Talk subpages

• Simon Wessely

Hi, I've noticed you recently made a contribution or regularly contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Guido den Broeder 01:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Guido. Misschien heb je mijn bericht op Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome gemist. Ik heb daar een aantal voorstellen gedaan om de kwaliteit en neutraliteit van betreffend artikel te verbeteren. Gezien je betrokkenheid bij een patientenorganisatie wordt je mening bijzonder op prijs gesteld. Heb je zelf een medische achtergrond? JFW | T@lk 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo JFW, ik had het wel gezien, maar had weinig tijd. Ik zal binnenkort zeker op dit punt reageren. Mijn achtergrond is die van wetenschappelijk onderzoeker. Weliswaar niet op medisch gebied, maar het helpt een stuk bij het lezen van medische publicaties. Guido den Broeder 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guido, seems after several weeks waiting for more responses the endocrinology edit is not wanted, i have reinstated it, as critisism seems to be more about process tha facts? Seems I need to garner consensus on user talk pages not on discusion page any suggestionsJagra 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What citations do you have that a treadmill test or "double bike" test can demonstrate if a patient has been cured of CFS? What methodologies and metrics do these tests use? Thanks. --- Taroaldo 01:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taroaldo, one of the essential aspects of CFS is that patients recover very slowly. This has been tested and known since the 1950's. It can be recorded by e.g. repeating an exercise test after 24 hours; CFS patients will do much more poorly than on the first test. If not, than they do not or no longer have CFS. The double bike test is now standard practice in the CFS Research Center in Amsterdam. Validation research is presently carried out, and no doubt a publication will follow soon.

Related literature:

• Paul L, Wood L, Behan WMH, Maclaren WM. Demonstration of delayed recovery from fatiguing exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome. European Journal of Neurology 1999;6(1):63-69.
• Whistler T, Jones JF, Unger ER, Vernon SD. Exercise responsive genes measured in peripheral blood of women with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and matched control subjects. BMC Physiology 2005;5(1):5-.
• Jammes Y, Steinberg JG, Mambrini O, Bregeon F, Delliaux S. Chronic fatigue syndrome: assessment of increased oxidative stress and altered muscle excitability in response to incremental exercise. Journal of Internal Medicine 2005;257(3):299-310.

Regards, Guido den Broeder 08:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guido. Thank you for the references. I will read them as soon as I can. I have not been able to find a definition of the "double bike" test. Would you have a brief description of how this test is conducted? Thanks. --- Taroaldo 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just had this test myself. :)

It consists of two bicycle runs, the second 24 hours after the first. Measured are a.o. heart function and breath (O2 and CO2). You are cycling at a regular speed while the resistance is gradually increased until you can go no further (not really important when exactly, as long as you do enough to generate sufficient data). One of the things that are determined is your anaerobic threshold. Mine was zero, both times ... Guido den Broeder 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guido ... you stated that your "anaerobic threshold" was zero; what exactly does that mean? - Tekaphor 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That means, that I am constantly producing lactic acid. Guido den Broeder 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding false information. I'm adding important information that comes directly from the mother. It is you who is misrepresenting the case by continually reverting information that directly relates to the cause of death. Perhaps you don't like it that the facts contradict your pet theory, but that is not my problem. Stop reverting the article just so that it fits your biased POV. --Sciencewatcher 14:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get blocked, this is the way to do it. Guido den Broeder 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not re-added the info that you reverted again (without a valid explanation). I have instead contacted an admin, who will intervene. --Sciencewatcher 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sciencewatcher and Guido, I support inclusion of the fact that Mirza was not drinking, but I will not support the claim that this was due to allergy, as per my reading of Wilson's account (which is probably the most accurate description of Mirza's case given that she was avoiding any other professional care). Please inform me whether this is acceptable. JFW | T@lk 10:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it depends on the text. Anything that suggests that she caused her own death is not acceptable. --Guido den Broeder 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on Talk:Sophia Mirza, it is completely logical that the CFS symptoms made it impossible for her to drink. That seems to be the premise of the coroner's verdict, and the Wilson article only supports that interpretation. That does not mean she caused her own death, and I have asked Sciencewatcher to abandon the concept that "allergy to water" was somehow an issue. Allergy is very narrowly defined in medicine, and getting headaches after food is perhaps an intolerance but not allergy by any stretch of the imagination. JFW | T@lk 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guido....knew you would be the first one....concensus not required....however lets leave it up for awhile and see what others say...there is discussion on talk page..have fun....sno Sno2 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.investinme.org/Documents/PDFdocuments/Byron%20Hyde%20Little%20Red%20Book%20for%20www.investinme.org.pdf
• http://www.investinme.org/Documents/PDFdocuments/Byron%20Hyde%20Definition%20Booklet.pdf
• http://www.wicfs-me.org/Pdf%20Files/Byron%20Hyde%20-%20Complexities%20of%20Diagnosis.pdf

ME is essentially a vasculitis. It was defined as such by the Harvard neurologist Charles Poser, Hyde believes this based on SPECT and autopsy, so does Spence and many, many others. Children did die at Akureyri, they were autopsied. The same happened with one death in Newcastle of an ME patient. ALL had vascular defects.

I don't intend to get involved in the debate but you seem such a decent person I thought I'd pass on these references in case you didn't know them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.100.99 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have these references, as well as Byron Hyde's 1992 book. Guido den Broeder 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!!! I have just been put on midodrine. I feel ten years younger- amazing drug. BUT of course what is right for me may not be right for someone else. Everyone is different. Something Byron knows, very, very well. My own physician is more local than Canada I should add. I wish you luck with wikipedia. It is indeed very, very maoist. I have no time for it really. Yes I did nearly die climbing in the Tien Shan etc. Myalgic EncephalomyelITIS. It is a vascular problem.

88.108.25.209 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)alpinist[reply]

Hi Guido, good work on the recent contributions, especially regarding the controversial history. - Tekaphor 10:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you provided for the term "Raggedy Ann Syndrome" was broken. I could not find a direct reference to Dr Cheney on PubMed. Failing Hyde, is there any other source that we could use to document this archaic term? JFW | T@lk 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember giving this reference, but there is a chapter(?) titled thus in Hilary Johnson, "Osler's Web: Inside the Labyrinth of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic", ISBN 0595348742 [1]. Guido den Broeder 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have a page number, so we can actually cite this? JFW | T@lk 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. Follow the link: pages 24-38. Guido den Broeder 12:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. David Ruben ^Talk 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David for reminding me, it is not always easy to maintain this assumption. Guido den Broeder 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm not sure why, but when I click to the ME/Verwhatever Dutch support org. for ME, I get shunted to Talk:ME/CVS Vereniging, which may not pop up on your watchlist. I think it's the use of the forward slash in the title - it's making it a sub-page of Talk:ME. You might consider moving the whole page over to avoid this problem. Also note my reply regards the lead section.

As a further suggestion, the section you just added, Guidance for ME/CFS in the Netherlands, I think making it a sub-section of History, and retitling it Role in ME/CFS guidance in the Netherlands might be better. Also, my reading of the first sentence in that section, 'Dutch guidance for ME/CFS has traditionally been very limited.' is very OR-POV, and either needs a citation, or to be removed. I'd suggest removing it; I don't think the paragraph would suffer overly for its removal. What do you think? WLU 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have nowikied the name, does the link work for you know? Guido den Broeder 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. You nowikied the external link, but that only leads to an external page, never an internal one - nowiki-ing where you did doesn't actually do anything. I've removed it, and reordered per the MOS - references go above EL, which is the very last section to be included. As a final point, you really should avoid citing yourself, per our conflict of interest guidelines. WLU 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caught between two conflicting guidelines, COI and notability, I'm doing the best I can. Feel free to replace or remove any citation that you judge irrelevant. Guido den Broeder 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article ME/CVS Vereniging, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. David Ruben ^Talk 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David, for pointing out the relevant pages. Guido den Broeder 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, I'd be willing to look at references you might provide for edits on the page. WLU 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I can add more, but the list of references is already outgrowing the size of the article. Regards, Guido den Broeder 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop up the reference and I'll see what I can/am willing to do given Wikipedia's affect on my attention span. Also, you should look into using citation templates, in general they're quite easy to use and make things easier to read. There's also some handy template generators that require just an ISBN or pubmed # to spit out a completed template. WLU 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guido, I am interested in any references you might have on 'The immune system acts like there is ongoing inflammation'. The essential fatty acid work i recently added to Immune Dysfunction discussion , supports this and I want now to look more closely at immune system findings. Regards Jagra 09:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should you should be aware that I've nominated ME/CVS Vereniging for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging. It surprises me somewhat that you recreated a speedied article despite warnings from several people that you have a conflict of interest. JFW | T@lk 07:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar. This is false, see the page's history. Guido den Broeder 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also User Talk:Fram#ME/CVS Vereniging, to show that while technically you didn't recreate it, the main facts of JFW's claims are correct. Please do alsmo remember to remain civil and to avoid personal attacks, both here and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging. Fram 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]