Talk:Brain zaps: Difference between revisions

Line 22:

:Is that ok? I know references are supposed to be from PubMed or a medical journal, but I can't find anything. If many people say "this is an effect I got when stopping" and we know that compounds with SRI properties also cause this effect when stopping the medicine/substance, is that an appropriate thing to say? I'M CONFUSED D; --[[User:Corticosteroid|Corticosteroid]] ([[User talk:Corticosteroid|talk]]) 21:03, 2 September 2017 (CEST)

..is anybody here. --[[User:Corticosteroid|Corticosteroid]] ([[User talk:Corticosteroid|talk]]) 18:13, 3 September 2017 (CEST)

::{{ping|Corticosteroid}} The latest revision should give you an idea of how to handle presenting information that is commonly known through a large body of anecdotes, versus a formal scientific claim that "X causes Y" or "There exists a causal relationship between X and Y". Also, please note that a claim's need for a cite flag doesn't necessarily mean the claim is not worth asserting anyway, if it has a safety-related educational function for instance. It is not always the case that you will find a one to one correspondence between the content of a scientific paper and the specific claim you want to make, in which case a degree of interpretation and logical explanation is required. For instance, I do think the claim can be improved by say, writing that the brain zaps likely owe to its SRI activity, and then finding a paper that links brain zaps with SRIs. e.g. "The opioid painkiller tramadol has also been reported to cause brain zaps upon abrupt discontinuation, likely owing itself to its additional activity as a reuptake inhibitor of serotonin.[citation needed] Something along those lines, perhaps. --[[User:Clarity|Clarity]] ([[User talk:Clarity|talk]]) 07:18, 5 September 2017 (CEST)

..is ~~anybody here~~. --[[User:~~Corticosteroid~~|~~Corticosteroid~~]] ([[User talk:~~Corticosteroid~~|talk]]) 18~~:13~~, 3 September 2017 (CEST)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :Is that ok? I know references are supposed to be from PubMed or a medical journal, but I can't find anything. If many people say "this is an effect I got when stopping" and we know that compounds with SRI properties also cause this effect when stopping the medicine/substance, is that an appropriate thing to say? I'M CONFUSED D; --[[User:Corticosteroid|Corticosteroid]] ([[User talk:Corticosteroid|talk]]) 21:03, 2 September 2017 (CEST)
+..is anybody here. --[[User:Corticosteroid|Corticosteroid]] ([[User talk:Corticosteroid|talk]]) 18:13, 3 September 2017 (CEST)
+::{{ping|Corticosteroid}} The latest revision should give you an idea of how to handle presenting information that is commonly known through a large body of anecdotes, versus a formal scientific claim that "X causes Y" or "There exists a causal relationship between X and Y". Also, please note that a claim's need for a cite flag doesn't necessarily mean the claim is not worth asserting anyway, if it has a safety-related educational function for instance. It is not always the case that you will find a one to one correspondence between the content of a scientific paper and the specific claim you want to make, in which case a degree of interpretation and logical explanation is required. For instance, I do think the claim can be improved by say, writing that the brain zaps likely owe to its SRI activity, and then finding a paper that links brain zaps with SRIs. e.g. "The opioid painkiller tramadol has also been reported to cause brain zaps upon abrupt discontinuation, likely owing itself to its additional activity as a reuptake inhibitor of serotonin.[citation needed] Something along those lines, perhaps. --[[User:Clarity|Clarity]] ([[User talk:Clarity|talk]]) 07:18, 5 September 2017 (CEST)
-..is anybody here. --[[User:Corticosteroid|Corticosteroid]] ([[User talk:Corticosteroid|talk]]) 18:13, 3 September 2017 (CEST)