User talk:KoA

I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.

Honey

Hello,

Thank you for looking at my changes!

My question is regarding the article about honey and the statement:

"Some allergy sufferers wrongly believe that raw, local honey can help build tolerance to the pollen in the air."

Which cites this page as a reference:

http://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/does-honey-help-prevent-allergies

In examining that page, it turns out that the article is essentially a summary of an interview with a single, little known allergist in Pittsburgh and what he had to say. It doesn't seem to be presented as actual medical advice by WebMD, only as a recap of an interview. Additionally, the statement on the website: "No. The theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE." was made without being peer-reviewed (no other allergists examined the statements), they are actually contradicted by one known study, and the reasoning contains contradictions and falsehoods in itself, which a well-known expert on pollen and horticulture points out in this article:

http://www.foodsmatter.com/asthma_respiratory_conditions/hay_fever/articles/local-honey-ogren-11-14.html

Is the webmd article valid as a reference simply by virtue of it being hosted on webmd.com? For instance, is a "letter to the editor" on webmd.com also a valid reference?

Summary: This doesn't look like a very reliable article from WebMD, and I put in changes with several references pointing this out -- so readers can decide for themselves -- which were reverted by someone because they didn't follow a particular rule. At the same time, when I removed the line above because it didn't follow that same particular rule (the article was not actually peer-reviewed by another allergist, only by a general practitioner, and was written by a freelance journalist after interviewing a single allergist), it was reverted as well. For some reason, the rules aren't being applied consistently.

Solistide (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond to this on the article talk page since this is about content. In short, the WebMD article isn't the greatest source, but it is at our minimum threshold for MEDRS. There's not a strong reason to remove it under there. The study you mentioned in a primary study, so we don't mention it at all unless a review article says it's valid. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge of Emerald Ash borer "Infestation" with Emerald Ash borer

Kingofaces43, the formation of a separate page was necessary at this time because many of the subject facts covered in second page regarding Human actions induced by EAB does not fit the first. Eventually both might be merged into a streamlined example such as one completed about Dutch Elm disease. I think you would agree one of the most prevalent items making up today event is the unbelievable amount of misinformation continually supplied to the public Consciousness about this subject, including unproven theory from the best of tree Experts. So my goal is to utilize scientific peer review and field studies, along with other proven facts to correctly educate. Including successes and failures along with details about control through treatment also. Or are we supposed to produce a unique wiki page covering facts of how scientists properly apply insecticides. Yes even some facts seperatly belong within their specific wiki pages, like possible extinction of American Fraxinus placed on Fraxinus page. Or each page for 43 individual arthropods co-extinction caused by loss of ash. Separate "Infestation" page would have been central location where temporally collected items regarding main subject could be kept. Lets work together, thanks. CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi CHICAGOCONCERTMAN. First off, please remember to put new sections on a talk page at the bottom (this is done automatically by using New section). That and other things are outlined at WP:TPG and help make sure things stay ordered. For content on the EAB page, there's a bit behind all those edits I made awhile back, so stick with me so I can make sure I try to cover the bases:

I realize a lot of stuff I condensed was your previous work, but right now everything seems to fit together well. The merging was mainly based on parsing things down, but also how we deal with scientific content at Wikipedia. It's definitely the ideal for Wikipedia articles in general that we summarize what the scientific consensus is on topics such as this. If you haven't already, I highly suggest reading WP:SCIRS, which gives a good outline on what we should be trying to do with scientific content. Essentially, we're striving to summarize what other reliable sources say for an encyclopedia. That means pulling from review articles since they do that for us. However, part of that is because we don't generally regard primary sources (i.e. research articles) as reliable because those are communications within the scientific community. That's because those articles are intended for other researchers to evaluate, and the general public (e.g. Wikipedia editors) are not qualified to assess whether the study was valid. For us as Wikipedia editors, we cannot assign what we call due WP:WEIGHT to an idea or specific study until it's put in context through other researchers commenting on it or giving it validity (e.g. review articles). Now an introduction section can count as a mini-review article, but we generally don't need that in this topic since we have a few review articles to pull from.

With all that said, it is not our goal to describe what the primary research is. That's why I cut down a lot of the content as it was reading more like a journal than an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTJOURNAL). It's very different writing content for say an academic paper than it is for a Wikipedia article. From what I've gathered about your edits, you're very interested in generating very detailed information, which is perfectly normal for someone just getting their feet wet on scientific content here. However, the general goal of an encyclopedia is to have summarized information with references that lead to the more detailed information. A lot of the edits you're probably interested in including still largely fall under that question of due weight such as whether we even include the content or how much detail does it get. It's a learned skill, so I'm happy to explain things further at the EAB page is it's directly related or here if it's more general (i.e. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) if you have questions or something isn't clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, I apologize for the length. I mainly wanted to make sure we were on the same page as to where I'm coming from as it can be a lot for folks to swallow that haven't dealt with it all here before. If anything, WP:WEIGHT summarizes a lot of how the content was handled by me before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kingofaces43 for your concise expertise on this subject. You explained everything better than I hoped for. My request to also include chronological details about how event progresses within local regions was a selfish reason on my part when attempting to produce valid reason why Cities treatment program statistics like Chicago & Milwaukee should be allowed. Filling the page with what each individual town is doing after dating EAB's arrival, and numbers of tree losses or how many are being treated would fill a phone book. Thanks' for dose of reality. Even when I Knew beginning new category on talk page continues below, faulty reasoning had me insert it above all others, just in case you do not normally check back to your talk so it could be noticed. I now understand about peer reviews validity. Scientists have learned more about our newest invasive, than any other in history, and within shortest time. I have been lucky to observe good theory become fact, and now understand at what level they become valid enough for Wiki inclusion. Every detail was helpful, and not too much for me to swallow. Also thanks for taking effort to correct my and other users entries, rather than just revert/remove. I will bring future questions to you about EAB page structure and flow. Scottie Ash seed CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I have the EAB page watchlisted, so if anything comes up, I'll be there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

SYN

Study WP:SYN carefully. You have no idea how it works. MLPainless (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless, I'd suggest scrolling down to the Related Policies section below that. NPOV is framed within the context of original research there specifically with, "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." I know you're not fond of particular things in fringe topics, but content like we're discussing is a pretty standard product of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. I'd suggest just taking the time to slow down a bit and read some of those policies and things as not as contradictory here as you might think. Personally I'm going to sleep on it, so I'd suggest taking a breather as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

CCD

I've also got a question/comment about this, regarding a recent removal of an image on Colony collapse disorder. All information on the image is properly sourced and the synthesis of the information does not imply any new arguments. As per WP:OI and WP:SYN, since there is no new explicit or implied conclusion not explicitly contained in the sources, this image is fine. Also see Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not presumed Care to justify/explain? Waiting for your response before undoing edit, no need to start an edit war. :) Mallonna (talk)

There are a few things going on with that one, but that's better left for the article's talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll be sure to point the author (who I know irl) to your helpful comments. Mallonna (talk)

Mallonna, as I mentioned on the author's talk page, most of my comments are meant to address using the image on Wikipedia. I tried to keep my comments on their own user talk page strictly to things that would help more with it as a class assignment, so that's why there are some difference between my comments on the article and user talk pages. I will say I do like seeing students doing maps on topics like this from an instructor standpoint though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing a lot

Its no secret, but I am tired on posting this where there are a lot of eye's on it. I am disabled, I am trapped in my house and need assistance if I leave just to go to church or a doctors appointment. One of my distractions, to keep my sanity, is to edit wikipedia. Especially during the day, game shows and soap operas bore me to death as does most TV. I seriously doubt most people would trade places with me to be able to post more. This isnt an excuse, but reality, I wanted you to know this because of your comments on me posting to much. AlbinoFerret 18:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, I'm not sure what other folks have said, but having time like that is fine and dandy in terms of Wikipedia. They key distinction I'm trying to point out is that even though you have the opportunity to use that time, it doesn't mean you always need to use it in certain manners. Sure, you could comment whenever you see an opportunity, but one of the better skills to hone over time is deciding when not to comment and see where the conversation goes instead. Sometimes commenting too often throughout the conversation stifles it, so knowing when to just watch a conversation or just occasionally chime in can keep things from running smoothly. That's mainly where I've been going with my comments at ANI.

In a similar case, I'm sometimes online a lot while I'm at work. I'll be doing lab assays that are just mundane enough I can do a bit on the nearby computer, but require just enough attention I can't do more involved projects either, so I often use those little blocks of time on here instead. I have times when there are conversations happening on my watchlist where I technically could comment on every thread in the conversation because I have the time. I know that temptation to want to comment whenever I can, but I avoid it for the reasons I mentioned above. Sometimes that's an article talk page where I'm usually heavily involved where I might be expected to comment more. Other times it's a noticeboard conversation where I've already said my piece and it's not really going to do much good commenting on other editors' thoughts there. Basically, it's not editing a lot in conversations that's an issue, rather the amount of presence that someone has throughout a conversation and whether it's an appropriate level for that specific venue (articles, noticeboards, etc.). All in all, I'd say knowing how to step back and ask yourself if you really should make a comment is just as important as being able to write a comment you think is important.

Also, since you do have time on your side, I highly suggest diversifying the articles you work on. It not only has the benefit of helping remove the appearance as seen by others of being an SPA or being focused on a POV, but it also helps detach yourself from the drama of a contentious topic so you can edit with a clearer head and maybe pick up some things a long the way in simpler topics. Even though I pop up at ANI sometimes, I'm generally looking for ways to help editors on behavior topics when I can, so I'm happy to talk more on this if it helps. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to stay out of some conversations, Im not that good at it. I am also learning when to bow out of a conversation. I will say your comments on the AN/I section that they started on me have changed the way I deal with things on talk pages. I focus on policy and guidelines and sources. Its just more productive to do it than to base arguments on what you feel is right, even if what your saying is based on a guideline, but you dont mention it. I have always liked looking for citations and was doing it on my own, so I joined a wikiprokect on that. I also like to comment on RFC's and since I have started some I think of it as giving back when I answer one.

But I cant stay out of conversations or edits on e-cig articles when someone used a non medrs source on a medical page. An editor plagiarizes sources and introduces copyright issues again and again. An editor adds a claim but its POV because they left off half the paragraph that discounts what they added. Honestly I think if the one editor who does all that wasnt involved in the editing my postings would be cut in half. AlbinoFerret 21:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) AlbinoFerret writing things like "can't stay out of conversations" is just the kind of thing that is going to get you topic banned. You can do whatever you choose and if you think you cannot, that is a big problem. For what it is worth, Kingofaces gave you some compassionate and very good advice. Formerly98 has done the same. Wikipedia can be very addictive and people get locked in on certain issues and certain articles, especially when they have too much time on their hands. It is destructive for WP and more sadly, destructive for the individual. It happens pretty commonly, so much so that there is an essay on it - see WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. The community ends up blocking people with no self-control. So please re-read what Kingofaces wrote and seriously consider spending more time working on other articles. You can do it! Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog While the comment wasnt to you, I will reply to you. I listed the types of conversations I cant stay out of. Perhaps not the best choice of words, and I see you have jumped on one. Instead of cant, I should have said wont. I wont sit by as people do things that hurt WP or articles. I thought the types of things would have given a clue as to that. Your words are attributing motives, there is no "lock in". I have a interest in the topic, I am not driven by some compulsion or passion to edit or post. I also have an interest in protecting WP, copyright and plagiarism problems put WP at risk. AlbinoFerret 12:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

as you will. i fear you are not getting it. but good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I get it, contrary to your comments above that is an utter disregard of WP:AGF I am not "mentally" disabled or impaired. Mine is a purely physical disability that restricts my mobility. If you think I cant hold back on commenting your wrong, because I really wanted to reply to you about an hour after you posted that. But I thought it would be better to write this at a much later time with thought. AlbinoFerret 03:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

albinoferret, i don't think you are mentally disabled, and you responding that way really shows that you are not hearing me. all kinds of people from all walks of life get obsessed with issues in WP and with specific WP articles. many times they end up topic banned; sometimes they end up burning out and leaving, rarely, they come out of it, slowly or suddenly, and end up being productive general contributors. currently, you are locked in to the e-cig articles, and several editors have tried to call your attention to that. you can heed them or not. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Albino, you're getting a little prickly towards what Jytdog said when he actually hit the issues pretty straight on, so I really suggest reading that conversation again with an open mind. Your responses currently read like WP:IDHT behavior. Saying you can't stay out of conversations is a huge problem. There is no excuse for that regardless of reason, which is the spirit of that therapy wiki link. You are indeed locked in on the e-cig topic just by looking at your edit history. This is all simply observations of your behavior that we can directly see here, not attribution of motive. Instead of focusing on others, you really need to take an introspective look at your behavior here. That is the purpose of this little conversation. It's better to deal with your own problems first before worrying about other people's. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I am conscious of my activity. I clarified above that I should have used wont instead of cant. Cant means you have an impulse that you are unable to control. Won't is a deliberate decision, in this case speaking out against things contrary to the interests of articles and WP. I will also defend people I see wrongly accused. This isnt a matter of not hearing what people say, but a reasoned choice of mine. I think your advice of stepping back and looking at situations before posting is good advice. One I will be implementing in my own way, as teaching old ferrets new tricks takes a lot of time. AlbinoFerret 12:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Conversation better for ANI

He accused me of meatpuppetry.[1][2] User:AlbinoFerret wrote "Another classic misrepresenting from you Quack." See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#No_consensus_to_remove_mist_from_the_lede_against_the_RFC. At ANI he wrote in part: "All I see is that QuackGuru just presented evidence that he himself and other editors were conspiring to edit (meatpuppets)." See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_for_TheNorlo. User:AlbinoFerret is not collaborating very well. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC) On the contrary, you posted proof of your involvement in meatpuppets. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC) You have not provided any evidence I was meatpuppeting at the e-cigs page. You are continuing to accuse me without supporting evidence. You are not making any sense. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I didnt accuse you of anything, I only pointed out that you had provided evidence from another editor implicating three editors (including you) as meatpuppets. You posted it on AN/I, not me. I asked for a clarification on your talk page when I saw the original post you presented as a diff on AN/I, you deleted the talk page section without answering, that deletion looks like your trying to hide something. AlbinoFerret 04:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Friendly reminder, and warning....

I consider your comments on my TP unnecessarily threatening. Please refrain from making further statements on my TP, or I will take appropriate action. Atsme☯^Consult 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, if you truly believe overall friendly warnings and attempting to offer advice are threatening (which I don't), you are more than welcome to discuss it with the folks at ANI. I doubt you'd get much traction there though, and you would risk exposing the behavior I was trying to help you with to a potential boomerang in doing so. In the end, all I'll say is that if you end the sniping and battelground behavior on your end, people will take you more seriously when you start asking for the same from other people such as here. Other editors are getting quite tired of your behavior issues [3] [4], and I was hoping having an uninvolved editor pointing this out to you would get past the blinders for a bit. Doesn't look like that's happening though, so I'll leave you be. As I said before, you make the bed you lie in. If one day you do start to wonder why it's so hard to get anywhere in conversation on the Griffin page, I do hope you look back on the comments people have made about your behavior sincerely. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RS/N + sources of nicotine.

I'm sorry to bother you, but this response[5] i have to understand better, since i can't follow you here. You state that "which is a summarizing paragraph to the topic" and that there are "plenty of primary sources being discussed", now when i look i find that the "plenty" to be 3 patents and one paper on chemistry. The paragraph is not examining current practice or current manufacturing processes, or even looking at environmental impacts at all. It is a summary of how nicotine can be extracted, combined with the authors own conjecture on what emissions might be. That seems like primary material to me. Here are some curious questions: A) Can it really be true that current industrial nicotine production doesn't have any controls? B) Given that an industrial production of nicotine already exists, why does the paper not examine the environmental impacts of this? (to extrapolate rather than speculate). --Kim D. Petersen 13:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As i read the paper it is a review of what is lacking in research, not about what is known. It provides a good source for where to start your (as in scientists) research and on what papers are needed (ie. a call for papers). But it is not a very good source for factual material about how the state of reality is, since the author can't determine it, since the papers are missing. In summary: We are misusing the source, since the source isn't supposed to give answers. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen the part that seems disputed here is where the author is providing context to what they reviewed (i.e., available production methods have potential for emission problems). That's still within the realm of conclusions of secondary source (e.g. a review stated untested new chemical X has the potential to cause cancer), and is probably the meatiest part of such sources for us as editors. How they reached that conclusion or whether it's valid or supported by what they did or didn't cite isn't for us as editors to critique. That's for other scientists to discuss in the literature. A lot of your questions above and what I've seen at RSN are seeming to drift outside of our roles as editors to question. When dealing with reviews especially, a lot of times we just have to settle for the fact that the source says something we don't like with respect to our own interpretation of the research and wait for new research to either confirm or dispute it. That's the nature of editing science topics on Wikipedia (and science in general). We largely just report what the secondary sources say. If weight is a concern, other reviews would be needed to dispute this review's findings.

For my general take on the source as a scientist only, it is indeed commenting especially on what is lacking, but it is commenting on currently available methods of production too. The author probably comments on likely potential production methods because information for methods used in current production are not readily available, or it's unknown which specific methods will be used in the future as things scale up. To go with likely production methods is exactly what would normally be done in what we call risk analysis literature, so I don't see anything out of line with the source in terms of sourcing or that would put the specific statement outside of the context of a secondary source. Just as an FYI, my plenty comment was in reference to there being no primary sources, which is untrue after I saw the sources you also mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment on weight as the reliable sources noticeboard isnt the proper place to discuss this. Can weight also be calculated on the number of reviews that cover this information besides this one? Also is the number of sources that reference this review in say 10 months an indicator of weight? AlbinoFerret 17:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The percentage of recent reviews making a particular claim can be a way to generally gauge weight, but I wouldn't ever impose some rule where if 4/10 reviews say something, then 40% of the content can discuss that. In general though, we just say there is a dispute in the scientific community between different ideas if reviews are making different claims. There's a lot of factors that go into determining weight, so I'd be wary of the review number approach you mentioned. Having some citations can be an indication of weight as well, but that is also very dynamic. In 10 months, you may not get many citations because it simply takes awhile for articles to be published sometimes, so you can't assume it doesn't have weight if the citation count is low. In this case too, there isn't any hard rule for citation count in relation to weight either. Overall though, you do get a better idea of weight from multiple reviews rather than citation counts of individual reviews typically. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, because I cant find another review that looks at the environmental impact, and only 5 studies have cited this review, no reviews, in the 10 months since its been published. AlbinoFerret 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that wouldn't set any red flags off for me right now at least. If it's the only review (which is why I stressed percentage rather than absolute number) then that's what you've got to work with in this moment in time. A general rule I use at work (not on Wikipedia) is that if there is a low citation count (which is entirely relative in each field) after two years, I might consider the review to not be widely accepted, but I'd say 10 months is too early to tell. That's outside the scope of being an editor here though, but hopefully that gives a general idea of how it would be tackled otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

There is a difference between calling in other editors to comment, and posting a message after you have been warned that you have 3 reverts already, posting in a place with like minded editors. AlbinoFerret 05:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, if you believe that editors at the Wikiproject would be opposed to certain edits, I would hope that would be a consideration to rethink where your standpoint might lie in a general consensus. Looking over WP:CANVAS, it looks like Yobol was pretty much right in line with it as people are welcome it invite more uninvolved editors in, especially after reverts have occurred and discussion should start.

This is just my take on the article from afar, but the vibe I've seen at some posts seems to be that because a lot of WikiProject Medicine folks don't think along the same lines as you and some others, you don't want them being alerted. That would almost be at the opposite extreme of canvassing or maybe wanting a sort of selective notification instead. I'm not trying to say that's what you actually think (I don't know and don't try to get in editors' heads when trying to assume good faith), but you should be wary about that appearance of it at least as that's what some of your posts seem to suggest. I'd suggest scaling back on the canvassing accusations a bit. Wikiprojects are pretty much always fine to post at (WT:MED would be the most relevant project for this question anyways), but at this point you could have canvassing if individual users were contacted or there were very non-neutral messages being posted. I haven't seen that recently, so if you're a bit more cautious about throwing around the term canvassing, you might prevent some unneeded feather ruffling that could make future discussions go smoother. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a little more than notified, copied from the canvass "needs to be either removed or qualified because a minority of the authors have previously received money or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies" This is calling for someone to remove an edit because they cant. AlbinoFerret 06:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yobol specifically said "needs to be either removed or qualified . . ." That bolded part is the important piece that makes it a neutral posting. It's giving the two obvious options: remove or keep with appropriate justification. The question is about the minority (assumedly a non-controversial detail) of authors who've had previous affiliations. I guess I'm not seeing anything particularly non-neutral about the post at all as it explains the overall question pretty well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

See this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Redirecting_.27The_Doctor.27_to_Doctor_Who.27s_.27The_Doctor.27

and participate in it before reverting the redirect. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

μηδείς, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I've been talking at that discussion for awhile now. Besides that, we don't determine consensus at Wikiprojects remotely as occurred there for effects much wider in scope than just the single topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't used a primary source but a PEER REVIEW STUDY. Please don't lie.

Milk is the sole provider of casein, which was shown to promote prostate cancer in a study published in the August 2014 edition of the World Journal of Men's Health. Researchers Park SW, Kim JY, Kim YS, Lee SJ, Lee SD and Chung MK showed that "PC3 cells treated with 1 mg/mL of α-casein and casein showed increased proliferation (228% and 166%, respectively), and the proliferation of LNCaP cells was also enhanced by 134% and 142%, respectively", concluding that "The milk protein, casein, promotes the proliferation of prostate cancer cells such as PC3 and LNCaP" placing Casein as the highest individual natural occurring promoter of prostate cancer in men.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.202.87 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)