Talk:Young blood transfusion

Simpsons

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

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)

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)