If you go to the Wiki alcoholism page and look at "Research" you will find a new entry on Baclofen.
If you look at the Talk pages you will see a battle I engaged in with the editor who seems to control this page, Dr. James Heilman, a professor at the University of British Columbia who does not specicalize in alcohol addiction. You will find Dr. Heilman uses Youtube to teach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSAclauWLqQ[/video]]James Heilman on teaching with Wikipedia - YouTube
I had intially gone onto Wikipedia and been accused of being a commercial supplier of bacloen for the “baclofen company” because of my user name, so I changed it to a name which reflected my weariness over the whole bacloen issue. I made some changes and was helped by another editor and we settled on a very good explanation of what baclofen is and a reference to Olivier Ameisen. You can see all of this unfolding on the Talk page.
So, once it was there the other editor wished me “luck” saying that the edit might be removed.
I kept an eye on the page and, as he had said, the entry just plain disappeared into thin air. There was no indication of who had deleted it, which is against Wikipedia rules.
So I put it back in and wrote to the editor who had helped me. It is tricky reinstating Wikipedia entries. First, the whole way in which the citations of articles and papers is done requires an understanding of the codes they use which is very difficult. Secondly, if you do it wrong you will get into trouble with other editors for messing up the page and if you keep reinstating a deleted passage you can be banned from Wikipedia.
I again kept an eye on it and it happened again a few months later so I put it back. Again, no indication of who had done it.
I watched and again after a few months, around Christmas last year, the entry disappeared, and in its place appeared a reference to old studies on Baclofen which said it was not effective in low doses and was no more effective in alcohol withdrawal than benzodiazapines. This is interesting because it showed a particular bias and a knowledge of alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
Again, there was no reference to who had made this change.
At that point I lost my cool and waded into the Wiki page and just inserted the old paragraph back and wrote to the editor I had been dealing with and told him about it. I got no response but the page was again amended back, deleting my edit.
I got no response from the original editor but did get a comment from Dr. Heilman to the effect that my original text was incomprehensible but he did not admit to breaching Wikipedia rules at least three times.
Anyway, I cited provisions of his professional code of conduct which govern publishing to the public by doctors which require that if one is in disagreement with the rest of the profession, then he must say why. I sent him the prescribing guidelines and suggested that he should try to “learn” himself about baclofen. The British Columbia medical ethics guidelines advise doctors to “teach and be taught”.
After a few hours Dr. Heilman found the reference to the recent developments in baclofen research and agreed to post t. This was all on New Years Eve so I give him credit for doing this when most others were just having a good time.
I left it for a while and then went back into the site and found no changes had been made so I just cut and pasted the new changes in. I then received a very angry email from Dr. Heilman telling me that he would remove my privileges on Wikipedia if I ever cut and pasted into it again. He then made the change himself, using his editing skills to make the new reference to baclofen appear in as negative a tone as he could make it. I decided not to pursue the matter any further with him or mention that he had violated Wikipedia rules three times, had no experience in alcoholism treatment and his entry in relation to baclofen for alcoholism withdrawal had nothing to do with treatment of alcoholism, only withdrawal from it.
I will give Dr. Heilman some credit for picking up the ball and running with it and putting something on the page. I asked him, however, when he considered it appropriate for doctors to start using baclofen and he came back to me saying only when it was licensed, which goes against the guidelines issued by other governing bodies such as the UK’s General Medical Council which says doctors must consider off licence drugs and discuss their risks and benefits with patients.
Wikipedia comes up on every search on the internet so anyone looking for a treatment for alcoholism on the internet is at least going to get the alcoholism page coming up. Initially there was nothing at all about baclofen so it is good there is something. I don’t like the idea that a professor at a lesser ranking university who does not specialize in addictions or practice in alcoholism has control over this page. In addition, it seems he is quite happy not to engage in the required discussions on the Talk page before editing, makes changes without consulting anyone, fails to indicate who he is when he makes changes and is happy to throw his weight around when he feels like it.
All in all, a rather unpleasant experience which highlights for me that baclofen really hasn’t yet scratched the surface in the media or, more alarmingly, in universities where, in the case of Dr. Heilman, we have someone who one would think would be highly motivated to “teach and be taught”, keep on top of significant developments in health care and keep the public advised when he has important developments brought to his attention. (His CV includes references to his interest in public health).
Shocking and sad that what could be a good source of information about medical treatments which are now being used legally and effectively is being controlled by this person so that people might not find the medical help they are looking for.
The most disturbing thing about this was that the change this Professor made suggested that baclofen was not better than benzodiazapines for alcohol withdrawal. This showed he didn't understand the issue. The paper he cited showed that baclofen was as good as benzodiazapines but he chose to put a negative and discouraging slant on its use. What he failed to understand was that baclofen is eliminated by the kidneys, not the liver, so that for patients with liver failure it is a better option than benzodiazapines and is being used by senior doctors treating liver patients.
All I can say is that I am glad I don't live in Vancouver and need medical treatment if that is the standard of those who teach doctors and they rely on Wikipedia to teach them.
If you look at the Talk pages you will see a battle I engaged in with the editor who seems to control this page, Dr. James Heilman, a professor at the University of British Columbia who does not specicalize in alcohol addiction. You will find Dr. Heilman uses Youtube to teach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSAclauWLqQ[/video]]James Heilman on teaching with Wikipedia - YouTube
I had intially gone onto Wikipedia and been accused of being a commercial supplier of bacloen for the “baclofen company” because of my user name, so I changed it to a name which reflected my weariness over the whole bacloen issue. I made some changes and was helped by another editor and we settled on a very good explanation of what baclofen is and a reference to Olivier Ameisen. You can see all of this unfolding on the Talk page.
So, once it was there the other editor wished me “luck” saying that the edit might be removed.
I kept an eye on the page and, as he had said, the entry just plain disappeared into thin air. There was no indication of who had deleted it, which is against Wikipedia rules.
So I put it back in and wrote to the editor who had helped me. It is tricky reinstating Wikipedia entries. First, the whole way in which the citations of articles and papers is done requires an understanding of the codes they use which is very difficult. Secondly, if you do it wrong you will get into trouble with other editors for messing up the page and if you keep reinstating a deleted passage you can be banned from Wikipedia.
I again kept an eye on it and it happened again a few months later so I put it back. Again, no indication of who had done it.
I watched and again after a few months, around Christmas last year, the entry disappeared, and in its place appeared a reference to old studies on Baclofen which said it was not effective in low doses and was no more effective in alcohol withdrawal than benzodiazapines. This is interesting because it showed a particular bias and a knowledge of alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
Again, there was no reference to who had made this change.
At that point I lost my cool and waded into the Wiki page and just inserted the old paragraph back and wrote to the editor I had been dealing with and told him about it. I got no response but the page was again amended back, deleting my edit.
I got no response from the original editor but did get a comment from Dr. Heilman to the effect that my original text was incomprehensible but he did not admit to breaching Wikipedia rules at least three times.
Anyway, I cited provisions of his professional code of conduct which govern publishing to the public by doctors which require that if one is in disagreement with the rest of the profession, then he must say why. I sent him the prescribing guidelines and suggested that he should try to “learn” himself about baclofen. The British Columbia medical ethics guidelines advise doctors to “teach and be taught”.
After a few hours Dr. Heilman found the reference to the recent developments in baclofen research and agreed to post t. This was all on New Years Eve so I give him credit for doing this when most others were just having a good time.
I left it for a while and then went back into the site and found no changes had been made so I just cut and pasted the new changes in. I then received a very angry email from Dr. Heilman telling me that he would remove my privileges on Wikipedia if I ever cut and pasted into it again. He then made the change himself, using his editing skills to make the new reference to baclofen appear in as negative a tone as he could make it. I decided not to pursue the matter any further with him or mention that he had violated Wikipedia rules three times, had no experience in alcoholism treatment and his entry in relation to baclofen for alcoholism withdrawal had nothing to do with treatment of alcoholism, only withdrawal from it.
I will give Dr. Heilman some credit for picking up the ball and running with it and putting something on the page. I asked him, however, when he considered it appropriate for doctors to start using baclofen and he came back to me saying only when it was licensed, which goes against the guidelines issued by other governing bodies such as the UK’s General Medical Council which says doctors must consider off licence drugs and discuss their risks and benefits with patients.
Wikipedia comes up on every search on the internet so anyone looking for a treatment for alcoholism on the internet is at least going to get the alcoholism page coming up. Initially there was nothing at all about baclofen so it is good there is something. I don’t like the idea that a professor at a lesser ranking university who does not specialize in addictions or practice in alcoholism has control over this page. In addition, it seems he is quite happy not to engage in the required discussions on the Talk page before editing, makes changes without consulting anyone, fails to indicate who he is when he makes changes and is happy to throw his weight around when he feels like it.
All in all, a rather unpleasant experience which highlights for me that baclofen really hasn’t yet scratched the surface in the media or, more alarmingly, in universities where, in the case of Dr. Heilman, we have someone who one would think would be highly motivated to “teach and be taught”, keep on top of significant developments in health care and keep the public advised when he has important developments brought to his attention. (His CV includes references to his interest in public health).
Shocking and sad that what could be a good source of information about medical treatments which are now being used legally and effectively is being controlled by this person so that people might not find the medical help they are looking for.
The most disturbing thing about this was that the change this Professor made suggested that baclofen was not better than benzodiazapines for alcohol withdrawal. This showed he didn't understand the issue. The paper he cited showed that baclofen was as good as benzodiazapines but he chose to put a negative and discouraging slant on its use. What he failed to understand was that baclofen is eliminated by the kidneys, not the liver, so that for patients with liver failure it is a better option than benzodiazapines and is being used by senior doctors treating liver patients.
All I can say is that I am glad I don't live in Vancouver and need medical treatment if that is the standard of those who teach doctors and they rely on Wikipedia to teach them.
Cass
Comment