Style Guidelines and Best Practices

This page endeavors to ask, “How will the MP Knowledge Base be consistently different from the legacy mp.com site?” If you want to see one example of an editorial style guide, take a look at the The Economist's. (Obviously, ours will necessitate a lot more MP-specific considerations.)

Wikipedia's informal slogan is “be bold when updating pages.” That is as good a motto for us as any. For this resource to have any lasting value, it's very important we all bring a critical eye to everything you see here. If something isn't right or something could be better, please, fix it. The essence of the content on the legacy site should make the jump to the knowledge base, but everything else is subject to revision and improvement. Let us make this as good as we possibly can!

We strive to create articles that contain all relevant content and explain that content in a minimum number of words. The shorter and more straightforward an article is, the more likely a patient is to find the answer for which he or she is looking.

A full list of currently selected tags should referred to before creating a new tag (we want to avoid multiple tags for the same subject). Also, to make tagging really useful, it is better to only use tags for topics with a number of related articles. That is, not creating a tag per article is better.

There is a discussion at dokuwiki about back linking tags here. — Joyful 2008/10/11 04:42

• For reasons of clarity, consistency and maintenance, the same information should not appear twice on the wiki, except in certain circumstances.
• Sometimes, it may be prudent to have two similar articles, but for different stakeholders. For the sake of content management, keeping both the 'simplified' and 'technical' versions of content in two sections on the same page may be the best approach.
  • For example: one could review immunopathologyA temporary increase in disease symptoms experienced by Marshall Protocol patients that results from the release of cytokines and endotoxins as disease-causing bacteria are killed. in an article in such a way that it makes sense to new patients and another article could be our best description for doctors and researchers.
  • Naturally, the shorter more accessible summary of a topic could be the introduction (that is, the first section) for a more technical article. Such a section could be deep-linked from elsewhere.
• Sometimes, it may make sense to create lists of links to content. This is something Wikipedia does well. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries

• It's okay to call the MP a “medical treatment” as in “The MP is a medical treatment being used by physicians around the world to treat chronic inflammatory disease in a manner that does not suppress the immune response.”
• Avoid the following terms: trial, subjects, FDA-monitored, cohort.
• Mostly avoid the use of the term data when it is used like this, “Our patient data….” The problem with the use of the term data is that it implies well-structured, well-quantified x's and y's. It implies knowing how many people are enrolled, how many dropped out… – which we don't have, regrettably. (The goal is to change this.)
• “Community,” in referring to the group of patients reporting their progress on the MP site, is fine.
• In discussing the “data” collected, the terms “patient-reported outcomes” and “progress reports” are preferred. For example, “Patient outcomes are documented and studied via online progress reports.”
• Use of acronyms
  • if you use an acronym in an article, first specify the full term with the acronym in parentheses, adding a link to article if appropriate, i.e. Immunopathology (IP).

• Preferred credential/title format:
  • <first name> <last name><comma> <title>.
  • Examples: “Trevor Marshall, PhD”, “Greg Blaney, MD”, “Joyce Waterhouse, PhD”.

• Preferred terms
  • 1,25-DPrimary biologically active vitamin D hormone. Activates the vitamin D nuclear receptor. Produced by hydroxylation of 25-D. Also known as 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, 1,25-hydroxyvitamin D and calcitirol. or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin DPrimary biologically active vitamin D hormone. Activates the vitamin D nuclear receptor. Produced by hydroxylation of 25-D. Also known as 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, 1,25-hydroxyvitamin D and calcitirol.
  • 25-DThe vitamin D metabolite widely (and erroneously) considered best indicator of vitamin D "deficiency." Inactivates the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor. Produced by hydroxylation of vitamin D3 in the liver. or 25-hydroxyvitamin D
  • L-formsDifficult-to-culture bacteria that lack a cell wall and are not detectable by traditional culturing processes. Sometimes referred to as cell wall deficient bacteria. vs. cell wall deficient (CWD) bacteria? The preferred terms is L-forms, however, make sure to include mention of the term cell wall deficient bacteria in the beginning of any articles for which L-forms is a significant topic.
  • VDRThe Vitamin D Receptor. A nuclear receptor located throughout the body that plays a key role in the innate immune response. or Vitamin D ReceptorA nuclear receptor located throughout the body that plays a key role in the innate immune response. (capitalization of the second term helps people to make the connection)
  • vitamin D - lower case except at the start of a sentence or section head
  • Referencing drugs:
    • For minocycline, clindamycin, azithromycin, demeclocycline and Bactrim: Use those names only in most references to those drugs.
    • For olmesartanMedication taken regularly by patients on the Marshall Protocol for its ability to activate the Vitamin D Receptor. Also known by the trade name Benicar. :
      • In articles that are primarily scientific: use olmesartan (or olmesartan medoxomil, if appropriate).
      • In articles that are intended primarily for the consumer/patient, use Benicar (olmesartan)Medication taken regularly by patients on the Marshall Protocol for its ability to activate the Vitamin D Receptor. for first mention of the drug, followed by Benicar thereafter.
    • Exceptions to the above: Mention brand names in addition to generic names in those articles that are primarily about the drug(s) or in other specific situations in which mentioning multiple names is appropriate.
    • For other drugs, the most common name should be used in most cases. If, however, different names are common in different parts of the world (i.e., acetaminophen is commonly known as paracetamol outside of North America), then multiple names may be appropriate.
  • cure vs. recovery? The preferred term is “recovery”.¹⁾
  • treatment vs. therapy vs. intervention? The preferred term is “treatment”.
  • Immunopathology vs. IP vs. Jarisch-Herxheimer vs. herx? Immunopathology the most up to date technically understood term and is therefore preferred.²⁾
  • patients vs. members? On the current site, the preferred term is “members” as we are not providing a treatment. However, when writing towards the health care provider community as an audience, the term patient might be preferred, for example, in the Diagnostic Tests overview.
  • Autoimmunity Research FoundationNon-profit foundation dedicated to exploring a pathogenesis and therapy for chronic disease. vs. Autoimmunity Research, Inc. The preferred term is “Autoimmunity Research, Inc.”
  • “Patient Testimonials” vs. “Patient Experiences” The preferred term is “Patient Experiences”.
  • “Health care practitioner” is preferred vs. “doctor” or “physician.”
  • “Critique of…” (pleasant way of saying we disagree)
  • “Rationale for…” (pleasant way of saying why we disagree)
  • When referring to research and therapies that we disapprove of: “other” vs. “traditional” vs. “conventional” vs. “mainstream”? Preferred term: “other”.
  • “Comprehensive list of…” vs. “All…” vs. “A-Z List of…”? Preferred term (for now) is “A-Z List of…”
    • example: “A-Z List of Symptoms”
  • To avoid confusion between “l” and “1”, capitalize the “L” when abbreviating millilitres (mL), etc. (see SI prefixes applied to the litre).

• Avoid writing in first person (“I”, “we”) and second person (“You”).
• Avoid contractions (“don't,” “shouldn't”).
• Terms to use cautiously, if at all avoid (except, perhaps, in quotes, maybe):
  • “idiots” (or any other name-calling)
  • “folk(s)”
  • “the powers that be”

• How technical should the text be?
  • Be aware of the danger of alienating people not familiar with the Marshall ProtocolA curative medical treatment for chronic inflammatory disease. Based on the Marshall Pathogenesis. or with technical medical terminology in general (only really sick people spend enough time around doctors that they start to understand what they actually are saying ).
  • Also be aware that more technical terminology is necessary in order to effectively communicate to medical professionals.
  • A good solution to this dilemma would be for each article to contain two sections, the first being in “layman's terms” and the second using more technical language.

• Titles of articles should include enough information to allow a user to have some good idea of what an article is about. Many users will find articles and only see the article title – via Google or via the knowledge base's internal search mechanism.
• Wordiness is definitely frowned upon. By the way, unless stated otherwise people will assume that articles are about the MP. No need to include that in the title.
  • example (preferred): “HIV and AIDS”
  • example (deprecated): “HIV, AIDS, and the Marshall Protocol”
• If a thing is more commonly known by its acronym or alternative term, use that in the title first.
  • example: MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)

• Let's emulate Wikipedia in the way that they break content every couple paragraphs by headers.
• What is the point of headers?
  • Content needs to be broken up into different sections.
  • Headers allow for direct linking.
  • Headers give the user scanning the article of what the article is about.
  • Headers allow us to communicate the hierarchy of a given article. Every article should have some sort of hierarchy. If it's doesn't, it might be worth re-thinking the topic.
• The first letter of a section title is capitalized. Every letter thereafter is not - unless the term is normally capitalized such as a proper name. For examples of proper usage, see Wikipedia.
• Titles of articles are H1. Main sections of an article are H2. An H3 is used more infrequently. Note that H1, H2 and H3 can be linked to directly via an anchor but that H4 and H5 cannot.
• Naturally, headers without content don't show up in the articles themselves.
• Naming of headers - which should it be?
  • “Symptoms of Lyme Disease”
  • “Symptoms”
• Frequently used headers
  • Summary
    • contents: basic concepts for lay audience; suggestion of what the article covers
    • article types: technical articles and longer articles
    • formatting conventions: paragraphs
    • includes: in-text links to related diseases and symptoms(?)
  • Symptoms
    • contents: common symptom complaints (link)
    • article types: diseases
    • formatting conventions:
    • includes: final link in the list of symptoms is a link to all symptoms (“list of all symptoms”)
  • Management
    • contents: non-contraindicated treatments additional to the MP; also can be “treatment-like” actions the patient can take to ameliorate undesired symptoms, i.e. pet therapy, positive attitude, etc. (link)
    • formatting conventions: use of checkmarks (✔)
    • article types: diseases, symptoms
  • Other treatments
    • contents: contraindicated treatments (link)
    • article types: diseases, symptoms
    • formatting conventions: use of X marks (✘)
  • Tests
    • contents: tests for monitoring disease state
    • article types: diseases, symptoms(?)
    • formatting conventions: bullet points and paragraphs
  • Diagnosis
    • contents: links to relevant tests; issues associated with ambiguous diagnoses
    • article types: diseases, symptoms
  • Expected ranges
    • contents: ranges and units for a given measurement
    • article types: tests
  • Types
    • contents: different varieties of a disease
    • article types: diseases
    • formatting conventions: bullet points and paragraphs
    • includes:
      • note clarifying that the list of types is not comprehensive; first sentence could read, for example, “Select varieties of cancer:”
      • standard laboratory ranges
  • Evidence of infectious cause
    • contents: brief explanation of evidence for why this condition is an infection
    • formatting conventions: paragraphs; heavy use of footnotes
  • Politics
    • alternatives for name: Politics and social; Sociological
    • contents: any notes on the sociological aspects of the disease such as funding, doctors' historical pattern of acceptance/resistance, etc.
  • Patient experiences
    • alternatives for name: Patient(s)/Member(s) experience(s)
    • contents: patient accounts of their condition
    • article types: diseases, symptoms
    • sub-sections: patient quotes; relevant Bacteriality interviews (link); progress reports of existing patients on the MP (link)
    • formatting conventions: should the patient quotes, Bacteriality interviews and progress reports be separated by H4 headers or nothing?
  • Presentations and publications
    • contents: scholarly literature and publications, which covers the article's top in greater rigor
    • sub-sections: ARF presentations; Bacteriality?; non-ARF presentations
    • article types: all
    • formatting conventions: Nature style citation; pictures of ARF authors?
  • Works cited
    • alternatives for name: References
    • contents: documented formatted citations
    • formatting conventions: smaller font

• when possible, scientific claims should be documented using footnotes to published literature
• published literature includes articles appearing in PubMed, but can also point to other scholarly and reputable sources such as abstracts, speeches before learned bodies, etc.
• citing PubMed articles:
  • example: Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 1997 Feb 27;385(6619):810-3. doi: 10.1038/385810a0.
    [PMID: 9039911] [DOI: 10.1038/385810a0]
  • here's the syntax for how to do it (the 9039911 is actually the PubMed Identifier, also known as PMID):

Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 1997 Feb 27;385(6619):810-3. doi: 10.1038/385810a0.
[PMID: 9039911] [DOI: 10.1038/385810a0]

• All other citations will be done in the style the journal Nature uses.
  • Zotero, a plug-in for Firefox, can automatically format citations in the Nature style.
• if you repeat a claim posted on the legacy MP site and it points to a study, make sure the study says what we say it says
• Reliable sources
  • Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Disclaimer: This article, provided by [organization], is funded by [source]. It is for educational purposes only and is meant to summarize the information available at the time of its creation. It should be construed neither as medical advice nor opinion on any specific clinical situation. For more information on a specific clinical situation, please consult your health care provider.

• Often a small link at the bottom of each page of a medical informational site will be labeled “disclaimer” and if clicked on, leads the reader to some wording similar in effect to the above paragraph.

• For the purposes of deciding how often to include links within an article, consider that this may be the only page a user finds. Try to think to yourself, “If I were a user and this page interested me, what would be the next thing I might have a question about?”
  • For example: a person the insomnia article might want to know about sleep medications. Or, if an article talks about how to deal with a denied insurance claim, maybe you should refer that user to the article on buying low-cost olmesartan.
• Direct linking to an article in text is preferred rather than saying “See Also.”
  • example (preferred): “West Nile virus is a co-infection.”
  • example (deprecated): “West Nile virus is a co-infection. See also the article on co-infections.”
• Sometimes, it makes sense to link to some of the ARF team's great publications and presentations. See the HIV and AIDS page's section Relevant publications and presentations for an example of that.³⁾ I would also suggest using this space to point to articles on Bacteriality.
• We need a list of every term that should be linked to when it is used. ⁴⁾

• It may make sense on occasion to quote an authority on the MP including Dr. Marshall or Meg Mangin. An example:

Sarcoidosis kills.

~ Trevor Marshall, PhD

• Take note of the formatting for the attribution.
  • Double space before attribution.
  • Single space between tilde (~) and quoted person.
  • Name first, then comma, then credentials (PhD, RN, MD, etc.)

<blockquote>Sarcoidosis kills.

//**Trevor Marshall, PhD**//</blockquote>

• Don't be too liberal in your use of quotes. This wiki is about the science, not necessarily the people who talk about the science. A valid argument trumps a personal assurance.
• Also, be careful not to quote MP patients to excess. For one, they almost always don't fully understand the science.
• Especially, try to shy away from quoting patients when they are making seemingly extraordinary claim how the MP works. It is always disappointing when a patient says something unequivocally positive about the MP's ability to cure a particular illness and that patient is (apparently) no longer on the treatment.
  • Possible exception: Bacteriality interviews
• In cases where the evidence is incomplete, say so explicitly.
  • Example: “There is not enough evidence to know why increases in immunopathology seem to be connected to increases in light sensitivity.”
• On the other hand, another way to express uncertainty is to quote Trevor.
  • Example: “Trevor has said, 'I looked at the molecular structure of Splenda, and it appears not to have an immunomodulatory effect.' Proceed at your own risk.”

• Ideally contributors to the KB would be mindful of some of the sharper criticisms of ARF such as this 2010 post by Jonathan Eisen. There are a number of criticisms of the MP. Some, such as the fact that the MP may be used for a wide range of diseases, is outside our control. Other objections, such as MP advocates' use of unjustifiably certain language, are more within our control. One of the abiding considerations for the KB is, given the available evidence, how much certainty to use in one's language.
• To this end, when explaining microbes' role in causing disease, the word “may” often comes in handy. So does saying, “According to the Marshall PathogenesisA description for how chronic inflammatory diseases originate and develop.….”
• Strive for an encyclopedic tone.
  • No sweeping generalizations.
  • When possible, support claims made with evidence (no “self-evident pronouncements”); when not possible, try to support claims with reasoning and logical inferences.
• As much as possible, these articles ought to have a narrative flow similar to that of encyclopedia articles. In other words, we don't want these articles to read like a series of disjointed quotes and studies.
• Strive for communicating the highest level of professionalism. Refrain from:
  • name calling (e.g., “idiots”)
  • questioning the integrity of those who take exception to the MP
  • suggesting that there's any kind of broad conspiracy against the MP
• Even the least astute users are more than capable of jumping to conclusions like this without any help from the authors of the knowledge base. (Really.)
• Let's be careful about exaggerating. For the most part, the MP is as good as it has been billed. There's no need to misrepresent.

• in vitroA technique of performing a given procedure in a controlled environment outside of a living organism - usually a laboratory., in vivoA type of scientific study that analyzes an organism in its natural living environment., in silicoExperiment technique performed on computer or via computer emulation.

• Italics (not underlining, bold, all caps, etc.) should be used to emphasize a word or phrase, but such emphasis should be used judiciously. Too many words italicized for emphasis dilutes the intended effect.
• The names of individual species get italicized.
  • Example: Helicobacter pylori
• If a specific date is quoted within an article, it should be given in an unambiguous format, ie with the month as a word not a number. (In various countries around the world the format 11/01/08 could mean dd/mm/yy or it could mean mm/dd/yy and so it is better to write 1 November 2008 or 11 January 2008.)