you can use to generate a full citation automatically.

1121: 749:

What if I can’t find any MEDRS-compliant sources on a subject?

721:

Can I cite Chinese studies about Traditional Chinese Medicine?

278: 4173:

In policy terms, I think we'd call that "appropriate", as in

3581: 2716:

Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?

2538:

Hi all, looking for some guidance on what, if any content in

1607: 1171: 4097:

I think Chris's surname is unhelpful. None of the people at

3713:, "Khelif initially appealed but then withdrew her motion"; 1170:

Once you have the PMID, there are a number of tools such as

300:

for Knowledge's health content are defined in the guideline

4502:

Are all herbal/traditional/self-care remedies truly FRINGE?

4328:

section. 7667 word article with 28% on the Doubts section.

3577: 3217:

If the patient is still alive or is recently deceased, the

2885:

Spend a while thinking about what some celebrity articles (

2647:

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

2317:

Which blanket-ban on primary sources are you referring to?

2152:

Meta-analyses need careful scrutiny, peer-reviewed or not.

2129: 1586:" was created by pressure from a few advocates in Congress" 1244:"Seeking health information online: does Knowledge matter?" 4568:, so I suspect we can manage equally well with the latest 4399:

Talk:Lucy_Letby#Determination_of_WP:UNDUE_should_be_per_RS

4284:

Talk:Lucy_Letby#Determination_of_WP:UNDUE_should_be_per_RS

3801:

As per the rest of what you wrote, M.Bitton summed it up.

3248:

This page is not one of Knowledge's policies or guidelines

1812: 1794: 515:

Does Knowledge have special rules for medical information?

291: 1991:

Knowledge:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs

383:

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to

2603:

as the diet and sport take a toll on the wrestler's body

1994:

Template:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs

1139: 4282:

ensure good sourcing? There's an ongoing discussion at

3491:, which doesn't necessarily come with visible signs. 1188:

is a PMID, will create a link to the indicated article.

1065:====Create a list of all journals indexed in MEDLINE}} 944:

If you know the journal’s exact title, enter it in the

4561:

Are we talking about whole articles or brief mentions?

1088:

Are there ways to find good sources other than PubMed?

881:

YouTube channel for the National Library of Medicine:

681:

I have a source from PubMed, so that's reliable right?

522:

Why do you have special rules for medical information?

2241:

This is also the reason why this guideline is flawed.

935:

Determine if a specific journal is indexed in MEDLINE

3487:

I haven't followed this, but I saw a headline about

2045:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1906:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1818: 1572:"This kind of science isn't worth any time or money" 926:

Finding journals that comply with WP:MEDRS standards

26: 2641:. Interested editors are invited to participate at 852:

How can Quackwatch be considered a reliable source?

347:

clinical publications about evidence-based medicine

4342:I'm supposing that is one of those articles where 3707:A reliable sources don't say she waived her appeal 1075:search results for all journals indexed in MEDLINE 827:being a stronger claim than one with attribution. 4238:, where the usually-reliable newspaper of record 3232:I don't see a need to further clarify the issue. 2874:, a British tabloid that is deprecated by RSP at 2804:would imply that was a real condition, so would. 467:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 303:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 4594: 1979:, a project which is currently considered to be 1666: 1212:What if I am being paid to edit medical content? 767:Knowledge's general definition of a fringe claim 642:Why can't I use articles from the popular press? 2905:Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death 2672:You might get more responses if you post it at 1977:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 1159:Almost all medical articles are indexed by the 2464:"The staggering death toll of scientific lies" 2285:Reconsidering a blanket-ban of primary sources 1555:"still draws fire from traditional scientists" 1237: 845:Why not say there is a call for more research? 772:How should fringe medical claims be described? 3923:. I agree sources should always be credible. 1652: 701:National Center for Biotechnology Information 544:MEDRS-compliant sources are required for all 503:manual of style for medicine-related articles 1997:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles 929:For full comprehensive instructions, go to: 4638:Project-Class Alternative medicine articles 4456:. This is, I think, the sort of situation 1288: 4045:Age and health concerns about Donald Trump 3978:Angelina Jolie#Cancer prevention treatment 2909:Age and health concerns about Donald Trump 2059:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative medicine 1659: 1645: 1022:, also known as "Core clinical journals". 896:National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalog 550:policy on the biographies of living people 499:guidelines on sourcing for medical content 3611:Well there you have it. On such multiple- 2728:). In two RfCs on Trump's mental health ( 2099:mentioned by multiple media organizations 2062:Template:WikiProject Alternative medicine 1774:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 1359: 1315: 1306: 1266: 870:How can I find good sources using PubMed? 1337: 811:Evidence exists, and it shows an effect. 808:Evidence exists, and it shows no effect. 328:review articles from the past five years 4643:Knowledge pages referenced by the press 4603:Knowledge essays about reliable sources 4326:Lucy_Letby#Doubts_about_the_convictions 4320:I'd agree with that. That is certainly 3362:Age and health concerns about Joe Biden 2455:. For example, consider the following: 2451:I think that there is sound reason for 1413: 1120:Search for the title of the article on 316:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 36:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 14: 4595: 3717:, "Khelif later withdrew her appeal"; 3219:Knowledge:Biographies of living people 3000:Gitz had an unblock request denied at 2160: 1443:Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1403: 1114:Knowledge, not just in article space. 615:be useful in these common situations: 385:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 2458: 1640: 1440: 1343:"Why reading should not be believing" 1156:How do I reference a medical article? 1124:. On the results page, click on "All 999: 994: 989: 984: 968: 963: 958: 953: 931:Searching for Journals in NLM Catalog 823:Should medical content be attributed? 801:There are three possible situations: 780:, as well as at other places such as 742:weight. Unlike other branches of the 3835:, I think I disagree with you about 3323:covered by many news organisations? 3119:; from the article about her sister 2643:Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 4#RfC lead 2482:The article highlights cardiologist 2254:2003:EC:6F4B:2200:68E5:5719:3D0:F25F 2084: 1763: 1761: 1757: 1000:The New England journal of medicine 979:, followed by the field qualifier . 959:The Journal of Supportive Oncology 448: 401: 371: 356:Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 286: 4628:NA-importance pharmacology articles 4623:Project-Class pharmacology articles 3273:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 2674:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 2489:The article then goes on to state: 1988:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 1951:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 1843:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 1780:It is of interest to the following 1483: 1147:full text version of the article). 969:The Journal of Supportive Oncology 941:, which I will also reproduce here: 706:Can I use websites like Quackwatch? 34:for discussing improvements to the 24: 4536:says they can't tell if it works, 1920:Knowledge:WikiProject Pharmacology 1477: 1422:(2), Control Clin Trials: 159–66, 948:followed by the field qualifier . 480:thoroughly vetted by the community 476:Knowledge's policies or guidelines 25: 4654: 4633:WikiProject Pharmacology articles 2749:In April 2022, tabloid newspaper 2530:Question about need for MEDRS in 2161:Glenza, Jessica (28 April 2024). 2039:This page is within the scope of 1975:This page is within the scope of 1923:Template:WikiProject Pharmacology 1900:This page is within the scope of 1834:This page is within the scope of 1455:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.001 1193:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6801 1014:Via a search of the NLM Catalog: 353:Other potential sources include: 4099:Retrospective diagnosis#Examples 4037:Retrospective diagnosis#Examples 3852:should be considered sufficient. 3289:You might also be interested in 3002:User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2 2956:User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2 2637:There are currently two RFCs at 2088: 2042:WikiProject Alternative medicine 2032: 2014: 1968: 1943: 1893: 1875: 1821: 1811: 1793: 1762: 1627:WikiProject Medicine's Talk Page 1033:(118 journals as of 5 May 2020) 577:Why can't I use primary sources? 452: 410: 375: 290: 260: 51:Click here to start a new topic. 4613:NA-importance medicine articles 4608:Project-Class medicine articles 3574:International Boxing Federation 2534:(sumo wrestlers) health section 762:What is a fringe medical claim? 541:When do I need to follow MEDRS? 4618:All WikiProject Medicine pages 4426:14:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4258:12:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4230:05:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4200:07:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4187:03:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4169:18:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 4152:03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 4126:14:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3933:05:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3505:I am not clear what you mean, 3396:attribution for such sources. 2124:Jackson Ryan (June 24, 2021). 1852:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine 1600: 1523: 1484:Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), 1387: 1353: 1331: 1282: 1231: 995:Results = 1 record retrieved: 964:Results = 1 record retrieved: 13: 1: 4411:12:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4401:, that would be appreciated. 4393:07:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4375:07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4356:13:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4338:13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4316:12:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4300:11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4091:07:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4076:07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4061:07:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4021:01:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3998:01:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3971:18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3915:22:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3885:07:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3871:06:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3819:03:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3784:09:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3765:02:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3751:02:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3702:01:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3662:13:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3648:13:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3625:13:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3607:13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3564:12:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3538:12:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3523:11:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3501:04:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3483:03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3469:01:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3450:00:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3420:04:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3406:04:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3375:03:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3355:01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3337:17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3318:16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3303:16:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3285:16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3264:15:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3242:14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3193:20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 3179:20:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 3157:19:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 2755:?) that are hard to foresee. 2107:Noam Cohem (March 15, 2020). 2065:Alternative medicine articles 2053:and see a list of open tasks. 1914:and see a list of open tasks. 1855:Template:WikiProject Medicine 1428:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00150-5 1103:WikiProject Resource Requests 858:guidelines on fringe theories 754:section about finding sources 744:National Institutes of Health 697:National Institutes of Health 509:apply to biomedical content. 314:sources of information about 48:Put new text under old text. 1667:Knowledge biomedical editing 1486:"Publish or perish in China" 1308:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 726:Traditional Chinese Medicine 7: 4586:20:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 4566:Category:Experimental drugs 4494:19:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 4474:19:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 4218:Knowledge:Scholarly journal 3106:12:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 3087:09:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 3068:17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 3045:15:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3026:11:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2991:11:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2967:16:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2925:08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2899:17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2864:15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2829:14:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2814:13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2795:12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2769:10:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2708:09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2686:17:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2667:10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2625:01:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 2595:00:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 2577:00:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 2552:14:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 2524:18:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2277:03:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2262:21:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2199:Thanks, that's interesting. 1677:Editing for medical experts 56:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 4659: 4550:say it's "promising", and 2217:21:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 2194:19:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1568:" is a political creation" 1416:Controlled Clinical Trials 939:searching by journal title 908:(rev. December 19, 2019). 654:acting as a primary source 552:("BLP"), MEDRS applies to 528:general sourcing guideline 495:Frequently Asked Questions 430: 427:Frequently asked questions 99: 4131:Health of Abraham Lincoln 3896:Did you ever work on the 3489:5α-Reductase 2 deficiency 2447:09:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 2425:17:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 2383:18:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2331:17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2312:17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2235:21:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2027: 1963: 1888: 1806: 1788: 1672: 1165:Digital object identifier 1163:search engine and have a 867:Finding and using sources 738:Yes, but again only with 86:Be welcoming to newcomers 3572:was disqualified by the 2780:As for whether WP:MEDRS 2222:rejecting bad MR papers: 1903:WikiProject Pharmacology 1606:Ockerbloom, John Mark. " 1111:copyright violating link 892:PubMed User Guide - FAQs 860:includes the concept of 718:attribution to the POV. 393:WikiProject Pharmacology 387:or to the talk pages of 3341:You mean articles like 2942:: Gitz was banned from 2850:) we can include this. 2690:Thanks for the advice. 2176:British Medical Journal 1622:Other helpful resources 1056:search results for all 604:a high-quality textbook 507:guidelines and policies 4004:make the determination 2540:Rikishi#Health effects 2498:After the revelations, 2338:isn't a blanket ban. 2204:Newcastle–Ottawa scale 2184:is a cautionary tale. 1714:Plain and simple guide 1697:Biomedical information 1067:Search the NLM Catalog 1044:Search the NLM Catalog 1029:Abridged Index Medicus 1018:Abridged Index Medicus 1009:Abridged Index Medicus 1005: 977:NLM Catalog search box 946:NLM Catalog search box 837:Cochrane Collaboration 546:biomedical information 81:avoid personal attacks 4570:multi-level marketing 4452:information), citing 4204:That's a good idea. 3792:Sydney Morning Herald 2844:alternative diagnoses 2342:is just common sense. 2134:The exclusion of the 1926:pharmacology articles 1709:Conflicts of interest 1612:Everybody's Libraries 1542:Clinical Rheumatology 1533:Nature Reviews Cancer 1409:Further information: 1248:J Am Med Inform Assoc 1099:The Knowledge Library 1036:Create a list of all 942: 922:Searching NLM Catalog 619:when writing about a 254:Auto-archiving period 3141:sports-reference.com 2848:delusional disorders 2581:As always, thankyou 2056:Alternative medicine 2047:Alternative medicine 2022:Alternative medicine 1837:WikiProject Medicine 1719:WikiProject Medicine 1632:Knowledge:Why MEDRS? 1582:Science Policy Forum 1374:10.1056/NEJMp0805753 1289:Schwitzer G (2008). 1199:Conflict of interest 793:alternative medicine 566:Probably not. Most 389:WikiProject Medicine 334:free review articles 310:. Here are links to 18:Knowledge talk:MEDRS 4482:Firefangledfeathers 4216:have all worked on 3842:Bryce Dallas Howard 3133:thestraightdope.com 2319:Firefangledfeathers 2097:This page has been 1260:10.1197/jamia.M3059 1144:UnPaywall extension 1007:Review the list of 478:as it has not been 4030:Charles III#Health 3291:WP:Bring me a rock 3127:. Sources are the 2959:Bluethricecreamman 1776:content assessment 1184:Typing "]", where 1150:Librarian's advice 1025:Stand alone list: 497:about Knowledge's 306:and are typically 92:dispute resolution 53: 4256: 4136:literary analysis 4111:Marfan's syndrome 4109:contestants. The 3857: 2993: 2639:Talk:Imane Khelif 2632:Talk:Imane Khelif 2587:Rollinginhisgrave 2559:Rollinginhisgrave 2544:Rollinginhisgrave 2149: 2148: 2081: 2080: 2077: 2076: 2073: 2072: 2009: 2008: 2005: 2004: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1933: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1858:medicine articles 1756: 1755: 1749: 1748: 1498:(7278): 142–143, 1128:versions" (where 1004: 1003: 973: 972: 752:MEDRS contains a 684:Not necessarily. 570:articles are not 488: 487: 463:explanatory essay 425: 400: 399: 370: 369: 285: 284: 72:Assume good faith 49: 16:(Redirected from 4650: 4379:I'm thinking of 4248: 4176: 4140:Talk:Cass Review 3855: 3839: 2971: 2954:violations. See 2477: 2475: 2474: 2400:specific issue. 2180: 2141: 2120: 2092: 2085: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2060: 2057: 2036: 2029: 2028: 2018: 2011: 2010: 1999: 1998: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1972: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1947: 1940: 1939: 1928: 1927: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1897: 1890: 1889: 1879: 1872: 1871: 1860: 1859: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1815: 1808: 1807: 1797: 1790: 1789: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1758: 1682:Reliable sources 1661: 1654: 1647: 1638: 1637: 1615: 1604: 1598: 1527: 1521: 1520: 1481: 1475: 1472: 1437: 1407: 1401: 1391: 1385: 1384: 1357: 1351: 1350: 1335: 1329: 1328: 1319: 1310: 1286: 1280: 1279: 1270: 1235: 1072: 1071:currentlyindexed 1049: 1027:List of current 982: 981: 951: 950: 900:NLM Catalog Help 709:Quackwatch is a 677: 671: 667: 611:Primary sources 456: 455: 449: 443: 415: 414: 402: 379: 378: 372: 294: 287: 279: 265: 264: 255: 112: 27: 21: 4658: 4657: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4593: 4592: 4505:Valerian (herb) 4445: 4290:, for example. 4174: 4138:" mentioned at 3836: 3711:Times of Israel 3224:Popular culture 3056:WP:EXTCONFIRMED 2998:Further Context 2718: 2635: 2585:for your help. 2536: 2472: 2470: 2363:review articles 2287: 2154: 2145: 2144: 2136:lab leak theory 2123: 2106: 2102: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2055: 2054: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1986: 1953: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1829:Medicine portal 1827: 1822: 1820: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1745: 1704:Manual of style 1668: 1665: 1623: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1605: 1601: 1576:Wallace Sampson 1529:Some examples: 1528: 1524: 1504:10.1038/463142a 1482: 1478: 1408: 1404: 1392: 1388: 1358: 1354: 1336: 1332: 1287: 1283: 1236: 1232: 1223: 1213: 1203: 1200: 1157: 1151: 1136: 1118: 1095: 1092: 1089: 1081: 1070: 1047: 1041: 1012: 936: 927: 897: 889: 874: 871: 868: 853: 846: 824: 799: 791:In the case of 773: 763: 760: 750: 736: 722: 707: 682: 675: 669: 665: 643: 609: 578: 572:review articles 564: 561: 542: 523: 516: 513: 493:These are some 491: 484: 483: 453: 447: 446: 439: 435: 428: 426: 396: 376: 312:possibly useful 308:review articles 281: 280: 275: 252: 118: 117: 116: 115: 108: 104: 97: 67: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4656: 4646: 4645: 4640: 4635: 4630: 4625: 4620: 4615: 4610: 4605: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4558: 4529:say it works, 4444: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4158: 4115: 4105:or the latest 4095: 4094: 4093: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4040: 4033: 4011:is necessary. 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3902: 3894: 3890: 3858: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3799: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3730: 3681: 3677: 3674: 3671: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3509:, but doesn't 3503: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3389: 3305: 3269: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3225: 3222: 3215: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 2995: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2887:Britney Spears 2883: 2777: 2776: 2747:the statement 2745:Vladimir Putin 2717: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2634: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2612: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2564: 2535: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2504: 2495: 2487: 2484:Don Poldermans 2480: 2479: 2478: 2462:(2024-08-23). 2449: 2436: 2432: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2371: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2359: 2356: 2353: 2350:cherry picking 2343: 2304:Additivefreesb 2286: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2223: 2200: 2182: 2181: 2153: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2143: 2142: 2121: 2103: 2096: 2095: 2093: 2079: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2071: 2070: 2068: 2051:the discussion 2037: 2025: 2024: 2019: 2007: 2006: 2003: 2002: 2000: 1973: 1961: 1960: 1948: 1936: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1929: 1912:the discussion 1898: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1863: 1861: 1833: 1832: 1816: 1804: 1803: 1798: 1786: 1785: 1779: 1768: 1754: 1753: 1747: 1746: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1736: 1731: 1726: 1716: 1711: 1706: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1694: 1689: 1679: 1673: 1670: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1656: 1649: 1641: 1635: 1634: 1629: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1614:(23 Oct 2018). 1599: 1597: 1596: 1579: 1561: 1548: 1539: 1522: 1476: 1474: 1473: 1449:(2): e11–e13. 1438: 1402: 1386: 1352: 1341:(2008-06-21). 1330: 1281: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1211: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1189: 1155: 1149: 1134: 1122:Google Scholar 1117:Google Scholar 1116: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1079: 1035: 1031:(AIM) journals 1006: 1002: 1001: 997: 996: 992: 991: 990:n engl j med 987: 986: 971: 970: 966: 965: 961: 960: 956: 955: 934: 925: 895: 887: 872: 869: 866: 851: 844: 822: 820:these claims. 813: 812: 809: 806: 797: 786:WP:EXCEPTIONAL 771: 761: 758: 748: 730: 720: 711:self-published 705: 680: 647:current events 641: 640: 639: 636:WP:PRIMARYNEWS 627: 624: 607: 606: 605: 602: 596: 594:review article 576: 562: 559: 540: 521: 514: 511: 505:, and how the 489: 486: 485: 473: 472: 459: 457: 445: 444: 436: 431: 429: 409: 408: 407: 405: 398: 397: 382: 380: 368: 367: 366: 365: 351: 338: 319: 295: 283: 282: 273: 271: 270: 267: 266: 120: 119: 114: 113: 105: 100: 98: 96: 95: 88: 83: 74: 68: 66: 65: 54: 45: 44: 41: 40: 39: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4655: 4644: 4641: 4639: 4636: 4634: 4631: 4629: 4626: 4624: 4621: 4619: 4616: 4614: 4611: 4609: 4606: 4604: 4601: 4600: 4598: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4576: 4571: 4567: 4562: 4559: 4556: 4553: 4549: 4546: 4542: 4539: 4535: 4532: 4528: 4525: 4521: 4518: 4514: 4511: 4506: 4503: 4500: 4499: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4450: 4443: 4427: 4424: 4421: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4363: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4246: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4198: 4195: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4167: 4164: 4159: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4132: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4124: 4121: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4051: 4046: 4041: 4038: 4034: 4031: 4027: 4026: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4005: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3969: 3966: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3921:Terry Schiavo 3918: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3903: 3899: 3898:Terry Schiavo 3895: 3891: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3859: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3843: 3834: 3830: 3820: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3812: 3809: 3806: 3800: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3731: 3728: 3724: 3723:3 Wire Sports 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3682: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3669: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3587: 3583: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3557: 3554: 3551: 3545: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3437: 3431: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3363: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3306: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3234:Mr. Swordfish 3231: 3226: 3223: 3220: 3216: 3214:Notable cases 3213: 3212: 3210: 3206: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3052: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3019: 3016: 3013: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2975: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2938: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2882:include that. 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2842:or any other 2841: 2837: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2783: 2779: 2778: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2752: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2657: 2654: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2633: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2613: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2565: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2533: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2494: 2491: 2490: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2460:Piper, Kelsey 2457: 2456: 2454: 2450: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2409: 2407: 2401: 2398: 2392: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2344: 2341: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2201: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2179: 2177: 2170: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2140: 2137: 2131: 2127: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2110: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2094: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2083: 2069: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2038: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2001: 1984: 1983: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1930: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1874: 1873: 1862: 1845: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1830: 1819: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1760: 1759: 1740: 1737: 1735: 1732: 1730: 1727: 1725: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1715: 1712: 1710: 1707: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1693: 1690: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1662: 1657: 1655: 1650: 1648: 1643: 1642: 1639: 1633: 1630: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1613: 1609: 1603: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1549: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1487: 1480: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1400: 1397: 1390: 1382: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1356: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1339:Goldacre, Ben 1334: 1326: 1323: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1285: 1277: 1274: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1238:Laurent, MR; 1234: 1230: 1227: 1220: 1218: 1210: 1208: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1175: 1173: 1168: 1166: 1162: 1154: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1140:Unpaywall.org 1133: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1115: 1112: 1106: 1104: 1100: 1086: 1085: 1078: 1076: 1068: 1063: 1061: 1059: 1058:Index Medicus 1053: 1052:Index Medicus 1045: 1039: 1038:Index Medicus 1034: 1032: 1030: 1023: 1021: 1019: 1010: 998: 993: 988: 983: 980: 978: 967: 962: 957: 952: 949: 947: 940: 933: 932: 924: 923: 919: 918: 914: 913: 909: 907: 903: 901: 894: 893: 886: 885: 879: 878: 865: 863: 859: 850: 843: 840: 838: 832: 828: 821: 817: 810: 807: 804: 803: 802: 796: 794: 789: 787: 783: 779: 770: 768: 757: 755: 747: 745: 741: 734: 729: 727: 719: 717: 712: 704: 702: 698: 693: 691: 687: 679: 674: 668:parameter of 661: 657: 655: 650: 648: 637: 633: 628: 625: 622: 618: 617: 616: 614: 603: 601: 600:meta-analysis 597: 595: 591: 590: 589: 586: 582: 575: 573: 569: 568:peer-reviewed 558: 555: 551: 547: 539: 537: 533: 529: 520: 510: 508: 504: 500: 496: 481: 477: 470: 468: 464: 458: 451: 450: 442: 438: 437: 434: 424: 421: 418: 413: 406: 404: 403: 394: 390: 386: 381: 374: 373: 364: 363: 358: 357: 352: 349: 348: 343: 342:TRIP database 339: 336: 335: 330: 329: 324: 321: 320: 317: 313: 309: 305: 304: 299: 298:Ideal sources 296: 293: 289: 288: 269: 268: 263: 259: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 128: 126: 122: 121: 111: 107: 106: 103: 93: 89: 87: 84: 82: 78: 75: 73: 70: 69: 63: 59: 58:Learn to edit 55: 52: 47: 46: 43: 42: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 4578:WhatamIdoing 4560: 4501: 4446: 4367:WhatamIdoing 4321: 4280: 4244: 4222:WhatamIdoing 4179:WhatamIdoing 4144:WhatamIdoing 4083:WhatamIdoing 4053:WhatamIdoing 4003: 3990:WhatamIdoing 3961: 3907:WhatamIdoing 3863:WhatamIdoing 3813: 3810: 3807: 3804: 3802: 3795: 3734: 3706: 3696: 3693: 3690: 3687: 3685: 3591:this comment 3570:Imane Khelif 3558: 3555: 3552: 3549: 3547: 3544:Imane Khelif 3493:WhatamIdoing 3461:WhatamIdoing 3457:Imane Khelif 3444: 3441: 3438: 3435: 3433: 3398:WhatamIdoing 3385: 3380:It would be 3347:WhatamIdoing 3295:WhatamIdoing 3277:WhatamIdoing 3247: 3221:rules apply. 3171:WhatamIdoing 3166: 3162: 3124: 3116: 3113:Tamara Press 3060:WhatamIdoing 3020: 3017: 3014: 3011: 3009: 3006:Imane Khelif 2997: 2946:article for 2944:Imane Khelif 2939: 2891:WhatamIdoing 2879: 2870: 2835: 2787:AndyTheGrump 2781: 2750: 2748: 2719: 2702: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2678:WhatamIdoing 2661: 2658: 2655: 2652: 2650: 2636: 2602: 2583:WhatamIdoing 2569:WhatamIdoing 2537: 2506: 2500: 2497: 2492: 2471:. Retrieved 2467: 2410: 2402: 2393: 2389: 2375:WhatamIdoing 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2269:WhatamIdoing 2209:WhatamIdoing 2183: 2172: 2168:The Guardian 2166: 2155: 2133: 2116: 2082: 2040: 1980: 1917:Pharmacology 1908:Pharmacology 1901: 1883:Pharmacology 1841: 1835: 1782:WikiProjects 1772:project page 1771: 1611: 1602: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1571: 1567: 1564:Science News 1558: 1554: 1545: 1536: 1525: 1495: 1489: 1479: 1446: 1442: 1419: 1415: 1405: 1389: 1365: 1362:N Engl J Med 1361: 1355: 1346: 1333: 1298: 1294: 1284: 1254:(4): 471–9. 1251: 1247: 1233: 1225: 1214: 1204: 1185: 1179: 1176: 1169: 1158: 1152: 1137: 1129: 1125: 1119: 1107: 1096: 1082: 1064: 1057: 1051: 1050:to find all 1042: 1037: 1028: 1024: 1017: 1013: 1008: 974: 943: 928: 920: 915: 910: 904: 898: 890: 880: 875: 861: 854: 847: 841: 833: 829: 825: 818: 814: 800: 790: 774: 764: 751: 737: 735:(now NCCIH)? 723: 708: 694: 683: 673:cite journal 666:|laysummary= 662: 658: 651: 644: 621:rare disease 612: 610: 587: 583: 579: 565: 553: 543: 524: 517: 494: 492: 460: 419: 360: 354: 345: 332: 326: 315: 311: 301: 297: 257: 123: 30:This is the 4385:Bon courage 4348:Bon courage 4308:Bon courage 4214:LeadSongDog 4114:cite this". 4107:Love Island 4103:Kardashians 4068:Bon courage 4013:Bon courage 3925:Bon courage 3877:Bon courage 3833:Bon courage 3654:Bon courage 3617:Bon courage 3530:Bon courage 3507:Bon courage 3475:Bon courage 3412:Bon courage 3367:Bon courage 3310:Bon courage 3185:Bon courage 3165:instead of 3121:Irina Press 3098:Bon courage 2806:Bon courage 1729:How to edit 1551:Nature News 1240:Vickers, TJ 906:NLM Catalog 888:PubMed FAQs 731:Can I cite 678:for this). 548:. Like the 536:WP:WHYMEDRS 461:This is an 4597:Categories 4440:MEDRS and 4403:Bondegezou 4344:WP:NOTNEWS 4330:Bondegezou 4292:Bondegezou 4288:WP:PRIMARY 4245:S Marshall 4206:S Marshall 3515:Bondegezou 3410:For sure. 3386:fight over 3137:TransGriot 2977:in place. 2840:Morgellons 2821:Bondegezou 2802:Morgellons 2473:2024-08-23 2227:Jaredroach 1692:Why MEDRS? 1368:(1): 1–3. 1301:(5): e95. 1226:References 1222:References 759:Neutrality 554:statements 465:about the 331:(limit to 4466:Aquillion 4462:WP:FRINGE 4458:WP:PARITY 4449:WP:FRINGE 4442:WP:PARITY 4381:WP:NOTNEW 4240:The Times 3893:involved. 3790:From the 3727:France 24 3680:evidence. 3632:WP:NOTBMI 3394:WP:INTEXT 3129:Telegraph 2876:WP:THESUN 2406:WP:MEDORG 1734:Resources 1724:Talk page 1574:(quoting 1518:205052380 1462:0885-3924 1207:WP:MEDCOI 1135:Unpaywall 1048:jsubsetim 985:Example: 954:Example: 782:WP:WEIGHT 778:WP:FRINGE 716:WP:INTEXT 532:WP:MEDPOP 441:WP:MEDFAQ 344:provides 325:provides 94:if needed 77:Be polite 32:talk page 4572:product. 4555:33086877 4548:33480339 4541:34116572 4534:35378276 4527:33463459 4520:33922184 4513:36144755 4490:contribs 4454:WP:MEDRS 3986:or worse 3780:contribs 3757:M.Bitton 3747:contribs 3644:contribs 3613:WP:CTOPs 3603:contribs 3586:this RfC 3382:WP:UNDUE 3333:contribs 3260:contribs 3153:contribs 3083:contribs 3041:contribs 2987:contribs 2948:WP:MEDRS 2921:contribs 2860:contribs 2765:contribs 2734:RfC 2021 2730:RfC 2019 2516:Peaceray 2502:surgery. 2348:editors 2327:contribs 1849:Medicine 1801:Medicine 1739:Outreach 1511:20075887 1469:22248792 1399:25256890 1381:19118299 1347:Guardian 1325:18507496 1295:PLOS Med 1276:19390105 1242:(2009). 1186:dddddddd 1172:this one 1138:Consult 1060:journals 1040:journals 1020:journals 1016:List of 1011:journals 912:Overview 690:WP:MEDRS 560:Sourcing 433:Shortcut 125:Archives 110:WT:MEDRS 102:Shortcut 62:get help 4362:WP:VNOT 3980:for an 3167:genders 2940:Context 2871:The Sun 2836:The Sun 2751:The Sun 2609:source. 2532:Rikishi 1982:defunct 1956:defunct 1435:9551280 1317:2689661 1268:2705249 1217:WP:PAID 699:(NIH), 512:General 258:60 days 4522:, and 4212:, and 4210:Drmies 4009:WP:PAG 3838:source 3715:Forbes 2974:331dot 2952:WP:BLP 2782:should 2186:𝕁𝕄𝔽 2178:(BMJ). 1778:scale. 1491:Nature 1161:PubMed 1101:, and 1069:using 1046:using 884:tools. 862:parity 740:WP:DUE 686:PubMed 632:WP:DUE 469:policy 323:PubMed 4420:Colin 4194:Colin 4163:Colin 4120:Colin 3982:WP:FA 3965:Colin 3582:5-ARD 3511:WP:OR 3094:WP:RS 2441:Colin 2413:Colin 2397:WP:OR 2156:This 2118:high. 2113:Wired 1770:This 1515:S2CID 733:NCCAM 714:with 613:might 90:Seek 38:page. 4582:talk 4552:PMID 4545:PMID 4543:and 4538:PMID 4531:PMID 4524:PMID 4517:PMID 4510:PMID 4486:talk 4470:talk 4407:talk 4389:talk 4371:talk 4352:talk 4334:talk 4312:talk 4296:talk 4226:talk 4183:talk 4148:talk 4087:talk 4072:talk 4057:talk 4017:talk 3994:talk 3929:talk 3911:talk 3881:talk 3867:talk 3814:Path 3776:talk 3772:Gitz 3761:talk 3743:talk 3739:Gitz 3697:Path 3658:talk 3640:talk 3636:Gitz 3621:talk 3599:talk 3595:Gitz 3578:DSDs 3559:Path 3534:talk 3519:talk 3497:talk 3479:talk 3465:talk 3445:Path 3416:talk 3402:talk 3371:talk 3351:talk 3329:talk 3325:Gitz 3314:talk 3299:talk 3281:talk 3256:talk 3252:Gitz 3238:talk 3189:talk 3175:talk 3149:talk 3145:Gitz 3102:talk 3079:talk 3075:Gitz 3064:talk 3037:talk 3033:Gitz 3021:Path 2983:talk 2979:Gitz 2963:talk 2950:and 2917:talk 2913:Gitz 2907:and 2895:talk 2856:talk 2852:Gitz 2825:talk 2810:talk 2791:talk 2761:talk 2757:Gitz 2741:here 2732:and 2726:here 2722:here 2703:Path 2682:talk 2662:Path 2645:and 2621:talk 2591:talk 2573:talk 2548:talk 2520:talk 2421:talk 2417:CFCF 2379:talk 2323:talk 2308:talk 2273:talk 2258:talk 2231:talk 2213:talk 2190:talk 2174:the 2130:CNET 1508:PMID 1466:PMID 1459:ISSN 1432:PMID 1396:PMID 1378:PMID 1322:PMID 1273:PMID 1215:See 1205:See 917:FAQs 784:and 534:and 423:edit 417:view 359:and 340:The 79:and 4322:not 3988:). 3811:hed 3808:nis 3805:Tar 3778:) ( 3745:) ( 3733:of 3719:BBC 3694:hed 3691:nis 3688:Tar 3642:) ( 3601:) ( 3556:hed 3553:nis 3550:Tar 3442:hed 3439:nis 3436:Tar 3331:) ( 3258:) ( 3163:sex 3151:) ( 3081:) ( 3039:) ( 3018:hed 3015:nis 3012:Tar 2985:) ( 2919:) ( 2880:not 2868:IF 2858:) ( 2763:) ( 2700:hed 2697:nis 2694:Tar 2659:hed 2656:nis 2653:Tar 2617:KoA 2468:Vox 1687:FAQ 1610:." 1500:doi 1496:463 1451:doi 1424:doi 1370:doi 1366:360 1313:PMC 1303:doi 1264:PMC 1256:doi 1105:. 538:) 391:or 362:CDC 4599:: 4584:) 4515:, 4492:) 4488:/ 4472:) 4409:) 4391:) 4373:) 4354:) 4336:) 4314:) 4298:) 4228:) 4208:, 4185:) 4150:) 4089:) 4074:) 4059:) 4019:) 3996:) 3931:) 3913:) 3883:) 3869:) 3798:". 3782:) 3763:) 3749:) 3709:. 3660:) 3646:) 3623:) 3605:) 3593:. 3536:) 3521:) 3499:) 3481:) 3467:) 3418:) 3404:) 3373:) 3353:) 3335:) 3316:) 3301:) 3293:. 3283:) 3275:. 3262:) 3240:) 3191:) 3177:) 3155:) 3139:, 3135:, 3131:, 3123:: 3115:: 3104:) 3085:) 3066:) 3043:) 3008:. 2989:) 2965:) 2923:) 2897:) 2862:) 2827:) 2812:) 2793:) 2767:) 2684:) 2676:. 2649:. 2623:) 2593:) 2575:) 2550:) 2522:) 2466:. 2423:) 2381:) 2329:) 2325:/ 2310:) 2275:) 2260:) 2233:) 2215:) 2192:) 2171:. 2165:. 2132:. 2128:. 2115:. 2111:. 1592:; 1588:; 1584:: 1570:; 1566:: 1557:, 1553:: 1544:: 1535:: 1513:, 1506:, 1494:, 1488:, 1464:. 1457:. 1447:43 1445:. 1430:, 1420:19 1418:, 1376:. 1364:. 1345:. 1320:. 1311:. 1297:. 1293:. 1271:. 1262:. 1252:16 1250:. 1246:. 1219:. 1209:. 1195:). 788:. 676:}} 670:{{ 598:a 592:a 501:, 471:. 256:: 250:31 248:, 246:30 244:, 242:29 240:, 238:28 236:, 234:27 232:, 230:26 228:, 226:25 224:, 222:24 220:, 218:23 216:, 214:22 212:, 210:21 208:, 206:20 204:, 202:19 200:, 198:18 196:, 194:17 192:, 190:16 188:, 186:15 184:, 182:14 180:, 178:13 176:, 174:12 172:, 170:11 168:, 166:10 164:, 160:, 156:, 152:, 148:, 144:, 140:, 136:, 132:, 60:; 4580:( 4484:( 4468:( 4422:° 4405:( 4387:( 4369:( 4350:( 4332:( 4310:( 4294:( 4254:C 4252:/ 4250:T 4224:( 4196:° 4181:( 4165:° 4146:( 4122:° 4085:( 4070:( 4055:( 4047:. 4039:. 4032:. 4015:( 3992:( 3967:° 3927:( 3909:( 3879:( 3865:( 3831:@ 3794:" 3774:( 3759:( 3741:( 3656:( 3638:( 3619:( 3597:( 3532:( 3517:( 3495:( 3477:( 3463:( 3414:( 3400:( 3369:( 3349:( 3327:( 3312:( 3297:( 3279:( 3254:( 3236:( 3187:( 3173:( 3147:( 3100:( 3077:( 3062:( 3035:( 2994:. 2981:( 2961:( 2915:( 2893:( 2854:( 2846:/ 2823:( 2808:( 2789:( 2759:( 2680:( 2619:( 2589:( 2571:( 2557:@ 2546:( 2518:( 2476:. 2443:° 2419:( 2377:( 2365:) 2321:( 2306:( 2271:( 2256:( 2229:( 2211:( 2188:( 2101:: 1985:. 1958:) 1954:( 1846:. 1784:: 1660:e 1653:t 1646:v 1578:) 1502:: 1471:. 1453:: 1426:: 1383:. 1372:: 1349:. 1327:. 1305:: 1299:5 1278:. 1258:: 1130:n 1126:n 482:. 420:· 395:. 350:. 337:) 318:. 162:9 158:8 154:7 150:6 146:5 142:4 138:3 134:2 130:1 127:: 64:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.