Bon courage (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
:::::::::::::::::::I don't know what you mean by "retain" - what is the diff of the edit you have in mind? As to "it is on you" - no, the [[WP:ONUS]] is on the editor seeking inclusion. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::::::::I don't know what you mean by "retain" - what is the diff of the edit you have in mind? As to "it is on you" - no, the [[WP:ONUS]] is on the editor seeking inclusion. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::::::::I mean that there were two instances of the same source and you deleted only one instance on 30 August with the explanation "trim redundant, accurify", see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myocarditis&diff=prev&oldid=1107579607]. Only after this edit of yours I was made aware of the study. And only later I realized that it was maintained by your edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myocarditis&type=revision&diff=1112271661&oldid=1112246486] (search for "CIRCULATIONAHA" in the diff) --[[User:Myosci|Myosci]] ([[User talk:Myosci#top|talk]]) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::::::::I mean that there were two instances of the same source and you deleted only one instance on 30 August with the explanation "trim redundant, accurify", see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myocarditis&diff=prev&oldid=1107579607]. Only after this edit of yours I was made aware of the study. And only later I realized that it was maintained by your edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myocarditis&type=revision&diff=1112271661&oldid=1112246486] (search for "CIRCULATIONAHA" in the diff) --[[User:Myosci|Myosci]] ([[User talk:Myosci#top|talk]]) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::::::::::Dunno, probably still working out what to do and looking at sourcing. I cleaned it out later. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;Suggestion for those with no unlogical fiber... |
;Suggestion for those with no unlogical fiber... |
Revision as of 11:23, 2 October 2022
Hello! --Myosci (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the version of my German user talk page from July 24th, 2022.
German Wikipedia: "Ober sticht Unter"
- See de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Myosci#Bitte Anfrage ans Schiedsgericht durchlesen (with English translation) --Myosci (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Masks
"The effect of smoking on exhaled carbon monoxide and arterial elasticity during prolonged surgical mask use in the COVID-19 era". Retrieved 9 July 2022. PWV change Myosci (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk pages are not forums
Hi, Myosci. Regarding comments like [1] and [2], please remember that talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles; they are not forums to discuss the article's topic or tangential matters. Also, please note:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 9-Euro-Ticket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FDP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Step function with template chart
Is it possiblie to create a true step function plot with the Template:Graph:Chart? It is possible to mimic it by a line plot with steep increases, but that graph has (almost) vertical lines that look "non-mathematican".
This workaround would be too complicated for large data sets:
--Myosci (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Notice
see Talk:Myocarditis#Explanation_for_revert_of_well-sourced_information_needed --Myosci (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Myocarditis, you may be blocked from editing. You are violating talk page rules to argue your point of view. See WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM.
Make a proposal for a constructive change, and support it with a WP:MEDRS review. Zefr (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Zefr: Please refrain from false accusations: My edits (see below) aren't disruptive. --Myosci (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- You are trying to make your case for including off-topic primary sources. Read WP:TALK - make a specific proposal for wording on article content, and provide a MEDRS source to support it. That's what the talk page is for - it's that simple. Zefr (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- They aren't off-topic. The source doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 wasn't introduced by me and a single copy of it was retained by the other editor twice. Please go more into detail. (And on aspiration test read [3]: It's not common practice anymore.)--Myosci (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- The other "sources" listed below aren't intended to be introduced in the article: These are the articles on which the meta-analysis relies on. It is the first step of an investigation of the quality of the meta-analysis. You can search them and read them and then copmpare these articles to the British article doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970.
- @Zefr: But first of all: Read the sections #"Primary source" cannot be the sole explanation for a deletion, #Meta-analysis not always superior to a singly study without haste. And then I hope you will realize that there is no "disruption" contained in it.-Myosci (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
"Primary source" cannot be the sole explanation for a deletion
Background: On two occasions this wiki-article had two copies of the study doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 and on two times only one copy was deleted. The explanation was that it was "redundant" (what is obvouisly true since it was a doublette). Then I pointed out that the source contained extra information regarding the 2nd vaccination with mRNA-1273 for men under 40(*) that qualified other information(**). Today the same editor scrapped it with the explanation "primary source".
- (*) In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]).
- (**) ... the risk [after COVID-19 vaccination] is less than that associated with COVID-19 itself.
I think that "primary sources" are so abundant and meta-analyses are so rare that it is impossible to have an article that rests only on meta-analyses. So some "primary sources" are retained and others aren't. Therefore "primary source" cannot be the sole explanation for a deletion.--Myosci (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Meta-analysis not always superior to a singly study
A meta-analysis can be marred with many errors, see wiki-article: Meta-analysis#Challenges
- A meta-analysis hides the underlying premises. A good study article can explain the study setup at least to some degree, the study results and the problems that occured to the interrested-yet-non-expert reader.
- If you have a meta-analysis of hundreds of articles that share the same weakness then the meta-analyis will share this weakness too. That is called systematical error.
- For example compare doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 (a "single study") and doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00059-5 ("meta-analysis").
- The "single study" is from Britain where vaccine side effects are reported in a systematical way whereas the "meta-analysis" relies on data from 11 studies with COVID-19 vaccines and 11 non COVID-19 vaccines, see Fig 2.
- 2276 non-duplicate records have been screened -> And only 22 studies included: Nowhere is it explained how the selection was conducted. That is completely intransparent. Of these 22 studies there were 11 studies with COVID-19 vaccines. These are:
- Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia (2021)
- Bozkurt et al (2021)24
- Diaz et al (2021)30
- Fleming-Nouri et al (2021)25
- Health InfoBase Canada (2021)35
- Mevorach et al (2021)21
- Montgomery et al (2021)13
- Singapore Health Sciences Authority (2021)43
- Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, UK (2021)41
- Chua et al (2021)29
- Husby et al (2021)3
- On top of that in this "meta-analysis", the two mRNA vaccines are lumped together. But there are many studies that tell that: (a) mRNA-1273 is more immonogenic than BNT162b2 (what is good) and (b) mRNA-1273 has a much higher rate of myocarditis (what is bad but moreover: it is the topic of the "analysis"!) -> So the meta-analysis has a serious blind sport from the beginning! And its authors must have been aware of that flaw.
But here in Wikiepedia the meta-analysis with the blind spot by design and the intransparent data acquisation is retained and the "single study" from England was deleted. On the flawed notion that a "meta-analysis" is per se better than a "single study".--Myosci (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just being a "meta-analysis" is not necessarily sufficient for a source to be a good one. Systematic reviews are better, and position statements and clinical guidance from major inter/national bodies better still. For exceptional claims multiple such sources are needed. Primary research simply doesn't move the "accepted knowledge" needle, and accepted knowledge is all that Wikipedia is interested in. Bon courage (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- But it isn't a exceptional claim that Moderna causes more cases of myocarditis than BNT. There are multiple studies that come to this conclusion. (The additional information here is that the rate exceeds the rate of mycorditis after a postive Covid-19 test result.)
- BTW: The difference between the two vaccines appears (I know Bertrand Russel's famous quote too!) to be logical since:
- (a) Moderna has 100 µg (in the primary series) and Biontech has 30 µg modRNA in one dose and both modRNAs endcode a full S-protein. So the individual macro-molecules should have about the same mass. Therefore Moderna'vaccine has 3 times the biological dosis and therefore it has likely more (postive and negative) effects.
- (b) This assumption is also supported by the fact that Moderna's vaccine causes a higher antibodiy response than BNT (i.e. postive effect).
- (c) Another (but much weaker) sign is that the company halfed the dose for the 3rd dose to 50 µg.
- So there is no basis to think that this is a an exceptional claim. And even if that would be the case the study doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 is outstanding in its data basis. Unlike the new BA.4/5 boosters that rely on mouse studies.
- Why can one discard this decent study when the CDC approves two vaccines on the basis of trials with mice (BNT's vaccine: 8 mice in the ba.5 monovalent group, 8 mice in the bivalent group and 8+8 mice in the controls.)
- Is this enough to make the claim that the BA.5 vaccione is better than the BA.1 vaccine and has not more side effects? Does this meet your requirements for Wikipedia? If not – why is it enough to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of people with it before the first human studies emerge?
- But it isn't a exceptional claim that Moderna causes more cases of myocarditis than BNT. There are multiple studies that come to this conclusion. (The additional information here is that the rate exceeds the rate of mycorditis after a postive Covid-19 test result.)
- Besides: The argument that myocaridits would be too rare to find it in a study with ~1000 persons is wrong since one doesn't (and in fact shouldn't!) need to find a clinical mycoarditis. One could measure the troponin-blood-levels of the vaccinated persons and can spot with that (temporary) pre-clinical impairment of the tissue (there is some daily loss of myocytes in healty people too!).
- And look exactely that has been done in case of the smallpox vaccine Imvanex, read page 6 of SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS! --Myosci (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- The sourcing standard is WP:MEDRS. You seem to have your own views but Wikipedia's purpose is merely to summarize the accepted knowledge in reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- And look exactely that has been done in case of the smallpox vaccine Imvanex, read page 6 of SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS! --Myosci (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- First to your "you seem..." expression: Everyone has its own views, not only me, you too! But I'm open about it and I consider openness to be very important. (It's like the declaration of confict section in an article!) I make clear on what I stand on the issue of mycarditis after vaccination. BUT this is related to facts. So let's first turn to the (external) merits of the article:
- The study doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 is published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Circulation (journal), that's the flagship journal of the AHA and has a high impact factor. So the background of the journal makes it additionally suited for this article (i.e. it wasn't publishded in the across-the-board science journal like nature.)
- And now to the article itself:
- "We performed an evaluation of the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine in >42 million vaccinated people 13 years or older, including 21 million people receiving a booster dose, stratified by age and sex." This is a huge data basis. And it's data from the British NHS where vaccine side effects are reported systematically - unlike the U.S. (VAERS) and Germany where they are reported on a voluntary basis (And in Germany the doctor would have to invest half an hour to report and wouldn't get any money for that!) --Myosci (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Actually I don't have any ideas about vaccination and myocarditis because I recognize I have no expertise in that subject. All a Wikipedia editor has to do is find and summarize the WP:BESTSOURCES. I've pointed you at the relevant sourcing standard and you can see it says we shouldn't use primary sources, especially when good secondary ones are available. For background reading, maybe see WP:WHYMEDRS. If you want to challenge or overturn the English Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidance, start by posting at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think at all that it has to be changed to include doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970:
- First: You once thought the same since you retained one copy of doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 twice!
- Second WP:BESTSOURCES does not say that reliable "primary research" has to be excluded. Let me cite with emphasis added: "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." And doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 is very reliable since has a huge data basis (the U.K. numbers include 21 million people that received 3rd dosis) and the data is much less prone to underreporting than the U.S. (VAERS) and German numbers. See Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System#Limitations and abuse : "Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated." --Myosci (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is the sort of cherry picking from the guideline we see a lot. Stick to the best sources. If in doubt, raise a query at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Cherrypicking picking from the guideline" is a claim that cuts both ways. Selective inforcement of guidelines is the real issue! --Myosci (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CLUE comes into it. To repeat: if in doubt, raise a query at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is WP:CLUE meant for real? (I'm not a native speaker of English so I could miss some subtle self-irony.) --Myosci (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, familiarity with how the WP:PAGs fit together and apply in practice, is a thing. Bon courage (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't want to be nasty but maybe many "experienced" Wikipedians are more prone to selective enforcement of guildelines than "less-experienced" editors. Being an inclusionist (meta:Wikipedia is not a paper) and using higly reliable primary sources like doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 — again and again: published peer-reviewed Circulation (journal) with the high impfact factor of 39.9 in 2021, pubished for the American Heart Association,[4] on the issue of myocardits (that literally belongs to the heart of the journal's subject area) with a analysis from more the huge NHS database. What more do you want to consider that a highly reliable primary source? — isn't too bad, don't you think so? --Myosci (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- You're not being "nasty"; you're being wrong. Which is why I'm inviting you to seek wider opinions at WT:MED, since you're obviously stuck in your groove. By your reasoning Andrew Wakefield's autism research would have been a golden source. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- No so comparable because it stood only on one leg, the journal (external merit) — doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 stands on two legs: A medical journal and the huge NHS database. But yes, from an inclusionist standpoint I adhere to it had to be included as long as the journal didn't retract the article (like it did!). And after that it is included as a warning sign that articles in journals can be wrong. But this cuts both ways: The journal that published the Wakefield study was The Lancet and guess what journal published what is now the sole source (a meta-analysis) in the section about myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination? The Lancet! If that journal (or any other) had a failed peer-review back then why don't increase diversity and use another study from Circulation (journal) now? Isn't better to stand on more than one leg? --Myosci (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's nothing to do with "inclusionism", a daft term which means a bias towards having articles on stuff rather than not. What you're doing is wanting to use unreliable sources. It's more like POV-pushing. Because editors kept arguing about it, a while ago it was even put in bold in WP:MEDRS: ""Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". Not Wakefield, not this. There are exceptions, but this is not one. Bon courage (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the basis to call a decent scientific article like doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 "unreliable". On what specific grounds do you assert that?
- And notice that it wasn't me that introduced the source-article: I was made aware of this article because you've deleted the doublette of it. I've read it and realized that it contained important information not already included in the article. Later I've realized that the source was already in the article. So in effect all I did was to include into the wiki-text what the source did say.
- That means that it's me that is free of confirmation bias (already have an opinion and then search for sources that support that) – this time (see P.S.). Whereas you have to explain: Why did you retain one instance of doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 twice - and discarded it after I found out that it had new information? --Myosci (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- (P.S). What was my primary edit in mid-January 2022 in this wiki-article is the information that it is reasonable to do an aspiration test.[5] That was common medical practice before ~2015, but not anymore. In Germany it was reintroduced by the STIKO in mid-February, but only for the Covid-19 vaccination. So my edit was in line with the evaluation a medical panel published a month later. Kind of scoop, isn't it?--Myosci (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Read WP:MEDRS to learn what kind of sources are reliable for WP:BMI. I'm sure this article (and many COVID articles) needs further cleanup, yes. Bon courage (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- First: Since you deleted the source doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 it is on you to explain which specific item of WP:MEDRS is violated.
- Second: I may note that you declined to answer my question:"Why did you retain one instance of doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 twice - and discarded it after I found out that it had new information?" --Myosci (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by "retain" - what is the diff of the edit you have in mind? As to "it is on you" - no, the WP:ONUS is on the editor seeking inclusion. Bon courage (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I mean that there were two instances of the same source and you deleted only one instance on 30 August with the explanation "trim redundant, accurify", see [6]. Only after this edit of yours I was made aware of the study. And only later I realized that it was maintained by your edit: [7] (search for "CIRCULATIONAHA" in the diff) --Myosci (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Dunno, probably still working out what to do and looking at sourcing. I cleaned it out later. Bon courage (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I mean that there were two instances of the same source and you deleted only one instance on 30 August with the explanation "trim redundant, accurify", see [6]. Only after this edit of yours I was made aware of the study. And only later I realized that it was maintained by your edit: [7] (search for "CIRCULATIONAHA" in the diff) --Myosci (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by "retain" - what is the diff of the edit you have in mind? As to "it is on you" - no, the WP:ONUS is on the editor seeking inclusion. Bon courage (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Read WP:MEDRS to learn what kind of sources are reliable for WP:BMI. I'm sure this article (and many COVID articles) needs further cleanup, yes. Bon courage (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- (P.S). What was my primary edit in mid-January 2022 in this wiki-article is the information that it is reasonable to do an aspiration test.[5] That was common medical practice before ~2015, but not anymore. In Germany it was reintroduced by the STIKO in mid-February, but only for the Covid-19 vaccination. So my edit was in line with the evaluation a medical panel published a month later. Kind of scoop, isn't it?--Myosci (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's nothing to do with "inclusionism", a daft term which means a bias towards having articles on stuff rather than not. What you're doing is wanting to use unreliable sources. It's more like POV-pushing. Because editors kept arguing about it, a while ago it was even put in bold in WP:MEDRS: ""Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". Not Wakefield, not this. There are exceptions, but this is not one. Bon courage (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- No so comparable because it stood only on one leg, the journal (external merit) — doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 stands on two legs: A medical journal and the huge NHS database. But yes, from an inclusionist standpoint I adhere to it had to be included as long as the journal didn't retract the article (like it did!). And after that it is included as a warning sign that articles in journals can be wrong. But this cuts both ways: The journal that published the Wakefield study was The Lancet and guess what journal published what is now the sole source (a meta-analysis) in the section about myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination? The Lancet! If that journal (or any other) had a failed peer-review back then why don't increase diversity and use another study from Circulation (journal) now? Isn't better to stand on more than one leg? --Myosci (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- You're not being "nasty"; you're being wrong. Which is why I'm inviting you to seek wider opinions at WT:MED, since you're obviously stuck in your groove. By your reasoning Andrew Wakefield's autism research would have been a golden source. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't want to be nasty but maybe many "experienced" Wikipedians are more prone to selective enforcement of guildelines than "less-experienced" editors. Being an inclusionist (meta:Wikipedia is not a paper) and using higly reliable primary sources like doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059970 — again and again: published peer-reviewed Circulation (journal) with the high impfact factor of 39.9 in 2021, pubished for the American Heart Association,[4] on the issue of myocardits (that literally belongs to the heart of the journal's subject area) with a analysis from more the huge NHS database. What more do you want to consider that a highly reliable primary source? — isn't too bad, don't you think so? --Myosci (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, familiarity with how the WP:PAGs fit together and apply in practice, is a thing. Bon courage (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Is WP:CLUE meant for real? (I'm not a native speaker of English so I could miss some subtle self-irony.) --Myosci (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CLUE comes into it. To repeat: if in doubt, raise a query at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Actually I don't have any ideas about vaccination and myocarditis because I recognize I have no expertise in that subject. All a Wikipedia editor has to do is find and summarize the WP:BESTSOURCES. I've pointed you at the relevant sourcing standard and you can see it says we shouldn't use primary sources, especially when good secondary ones are available. For background reading, maybe see WP:WHYMEDRS. If you want to challenge or overturn the English Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidance, start by posting at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Suggestion for those with no unlogical fiber...
...and who don't mind spending one hundred dollars (or pounds or euros) and four blood drawings. Test your troponin level before and after an arduous sports activity. And then the same before and after a vaccination. Then you could assess whether you reacted too sensitive to that vaccine.--Myosci (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS2