Talk:Young blood transfusion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Simpsons

Blood Feud (The Simpsons) may be an example of this. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Popcult

I'm not about to start an "In fiction" section just yet, but YBT was a plotpoint in s6e9 of Elementary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Medical citations

I've removed the "medical citations needed" tag given that this article is about to appear on the front page and, more importantly, I don't believe that it does need such references. There are no claims in this article that are unqualified. Please discuss. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Please give any examples where this article makes a claim that isn't sufficiently qualified or referenced. violet/riga _^[talk] 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This is unarguably a medical article, and requires MEDRS sources for any medical information. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Any biomedical claim made in any Wikipedia articles requires sourcing that complies with WP:MEDRS. Here are some examples of unsupported claims:

• Tests in mice have returned favourable results
• Tests in humans have shown changes to biomarkers which relate to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.
• Karmazin claims in an interview with New Scientist that "Whatever is in young blood is causing changes that appear to make the ageing process reverse".
• carcinoembryonic antigens fell by around 20 per cent
• stated that most participants showed improvements within a month

Those statements need to have MEDRS sourcing or be removed. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

So "Karmazin claims ..." doesn't make it clear enough, give me strength. None of this was reported as factual, all was clearly "claimed". violet/riga _^[talk] 21:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No. For Heaven's sake, you can't just hedge medical statements by "Karmazin claims" without them being supported by a MEDRS source. Otherwise, there's no point in having MEDRS, if any scrappy bit of primary research can be added to an article by prefacing it with "According to so-and-so ...". It's not a matter of it being clear: it's a matter of it being supported by good enough sources. If it's not factual, it doesn't belong in our medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Daft. So we can't report claims even when they are clearly and unambiguously written as claims? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We can't even use New Scientist and The Economist as sources. Hmm. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS has broad and deep consensus in the community and there is good reason for it. Continuing to ignore that will end up wasting more of your time and other people's. That would be daft. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting signs that you're improving anything. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Per Rexx above. And please study MEDRS; Wikipedia's dealings with research and science aren't necessarily intuitive or the standard, in a journal for example. First, because this article is in an encyclopedia whose remit is to summarize the mainstream information in notable subjects, and second, because this article is about human health, we must comply with the MEDRS standards both to comply with what an encyclopedia is and second to protect readers. That means your sources must be secondary. We can't bypass that secondary source requirement with language in the article itself. The concern we have on Wikipedia is that readers use the encyclopedia for medical information. Secondary sources means that whatever information we have is information from studies that have been replicated-shown over and over to be factual or accurate as much a studies can be factual or accurate. Most new research can be considered fringe to the mainstream-meaning not mainstream at this time-and we have to be careful of that fringe information because it could impact real people in real lives. Fringe isn't necessarily a pejorative label nor does it mean the science is poor or not accurate; what it indicates is that something is newer rather than something proven over time in the well established scientific literatures. MEDRS has become a heavily supported standard on Wikipedia so your best bet is to take an in-depth look at it and see how this article can comply.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for your calm and considered approach. However I am familiar with such policies and maintain that the language of the article and the secondary sources used were in line with RS and MEDRS. I might be a little more amenable to things if my hard work wasn't torn apart leaving virtually nothing behind. I see it as other people's duty to improve the article rather than just remove content. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

An example of this nonsense:

• Neuroscientist Tony Wyss-Coray leads a team of researchers at Stanford University investigating the use of young blood transfusions in mice. A study published by them in 2014 detailed the results of several tests including parabiosis in mice; as part of their investigations they sutured two mice of different ages together, with both animals sharing a circulatory system.

Removed despite being clearly cited from Scientific American. How is that unacceptable?

• News media have widely reported such practices using hyperbole, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.

How does this not remain in the article when it is one of the key things stating that it's snakeoil?! violet/riga _^[talk] 22:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't respond to rhetorical questions, and I don't know anyone experienced who does. If you become interested in learning please let us know. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're not able to understand the question then. Want to try and answer them rather than taking the simple way out? violet/riga _^[talk] 22:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Its a simple equation. In the article = secondary source. In the article= MEDRS compliant. The problem isn't whether we're talking about snake oil its about whether the snake oil is supported by secondary sources AND is MEDRS compliant. MEDRS is not necessarily an easy concept to get the hang of. It always helps me to think of this as an encyclopedia so research like articles aren't the what we're writing. We're citing what's already published and established and in research into human health that means:

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials.

I still maintain that secondary sources are used, that nothing unprovable is claimed, and that the article does not contravene policy. My examples are given. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I know the frustration of working on something and then having it ripped apart. I'm sorry about that. The MEDRS compliancy has become a serious issue and is adhered to stringently because there seems to be indications that even physicians use WP. I don't like that but what can one do except make sure everything is supported in the sources so that when a reader or physician comes to Wikipedia they get the mainstream view and can look more deeply into the area. Then if they want something newer they can look for it somewhere else. Its a big responsibility to write these articles and I think you tried to do a good job in this. Wikipedia is collaborative and I've learned over time to not be attached to what I write. I've even walked away from information I know is incorrect because of a consensus. I know its frustrating to have your work destroyed. If there is a silver lining its that in repairing your own article you'll learn implementation of MEDRS more quickly than reading about it. A small lining and not so silver, but...:O}(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I know you're trying to be nice but I'm pretty experienced when it comes to writing articles including the importance of reliable sources. I'm not about to rebuild 'my' article when I believe that everything that was already there was fine and most of the content has been removed in a drive-by. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you're experienced. Mind you MEDRS is a whole other bag of snakes than RS in general. If it helps both Rexx and Jytdog have long term experience with watching for MEDRS articles so they probably watch for new articles, as do I. I suspect they came not as drive by editors but after the DIY which rang alarm bells. I don't know much about Jytdog's experience but Rexx has been around a long time and can be very helpful and is usually right about what he says. There have been many occasions when true driveway editors really damage articles and Wikipedia in general. I've seen whole pages deleted just out of a whim so there may a tendency to overreact in some cases in this area. You may have felt that. And its not pleasant even if its understandable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

MEDRS doesn't apply to the material about the Fountain of Youth and vampires; that's cultural information, not WP:Biomedical information.

User:Seraphimblade removed it with the edit summary "Editorial/argumentative" – not with a complaint about the quality of the sources behind it.

Also, Violet's correct that some of these disputed sources are secondary sources. Secondary sources are not always scholarly sources ...like that SBM blog post that's repeatedly cited right now. (Yes, SBM actually is a blog, according to their own website.) But that's okay: if you won't take the word of a reputable lay magazine for those kinds of claims, then you can cite SBM for it, since that blog post has an entire section titled "Elixir of Youth". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The reason I removed it was because that section said that media used "hyperbole" in reporting, but none of the reliable references cited backed the claim that media reports were hyperbolic, as I've said in another section here. We don't editorialize; if we're going to claim hyperbole, we need reliable sources backing that claim and calling the reporting hyperbolic, not the opinion of the editor who read them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that hyperbole is a descriptive term used to highlight that they are not really calling it the elixir of life. I think that we have a baby and bathwater situation - if the problem is that one word then surely a variation of that sentence would be valid for inclusion. violet/riga _^[talk] 12:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well apparently we have to discuss everything here before adding it to the article despite the offending words being removed, so I suggest we reword it to:

• News media have widely reported such practices using grand metaphors, likening the procedure to the Fountain of Youth and the elixir of life. Others have related it to stories of vampires.

violet/riga _^[talk] 14:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Medical sources

I've attempted to find any information on related subjects in humans

Primary sources

• Association of Blood Donor Age and Sex With Recipient Survival After Red Blood Cell Transfusion 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3324; found that blood from younger donors was associated with increased mortality
• Lack of association between blood donor age and survival of transfused patients 10.1182/blood-2015-11-683862; found no effect on mortality
• Association of Donor Age and Sex With Survival of Patients Receiving Transfusions 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0890; found that age of donor had no effect on outcome

Secondary sources

• Younger blood from older donors: Admitting ignorance and seeking stronger data and clinical trials? 10.1016/j.transci.2017.07.002
• Blood Donor Demographics and Transfusion Recipient Survival—No Country for Old Men? 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3355
• The Business of Anti-Aging Science 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.07.004
• Exploring donor and product factors and their impact on red cell post-transfusion outcomes 10.1016/j.tmrv.2017.07.006
• Neuroscience: The power of plasma doi:10.1038/549S26a

Company sponsored studies Complete, Incomplete

Natureium (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the secondary sources listed above:

• PMID 28780993; interesting. Used it.
• PMID 27400131, a commentary. not using it (but interesting read)
• PMID 28778607. I've used this elsewhere. good ref.. thanks for bringing it!
• PMID 28988603 - about how messy the field is due to lack of well-characterized blood products. yikes. used.
• PMID 28953857 nature news piece about alkahest and grifols. will cite there.

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Building

We're supposed to be building an encyclopaedia not wholesale deleting content. How pathetic. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We're supposed to be building an accurate encyclopaedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Everything was accurate. And properly sourced. I look forward to the new version of this article completed by those who have ripped everything else out of it. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, smarten the hell up. You are not the only editor here, and your tone and explosive edit summary are not acceptable when dealing with other good faith editors. You've reverted grammar and syntax changes which are arguably improvements. And you initial response to this editor didn't help her/him. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

So now the article is essentially written by Jytdog, their preferred version was reverted to, but they then put a reftag on the article?! violet/riga _^[talk] 23:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thiel

Thiel is not an investor. What the Inc source says is "Jason Camm, chief medical officer at Thiel Capital, who expressed interest in what the company was doing.". This incorrect thing being spread around based on a misreading of the Inc story was covered by this piece in Tech Crunch which reports that Karmazin "told us when asked that he was never contacted by Thiel or anyone associated with Thiel Capital. “I wish I did know Peter Thiel,” he said. “He’s not even a patient. If he were, I would have to say ‘We can’t disclose that information.’ But he’s not even a patient so I can tell you, he’s not a patient’.”" Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful to have you actually starting to collaborate. I’m sure you will review and amend the article without wholesale deletions. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

About -- "Bercovici states that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood"." This is just horrible. See WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Or you are operating outside of your zone of knowledge. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mouse research

Please stop adding content about the mouse research sourced to popular media. This is explicitly discussed in MEDRS. Please don't do it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It is relevant to the content and context. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not OK. It will soon be removed, again, by others. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So we can mention the company spun off but not the research that the university did? And now it refers to ‘the university’ without stating which one. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is a review that discusses it, then sure it can be discussed. In fact one of the reviews that Naturium found does discuss it. I can fix that. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)