Talk:7-Keto-DHEA

Medical sources

Hi all, I saw that there were some significant changes made to the lead of this article; I'm concerned for a few reasons:

A) One of the additions referenced a classification per WADA's ruling (World Anti-Doping Agency) that was reversed in February 2012, but the addition only references the original ruling from 2011. I kindly ask that we acknowledge the most updated ruling and do not publish outdated information.

B) One editor removed information that had been published in a reputable medical journal and replaced it with a piece of information that not only disregards all the human clinical data, but also uses WebMD as a source.

I am open to collaborative editing on this piece but hope that edits will be made with thoughtful regard to accuracy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this article needs a quick once-over with removal of primary sources, per MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

dose in study for RMR

The study referenced "Zenk JL, Frestedt JL, Kuskowski MA (September 2007)." has an abstract which does not show the dose target of the combination treatment nor the 7-keto dhea alone. Does anyone know what the dose was in the study? I've read elsewhere (in an unsourced discussion) that 100-200mg twice a day is the dose for 7-keto dhea, while here it clearly lists the safety limit at 200mg daily. — robbie ^{page talk} 16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rev Oct 2019 for "medical reasons"

I just wondered why substantial information was deleted from the article. WP is a source of information and therefore infos should be in the article. There are all claims with a source, and AFAIK all these sources seem to be reputable, at least reliable. I do not understand why information about how this substances' effects shall be kept out of WP. So I revved it for now. Meanings? -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:74D7:5B1B:1EBD:24AC (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a "source of information", but rather a summary of accepted knowledge as found published in reliable sources. Primary rat studies are not reliable sources for WP:Biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. I have therefore removed this material. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please point out where WP:MEDRS does state that animal studies are no viable source. Please point also out why these rat studies are not to be seen as "accepted knowledge", especially as WP:MEDRS clearly states the following: A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. Information about the results of animal experiments further the cause of WP as a source of accepted information, doesn't it? Not to forget the info about the results on humans: A 2007 study demonstrated that administration of 7-keto-DHEA to overweight adults in conjunction with a calorie-restricted diet effectively reverses the decline in resting metabolic rate (RMR) normally associated with dieting. 7-Keto-DHEA demonstrated an ability to increase RMR by 1.4% above baseline levels and demonstrated a 5.4% increase in daily RMR when administered with a calorie-restricted diet. 7-Keto-DHEA achieves this thermogenic effect without cardiovascular or central nervous system side effects, which are commonly seen with stimulant-associated thermogenic agents.. This just as examples, but all the information you want deleted reveals quite some valuable insights of the characteristics of 7-keto-DHEA. So please, plain and simple - explain why the data shall be deleted from the article as I dont get it (weird indeed, after almost 15 years of working on WP). Thank you -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:F59C:1CB7:9B37:89BF (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS has, in bold text in the lede, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". Maybe check out WP:WHYMEDRS for background to this guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Should" is not equal to "is not allowed", so this is hardly enough IMO. And what about the results on humans you threw out too? And the safety issues? Some of the statements do have more than one source to back them up so they are not to be considered light evidence. And the article clearly distinguishes the results of animal studies from the results of human studies. I still do not see the problem here. Not to be mistaken, I value your point (WP:WHYMEDRS) and I am well aware that raw data can be messy and needs approval by other experiments and scientists, but some of the claims in the article are pretty well backed up... it does not help anyone to get over this indifferently and take all such info per se out. -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:F59C:1CB7:9B37:89BF (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Not to forget, the article already has the {{medical citations needed}} template at the top.

We see this argument over and over. Generally don't edit Wikipedia in ways you "should" not, because it runs counter to the consensus about what we "should" be doing. If in doubt, check at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence was merely a personal statement that an argument (and no, I generally dont edit that way), sorry if I wasnt clear enough and confused you. But what about my other arguments? No comment on these? -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:F59C:1CB7:9B37:89BF (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What arguments? The article was crappy. Let's not make it worse, but instead try to improve it in line with the WP:PAGs. Now, are there any good WP:MEDRS sources we can use? Alexbrn (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean this: And what about the results on humans you threw out too? And the safety issues? Some of the statements do have more than one source to back them up so they are not to be considered light evidence. It would be nice if you answered to them (thank you). BTW, many med articles rely heavily on primary sources and are still considered valuable by the community, so we should not overreact here. -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:F59C:1CB7:9B37:89BF (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Primary studies are generally not usable (whether on humans or lab animals). I am now searching for sources. This substance seems to be on the FDA's radar, which might prove useful. Alexbrn (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

But are all of these in the article really only primary sources? I am not so sure. Will look into it and look for other soureces, too. Lets see what we can find. -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:F59C:1CB7:9B37:89BF (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, IP you are now edit warring. If you continue along this path your IP will likely be blocked and/or the article protected to prevent this. Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not. We agreed to look for sources, not to transform this entire article from a resourceful information into a near-stub. So I asked you politely to stick to it. Please dont vandalize and do not threaten me. I did not either of this to you. -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:F59C:1CB7:9B37:89BF (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:V is policy - please read it. Unsourced / unreliably sourced content may be removed from articles and any editor wanting to re-add it must supply a reliable source. Also see WP:NOTVAND. Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not take me for a fool, I am aware of WP:V, and there are unrelible sources mentioned like this: Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). And killing a springer.com link is highly doubtful, for example. Generally spoken: You want to look for sources? Then why not lt the claims in doubt in there like its always done? -- 2003:F4:2BCE:4B01:F59C:1CB7:9B37:89BF (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't include the disputed content, because it was copied from http://www.hflsolutions.com/lo/ingredients/7KetoBrochure.pdf, which is dated 2005, and therefore is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I found and removed some additional material copied from that brochure as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.hflsolutions.com/lo/ingredients/7KetoBrochure.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)