Jump to content

Talk:Mesothelioma

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mesothelioma Cancer Center

[edit]

The link www.asbestos.com has been removed after being added, I wished to start a discussion about this and explain it is NOT a law firm, merely one of the sponsors IS a law firm.

I understand your linking policy and respect that you only want to include links that you feel are educational and are funded by individuals/organizations that are credible. However, asbestos exposure is an incredibly serious issue that directly causes life-threatening diseases such as mesothelioma cancer, asbestosis, and other forms of cancer. Asbestos.com is a completely separate entity from "the Peterson Firm", They merely provide most of the funding for the educational site [asbestos.com]. Asbestos.com is actually funded by a multiple number of organizations, all of which have the goal of educating the public about the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Just recently Asbestos.com has achieved HON code approval (Health On the Net (HON) Foundation is a not-for-profit foundation that works to preserve the accuracy and trustworthiness of Web-based medical information). They also at first denied our application for HON, until we explained to them the same thign I'm explaining to you, and they had a chance to look through the 2,000 pages of Doctor reviewed and edited material. Our site has employed a full staff of writers dedicated to research and writing about asbestos exposure and the diseases that result from exposure to the toxic mineral. In addition, our site has hired a medical adviser and editor, Dr. Mauricio Salazar,M.D., who has worked in the field of cancer treatment for years, has personally reviewed, edited, and approved all medical information on our site. Asbestos.com has a knowledgeable 24-year navy veteran on staff that helps any veteran who fills out a form or calls 1-800-asbestos with all VA claims. He has helped over 1,000 veterans file and complete VA claims since the Mesothelioma Cancer Center was founded. All of these services on the site, from the free books and informational packets to suffers, to the VA claim assistance, are completely Free. The only reason we are able to offer these services for free to the public is because of our funding from all of the organizations that support us (especially the peterson firm).

Again I’d like you to just consider us once more as a resource for your site because I believe we offer unique information and services that no other sites offer, Thank you again for taking time out of your day to talk to me about this, I hope to hear back from you regardless of your decision in the matter. Have a great day.

Timothy Cavanaugh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkyyy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the issue is the intent. The content on asbestos.com is well-written and pretty comprehensive but the reason that sites like asbestos.com, maacenter.org, mesotheliomaweb.org, mesothelioma.com, mesotheliomanews.com etc ... even exist is to recruit clients for one of the most profitable mass litigation industries.
Putting a link to asbestos.com would open up the floodgates and soon half of the content on the page would be links to law firms or sourced to pages on their sites, which in turn hurts the credibility of Wikipedia because it is an implicit endorsement. I'm sure there are links on a number of pages that go to law firm sites but the value of a link on wikipedia for mesothelioma would improve your competitive advantage in SEO (yes it's nofollowed but Google does have trust rank) and probably get you guys some more cases (avg settlement 200k at a near 70% success rate)which in turn means profiting over the credibility of wikipedia.
Right now I did a search for mesothelioma and asbestos.com occupied the third and fourth results positions. Isn't that good enough for you guys?
Also you weren't honest in the above section, you mentioned funding from multiple organizations, I didn't see anything on the site. Also with the money the site is making, why would there be a need for funding from multiple sources?
Also I did a Whois search and the contact info for asbestos.com was:
Asbestos & Mesothelioma Awareness Group (I'd like to see you prove this "group" exists in real life)
3208 E. Colonial Drive
Suite 180
Orlando, Florida 32803
United States
You claim that "Asbestos.com is a completely separate entity from "the Peterson Firm" yet visiting petersonfirm.com reveals that they are headquartered a mere 3 miles away at 20 N. Orange Ave (according to Google Maps).
I have a hard time believing that this "separate entity" is conveniently located 8 minutes from their sponsor.
Tim, honesty is the best policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.217.40 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Google maps and (street view) shows 3208 E. Colonial Dr being located in "Fashion Square Mall" with such neighbors as the UPS Store, Orlando Payday Loan and Cash Advance, and Pool Fence of Orlando. 67.67.217.40 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linking summary:
Domain:


Related domains:


Account:


Asbestos & Mesothelioma Awareness Group, Inc. is a for-profit company incorporated by Carl H. Peterson and Raymond Apelado:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon,

Hope all is well! I am reaching out this afternoon on behalf of Asbestos.com to request reconsideration for inclusion as a citation source on Wikipedia.org. Per the previous discussion in this thread, our links had been removed from sources such as the Mesothelioma page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma) several years ago. Since that time, we have invested considerable resources into research and the development of enhanced content throughout Asbestos.com. Our team has also grown to include professional caregivers, licensed counselors, registered nurses, patient advocates, medical specialists, and patients themselves to provide a comprehensive perspective on coping with mesothelioma. Please note that we have not attempted to add any new citations to the Mesothelioma article or any other article as we’re hoping to address any previous or current editorial concerns directly and proactively.

First and foremost, I’d like to note that Tim Cavanaugh, who was previously involved in discussions with the Wikipedia staff, currently has no relationship with Asbestos.com. Some of the information he originally provided was inaccurate (which I’ll address) and other information was incomplete.

Overall, the goal of Asbestos.com is to provide a comprehensive resource for those suffering from mesothelioma and their loved ones to learn more about coping with the disease. The site includes medical resources (we have two specialists on our content team), a plethora of information about the disease, resources for coping, access to patient advocates, information for military veterans, and commentary from actual mesothelioma doctors, patients, and families. The site is owned and operated solely by Asbestos.com, LLC, independent of the Peterson Firm and the Asbestos & Mesothelioma Awareness Group (which had previously managed the site).

To address one of the primary concerns raised by the editorial staff, we have always been transparent regarding the fact that the site was and still is funded by the Peterson Firm. The Peterson Firm elected to fund this project based on their intimate understanding of the disease of mesothelioma and how it affects those afflicted with it and their loved ones. Our association with the Peterson Firm has always been transparent and we’ve addressed this relationship openly and honestly on our About page (http://www.asbestos.com/about.php). Previously, the Wikipedia staff has expressed concerns over this association, arguing that “the reason that sites like asbestos.com…even exist is to recruit clients for one of the most profitable mass litigation industries.” In reality, the Peterson Firm decided to fund this initiative because of their understanding of the industry and the fact that they recognized the lack of objective information available to those suffering from the disease. All our advocate services are free and our community is in no way required to be a client of or even associate with the Peterson Firm to take advantage of these resources. Additionally, there have been concerns raised over the alleged proximity of the Peterson Firm to the Asbestos.com headquarters. In fact, the Peterson Firm is based in Washington D.C. (specifically 1350 Connecticut Ave, NW, Fifth Floor, Washington DC 20036) and has been for many years. I’m not sure where this misinformation originated, but we did want to address that inaccuracy as it seems to have implied a bias that does not exist.

As far as the information published to the website, although no formal or exclusive relationship exists with any particular medical facility or practitioner, Asbestos.com is a highly reputed and recognized resource among the medical community for trends related to mesothelioma research. Asbestos.com also has two specialists, Dr. Avi Lebenthal and Dr. Jacques Fontaine, who write for the Asbestos.com blog. We’ve also conducted numerous interviews with top specialists, who have provided unique insights on their mesothelioma work (http://www.asbestos.com/treatment/doctors/insight-series.php).

As I mentioned above, our community also includes:

Our writers (ex. – Michelle Whitmer: http://www.asbestos.com/author/michelle-whitmer.php) have even been cited by publications such as the New York Times for their research dating back even earlier than the original editorial concerns (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/garden/14fix.html).

Our free Patient Resources (http://www.asbestos.com/patient-resources/) and access to Patient Advocates (http://www.asbestos.com/patient-resources/patient-advocates.php) sections provide in-depth information for coping with the disease. Asbestos.com has created the Wall of Hope (http://www.asbestos.com/mesothelioma/wall-of-hope.php) to curate stories for the mesothelioma community to share experiences with one another to ease the struggles of dealing with the disease. Asbestos.com has also donated money to support independent research grants for the advancement of mesothelioma research as well as made contributions to charities and non-profits that serve the mesothelioma community (http://www.asbestos.com/giving-back.php).

Lastly, Asbestos.com maintains very active Twitter (https://twitter.com/themesocenter), Google+ (https://plus.google.com/+AsbestosMesoCenter/posts), and especially Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/themesocenter) networks as well.

I sincerely appreciate your time and I do hope I’ve addressed any prior or current concerns regarding the authenticity of Asbestos.com and the information published on the website. We strongly support Wikipedia’s mission and appreciate the level of editorial review that goes into evaluating potential sources. We hold ourselves to the same rigorous quality standards on Asbestos.com and firmly believe that our research can be of benefit to the Wikipedia community as well.

We would welcome any further questions or feedback from the Wikipedia team and look forward to a productive dialogue to address any potential concerns. Thank you for your consideration! BrettASnyder (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Brett Snyder[reply]

Am I the only one here who thinks Mr. Snyder might be trying to achieve his law firm's SEO goals by putting a bunch of links in this Talk page since he cannot do so in the Article? I recommend that his comment be deleted and then ban him if he keeps putting it back.Arlesd (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CureMeso

[edit]

I do not believe that this link should be included in the article and invite other editors to weigh in with their opinion so we can establish a consensus one way or the other. TNXMan 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary discussion can be found here. TNXMan 16:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I went to the link after Johnnygoat00 added it back in. The home page isn't too useful but I think [1] is. Perhaps we could link directly to that page? --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That page does look more useful. I would have no problem with a link there. TNXMan 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malignant mesothelioma (redirect)

[edit]

I redirected malignant mesothelioma to this article, as in common usage mesothelioma implies a malignant neoplasm. Wikipedia name conventions suggest common names by used - mesothelioma is the common term for the malignant neoplasm arising from mesothelium. I understand that the term benign mesothelioma[2] is occasionally used to refer to a solitary fibrous tumour but this usage is not common. I am also aware that the -oma ending implies benign (e.g. tubular adenoma, enchondroma, chondroma) but this rule is violated by melanoma, which by usage refers to a malignant neoplasm. Nephron  T|C 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesothelioma causes

[edit]

The lede of the article states: "It is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos." However, while the article heavily details the epidemiology related to asbestos exposure, there isn't a word about any other causes or types of cases which haven't been traced to asbestos. I came to this article looking for such information because those class action ads frequently cite asbestos exposure as the "sole" cause of mesothelioma, a fact which I find unlikely. However, the Internet has provided no specific information for me about causes beyond asbestos exposure except that it can occur (mostly because searches for mesothelioma generally yield links to class-action suits and the like). If such information can be found, I'd be happy to add it myself if need be. I just think that in the interest of thoroughness and completeness that all causes be detailed rather than the most frequent. DKqwerty (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metastatic-mesothelioma.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Metastatic-mesothelioma.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mushrooms

[edit]

I am deleting the following text from the article. It is based on a primary source (case report) and should not be in the article. I am inviting the editor to comment.

Agaricus subrufescens is a medicinal mushroom. A 73-year-old Japanese man who had malignant pleural mesothelioma began regularly ingesting an extract of this mushroom. His use of the mushroom extract was associated with a "long-term complete disappearance" of his tumor.[1]

  1. ^ Higashiyama M et al (2009). "Malignant pleural mesothelioma with long-term tumor disappearance of a local relapse after surgery: a case report". Journal of Medical Case Reports, 3:6800. PMID 19830126.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is being published in full by the US National Library of Medicine; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726485. Does that publication count as a secondary source? The folks at the Library obviously believe that the article is worthy of being published on a U.S. government website. Please note that I did not assert that the mushroom extract caused the remission, only that the extract was "associated with" remission. Personally, I feel that the desperately ill people who visit Wikipedia's "Mesothelioma" page should be told about this potentially life-saving discovery. SamanthaJF (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear. The National Library of Medicine indexes much of the biomedical literature, and makes many papers freely available through PubMed Central. They indexed this paper. That doesn't mean that the Library, or the US government, vouch for the paper, any more than Google vouches for the results of Google searches. MastCell Talk 03:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS gives detailed information about the distinction between primary and secondary sources. (For what it's worth, I actually treat desperately ill people with mesothelioma, and I do not believe that they should be informed of this "discovery".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Stamets, a mycologist, spoke at "TEDMED 2011". Beginning at 7 minutes and 50 seconds, he presents information about a NIH-funded clinical study that involved the use of a mushroom extract to treat breast cancer. The data he presented show that using a mushroom extract can greatly increase "base immunity function". See Paul Stamets at TEDMED 2011. I am therefore inclined to believe that a mushroom extract could be an effective treatment for mesothelioma. SamanthaJF (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 73-year-old man administered a mushroom extract to himself. He later disclosed that use to Higashiyama et al, and then they wrote a report about his use of the mushroom extract and then they submitted their report to the Journal of Medical Case Reports. Their report seems more like a secondary source than a primary source. SamanthaJF (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to assume that you read the information in WP:MEDRS. I shall invite WP:WikiProject Medicine contributors to comment here, so that we can reach a consensus. By the way, have you heard of evidence-based medicine? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Coming from WPMED per above request) Are we sure this isn't a slow-moving April Fools' joke? A single-patient, self-administered, self-witnessed, retrospective case report is about as far as we could possibly get from a wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Stamets is a superb scientist. The NLM is a great institution. The paper by Higashiyama is a good paper. However, none of that is relevant to meeting Wikipedia guidelines for what is suitable to cite. The paper cited is a case study, which means that it is a primary source describing a single study. The Wikipedia community has repeatedly and unambiguously decided that when talking about general health issues, secondary sources are appropriate and primary sources are not. No one is disputing the validity of this source as a primary source. It is not appropriate for inclusion only because it is a primary source. Paul Stamets talking during TED is also not appropriate, but perhaps that talk could be cited along with the NIH study as a layman interpretation if that NIH study was a secondary source. The NIH study may or may not be that; I have not seen it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we need to use secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SV40

[edit]

Eight years ago, I added information to this article stating a possible causal link with SV40. A few years ago, I deleted that information when it was found that SV40 actually did not have a causal link with mesothelioma. In February this year, SamanthaJF added text indicating a causal link. She provides three references:-

  1. MacLachlan DS (2002). "SV40 in human tumors: new documents shed light on the apparent controversy".
  2. Powers A, Bocchetta M, Carbone M (2007). "Viral factors in the pathogenesis of malignant mesothelioma".
  3. Kroczynska B, et al (September 19, 2006). "Crocidolite asbestos and SV40 are cocarcinogens in human mesothelial cells and in causing mesothelioma in hamsters".

The first paper (MacLachlan) appears to be a critique of studies performed by Dr Shah, rather than a genuine review paper. Pubmed does not classify it as a review article. In any case, its age makes it unsuitable for use as a reference in this article. The second reference (Powers) looks plausible. It is a book published in 2006 (not 2007), which is still a little old though. The third reference (Kroczynska) is a primary source, as well as being somewhat old, so it is unsuitable as a reference.

Here is one of Dr Shah's papers (from 2007), which refutes the link. This 2011 paper by Qi looks like one of the best papers, and it supports a causal link. I shall continue digging around for sources, with the aim of re-writing the article's information about SV40 in line with WP:NPOV. If anyone wants to assist me with this, you are most welcome. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting paper. As well as including a full review of the evidence, it states "Although it is well accepted that SV40 causes MM in animals and data unequivocally show that SV40 acts as a co-factor for asbestos carcinogenesis, the role of SV40 in causing human MM is controversial ." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link shows that the book Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma was published "04 January 2007"; http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780198529309

But Oxford University Press gives the publication date "Dec 2006"; http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/?view=usa&ci=9780198529309

Is it more appropriate to use the OUP date? SamanthaJF (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the microdissection data are conclusive. Cancerous and pre-cancerous mesothelium cells are found to be infected with SV40 while adjacent, healthy cells are not infected. I agree with Carbone that SV40 is a pathogen, not just a passenger. SamanthaJF (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy regarding Powers' book's publication date. I am not going to quibble over the year when we have contradictory sources.
I have looked at a few more secondary sources:-
Fishman's Pulmonary Diseases and Disorders (2008, 4th edition) includes a couple of paragraphs on page 1537 describing the possible role of viral oncogenes in mesothelioma, concentrating on SV40. It describes the in vitro studies and the finding of SV40 in mesotheliomas, while also noting the possible false-positive rate. It states "Despite the fact that there was worldwide dissemination of SV-40 contaminated polio vaccines in the 1950s and 1960s, there is no convincing epidemiological evidence linking SV-40 exposure to the development of malignant mesothelioma. Nonetheless it is possible that Tag interference with Rb and wt p53 may play an accessory role in the carcinogenesis of malignant mesothelioma." In summary, Fishman indicates that the evidence is unclear.
Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine (2010, 8th edition), chapter 79, states "SV40 causes mesothelioma in hamsters within 6 months, but can also be found in human mesothelioma specimens. As most malignancies are multifactorial SV40 alone is not the sole causative agent, but along with asbestos SV40 can be considered a cocarcinogen." This source supports the link.
From Murray & Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine (2010, 5th edition), chapter 75: "In cell and animal studies, SV40 may cooperate with asbestos in inducing damage and generating mesothelioma. However, in humans, a causal relationship has not been established and epidemiologic studies to date have not shown an increase in the incidence of mesotheliomas in populations exposed to this virus. Further complicating the analysis is the recognition that the presence of SV40 DNA sequences alone does not prove its role in tumor development. Viral proteins must be expressed and impair the function of cell proteins necessary for normal cell function. At this time, SV40 is still a subject of intense discussion, more as a possible co-carcinogen with asbestos than as a primary cause of mesothelioma." This source indicates inconclusive evidence.
From Robbins Basic Pathology (2007, 8th edition), page 536: "Recent work has demonstrated the presence of simian virus 40 viral DNA sequences in 60% to 80% of pleural malignant mesotheliomas and in a smaller fraction of peritoneal cases. The simian virus 40 T-antigen is a potent carcinogen that binds to and inactivates several essential regulators of growth, such as p53 and RB. Not everyone is convinced that this association is causal and currently, the interaction of asbestos and simian virus 40 in mesothelioma pathogenesis is an area of active investigation." This is also inconclusive.
Overall, I believe that the consensus from secondary sources implies that there is no clear evidence of a causal link between SV40 and human mesothelioma, but that the possibility of link exists. If you (SamanthaJF) disagree, I would be happy to invite WikiProject Medicine contributors to comment so that we can reach a consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to also consider - The National Academy of Sciences “Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer" (2002) by Kathleen Stratton, Donna A. Almario, and Marie C. McCormick, Editors, Immunization Safety Review Committee

p. 65-66 After a discussion in which mesothelioma is featured prominently, the authors state: “The committee concludes that the biological evidence is moderate that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions.”

p. 69 “The data regarding the detection of SV40 in many but not all mesothelioma samples, coupled with the evidence of the oncogenic potential of SV40, suggest that SV40 could contribute to cancers in humans.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drannstarling (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]

Malcolm MacLaren (reinstated) was removed as well. Why was Steve McQueen left in? I've added an external link for MMc. But why is it needed? Isn't the link to the Wikipedia article enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fido frog (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently an appropriate citation concerning Paul Kraus was deleted.

"Kraus, an Australian writer and holocaust survivor wrote a book about his mesothelioma survival."

Not sure why an appropriate citation is considered spam. Welcome other editors to consider. Citing Wikipedia Rules: Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. To the person who deleted the citation, I respectfully ask that you please provide your reasoning. I look forward to reviewing your comments.

Here is my rationale for the statement and supporting citation:

Kraus has an article in Wikipedia. He has been written up in numerous press as the longest living documented mesothelioma survivor in the world. The book he wrote is about his mesothelioma survivorship. This Wikipedia subsection is titled “Notable people who have lived for some time with mesothelioma.” The book he wrote about how he survived mesothelioma is relevant and contextual to this subsection because it is about how he has lived for many years with a mesothelioma diagnosis.

After perusing different Wikipedia entries there are appears to be thousands of articles that cite a relevant and contextual outside source for an author. Here are some examples: These are Wikipedia articles about authors (like Paul Kraus) who wrote books about their cancer diagnosis (like Paul Kraus) and have links to their relevant websites. There are many of examples of this. Here are just six to make the point:

Charlene McMann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlene_McMann Wikipedia article links to her site here: http://www.chicagobloodcancer.org/aboutus/cbcffounders.html

Notes Left Behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_Left_Behind Wikipedia article links to their site here: http://www.notesleftbehind.com/

Rose Kushner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Kushner Wikipedia article links to her site here: http://www.rkbcac.org/interactivebook.html

Betty Rollin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Rollin Wikipedia article links to her site here: http://www.bettyrollin.net/

Kris Carr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Carr\ Wikipedia article links to her site here: http://kriscarr.com/

Louise Dean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Dean_(author) Wikipedia article links to her site here: http://www.louisedean.com/home/Author.html

Therefore, I would respectfully request that we do not discriminate against Paul Kraus and treat him any differently than we would the thousands of other Wikipedia entries that have a link to an outside site that is contextually relevant. In addition, I am aware that many mesothelioma websites are actually law firms in disguise. Paul Kraus’ site is not a law firm. But here are several mesothelioma entries in Wikipedia that do link to a law firm. Therefore, if we wish to delete mesothelioma links to outside sources we may want re-examine some of these where the link appears to be for marketing purposes.

Jack Clapper Entry found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Clapper#External_links Wikipedia article links to a Mesothelioma Adwords Page here: http://mesotheliomaattorneys.tv/video/Jack-K-Clapper Wikipedia article links to another Mesothelioma Adwords Page here: http://www.asbestosexposuresymptoms.org/?f Wikipedia article links to his mesothelioma law firm here: http://www.mesothelioma-attorney.com/mesothelioma-law-firm/lawyer-profiles/jack-k-clapper Wikipedia article links to his law firm again here: http://www.mesothelioma-attorney.com/

Raja M. Flores Entry found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_M._Flores Wikipedia article links to the The David Law Firm (a mesothelioma law firm) here: http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mesothelioma/specialists/flores - Wikipedia article links to the Sokolove Law Firm (a mesothelioma law firm) here: http://www.mesotheliomasymptoms.com/raja-m-flores-md — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drannstarling (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kraus is already mentioned in the article. You have repeatedly added a link to a website which promotes his book, which is not appropriate. See WP:REFSPAM. If the book is itself notable, please find an independent source which says so. Most of your posting above appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not considered a valid argument on Wikipedia.-gadfium 23:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying needed

[edit]

This article has several sections that need to be condensed to improve its readability, for example the one on symptoms, which states symptoms for MPM in different places and gives indue visibility to symptoms appearing very seldom: this extensive listing does not belong in a dictionnary entry, at least in this unstructured and unanalytical way, as it is very confusing for the neophite reader.

The link between mesothelioma and asbestos exposure in the introduction needs to be asserted in a stronger way. As stated later, this cancer is - unlike lung cancer - a sentinel marker for exposure.

There seems to be undue advertisement for certain techniques, individuals and institutions. While it is understandable that new techniques currently being investigated are mentioned, given the low response of mesothelioma to current treatments and the desire of affected people to be better informed about clinical trials, the structure of the article could be more lean (eg, heated chimio is chimio).

The notes 41-42, and possibly others, do not relate to the right articles, being advanced by one reference number.Maab77 (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mesothelioma Invariably Fatal

[edit]

I'm surprised there is any need to put this. But, it seems that discussions of this illness inevitably insert some unfounded assertion of survivability. Hope this helps.Godofredo29 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text

[edit]

"A significant group of ship workers and navy personal were exposed to asbestos between WWII and Vietnam era – including Admiral Elmo Zumwalt.[1]"

Zumwalt is not in the ref? IMO that content belongs in the body of the article, not the lead.

With respect to exact range, IMO it belongs in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Franke, Kara; Paustenbach, Dennis (2011-12-01). "Government and Navy knowledge regarding health hazards of asbestos: A state of the science evaluation (1900 to 1970)". Inhalation Toxicology. 23 (sup3): 1–20. doi:10.3109/08958378.2011.643417. ISSN 0895-8378.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesothelioma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pathology Citations

[edit]

There are a half-dozen [citation needed] tags near the information on the mechanisms of infection: check out this link if you want to add some citations: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/asbestos_2014/docs/asbestos.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calumapplepie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

114th Congress. Wouldn't the bill be dead again?

[edit]

In the legal issues section, it mentions that a bill regarding compensation died at the end of the 113th Congress but was revived for the 114th Congress. Would that bill not have died again at the conclusion of the 114th Congress (the article makes it sound like it's still alive), or is the article just out of date? I was about to edit the section to clarify that, but I'd rather have all the facts first--Macks2008 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toxstudent32 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mguy170.

— Assignment last updated by Mguy170 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mesothelioma&oldid=1209413594"