Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Categorization of pharmacology-related articles

I have started a discussion thread at WT:PHARM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Taurine

I'm asking for a review of this article's GA status. I think it's very disorganized. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jenapharm DYK nomination

I've submitted a soundbite from that article I finished today to DYK. But verifying it requires access to the journal Steroids, so someone from here might want to undertake the verification. As far as I can tell, Pharma articles are seldom featured at DYK... Xasodfuih (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Would someone mind looking at an article

2-Benzylpiperidine may need some expert reviewing as a drunk user notified me that there is some "improper articulation." kilbad (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the compound, but I see nothing obviously wrong in that article. Based on your talk page he seems to be complaining about the use of the word "potent" as unscientific or shameful?! Well PMID 39160 (cited in the article) shamelessly uses it. So, he was either overly anal when drunk or just trolling you. Yeah, you could reword it to use "affinity" or other jargon, but the wording seems fine for a general encyclopedia. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, looking at the history of that article, User:Meodipt wrote it. He wrote articles about other experimental compounds here. I had read some of the articles he wrote about various SARMs before seeing this notice, and found Meodipt's articles accurate with respect to the sources. So I trust the data is correct in this article as well, even though it's not in the abstracts of the reference papers; I didn't check the full text here because I have little interest in this. I think we're being trolled. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at that article. Also, what do you mean by "trolled"? kilbad (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That from the tone and content of the complaint it appears it was done "for the lulz" (if I'm allowed to use an expression I've recently seen on WP:ANI). Xasodfuih (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the user complained about the formulations "20 times less" and "175 times lower". This would be really bad style in German, but I am not sure about English. Shouldn't it be "a twentieth" or something like that? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"Twenty times less" has been perfectly good English for the past 300 years or so according to Webster [1] ("Times has now been used in such constructions for about 300 years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever been misunderstood"). The only "shameful" part may be using digits. "One-twentieth as potent ..." would be an alternative, but it's not anymore correct. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier.. English is not my native language.. however me and many non-natives still use en.wiki.. as their primary wiki. I think it would be better to say something like "desoxy and amphetamine are 20 time more potent than.." ..

Even if it has traditionally been used the way it has.. why should someone consciously sustain such irrational tradition? I bet that mathematicians (and others who think logically) strongly dislike that tradition anyways.

-Matriiq —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matriiq (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Herbal medicine

Pharmacology says: "If substances have medicinal properties, they are considered pharmaceuticals."
I recently looked at a couple of articles on herbal medicine (Herbalism, Chinese herbology) which are not listed as part of this WikiProject but which I think should be. Shall I add articles on herbal medicine to this project, or should I not? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Question re: copyright; drug descriptions

The article Alitretinoin has been tagged for copypaste concerns, which automatically lists it at the copyright problems board. Investigation verifies that the text is the same as that at the identified source, [2] (page 2). Under ordinary circumstances, I'd remove it, but I am unfamiliar with the copyright status of drug indication descriptions. It seems plausible to me that drug indications might not be copyrightable; for instance, if they are generated by US federal agency and hence public domain. I'm hoping that your project can shed some light. :) I'll be grateful for responses even of the "can't help you" variety, since if your project doesn't know, I'll have to look elsewhere for an answer or remove the text, lacking verification that it is free for use. Thanks for any help you can offer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am equally unfamiliar with the copyright status of FDA-approved drug labeling. I've reworded the possibly offending text anyway because Wikipedia articles should not mirror drug monographs. If and when you do find out more, please let us know—this issue has come up several times before. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with that. I have not been able to find anything to verify that it is usable, but if I should, I will certainly let your project know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for help on paroxetine page

I am a new user with a concern on the wikipedia paroxetine page. The fourth sentence in the opening paragraph is "The prescription of this drug is controversial because of side effects such as suicidal ideation (thoughts of suicide) and withdrawal syndrome which have resulted in legal proceedings against the manufacturer."

I think this sentence is too strongly worded and does not belong in the opening paragraph. I think this sentence is alarmist and may cause more harm then good. It does not referense both sides of the supposed controversy.

I lack the knowledge of wikipedia protocol, but can someone review this? Thanks. Mwalla (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

You are absolutely correct. It's not just too strongly worded, it's incorrect. The concern for suicidal ideation is a class effect for all of the newer anti-depressants, and will likely ultimately be a finding for treated depression in general. This is not specific to paroxetine. Also, this finding has not made the prescription of the medications "controversial." The withdrawal syndrome does seem to be more prominant with paroxetine, but exists with all of the SSRI's, and, again, has not made their prescription "controversial."71.247.147.32 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vaccines

How do people feel about having pages for vaccines that don't exist yet (for example, Epstein-Barr vaccine, Trypanosomiasis vaccine, and Schistosomiasis vaccine)? I think that the issues are similar but not identical to the issues with small molecule drugs, so I'd like to get a sense from the community before going too much farther down that road. --Arcadian (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I have created a number of stubs about small molecules in clinical trials myself, I obviously don't object as long as WP:CRYSTAL is observed (which you do anyway, Arcadian; the last bit was just for the general audience ). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be merged with main topic unless vaccine in very advanced stage of development. JFW | T@lk 00:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go for a slightly different criterion: what can we say about a possible vaccine, and what are the problems? To put it another way, how would such articles get out of being stubs? HIV vaccine exists only as an article: the article isn't great, but you can see how it could be improved with work. Of the three stubs mentioned, I can see Trypanosomiasis vaccine being improved (as an article, and without breakthroughs), but not the others: a subjective choice, I agree, but that's one of the ways we've built up WP. Physchim62 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dorafem=?

An anonymous IP added the trade name "Dorafem" to rabeprazole on Proton pump inhibitor#Examples of proton pump inhibitors with the remark "combination therapy". I somewhat rashly added that it is a combination with domperidone, but I can't find a reliable source for this. Could someone, please, check? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Paracetamol at FAR

Apologies if this a duplicate notification. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 has nominated Paracetamol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We're in this week's Wikipedia Signpost

We're the topic of this week's The Wikipedia Signpost regular series of reports on Wikiprojects - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-01-17/WikiProject_report :-)

Should that be added to the end of the project's "Pharmacology trophy case" section ? Anyway, well done Fvasconcellos ! David Ruben Talk 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Large number of style chages from IP Special:Contributions/70.137.173.82

See discussion here. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Validation of CAS numbers and structures - update

As most of you are aware, over at WP:Chem have been working for some time on trying to validate content in our Chemboxes. We'd like to be able to assist with validation of content in drugboxes, too. Last year we set up a collaboration with CAS whereby they will provide us with many of the CAS numbers for our Chemboxes. They are also setting up a free access website which has one page per compound - this will become available soon, maybe even in a week or two. Our validation work quite naturally includes a lot of Drugboxes, and some members of WP:PHARM have graciously assisted in our efforts. We are now at the stage of actively validating the content. It is hoped to expand the scope in the future to include IUPAC names, SMILES, and eventually even some physical properties.

For the Chembox, we set up a system for showing that a CAS No. was validated against the CAS collection - it appears in a dark green, bold font. (Black = unchecked, Anber = checked but not fully validated, Red = validated version was edited, so highly suspect! We still need to set up an "explanation" page for users.) This is done through use of {{cascite}}, as here; at present, such edits have no effect on drugboxes. In addition, we have User:CheMoBot logging all edits to these data, as can be seen for drugboxes at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Log, and we make a note of the validated versions of the articles here. It is hoped that we will be able to have CheMoBot able to revert edits that change these data fields from the correct version - after all, there should be no reason to change a CAS# supplied by CAS themselves. However, we're currently just logging the changes. I have a few questions:

  • Does this project want to add in a colour coding system for drugboxes, or something equivalent, to indicate validated content?
  • Currently you link from a CAS# to the National Library of Medicine entry for that CAS #. Would you consider linking to the appropriate CAS page from the CAS#, so that users can verify the CAS# for themselves? Over at WP:Chem, we are also considering linking to a link collection for that CAS#, but I suspect the most likely outcome for us would be something like this demo, but with a simple link (clicking on the CAS#) taking you to the CAS page for HCN.
  • We're currently discussing some of these issues, and also how to validate structures and prevent their vandalism. If you'd like to join us on IRC, we're having a meeting on Tuesday on channel channel #wikichem at 1600h UTC.

I hope that you'll find this validation effort useful, and you can find a way to incorporate the information in a way that fits well with the project. Please feel free to respond here with your ideas, many of our group watch this page. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

EMolecules may have fewer compounds that CAS, but for what's notable enough to be included in Wikipedia it seems more that sufficient. Also, it's free. It'd much prefer if the CAS numbers linked to a free site. Let's see what the new CAS (free) website will look like before making any decision. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There is an effort afoot to link to ChemSpider and perform cross-validation of ChemSpider and Wikipedia structures. ChemSpider offers a lot of additional content above and beyond simply sourcing a supplier. it is of course free of charge --ChemSpiderMan (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacology Categorization 2009! Yeah! Let's break it down!

Discussion is currently underway regarding how pharm articles should be categorized (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Categorization). My question today is, what should the name of the uppermost pharamcology category be? If you have an opinion or comment, please share it at that link. Thanks. kilbad (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I have updated the new draft and would appreciate some feedback. kilbad (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone keep an eye on 71.244.121.113?

He is deleting reliable info from pharma articles wrongly claiming "unreliable sources". For instance: this. At the bottom you'll see that it's based on a paper from Nature. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Icos Peer Review

The article Icos is at peer review. It was a biotech company, not a drug. Shubinator (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Medication

The article at "medication" was recently moved without discussion to "pharmaceutical drug" and replaced with a disambiguation page in order to list some obscure band: Medication (band). This leaves thousands of pages intended for the article formerly titled "medication" linking to a disambiguation page. This move should probably be reverted, but seems to require an administrator to fix it. Or maybe all those links to "medication" should be retargeted to "pharmaceutical drug". What's the best way of dealing with this problem? ChemNerd (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Both should probably be done! Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I note contributor ChemNerd seems not to have responded directly to my contributions in Talk:Pharmaceutical drug
And a request to have Drug trade moved to eg Illicit drug trade is not getting much response
See also Drug-related articles generally a mess below
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have left a few comments on those talk pages now. ChemNerd (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Drug-related articles generally a mess

Wikipedia's drug-related articles are generally a mess
Perhaps this is because current thinking about drugs is generally a mess
Perhaps there is no coherent objective way of thinking and writing on the subject
We have laws seemingly dedicated to the notion that drugs are evil, and the use of force (sometimes lethal) to suppress their production and supply
Somehow, at the same time, we have a vast legal drugs industry, for ever chasing the holy grail of immortality
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I offer the following as potentially useful definitions:

  • Controlled drug: drug within the scope of laws which are named, effectively, as drug control laws, for example, in the United Kingdom, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Drugs Act 2005
  • Pharmaceutical drug: product of a body, pharmaceutical company or drug company, which is licensed to produce and supply controlled drugs as medicines
  • Legal drug:
    • pharmaceutical drug, provided it is not held contrary to drug control laws; or
    • drug falling outside the scope of drug control laws and not otherwise illegal, for example, in the United Kingdom, alcohol or tobacco,
  • Illegal drug:
    • drug held contrary to drug control laws; or
    • drug falling outside the scope of drug control laws and defined as illegal in some other way, for example, in the United Kingdom, alcohol sold to someone under the age of 18

Laurel Bush (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Article AlertBot

WP:PHARM now subscribes to the Article AlertBot service, which will keep us informed on articles going through the various review processes (FA, GA, and Peer Review) automatically on the main page. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is great, but where is the alert page? Xasodfuih (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The actual alerts are on this page, and are transcluded into the main WP:PHARM page from there. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Aminohippuric acid and para-Aminohippurate

These two related articles seem to have been written independently. Pharmacology isn't my area, so I didn't dare add a merge tag, but I did add links between them. Maybe there are separate uses for the two compounds? However, I found many problems with the articles:

  • The parent acid didn't even show up in my earlier search, because para-aminohippuric acid redirected to para-Aminohippurate rather than aminohippuric acid.
  • Aminohippuric acid (CAS# 61-78-9) had the acid form drawn for the structure, but it had the CAS no. for the Na salt. The Na salt (CAS# 94-16-6) only had the acid one (clearly indicated to be the acid form, and tagged as CAS-verified).
  • To a chemist like myself, aminohippuric acid is an ambiguous name, especially when it seems that the name para-aminohippuric acid is widely used. Shouldn't the latter be used for the WP page name?
  • Also para-Aminohippurate seems to indicate the anionic form in general - perhaps a potassium salt, etc. It seems to me that the article should be called para-Aminohippurate sodium or Sodium para-aminohippurate (I'd prefer the latter, as this matches a synonym provided to us by CAS).

Can you advise? Walkerma (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of the original stubs for both, in my opinion, they are referring to the same thing, and should be merged. (I created Para-Aminohippurate in 2006 when focusing upon renal physiology, and Aminohippuric acid in 2008 when creating the stubs for ATC code V04). However, I would defer to this community and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry for guidance as to which direction would be the more appropriate merge. --Arcadian (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly favor merging in the direction of the parent acid. Any salt forms with important pharmacology or distinct uses can be mentioned in context in that article. As to the title, "aminohippuric acid" is the United States Adopted Name for the pharmaceutical, but it is a bit ambiguous because as Martin points out, there can be three geometric isomers. So from a pharmacology point of view "aminohippuric acid" is best, but from a chemistry point of view "para-aminohippuric acid" would be best. Since the primary use seems to be pharmaceutical/medical, I would favor using "aminohippuric acid". -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Ed. In chemistry, we usually place organic anions under the name of the parent acid. The ATC code also refers to the free acid. I don't think we're likely to have articles on the ortho- and meta-isomers in the forseeable future, so there seems no objection to redirecting Para-Aminohippuric acid to Aminohippuric acid. The sodium salt has the (verified) CAS number 94-16-6 (structure #976 in the SDF file). Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have merged the two articles at aminohippuric acid. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Help sought describing some photos

I recently took some photos and uploaded them in Commons:Category:Herb Knudson's Surgical Appliance & Hospital Equipment. The displays in the windows at the front of Knudson's store function as something of a mini-museum of pharmacy and medical equipment. I'm hoping that someone on this project might be able to help flesh out the descriptions there (and possibly help with categorization). If you know of some other project that might be more able to help, please feel free to pass this message along. - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about Nucleic acid inhibitors template

Regarding {{Nucleic acid inhibitors}}, there's a link to the disambiguation page DNA synthesis in the upper left hand box (Antifolates). Could someone let me know what article that link should actually be pointing to? Thanks, JaGatalk 05:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine

Under review for good article status. If anyone would like to review the article please do.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity

This article (formerly at Fluoroquinolone toxicity syndrome, started January 22) has serious NPOV issues which I think could benefit from some more attention of knowledgable editors. Despite chivalrously admitting his COI, some bias appears to stem from newbie Davidtfull (talk · contribs), who is director of the Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation and on a mission against "fluoroquinolones and thier horrendous adverse reactions" [sic]. Very instructive also is the Homepage of Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation:

  • "The Fluoroquinolone Drugs are the most toxic and dangerous antibiotic in clinical practice today."
  • "We cannot even begin to count the number of lives these drugs have destroyed rather then saved in the past forty years..."

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved on the talk page of that article as Steve knows. I to would appreciate the input of other editors who are knowledgable about or interested in fluoroquinolone toxicity. The first statement of fluoroquinolone drugs on the home page of that site being the most toxic antibiotic in clinical practice is true. If it is not true which antibiotic class has a worse toxicity profile? The fact there are several support groups for fluoroquinolone toxicity with thousands of members I think speaks for itself. You won't find support groups for "survivors of penicillin toxicity" or tetracycline toxicity or macrolide toxicity or cephalosporin toxity, they don't exist. You might find a support site for the antimalarial drug larium toxicity. So why are there thousands of people on the internet reporting similar things with one antibiotic group in particular but not others? I know that campaign or recovery sites are not citable on wikipedia but just mentioning it, but there is a lot of literature on the toxicity (sometimes permanent) of fluoroquinolones as well in pubmed. I have revealed my views but I think that they are based on evidence. :=) Sorry Steve if we don't totally agree and am treading on your toes. :+_)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Steve is right that there are some bias issues and neutral point of view issues which need addressing. Hopefully the wiki pharmacology people here can help resolve these issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The only piece of advice that I can give is to merge this into reality. This is in fact a fork of fluoroquinolone. I would pick the most important sources, put them into context, merge the content with the quinolone article, and turn the current POV monster into a redirect.

There is also a clutch of websites trying to educate the world about gentamicin toxicity. Clearly, this is another group of antibiotics with toxicity issues - probably much worse than quinolones. I think that generally, toxicity articles should only be created if the main article cannot contain the information despite all of it being WP:MEDRS. JFW | T@lk 07:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The aminoglycosides only have 1 or 2 specific toxicities, mainly ototoxicity and also nephrotoxicity which are notable but the quinolones have a range of toxicities which affect multiple organ systems, CNS, PNS, muscles, tendons, ocular etc etc. If we were to merge the most relevant content we would run into the problem of "undue weight" in the main quinolone article(s). Aminoglycosides whilst they have their toxicities are correctly used (greatly minimising people who experience toxic sequelae), they are not prescribable in general practice (injection only) and are generally only used as 2nd or 3rd line drugs for serious infections and if I recall correctly there are proceedures for monitoring blood levels to minimise toxicities. I could only find individual web pages on aminoglycoside toxicity, not dedicated websites except for this small one which has an email group you can join but don't know how many members they have in their email group. Maybe there are dedicated groups with thousands of members reporting chronic adverse effects of aminoglycosides but I can't find them. I am sure if aminoglycosides were prescribed orally in general practice routinely there may very well be large numbers of patients reporting long lasting or permanent adverse effects.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate comments and advice from other project members as well, and help at the article for those who have time. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
To quote some dude from the Bible, "the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me". After all the effort and time I took last year to make Mr. Fuller's proposed additions accurate and NPOV-compliant, I can't believe so much has happened so fast—and with no one to check these "advances". I knew I shouldn't have taken these off my watchlist... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
LG, I know fluoroquinolone toxicities are well-established (I myself had a nasty experience with moxifloxacin some years ago) and have been pretty extensively researched, but that's not the point. The point is how much weight we see fit to geve it in our articles, and the care we take to make sure this information is presented in an unbiased, accurate manner; right now, our quinolone articles are on the fast track to becoming indiscriminate messes. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to make sure that the articles are unbiased and accurate manner. I have no desire to see the fluoroquinolone toxicity incidence to be exagerated/inflated nor do I want to see the incidence or toxicities downplayed or erased from wikipedia. The severity of the toxicities I don't think has been exagerated, I think that the question is undue weight, reliable sources, accurate interpretation of sources and lack of statistical data. I have made some suggestions on the talk page about making more use of review papers, making use of other secondary sources and I have started an epidemiology section in the article which should with a little effort resolve most of the neutrality issues of the article as it is incidence of the toxicities which is the most relevant. I am sorry to hear of your adverse reaction to moxifloxacin and I hope that you made a full recovery.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See this section.Talk:Fluoroquinolone_toxicity#odds_ratio_and_relative_risk. Can anyone help me track the full text paper down and retrieve the relevant data?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out to all of you that this horrendous NPOV is spread into every single quinolone article: see Special:WhatLinksHere/Fluoroquinolone_toxicity. I think this urgently requires more attention from this project. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I thought that we were making progress with Dave from FQresearch, slowly but surely. I deleted some data cited to quinolone forums on original research grounds from one of the quinolone articles and saw you did the same to ciprofloxacin. I think that you both have a strong Point of View and they are opposite but sometimes that is good in getting a neutral good article or at least a reasonable article. I think we can work it out but the more people from wiki pharm project join in the better, I agree with that because I am getting run down and stressed lol. I think that we (volunteers from the wiki pharm project) should let him build up the quinolone articles then each week go in and delete any poorly cited data and go to the talk page to discuss any biased or exagerated data which is cited. The quinolone pages haven't ever really been developed in the however many years wiki has been going, who knows it might work out in the end. I think that we are getting stressed out, I sure am anyway.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having on all of the quinolone pages one of the "See also" wiki inlinks linking to the fluoroquinolone toxicity page is horrendous or even a problem, I have to be honest. Sorry. :=( All of the commonly prescribed benzos have benzodiazepine withdrawal link which talks about some pretty unpleasant sometimes long lasting symptoms in the "see also" link section but I guess it is a better cited article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has a major problem with a non-neutral point of view. Undue weight is rife. It is a point of view fork. For example, this sentence is just plain wrong: "Only inhalant anthrax and pseudomonal infections in cystic fibrosis infections are licensed indications in the UK due to ongoing safety concerns." The whole article needs to be re-written. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence preceding that sentence, says (or said) In the UK the prescribing indications for fluoroquinolones for children is severely restricted. Only inhalant anthrax and pseudomonal infections in cystic fibrosis infections are licensed indications in the UK due to ongoing safety concerns.

It is referring to quinolones in children, although it needed rewording perhaps to make it more clear to the reader than it is talking in children, not in adults. An old quinolone nalidix acid is actually licensed for urinary tract infections in children.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The mediocre quality of the prose does not excuse the other problems. My other concerns stand. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The article has been rewritten at Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones to reflect recently published reviews in well respected journals rather than case studies and animal studies.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And the wildfire didn't take long to spread there too. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm going to request page protection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
My request has been declined. sigh Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, there are indeed some POV concerns with this article. Right now the editors are all working towards a compromise. What are the two sides of the debate? One side is describing how quinolones can cause serious long term health problems, and the other is claiming that quinolones are very safe. I am sure both sides have their own biases.

I have to agree with LiteratureGeek again. The issue here is not the severity of quinolone induced damage, BUT the frequency of such adverse reactions. They are undoubtedly not very common, but they do exist, and are a serious cause for concern, hence the need for a Black Box FDA warning. I must emphasize that there are many many unlucky patients that have been suffering from serious long term damage from these adverse reactions. This may be off topic, but here is an actual drug rep who is still suffering from these permanent reactions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpDkN_KJmdA&fmt=18 .

I do hope that we manage to get all this sorted out. Remember that everyone has their own bias, but we must reach an agreement with both sides of the argument.

JamesLockson (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, some editors are using review to present what is know about the adverse events of quinilones well another group is useing case studing to show that anything can happens and using case studies to make it sound like these events are common. ie OR. We are not working towards a compromise. I had every change I made removed which I why we have a new page. All changes were reverted with no discuss of the many concerns I brought up, from OR to plagerism. If you call trying to represent the scientific consesus a bias than I guess I am biased ( I think most would call this neutral and the POV we are trying to present ).--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

James, There is no scientific consensus on long term adverse reactions because there has been no clinical trials or meta-analysis or review of long term effects (apart from tendonitis) which have followed up patients or investigated them, apart from the internet study. There are some analysis of case reports to FDA or similar but that is it and they only focus on one or 2 symptoms eg tendonitis. You are using short term 2 week long drug company clinical trials to debunk long term or permanent mental and physical health problems induced by fluoroquinolones. You simply cannot debunk long term effects with a review of short term clinical trials. That with the greatest respect is original research on your part. You lack an evidence base for your stance to. If I am wrong cite good quality reviews which have reviewed long term effects of quinolones and debunked them, or even a good primary source which followed a large group of people up long term.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said, LiteratureGeek. There have been NO studies on the long term effects of quinolones. Who would sponsor such a study? If a drug company did this, it would be akin to shooting themselves in the foot. "You simply cannot debunk long term effects with a review of short term clinical trials." JamesLockson (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So if there are no long term studies how are you to say that there is evidence of long term side effect? I disagree and think there is long term evidence. National drug regulatory agencies look at this data and require this data for approval of medication. Will look into things. By the way most research is funded by us the tax payers of the world and not by pharma companies. They do however try to make you believe that this is not the case but the pharma industry is lieing through their teeth.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Co tract

Okay. I have completely rewritten Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones this is a co tract of Fluoroquinolone toxicity. Wondering how we should go about getting rid of one of them? Please leave comments about which you feel is more accurate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, James. Now the old talk page needs to be merged in, then the old page changed to a redirect. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Tried that once. It was reverted back and all changes I have made were deleted. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I asked for page protection and was denied. What do you think? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

By the looks of things the quinolone community are now taking a keen interest in wikipedia. Some of these people have chronic or ill health and feel their lives are destroyed and simply hate these drugs. We are dealing with potentially thousands of very angry and bitter people in the various quinolone online communities (I followed some links on davids site to the support groups and they are discussing wikipedia) who see wiki as working for the drug companies or ridiculing and covered up what happened to them. This is a very emotional issue and certainly one of controversy. This is my feeling, that this is not an easy issue to deal with. I also do agree with them that quinolones are simply not aanother antibiotic like amoxycillin or erythromycin. I have seen pages created which have dealt with similar topics by creating a "controversies" page. See below for examples.

I personally think that the evidence for fluoroquinolone toxicity is stronger than any "evidence" for aspartame toxicity. I wonder if creating a page called fluoroquinolone controversy or something similar, then do a major clean up of the toxicity page, removing undue weight, original research etc is a good idea?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I also left some important issues I have with the adverse effects page but no one has replied to it.Talk:Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones#References--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You know that James has already created a "cleaned-up" version? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but criteria for that page is reviews only, but the manufacturers and the health bureaucracies have not conducted any good studies following up or investigating people experiencing chronic symptoms (apart from tendonitis). At the moment the page says CNS reactions with quinolones are 0.12% more common than with other antibiotics (like erythromycin, amoxycillin etc). At best quinolone has CNS effects (sometimes long lasting) at a similar rate to lariam in my opinion. I guess developing the controversy section is an option in the mean time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1.12 times the frequency of CNS side-effects actually represents 12% more, not 0.12% more. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"At best quinolone has CNS effects (sometimes long lasting) at a similar rate to lariam in my opinion." In your opinion? Is this your original research? A reference (reliable source) would help. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, you are right! I should have said 0.12 times more, not percent or if percent 12%. See what use of a calculator does to the brainn, makes you forget those simple skills one learnt at school those decades ago. :=) But still when talking about an uncommon adverse effect it is to use a medical term "statistically insignificant", still virtually no difference between standard antibiotics and quinolones.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that is why I said in my opinion. I just find it strange that there are thousands of people in support groups and dozens of campaign sites for quinolones but you don't find people claiming "permanent brain damage", muscle pain, peripheral nerve pains, tinnitus, joint pain, severe insomnia and anxiety, psychotic attacks from amoxycillin or erythormycin or other antibiotics which goes on months, years or permanent. These effects may very well be rare but they are severe.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lariam is not all that much different in molecular structure from a quinolone as well. They both contain a quinolin(e) ring in their molecular structure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Infact you might be able to argue that lariam is a quinolone or at least a quinolone derivative.

  • 2,8-bis(trifluoromethyl)quinolin-4-yl]-(2-piperidyl)methanol - Lariam
  • 1-cyclopropyl- 6-fluoro- 4-oxo- 7-piperazin- 1-yl- quinoline- 3-carboxylic acid - ciprofloxacin

Similar molecular structure does not necessarily indicate that quinolones are neurotoxic like their known neurotoxic cousin lariam but we aren't talking out there stuff like candida causes schizophrenia to think that it might not be a coincidence that thousands of people are complaining of long term sometimes serious damage to physical and mental health from these two drugs but not other antimicrobials. It is not a stretch to think that a drug which kills bacterial cells might not be too friendly to human cells either at least in some susceptible patients, in my opinion. I shall be quiet now. :=)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all it is 12% greater or 1.12 times greater. We can put both to make it clear. This is statistically significant! It also is clinically significant as these are severe CNS side effects. But this is what it is as per the literature. It is not 20 times greater. Starting with reviews is were we must begin. Case studies are not good enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not reply to the doc here because I replied to aa similar comment on an article talk page. I am not ignoring the doc. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I beg pardon to participate in this debate, though my perspective and participation may not be welcomed or even entertained. I believe it to be paramount regarding the discussion at hand that it is to be allowed, as I, the injured patient, have the most to lose if it is not.

I am not one of you and yours ways are foriegn to me and I may inadvertently offer offense where none was itended. I do not know all the ins and outs of wikipedia. But what I do know is that I (the injured patient) has the most at stake here and beg to be heard. I have asked (demanded) the quinolone community to leave wikipedia alone while we sort this all out. It was a few vigilanties that have caused such chaos and I believe they have been put back into their cages and muzzled.

The quinolone community is more than willing to work with wikipedia to address all of the concerns raised here in a civil and polite manner. And for the moment I am their acting spokesperson. But I am new to wikipedia and still have to learn all the ins and outs of doing things correctly. I have also been severely damaged by these drugs and come here handicapped to a certain degree mentally. I am no where near as sharp as I used to be as a result of such damage, so some allowances need to be made for this.

Doc James and LG seemed to be willing to help me over these hurdles and the three of us working together I believe can resolve all of these issues to everyones satisfaction. All I am asking is to give us a chance to do so. I'm willing and able to bend over backwards to touch my own toes if this is what is required to publish an accurate article concerning these drugs. My inherent bias cannot be helped no matter how much effort I make. As such I had declared myself to be COI regarding any further editing. On a side note I was not responsible for all the maliscous deletions made, nor did I encourage such behavior.

I apologize for such bad behavior and the vandalism done by a few nutcases that hang on the fringes of the quinolone community. Such behavior was extremely rude and uncalled for. But alas I cannot control all these flying monkees.

I would invite Steve to return to this effort now that the chaos has been dealt with. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done on these articles and I believe you will find I (as well as the community) can be persuaded to temper our views as well as prose if I believe we are all heading in the same direction. That being presenting a fair and balanced article that calls attention to the true safety profile of this class.

The mistakes I have made have been the result of my own ignorance concerning the way things are to be done here, there were not meant to be maliscous by any means. I offer this co-operation in exchange for our views to at least be given fair consideration, rather than rejected out of hand. The statements we have made regarding these drugs are truthfull in nature and not wild fabrications. We simply lack the ability and skills required to provide the proofs (required by wikipedia) to support them is all. If you will help us do this successfully then I believe I can hold the dogs of hell at bay and working on this article can be a pleasant and educating experience for all.

Reject the horrendous damage these drugs have done to the quinolone community and even Samson himself would not be strong enough to hold all their leashes at once. Even with the tremendous influence I have with the quinolone community, (which I assure you is considerable) I am finding it very difficult to hold these leashes. But I shall continue to do it, somehow, if we can put our petty differences aside and work together to write an article that conforms to the rules. Just teach me the proper way to do it, as I plead total ignorance, though I am making an honest effort to learn. These are the neccassary skills that I lack, not the research, the facts, or honest and good intentions.Davidtfull (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding long term studies, I just posted on my server a 2000 letter from the FDA where they state they DO NOT require long term studies for levaquin as it is intended for short term use. See the links at the bottom of my talk page. The exact text is "...The reason long term effects aren't studied in the test group is that Levaquin is a short term therapy and does not include a requirement for long term post treatment evaluations..." (emphasis added)Davidtfull (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the major issues of the quinolone articles have been dealt with. The original research has been removed, major bias and undue weight have been dealt with, uncited data has been dealt with. I think any remaining issues can be dealt with in the course of time. No one is denying that quinolones are capable of cause long lasting injuries. This has been clearly accepted by the FDA with warnings of peripheral nerve damage and publications on tendon injuries and also a lot of anecdotal evidence on internet groups. The problem is and always was, reliable sources, bias, undue weight and epidemiology but I think that we have for the most part dealt with these issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya know you shouldn't totally sit on the side lines on wikipedia David. Maybe if an article is in dispute and you feel that you are better sticking to the talk pages but there is a lot of work that needs doing to the quinolone articles and if you are enthusiastic don't hold back. What you could do is develop the quinolone articles and then if there are any issues of undue weight, neutrality, original research then members of the wiki pharm project can do a bit of pruning. Pefloxacin is an absolute mess for example and has been a mess since the existence of wikipedia. If you could tidy the pefloxacin article up, infact rewrite all the sections below the availability section and reference them then that would be great. Nalidixic acid has been around for about 40 years but is basically an empty stub. There are only probably about 8 - 10 quinolones commonly prescribed in english speaking countries so shouldn't take you long considering you were able to churn out three 100 kb articles in about a week!!! What wiki needs is 1.) people willing to develop articles and 2.) people willing to check articles for verifiability and neutrality. You are willing to develop quinolone articles and the people on wiki pharm are willing to check them for any significant neutrality, undue weight or original research.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This latest experience has left me paralyzed to do anything here. I don't mind getting in the ring and going toe to toe with anyone over these issues. I feel I have the facts behind me and will ultimately prevail. But getting suckered punched from behind numerous times is rather unnerving. I came here with the best of intentions hat in hand and tried my best to follow the rules. Instead of folks lending a hand and saying "hey, you screwed up here, lets work together to fix this" as was done at the very beginning, I find myself embroiled in a very nasty debate to where I am cast as a villain of some sort with nothing but evil intentions. Someone who Doc stated at one time should have all of his edits reverted and kicked out of here. Someone who is filling peoples heads with "garbage" and infecting all the other articles concerning these drugs with the same.
Somehow comments such as this are not very conducive to encouraging me to try to work on ANY article here. You stated that lots of these articles are a mess and have been neglected for years. Nobody cared one way or the other until I arrived. Now everybody has a very strong opinion. If I step in and start to work on them and all hell breaks loose yet again, then what? The beginnings of yet another nasty debate, more turmoil and more chaos? Is this what you are suggesting I should do? Add yet more fuel to this raging inferno?
In my ten years as an advocate regarding these issues I have made a career out of pissing people off in the medical and regulator field and have learned never to take such things personally. And I don't take all these nasty comments that have been made about me here personally either. For the most part they know not what they do and they do such things out of fear and ignorance. Just another day at the office for me is all.
But the fool that I am I'll give this one more shot anyhow. Fool me once shame on me...fool me twice and you are all on your own here. I don't mind a bit of pruning; in fact I would welcome it. I am far from being perfect and more than willing to admit my mistakes. But come on FG, even you have to admit that some of these folks came after me with chainsaws while wearing a hockey mask. That ain't a bit of "pruning" in my book. That is cutting a tree down and throwing into the bonfire.
So think twice about what you are now asking of me. Are you sure this is what you would want me to do? Start work on those messed up articles? Or have we had enough for one day here? I have the stamina of Rocky when it comes to this and can take such abuse forever. I draw the line however when it starts to become personal attacks is all.
I will start work on those other articles simply because you have asked this of me. You are about the only one here that gave me a fair shake anyhow, so I owe at least that much to you. Others may attack the message all they care to when I am done. Have no argument about that at all. But start attacking the messenger again as we have seen here...well, that will be the end of it as far as I am concerned. I get enough abuse in my chosen field of endeavor as it is already and I'm not much for participating in something that has proven to be an exercise in futility.
Be BOLD the invitation here reads, so I was BOLD. So how come the past few weeks I have been waking up each morning looking like a racoon that lost a bar fight for doing so? Somehow that seems to be a bit of false advertising, wouldn't you agree? :) Davidtfull (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Notification of Science FAC symposium

Special:Contributions/62.232.19.118 adding market reports from visiongain.com

He adds both text and links specifically to pharma articles. Some got reverted as spam, some as copyvio. From the few I've looked at I don't see much value to that info, but I'd like a 2nd opinion before I report him to WP:SPAM. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Added as an external link is spam as this site is trying to sell its analysis. Uses the analysis to support text should not really be done as this is not something you can get at your local library ( but I think it might be okay if you cannot find the info elsewere and someone would be willing to provide editors with a full copy to verify the context, which I very highly doubt ). So finally if this editor is not willing to give out free copies than all of this should be removed. Thanks Xaso. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming of radiopharmaceuticals

There are a number of articles about radiopharmaceuticals with titles not including the radioisotope. For example, tetrofosmin has the INN "technetium (99mTc) tetrofosmin" ([3], [4] p63). Any objections if I rename these? While doing this, I could also try to unify the lead sentences; some of these articles do not even mention that they are about radiopharmaceuticals (e. g. capromab pendetide). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pill images

I'd appreciate other opinions on the discussion currently underway at Talk:Temazepam#Pill_pictures regarding the value of images of generic pills on drug pages. Thanks! St3vo (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my, Verinil

Verinil, which currently recommends favorite ways of using this drug recreationally, probably needs stubbed. I attempted to start it, but I've never even heard of the drug, and I'm not sure whether any of it should be kept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Verinil, and my searches on Google & Google Scholar turn up with basically nothing. There is a drug called Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker. It's brand name is, "Novo-Veramil", which is fairly close to, "verinil". So perhaps that's where this confusion is coming from. It's probably best to just delete the content on this page and redirect Verinil to Verapamil for now. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a confusion with verapamil, the article doesn't sound like it. Since when does verapamil contain antihistamines? And in case Verinil really exists somewhere, a redirect would be misleading.
Yes, I am aware that there are differences in the mechanisms of both Verapamil and Verinil, but a google search (and better yet, a Google SCHOLAR search), turn up practically nil for Verinil, as far as for anything scientifically relevant. The reason I suggested redirecting Verinil into Verapamil is more to prevent the article from being re-created by vandals, but I guess there's better ways to deal with that. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have notified CaptainofFreedom of this. If (s)he doesn't react, it would probably the best just to delete it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely that you'll get a response from CaptainofFreedom; his contribution page has only two edits on it -- he created a one-line user page, and then created the Verinil article. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a hoax. It should be tagged as such and sent to AfD. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I just added {{prod}} to it. --Scott Alter 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Sometimes this works even for slang, for "real" terms it is quite good ( except right now their html seems confused on firefox), I try to always use the eutils and bypass the art, LOL,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pccompound Pubmed Compound Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ADHD medications

ADHD medications has been sent for deletion via WP:PROD 76.66.193.90 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been redirected to a section of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FQ articles

I would like to bring peoples attention to a content fork Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones I created to bring attention to the FQ issue. The is in discussion on the talk page of Fluoroquinolone toxicity were some wish to merge these two articles. The co tract was created for two reasons. First Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones is the term used by the medical community to discuss ADR well Fluoroquinolone toxicity is a term used by a small community attempting to demonize there use. Second no editing of the article was being allowed to occur will all edit being reverted by JamesLockson This is a emotionally charged issue for many of these editors as they discribe having experienced these adverse effects themselves and this being the only issue they edit on. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wish to correct the improper, false and misleading definition being used here regarding "Fluoroquinolone Toxicity". The phrase "Flouroquinolone Toxicity Syndrome" was coined by the Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation (back in 2001 or so) to describe the non-abating adverse drug reactions associated with this class. This term has been in use for almost a decade now and appears in any number of articles and editorials concerning this class. A number of such writers have shortened this to "Fluoroquinolone Toxicity". These writers are NOT to be considered a "small community attempting to demonize there use". This is patently false and grossly misleading. It is not the intent of such writers to "demonized" these drugs, but rather call attention to the gross ignorance found within the medical community regarding its true safety profile, wanton scripting abuse, the malfeseance and misfesance of the regulator agencies, as well as to provide fair warning to all concerned. This is not to be considered "demonizing" in any way, shape or form. Nor is the community of patients that have suffered from this ignorance and scripting abuse to be considered small, it's membership is well into the millions.Davidtfull (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest typing fluoroquinolone toxicity and fluoroquinolone adverse effects into pubmed to resolve what the medical literature says, rather than using opinions and tit for tat POVs. Both terms are used.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for project shortcuts

Over at WP:Articles for Creation, 76.66.193.90 thought it would be a good idea to create WP:PHARMA, WP:DRUG, and WP:PHARMACOLOGY as additional shortcuts to WP:WikiProject Pharmacology. Since those are project pages, I assumed that should be decided here. -- kenb215 talk 05:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As they're all redlinks at the moment, there's no harm in just making them. The only problem would arise if someone else wanted to use the shortcut for another page, and that can be resolved if and when it happens. Physchim62 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from WP:MEASURE

I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

medication for schizophrenia (feature article)

I see that the medication section of schizophrenia is tagged as needing some work (out of date). Treatment of schizophrenia could also do with an update. Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope

Is Nadya Suleman within the scope of this project? The justification appears to be "she had pharmacological and medical treatments." I've pulled WPMED's but I am somewhat less familiar with this project's practices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that this Wikiproject will be directly contributing to that article unless details as to her exact stimulation regimen are made public (unlikely). JFW | T@lk 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree; WP:MED may be involved because of ethics etc., but I don't see how this WikiProject can be involved. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No, Nadya Suleman is not a drug, nor a topic relating to drugs, and is not within the scope of this project. Drug users themselves are also not within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

articles about pharma companies

Most of the articles included in this project are about drugs themselves, or drug-related topics. There are not currently a whole lot of articles included about pharmaceutical companies (e.g. Pfizer). So at present, I am thinking that pharma companies are beyond the scope of this project. But I thought I'd pose the question; is there any interest in included pharma companies in this project? Dr. Cash (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I for one think they should be in the scope of this project. Who else do you expect to edit such articles? These kinds of articles may make statements about drugs etc. Disclaimer: I've written Jenapharm, so I may be biased because of this. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe a taskforce can be created for articles about phrma companies. Later when we have enough articles, we can make it as a sister project of this. Bharathmeister (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO articles on pharmaceutical companies could very well fall under the scope of this project—after all, somebody has to keep an eye on what these articles say about the companies' products :) A task force wouldn't be a bad idea, although we seem to be stretched pretty thin as it is. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SMEDDS

Would someone here care to develop the article Self-microemulsifying drug delivery system? PubMed now lists 55 articles on this topic. --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for both this project and the medicine project, and assessed it at stub-class, mid-importance. Although I'm still not sure how much can be said about this -- it seems like it's very, very new, and still very much in the research and development phase. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging. I have expanded the article a bit, linking drugs for which SMEDDS have been investigated. That content could use some organization. On the talk page I left a ref that struck me as interesting pharmacology. --Una Smith (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Metformin

Some eyes needed on Talk:Metformin. Apparently it causes dementia in Petri dishes. JFW | T@lk 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

... and mice brains.Nutriveg (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for drugs

The Style guide mentions that "[I]f a compound exists in salt form then only the INN of the active moiety should be used". What about esters like olmesartan medoxomil and similar kinds of prodrugs? And shouldn't this rule apply to the drugboxes as well? (Again, see olmesartan.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

heroin

Could someone pop over and check for ... crap. I removed some vandalism but I really have only so many clues what is worth keeping or not. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the 2nd paragraph sounds like it is from the legalise drugs lobby. I am not hysterical when I hear the word heroin (I have actually been given it in hospital myself and would take it again if in severe pain) but does sound overly promotional and legalise heroin type stuff and the refs look like that to. Also what they say about it being like other opiates is not true heroin crosses blood brain barrier quicker than most other opiates/opiods and is shorter acting and more potent which fuels its addictiveness and drug related crime. It is stronger than codeine. :) Should that promotional and inaccurate stuff really be in the lead? Should there be a section created on controversy or decriminalisation and have that material moved into it? The main reason heroin and most other strong opiates/opiods were initially classified as schedule or class A drugs was due mainly to its high potential for overdose especially when abused. Same with barbiturates. Addiction and drug related crime were/are also important factors in why it is controlled so heavily obviously. It also says that patients can abruptly stop heroin/diamorphine in hospital without withdrawal. Patients treated with diamorphine are typically titrated down according to pain levels to morphine, then down to codeine 30 mg tablets, then down to codeine 8 mg tablets. It would be rare that a patient would be given diamorphine and then suddenly have all opiates stopped due to need for pain control as well as withdrawal. It is titrated down according to pain level.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I will pop over and do some bold edits, why not.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you much, I'm sure many jonesing folks also thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing from the medication

(This discussion moved from Talk:Pharmacology.)

Shanata (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Mental health counselor 18:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)I'd like to see discussion for every drug listed about whether that particular drug can be stopped or needs to be tapered off and under what conditions and if there are side effects to be anticipated in the withdrawal.

I believe coming off a medication is at least as important as starting it. When I am doing research for clients, this is a common question that any of the sites I've visited don't include.

Perhaps Wikipedia can be the first!


I'm not sure if that's appropriate for Wikipedia. For drugs in which require special withdrawal techniques - eg. methadone, beta-blockers, corticosteroids - it seems perfectly acceptable (and necessary) to include it but for every drug seems a bit pointless as a lot of drugs - eg. antibiotics, NSAIDs, antihistamines etc - do not have any problems associated with abrupt withdrawal

Where would you have this discussion take place? Within each of the given drug articles. What you might consider is going to wikiproject pharmacology and discuss in their style guide this idea. If it got implemented into the style guide it would be more likely to be looked into, as a lot of people use it as a reference point when building pharmacology articles Medos 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos." - from WP:NOTGUIDE. dougweller (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Most psychotropic drugs if discontinued abruptly have the potential to cause to varying degrees, rebound or withdrawal/discontinuation reactions. Even proton pump inhibitors or nasal decongestants if discontinued abruptly can cause rebound acid production or rebound nasal congestion worse than baseline symptoms. I agree that it is relevant information and should be added. Like Dougweller says it is important not to add the info like an instruction manual or how to guide but basic information about abrupt withdrawal and gradually reducing minimising symptoms should be fine. The important thing to do is to cite reliable sources. Also I would suggest with drugs that do not have major problems of withdrawal that undue weight is kept in mind. For example proton pump inhibitors might deserve only 1 or two sentences saying about abrupt withdrawal may produce rebound acid production but it wouldn't deserve paragraphs or huge sections on it but an article on alcohol or benzos would because its withdrawal problems are more significant. Many of these articles just need a couple of sentences and cited regarding rebound effects and a reliable source.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Making a statement like "This drug requires no special withdrawal techniques" in hundreds of drug articles is probably a violation of WP:DUE weight. Also, I'm not sure how you could source that for the vast majority of drugs. The 'absence of instructions to the contrary' is not a sufficient source, and I think that's all you'll find in most cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard and soft drugs

Help is needed to edit this article, Hard and soft drugs, to avoid original research and maintain NPOV. The article is mostly unsourced, and the current categorisation of hard and soft drugs does not match the consensus in the academic literature or news reports. It survived a nomination for deletion in December, but needs a lot of improvement. Please see the talk page. Fences and windows (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is largely a media term for Class A or Class C drugs. I don't think that you could find consensus in the academic literature on what is a "hard drug" and what is a "soft drug" because it is used very infrequently in the academic literaure. That page is a page which will constantly be an article that is "in dispute" and will be prone to original research and synthesis perhaps unavoidably.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any acceptable sources, I've turned this article into a redirect to a redirect to Drug policy of the Netherlands, the only country purportedly using this classification (purportedly because even that statement was made without a reference). The rest of the article was full of WP:OR and WP:SYNT trying to classify drugs based on unsourced definitions. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose redirect. This contradicts the deletion discussion in December. Hard and soft drugs are a notable topic independent of Dutch law. We know that the article is full of OR and SYNT, we are in the process of sourcing references and trying to gain consensus to change that. Fences and windows (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope 2

Hypoxicator, a medical device that I've never heard of, has been tagged with this project's banner. I suspect that this is an error, but perhaps I'm missing something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It can reasonably be included in WPMED as a sport medicine device, but I've removed from WPPHARM. I don't see why it has been prodded without a rationale though; removed that too. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:32, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)


WP:PHARM:CAT: Editors are moving forward...

In response to several comments, the re/categorization of pharmacology articles is going to begin. Ongoing refinement of the proposed categorization scheme will continue at WT:PHARM:CAT and via CfD's; however, I wanted to let you know about this categorization effort so that you (1) are aware and (2) might consider participating. kilbad (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge of hard and soft drugs into Drug policy

Join in the fun at Talk:Drug_policy#Merger_proposal - 'hard' and 'soft' are merely two adjectives whose whole being lies within the concept of drug policy, and it should all be on the one page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Drug formulations

Category:Drug delivery devices includes some articles about drug formulations. Those articles should be in another category, but is there a better name for it than Category:Drug formulations? --Una Smith (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Evaluating MEDRS

Hi, I am trying to find out how I can go about evaluating which study publications live up to MEDRS. The following studies have been characterized as 'problematic': Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population The Effect of Aspartame on Migraine Headache Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of dietary excitotoxins. I am hoping you can shed some light on how they fail MEDRS. Thank you Unomi (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


It depends a lot on exactly how you wanted to use them, but:

  • The first study is an interrupted clinical trial: it is therefore a primary source, and we (strongly) prefer secondary sources (as being more representative of scientific consensus). It is also old (1993), which means that it may be out of date (meaning: much better studies may have been done since then). At a whopping dose of 30 mg/kg/day (equivalent to something like an entire gallon of diet soda each day), its results may not have any connection to everyday use. The patient population was unusual, which means that the results can't be generalized. It's also a kind of small study.
  • The second study is practically antique (1987!) in scientific terms. It is also a primary source. The study design (randomized double-blind crossover) is good. What's the population size? How were the patients selected?
  • The third is a case study, which is a worse design than the other two. It involved exactly four patients (very weak). The patients were believed to have fibromyalgia, which is a remarkably complicated population to work with (because it's so hard to be certain that the diagnosis is correct, and in fact these four probably have MSG sensitivity instead of fibromyalgia). The age of the study (2001) is probably acceptable.

Finally, the biggest issue is whether these studies confirm or contradict the current scientific consensus. They're all primary studies. If most researchers in the field reject the ideas presented here, then you can't use them to "debunk" the mainstream view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. So for the pubmed website, publications that are listed under the 'review' tab are to be preferred, how would I go about getting the full text of this one? I agree that an adult would have to consume quite a bit of diet soda to meet ADI whereas the average 8 year old would have to drink just under 7 cans to reach ADI from soft drinks alone.
Honestly I am not quite sure what the scientific consensus is; while it is clear that it is not seen to be dangerous enough to ban, aspartame has remained controversial since its initial FDA approval. From what I can see on pubmed there are a number of studies that show it could have deleterious effects, there is also a number of reviews that categorically deny that it is anything but safe. this indicates it has effects on brain function. This says it is completely benign. One is from a SA uni, the other is from the burdock group. Are there other MEDRS search engines that are recommended?
Unomi (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If you live near a university, you might be able to read the article there. Sometimes, things are available through interlibrary loans as well.
MEDRS has a section about ways to search for sources. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You could use them but being careful not to give undue weight and making sure it isn't worded in such a way as to make it look like it is debunking more authoritative or better designed studies. If it is used you could point out the weaknesses, eg small study size, very large dose of aspartame etc etc, eg in a small study using very large doses of aspartame it was found,,,. I think that it is an issue of how they are used. I am not involved in the aspartame article so my suggestions *might* be inappropriate in this case. If those studies are to be cited they probably shouldn't be cite in the main aspartame article but maybe in the controversy aspartame article? But like I say using them might be a bad idea and if judged so ignor my suggestions. I am not overly familar with aspartame but am aware that there is some controversy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Cross-posted from WT:CHEM. Physchim62 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the current names of the articles and categories

are misleading, since all agents (materials, compounds, environments) could and should be classified by IARC. The classification does not make them "carcinogens".

Please comment at Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer#Proposal to move several articles/categories to alternative names.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Medical prescription needs help

Medical prescription may be the lousiest top-importance article for this project. It has the endless appendices of legal information from one US state, and the text refers to them, so you can't just delete them -- it's just a nightmare. Would anyone like to have a go at improving it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Previously tried deleting the examples only to have it reinstated by author as being "instructive", but if others agree then yes, lets neatten this up and in global scope of wikipedia any one state's prescription requirements not of importance (the USA as a whole probably/possibly) :-) As for "Exhibits" mentioned in the text, I've converted to footnoted references and deleted the legalise exhibits. David Ruben Talk 02:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine

The benzodiazepine article is up for review for good article status if anyone has the time to review it. It previously failed due to overuse of weak primary studies. I have replaced these sources with good quality reviews and meta-analysis papers and I have resubmitted it for good article review.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Structural diagrams

I suggest deleting the three subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Structural diagrams (A, C, M) only containing one or two low quality structural formulae. --Leyo 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the content of the structural diagram library, since it hasn't been used as a library necessarily. I made those subpages redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Structural diagrams, and changed that content from an image repository into a guideline for authors to create structural diagrams instead, with two examples. If anyone has any comments or suggestions on creating more tips, please feel free to add them. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

MOS:DERM

I am working on a manual of style for dermatology-related content, and am looking to create a list of suggested sections for articles about dermatologic pharmacology. With that being stated, I wanted to know if someone from the pharmacology project would consider helping me? ---kilbad (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news

There is a breaking story in the international media re the suspicious deaths of 24 world-class sport horses: 21 polo ponies in Florida and 3 endurance race horses in Uruguay. Contamination of a French-made injectable vitamin, Biodyl, has been implicated, but now a pharmacy has stated that it made an error in compounding a preparation for the 21 polo ponies. The media has widely printed a statement that these polo ponies were worth $100,000 each, for a loss of over USD 2 million. Biodyl, a new article, could use some extra eyes ASAP. --Una Smith (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I added my eyes. ---kilbad (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


These guys have an infectious disease mail list that IIRC mentioned that but has pretty good coverage of chemical poisoning too,

http://promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1000:



Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacologic categorization

If available, comments would be appreciated regarding 3rd and 4th level ATC categories. ---kilbad (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Antidepressants template

User:Chemgirl191 has made big changes to the template which I disagree with, but I do agree that the old layout is somewhat messy and confusing. Extra opinions would be appreciated.Meodipt (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about putting all the TCA's in a single group, because it carries a false implication that they have important characteristics in common. Published data exists on the mechanism of all (or almost all) of the TCA/Tetras (and most of them have summaries at DrugBank and MeSH, and I think that information needs to be restored. I'm also concerned about the expanded "other" group. If we aren't meticulous about requiring mechanisms, then the template will become flooded with herbals. --Arcadian (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this layout is cleaner, but we went from a predominantly mechanism-based classification in the template, with structural classes (TCA/tetra) pretty much used for convenience, to... exactly what Arcadian mentions :) I'm not particularly concerned about the template being "flooded with herbals", though—there really aren't that many known herbal antidepressants, and we've been including investigational/developmental agents in these templates for ages; some of the drugs mentioned in our current navboxes (particularly those on psychoactive compounds) don't even have INNs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As predicted, Template:Antidepressants is now flooded with herbals. Would there be any objection here if I reverted it to the prior format? --Arcadian (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah no surprise there. Some of those herbals do belong on the template though I think, St Johns Wort and S-adenosyl methionine are certainly used by large numbers of people with the intention of deriving an antidepressant effect, so regardless of whether they are actually effective they should still be listed. On the other hand I can't find any references supporting the use of ginger or licorice as antidepressants apart from on herbal medicine websites which don't provide any references themselves, so those should probably be removed unless Chemgirl191 can provide reliable sources. I suspect simply reverting will result in an edit war though, and most of Chemgirl191 additions are useful, so I'd advocate just modifying the template to improve the accuracy. Meodipt (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Those editors clearly don't know what they're talking about: they left out the most important non-prescription antidepressant! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Could people please check through and watchlist Zanamivir and Oseltamivir. With the current concerns about influenza these will now be very high-traffic and high-importance articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

checkY Watching... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Influenza treatment

I have added a number of free, full text review articles to the "Further reading" section of the Influenza treatment article, from which people can add additional information to Wikipedia. Perhaps someone else could apply MoS guidelines to the article to improve its overall structure? What exactly should the article structure/sections look like? ---kilbad (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

List of pharmacy associations

List of pharmacy associations is on AfD. Please comment here. —G716 <T·C> 14:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the proper name for MDMA (Ecstasy)?

Please see the discussion here [5]. I would appreciate your input. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Part 2 of the ruckus at Talk:Ecstasy#Requested_move. Cheers, theFace 14:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Trazodone

Please, check the last edits on trazodone. I think they are result of vandalism.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.95.224 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they were. Thank you for noticing and for bringing it to our attention. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

benzodiazepine at GAN

Given the importance of the topic, anyone is welcome to add to the review before I give it a final look over and pass. Be nice to give it a big boot toward FAC :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Recent editions in Pixantrone

I have noticed that a recently created user (User:OfCinicalInterest) has edited more than 50 times this (and only this) article. Most of the edits are quite positive towards the medicine. I believe there could be some conflict of interest here and since I am no expert in pharmacology maybe somebody feels like taking a look. I have also posted this message in the medicine project. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Disruption on psychiatry, particularly ADHD articles

If anyone is familar with the editor by the username scuro there is a discussion on admin noticeboard which could do with some additional input Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_User:Scuro_from_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. If you have positive or negative or even neutral views regarding disruption to ADHD and ADHD medication articles please feel free to give your viewpoint. Be forewarned it is a very lengthy discussion!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I striked this out as the discussion has been closed and an ArbCom has been filed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

request: add more timelines to drug articles

I just looked up Iloprost.

I thought to myself. When was it discovered? When did it get FDA approval? When was it marketed under which company so that I can calculate when it will become generic.

I didn't read the article carefully, but overall, I think wikipedia could do a better job explaining dates of significant events like this on drug articles. I think these dates are of significant clincial, historical, and are encyclopedia worthy. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Timelines are not necessary as long as all the relevant historical information is covered. The average reader shouldn't care when a drug will go generic (especially hard to market drugs like iloprost, which has a very niche market). Therefore, such information should only be covered if there are verifiable sources discussing it, e.g. the anticipation of generic statins by many regulators which was widely discussed. JFW | T@lk 06:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, none of the information listed above tells you when the last patent will expire, which is much more important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I try to add this information whenever possible (for historical data such as discovery and approval) and relevant (patent expiration), but, as JFW noted, it can be very difficult to find reliable sources for it. I do find information on discovery and approval important, and I think no drug article should be considered comprehensive without it, but not so one can calculate when a drug will go generic! It's not that simple (for instance, patents can be, and often are, extended). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to be told WHEN it will probably go generic - but if you give me the information for when the patent was granted, I'll be able to guess for myself when that might be. Any factual information is good information - including dates - no matter how tough it is to find them. 99.22.220.61 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
To find out this information go to FDA's Orange Book page - [6]. This will tell you if there is any FDA exclusivity or patent exclusivity remaining on a drug and when it will run out. Remember (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


The Orange Book is probably want the OP wanted but there is a real issue with not duplicating other resources, like pubmed's compound DB or FDA's "Drugs@FDA". The timeline idea struck me as useful but not for business issues alone. If you have ever had one of those paper books with nothing but historical time lines you can see how interesting they are and goog has some experimental timeline products. It can

be interesting to view this as a history of science and technology and see what happened to cause what. Before my dendreon contributions got hacked up, I was amazed just looking back at that- I had been following for a few years but it was fun to go back even further. Drug families, consider antibodies or more specialized classes based on targets, can be quite interesting.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals in PubMed

I've created an analysis of Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals frequently mentioned in PubMed (missing chemicals and missing synonyms (i.e. redirects)). As some of them are pharmacologically relevant, you might be interested in discussion about this the Chemistry project. MichaK (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed a few - prostaglandins in a mess with some named per pharmaceutical term (PGE1 PGE2 PGF2a) and wide range redirect options (which form part of your well researched table) David Ruben Talk 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done a few more. Cool project, should prove very useful. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't search for ATC codes

Both the Wikipedia search and Google don't find the ATC codes that are shown in the Drugbox. (E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=G04BX06 returns only the ATC overview page, but not the correct one for Phenazopyridine.) I guess the reason is that the ATC code is split up into two links. One option might be to create redirects for every ATC code. Given the regular structure of the ATC code overview pages, it should be easy to create a bot that does this. (Or one could scan pages that use the Drugbox?) MichaK (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A simpler way would be not to split the drugbox reference, i.e. make the entire ATC code link to www.whocc.no This is how we gat searching capabilities on CAS numbers etc for chemical compounds. Some might argue that there is a loss of information, as the ATC code is a highly structured identifier, but there are already large and detailed navigational templates at the bottom of articles to guide the reader to related drugs, as well as the link to ATC code in the drugbox itself. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Would adding a hidden comment for the full code value allow searching to locate ? - Doh, why ask when I can test for myself - answer is that does not seem to work David Ruben Talk 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think our testing at WP:CHEM showed that HTML comments were not found by search engines (be careful about the time lag in your experiments: the lag is obviously variable, but you can consider it takes roughly a week for changes in Wikipedia to be fully referenced on Google). On the other hand, hidden parameters do get indexed. We ran a pilot project for indexing chemical articles, the details of which can be found at WP:InChI: it worked, but is currently inactive because no one can decide which are the best identifiers to be indexing. Physchim62 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine is a featured article candidate

join in the fun and help out, make some comments on how to improve. Be nice to do this one well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's worthwhile to point out that this article is assessed as a "Top-importance" article by this wikiproject. It would be optimal to have multiple eyes by editors here on this article. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Abiraterone vs abiraterone acetate

I was just looking at the article abiraterone and noticed that most of the references actually refer to abiraterone acetate. These are two different chemical entities (abiraterone and abiraterone acetate). I can't figure out if the article should be moved to abiraterone acetate and the drugbox updated to match, or if the article should be split. Would anyone like to take a look and make suggestions? Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The INN is for abiraterone. I'm guessing the acetate ester is just a prodrug? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably right, the ester is likely to be a prodrug. Do prodrugs and their parent drugs normally have different INNs? More to the point, should Wikipedia have separate articles for them, or would it be best to have one combined? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a tricky question. Remember that e. g. the PPIs are prodrugs, the articles are named after these prodrugs (and the active molecules don't seem to have INNs). There doesn't seem to be a simple solution, but shouldn't there be a guideline? Or is there already? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As are most ACE inhibitors, etc. I don't think there is a guideline, apart from "follow the INN" :) We seem to make a distinction between a) compounds that are only "notable" as prodrugs, such as the PPIs and ACE inhibitors; b) compounds that are only "notable" as their active molecules, such as most ester prodrugs—of corticosteroids, antibiotics, etc.; and c) compounds that are "notable" (and marketed separately) as both, such as fosamprenavir, fosaprepitant, and lisdexamfetamine. We only seem to have separate prodrug/active metabolite articles in the latter case. In a), we name the article for the "notable" prodrug form; in b) we name it for the "notable" active moiety. That's just my impression, anyway. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ATCvet codes for drugboxes

Now that we can mark drugs without ATC codes with ATC_prefix = none in the drugboxes, what about drugs with ATCvet but without ATC codes (e. g. amperozide)?

I'd suggest a parameter ATCvet with the syntax 

| ATCvet     = Q
| ATC_prefix = N05
| ATC_suffix = AX90

producing something like

ATCvet code QN05AX90

in the drugbox. Could an admin implement this? Or has anyone another suggestion? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, cool. I guess it should just be | ATCvet = yes , though—aren't all ATCvet codes are just regular ATC codes prefixed by Q? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
QN05AX90 amperozide is a counterexample – http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/indexdatabase/index.php?query=N05AX90 gives no result. There are whole sections included only in ATCvet, like QI Immunologicals or QJ51 Antibacterials for intramammary use.
I'd be fine with | ATCvet = yes . --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I coded it on User:Anypodetos/Sandbox. Could an admin, please, double-check and implement the code? Many thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Trade names in boldface?

Timberframe (talk) asked on my talkpage whether trade names on drug pages should be given in boldface or not - see User talk:Anypodetos#tradenames in_boldface for the discussion. Can anybody clarify this? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's borderline, but the brand name is often not quite synonymous, because it can imply a specific formulation. --Arcadian (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Per MOS:BOLD and WP:LEAD, boldface is used in the lead to note "proper names and common terms for the article topic", and "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name [...] each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance". Trade names may not be synonymous with the article topic, but they are proper names for it, and should therefore be set in bold. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. That explanation and the fact that Anypodetos says on his talk page "It's the way it is done on most drug pages" convinces me that it's consensual and in keeping with the spirit if not the literal interpretation of WP:MOS. -- Timberframe (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Kappadione

the structure looks weird to me. can anyone draw a nicer one? thanks, 77.58.130.145 (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Physchim62 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chlorphenesin

Could someone have a look at Chlorphenesin? The page describes it as a muscle relaxant, whereas WHOCC categorises it as an antifungal. Are there two substances with this name? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It has dual properties. It is marketed as a muscle relaxant, and also has antifungal and some antibacterial properties. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydrazine sulfate

I am curious about the new article hydrazine sulfate. It seems to be well written and has seemingly reliable references, but when I look at the external links at the bottom, I see that hydrazine sulfate seems to fit a particular brand of conspiracy theory: that there is an inexpensive, readily available cure for cancer but the evil drug companies and the FDA are conspiring to prevent the public from learning the truth about it. So I'm concerned that a story may have been crafted that doesn't quite fit the evidence. Can others please take a look? (cross posted at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard) ChemNerd (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Medicinal mushrooms

Can you review this page I recently created? Jatlas (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ATC code categories

kilbad (talk) asked on my talk page whether ATC code categories (like Category:D01AA) could be created via the drugbox. Here are my thoughts:

  • I think we'd need a bot for the creation of the categories, but I don't know anything about bot programming.
  • Categorising could be a problem since {{drugbox}} splits ATC codes only in two parts (ATC_prefix for levels 1 and 2, ATC_suffix for levels 3, 4, 5), and, as far as I know, Wikipedia's implementation of the Wikimedia software has no proper string handling functions. We'd need to rewrite {{drugbox}} to accept separate parameters for all five levels and then set a bot to change, say,
ATC_prefix = C03
ATC_suffix = CA01

to 

ATC_1 = C
ATC_2 = 03
ATC_3 = C
ATC_4 = A
ATC_5 = 01

Then automatic categorising would be easy. I'm still unsure, though, whether this is worth the effort since we already have the ATC lists in ATC code A01 etc. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorisation: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a number of category names at WP:PHARM:CATTABLE#Dermatologic drugs and added some questions and thoughts to WT:PHARM:CAT#Further experiments on table formatting. Any comments at WT:PHARM:CAT, as well as any further additions and modifications to the tables, would be appreciated. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to rename Cream (pharmaceutical)

The talk page there seems like a dead page, so I think your project is the closest thing I can find to someone with a relevant opinion. I'd like to rename that page to either Cream (cosmetic and pharmaceutical) or just Cream (cosmetic). Use as a drug delivery system is a very recent use of creams. Something like cold cream on the other hand has been around for more than 2000 years. (Pharmaceuticals used to be happy with ointments and potions in the interim) Although the title is justified in the article, I find it defeats the purpose of a page title in wikipedia. It should make it easy for users to find information. While pharmacist and pharmacy students would probably be happy with the current heading, I sincerely doubt that many "ordinary" users would find it very useful. Several links that would be logical with a cosmetics page as jump off point make little or no sense from a pharmaceutical page. The cosmetics industry keeps being told they should be careful not labeling their products as pharmaceuticals, I feel this is the reverse effect. The only possible benefit of the current page title is that cosmetics seem to be dealt with under portal fashion, which almost guarantees a lack of expert editors. That is an internal matter, though. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub reorganization

I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize pharm article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. ---kilbad (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

INN as article titles

This has probably been discussed so I apologize if wasting anyone’s time but is the WHO rINN meant to be used as the title of drug articles? I just noticed that Methamphetamine is not titled Metamfetamine nor Amphetamine/Amfetamine, etc. I believe the official INN is metamfetamine, i.e. when searching the WHO database it brings it back as metamfetamine [7]. Is this because of the overwhelming use of the common names Methamphetamine/Amphetamine? Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tobacco

I have proposed creation of a WikiProject on tobacco, which would relate to a degree to this project. Anyone interested please feel free to so indicate on the proposal page. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review of "Psychoactive drug"

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007. The article Psychoactive drug has been re-reviewed and needs improvement. The article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yttrium microspheres

Are SIR-Spheres and TheraSphere the same thing? Should they be merged to a generically named article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know much about this therapy, but this book ought to help clear things up :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccines

Are vaccines (e.g., the flu jab) "drugs" for the purpose of this project? Are such articles within the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Though arguably they are not "drugs" per se, I'd recommend keeping them in the scope of this project. The WHO classifies them in ATC code J under ATC code J07, giving us a precedent for how to treat them. Of course, they could also be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, but that project appears to be less active. --Arcadian (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
And arguably are "drugs" per se :-) Drug gives "A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function" and vaccines are inserted into bodies resulting in an alteration, for else the patient is a non-responder. Vaccines are prepared by pharmaceutical companies, needing licensing, sterility & quality control, prescribing & dispensing per other drugs. Doses are set for various (childrens) age groups, and a set number of doses given. Vaccines appear in my book (i.e. British National Formulary). Clearly articles on vaccines will overlap a lot with fields of Medicine (meaning here illnesses and work of physicians vs pharmaceuticals) and possibly public health. David Ruben Talk 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Most vaccines are not drugs by any definition that doesn't also include refined sugar. Properly speaking, they're biologics (and thus in the US, are regulated by CBER instead of CDER). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Refined sugar as a glucose injection for a hypoglycaemic comatosed diabetic would be presumed to be a drug by any doctor I know, and taken from our 'drug cabinet' or 'drug bag' and written up in our 'drug administering book', but not so considered when used in their mid-morning cup of coffee (when taken from our kitchen)- it depends on how one is using it, likewise Glyceryl trinitrate is used for angina but as Nitroglycerin clearly the explosive is not a drug/medicine ! Never in my professional experience encountered term "biologics", but perhaps that's my failing and I'm too used to assuming Drug = Medicine :-) David Ruben Talk 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
A quick rule of thumb is that biologics are alive (whole blood, for example) or were recently alive (antivenin, for example). The concept is, however, fairly mushy, and of no particular importance outside of the affected regulatory agencies and their clients. (And now it is time for some health food.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If I was looking for an editor who actually knew something about vaccines (rather than just sources read up for WP), this project (and WP:MED) would seem an obvious place to come searching. For that reason, I think it would be helpful for other areas of the encyclopedia if you could take them under your wing (so to speak!). Physchim62 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't knock the utility of "sources read up for WP"! Fortunately or unfortunately, the very nature of Wikipedia's verifiability policies and house style ensure that a good, in-depth review of recent literature by someone with decent reading comprehension skills and no trouble with scientific jargon will often trump decades of personal experience in the field. Just sayin'; not meant as a "defense" of lay contributors (that would be far too self-serving on my part) or sweeping generalization. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Quinolones

I know this has been discussed several times, but I just can't help mentioning it again: Moxifloxacin#Regulatory history (and the following sections) seem to me to give undue weight to the adverse effects. Besides, this section is a mess. Other quinolone articles (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin) are not quite as bad, but could do with some attention as well. I don't know enough about the FDA's warnings and Bayer's willingness or unwillingness to comply, but perhaps someone here does? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like there is a WP:Undue issue there.

In response to the concerns raised above:

The wiki guidelines for drug articles requires sections dealing with the drugs history and legal status, which would include its regulatory history. To wit:

History

Indications (available forms, if notable)

Contraindications

Adverse effects (including withdrawal)

Overdose (including toxicity)

Physical and chemical properties

Pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)

Pharmacodynamics (mechanism of action)

Interactions

Legal status (including illicit use, off-label usage or unlicensed preparations if notable and sourced)

Veterinary use

References

As such a timeline referencing the regulatory action would fall within that scope. As the regulatory history contains all significant changes to the package insert, including new indications, I fail to see how this would be considered undue weight as all significant changes are listed by date. Why would you consider it to be a "mess" when all it is is a date specific timeline? Each entry is referenced back to the FDA documents that support the time line.

There are a total of five headings within the guidelines that would make reference to adverse effects, that being:

Contraindications

Adverse Effects

Overdose (including toxicity)

Interactions

As well as legal status.

As such logic would dictate that there would be far more information concerning adverse effects within any drug article due to these five headings. Particularly if the drug is involved in defective product litigation. As such the issue of undue weight should not be an issue in this case. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. There are but four major subjects dealt with within any drug article. It's history, it's use, it's mechanisms of action, and its safety profile.

The two most important issues being risk/benefit, and as such these two sections would be afforded the most weight in the article. The benefits are clearly noted within the approved uses section as well as susceptible bacteria section. The risk factors are duly noted within the Contraindications, Adverse Effects, Overdose (including toxicity), and Interactions section. So both issues have been provided equal weight.

The same is true within the regulatory history section. The additional indications as well as additional warnings are both given equal weight as both are listed in the order that they took place. The reader should also be made aware of any failure of the manufacturer to obey the mandates of the controlling agency. This is not undue weight, but a factual summary of the regulatory history and the manufacturers responses to its legal obligations.

Unfortunately with this class of drugs the adverse rates approach 40%, more than half of these drugs have been removed from clinical use due to severe toxicity issues, a number of class action lawsuits have been filed, not to mention medical malpractice cases when the drugs were use inappropriately, and let us not overlook the current multidistrict litigation involving levaquin, numerous Dear Doctor Letters have been issued, as well as the addition of Black Boxed Warnings. Where as with other drugs you find an adverse rate of about 5% and none of the above.

As such there is a tremendous amount of information concerning these adverse events that you would not find in other drug articles. This is due to the shear number and severity of such reactions, lawsuits, regulatory action and the like, it is not an attempt to afford such reactions undue weight. The facts alone do this, not the person editing the article. It is not the editors fault that the risk far outweigh the percieved benefits in this case. And as such there would be far more text addressing the safety profile than the benefits by comparision. There is simply far more to be said.

Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. The adverse profile of this class is not in dispute. It has been throughly documented since 1982. There is no question or debate regarding whether this class is associated with the adverse effects listed within the article. As such this should not be considered a NPOV issue, as there are no conflicting views involved and there are no oppossing opinions to present. Nor should it be considered an undue weight issue for the reasons stated above. It should also be noted here that the articles in question have been reviewed, or are currently being reviewed, by senior editors and all wiki compliance issues are being addressed, discussed and corrected where needed thus far. The issues being raised here were not even mentioned by these other editors after they had completed their peer review, so this appears to be a minority opinion being expressed by one individual. No question that the articles will be improved over time and minor issues corrected and addressed as needed. But I do not see the concerns being raised here by this person as being valid.Davidtfull (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regulatory history, adverse effects, contraindications, and "risk/benefit" (which I question how a encyclopedia could really address) make up 2/3 of the article; not to mention it is long as it is already. Is it meant to be an encyclopedia article or a crusade...?Fuzbaby (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It is meant to be an encyclopedia article incorporating the twelve headings noted above, which includes the drug's history, adverse effects, contraindications, as well as interactions. (which as you note make up 2/3's of the article). Editors are not to be blamed for that. These are required sections within a drug article. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide as well as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)DRUGS
We are working on reducing the overall lenght of the article while trying to find a way to include all the relevant and required information, so please try to be a bit more understanding and patient here while we do this. As far as risk/benefit that is rather straight forward. All that is required is to provide information regarding the known pros and the cons. You state the known and proven benefits, then you state the known and proven risks. It is then up to the reader to decide which outweighs the other in any given situation, or to present this information to their treating physician for addtional guidance. Davidtfull (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The Black Box warning subsection is fine, it is the long list above it which I think is the issue David. It is not uncommon that after clinical trials have been completed that adverse effects are found requests or even orders are made by regulatory bodies for drug companies to update their product information data sheets. Some of these adverse effects are already listed in the adverse effects section so it is not necessary to have them listed twice with the data that the FDA or whoever, asked them to add it. I think that the list at least needs shortening, or at the very least somehow reworded and merged into other parts of the article. I will make a stab at it later on tonight. If anyone is not happy, they can reveert and then we can discuss on the talk page. At present it would be off-putting to a general reader, reading through a long list of sentences like that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
For example sentences of which data the drug was approved for an indication, is that necessary, or if it is useful to the reader, it would be better moved to history section or else, indications section or something. List needs shortening.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about if we were to simply state that the regulatory history is available on the FDA site and provide a link reference? This would eliminate the list and still provide the regulatory history for those who care to review it. Something of this nature:

The various regulator changes and updates to the package insert for (insert drug name), which would include additional warnings and indications, have been made available by the FDA on their website.(insert reference here).

The only reason I included all the regulatory entries was to avoid some folks claiming I had eliminated certain ones in an effort to slant things. So I figured it would be in my best interest to include all and avoid such issues. Perhaps it is best not to even use that data and just delete it. That would reduce the size of the article and eliminate this as even being an issue. If another editor wishes to move some of the entries to a different location within the article and eliminate the rest that is fine as well. Either of these options works for me and I would have no objections to any of them.

The issue raised here was one of undue weight concerning adverse effects, not one of clutter or excessive length. Clutter or excessive length would indeed be a valid concern, (whereas the claims of undue weight I did not feel to be valid for the reasons I had stated) as such I have no argument against anyone making the changes that would correct excessive lenght or clutter, nor would I revert or object to any such changes. They would be valid edits for the appropriate reasons and they would improve the article. Win win as they say.Davidtfull (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions on my talk page on how to resolve undue weight. Let me know what you think. I have not had any time for several months to work on the quinolone articles but I am sure that we can get these issues resolved and form a consensus on the way forward.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a reasonable solution to the regulator time line issues on the levaquin talk page (taking note of all the suggestions made thus far) that I believe addresses all issues raised here. Those who have an interest should take a look and see what they think of what I have proposed.Davidtfull (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I am having major issues on the benzodiazepine article and other editors there seem to be wanting to "avoid the conflict". I really would appreciate some eyes on this. Everytime the article is ready to be promoted original research and systematic reviews are deleted and replaced with weak non-systematic reviews of uncontrolled clinical trials. The editor keeps either outright deleting NICE clinical guidelines or minimising them as well as other reviews. Please intervene, even if you agree with systematic review guidelines being deleted. I am at the point where if I lose my argument I don't care, just want the community to simply intervene.Talk:Benzodiazepine#RfC:_Is_is_right_to_keep_deleting_systematic_review_and_clinical_guidelines.3F Thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It might actually be better if someone neutral with understanding of medical and pharmacology knowledge and wiki policies would act as a mediator.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Talk:Benzodiazepine#Mediation.2C_any_volunteers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue is being looked into by admin over next few days.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Biotechs, pharmas, and other drug manufacturers

Medications are the primary focus of this project. Are the companies that make these medications also within the scope of this project? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I would certainly think so—seems only logical. I asked myself the following questions:
  1. Would we remove drug discovery topics from the scope of this project?
  2. Should we not include pharmacologists and medicinal chemists?
  3. If we set academia aside, where is drug discovery conducted, and where do these people work?
To me, the answer came pretty quickly :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and certainly more so here than the scope of wikiproject med.Fuzbaby (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and his medications

With the role that medication may have played in Michael Jackson's death, there is apt to be significant interest in related pharmacology articles. I have noticed and reverted, for example, quite a bit of inappropriate (though perhaps good-faith) additions to propofol recently. If other editors could watchlist this article and others that may be the target of renewed interest, that would be helpful. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an article, Michael Jackson's health and appearance, which covers a lot of these aspects. Not surprisingly, it has experienced a surge in edits in the past week. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd watch Propofol, Pethidine, and Lidocaine. If anyone cares to put Vicodin, Percocet, and Paracetamol on their watchlists, it's probably a good idea—a lot of publicity from the recent FDA panel meeting will invariably translate to plenty of edits. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Drug Discrimination

What is drug discrimination? I see it used in a lot of reports. It would be really nice to have a page on it defining what it is etc. Speedplane (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW... I think this is obvious, but I am not talking about racial discrimination or anything. Basically I would like to decipher a sentence like this: "Drug discrimination between atomoxetine and cocaine in monkeys trained to discriminated 0.4 mg/kg cocaine showed generalization to cocaine at the following atomoxetine doses..."Speedplane (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A good description is in page 8 of this monograph. I'm sure we could whip up an article on this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Pharmacology to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an excellent tool! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of superagonist

Hi everyone. I came across the page for superagonist, and was confused as it gave a completely different definition from what I understood a superagonist to be. So I redirected it to irreversible agonist and set out to write a new page on superagonist. However after reading a few articles I am now thoroughly confused and thought I better ask you guys for your opinion! My understanding was that a "superagonist" refers to a compound that is capable of producing a greater maximal response than the endogenous agonist for the target receptor, and thus has an efficacy of more than 100%. This is the definition used in papers such as PMID 12113824 and PMID 12205290 in which I had come across the term previously. But then when I looked on PubMed I find papers such as PMID 16239397 where the term is used to describe a quite different kind of compound, what I would call a functionally selective agonist - and neither of these definitions matches what it said on the original superagonist page. Neither of my pharmacology textbooks (Goodman & Gilman / Rang, Dale & Ritter) give a definition for superagonist, and given the three possible interpretations I've found I am not sure which one is preferred. What does everyone else think? Meodipt (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the definition that it produces a greater maximal response than the endogenous agonist (i. e. that the superagonist-receptor-complex has a higher likelihood to be in the activated state than the agonist-receptor-complex), but my textbook does not have a definition either, so I cannot source this. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
My understanding has always been that as well—it's the definition commonly used when referring to GnRH agonists, for instance. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that your interpretation is pretty much accurate in that it produces agonist effects stronger than endogenous agonists. However, it can also be used and I have seen it used to describe the pharmacological effects of a drug at a specific receptor subtype, ie a drug which locks a receptor into a conformation which produces pharmacodynamic effects stronger than "ordinary" pharmacological agonist or even stronger than the same drug effects at other receptor subtypes. So it doesn't just apply to comparing it endogenous ligands but I think your idea is pretty much accurate.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe your first definition is spot on. Superagonist refers to a pharmacodynamic response (> 100% agonism relative to endogenous agonist) whereas an irreversible agonist refers to a mechanism. I am trying to locate a definitive citation, but I cannot seem to find one. In the mean time, I have converted the superagonist into a subject specific page using the definition and citations that you have provided. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In searching pubmed using the "superagonist" query, most of the aricle hits use the term superagonist in the way you have proposed. However as you point out, there are a few that apply it in somewhat different way. I think the reason for the diversity of definitions is that superagonism may refer to either efficacy or to potency. Potency in turn is a function of efficacy, affinity, half-life, mechanism of action, etc. So a narrow definition of superagonism might refer to specifically to a ligand with efficacy > 100% whereas a broad definition might simply refer to a ligand that has higher potency compared to the endogenous ligand. Under this broader definition, an irreversible agonist might also be classified as a superagonist through its longer half-life and greater effective affinity. In any case, I have used the narrow definition as you originally proposed for now since I cannot find any definitive citation that would support the broader definition. Boghog2 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be fine to include this broader definition in the article ("Sometimes the term is used in a broader sense to describe compounds with a potency of over 100%. This includes irreversible agonists..."), but the problem, as you say, is finding a citiation. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [8]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Linezolid is a Featured article candidate

Please feel free to leave your comments (and constructive criticism ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from WP:MEDICINE

Due to the redesign of FDA's website many external links to documents are broken. For details see Redesign of FDA's website. A list of broken links is given at FDA links. Feel free to jump in! -- Alfie±Talk 13:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that over at project med; apparently they're not finished reworking the new system, so even new links may not be around permanently, and redirects on the FDA webpage now often point to ghost pdfs. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the broken drug links on the FDA site a lot of them can be fixed by subsituting the following root directory:

www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/

In place of the original text of the old links, that being:

www.fda.gov/cder/foi/

It appears that the FDA changed the root director link for the drug information from:

www.fda.gov/cder/foi/

TO

www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/

Not every broken link can be fixed in this fashion, as the FDA may have deleted the information completely in some cases, or moved it elsewhere, but a significant number of them can be. Much easier and quicker than trying to search the FDA site.

Most important thing here is to make sure that you are cutting and pasting properly. You may find it to be a lot easier to simply cut the old link out of the article and paste it into a word processor and play with it there. Do this ONE section at a time so you don't get confused with what you are doing and can easily undo any screwups by abandoning the edit and trying again. Once you fixed the link, and verified it, you post it back into the article. You can use the return key to add a few blank lines to serve as a temporary place holder within the edit box to seperate the (ref) (/ref) mark up language after you had cut the bad link out of the text. Once you fix the link and paste it back in, delete the extra blank lines.

Hope this helps. (Until the FDA changes things yet again down the road) Davidtfull (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,
that helps a lot! Just a reminder to everybody: after altering links in articles, please leave a note at User:MastCell/FDA_links in order to keep an overview what already has been corrected and what still has to be done. -- Alfie±Talk 12:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help styling tables

I am looking for some computer savvy editors to help me style some tables to make them more readable. Basically, several of us editors are working to categorize pharmacology-related articles, and have created some rough draft conversion tables. However, at this time, they need more stylization for readability sake, but we were unsure how to do a few things, like indenting ATC codes in the first column to illustrate the hierarchy. Basically, anything you can do to make the tables easier to use would be great. Please feel free to edit away if you have ideas. ---kilbad (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Measles Vaccine

The page Measles vaccine needs help from an expert on the topic. Dogposter (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Its going to be merged into the existing MMR vaccine page, if there is any content not already there. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The measles vaccine was developed as a single vaccine at first, I really think it deserves its own article. Dogposter (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Samarium-153 lexidronam

The structure given in the article Samarium-153 lexidronam has been doubted (Talk:Samarium-153 lexidronam). I can't find any source saying something else; but could someone check this? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Propofol

Cross-posted to WT:MED.

More eyes urgently needed at Talk:Propofol, where a discussion on the appropriateness of the terms "abuse", "misuse", et al. is currently underway. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Allura Red AC

Can someone with expertise in the area of pharmacology please take a look at the section titled "Potential behavioral effects" in Allura Red AC? I get the impression that there is an undue reliance on one study/investigator. Also, the cited references are to news articles, rather than to the research reports themselves, which leaves me with some concern because in my experience journalists are quite prone to slant or misinterpret science to fit the story they are trying to tell. ChemNerd (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lithium orotate

Is Lithium orotate really marketed as a dietary supplement (see also: Orotic acid)? My first impulse was simply to delete that statement, but perhaps I'd better ask first... In the U.S., they seem to have the weirdest dietary supplements. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, its is confirmed in this reference (cited in the article, a J. Med. Toxicol. on mild lithium poisoning from overdosing on the "supplement"). A quick Google search took me to the home page of the dietary supplement mentioned in the reference, which describes their product as "the Natural Mineral form of Lithium with the Orotate Mineral Transporter and then completed with the patented Micro Vortex Enteric Coating Manufacturing process." We can't be having any of this nasty artificial lithium, can we now… Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In the US, pretty much anything you want to sell people (that won't kill them right away) you can do so by labeling it a dietary supplement. An old law that protects the supplement industry keeps the FDA from evaluating it then, and people are free to sell/buy whatever they want that way. There's not even any guarantee that the what they buy even has the substance in it that it claims, or in the amounts claimed. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And I always thought it was an inside joke to say that a base powder was "guaranteed to be free of sodium and lithium". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Melatonin

Editors might want to keep an eye on the melatonin article in the next couple of weeks. A new beverage, Drank, is being released. It's advertised as an "extreme relaxation beverage", and contains melatonin, as well as several other herbal-type compounds. This article refers to it as "liquid pot". There hasn't been much activity on the article yet, but as folks discover it, it could pick up. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Frances Oldham Kelsey

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Frances Oldham Kelsey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Senior care pharmacist

The new article Senior care pharmacist is in need of some TLC. So far, it doesn't even say that a senior care pharmacist cares for seniors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure this should be merged into Consultant pharmacist. I don't think there's enough out there for a dedicated article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Based on Pharmacist#Practice_specialization, I thought maybe Clinical pharmacist, but that redirects to Clinical pharmacology, which doesn't mention specialization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: the article in question was created by Bwolstenholme. The page creation is that user's only contribution in Wikipedia articlespace. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

links to IUPHAR progress

A contribution to the IUPHAR discussion from :blackbutterfly (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m glad that this discussion is progressing well.
In response to Boghog2 , yes there is a list of all IUPHAR identifiers along with the their gene names this is available for you at: [file-of-ids in csv format:[9]]
IUPHAR-DB ids may in the near future (NOV/DEC 2009) be unified to deal with the issue raised about single vs. multi-component (for the ion channels) accessions, raised by Boghog2.
Is it possible to display in the link the IUPHAR recommended name for each receptor or channel for instance in the info-box we would have D1 instead of, 2252, the database accession number displayed? This would fulfil the IUPHAR aim of encouraging ‘agreed’ nomenclature for receptors. If this is not feasible I’m sure we can proceed as suggested!
Other ideas for the future:
We will try to encourage contributions from the community of researchers linked with IUPHAR to the stubbier receptor and ion channel wikipedia pages. Please note that the next major IUPHAR database release will also cover nuclear receptors!
Thanx for your time blackbutterfly (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the linked list of gene names and IUPHAR identifiers. That is exactly what we needed and it should now be straight forward to add these links to the database.
  • "Is it possible to display in the link the IUPHAR recommended name for each receptor or channel?"
Yes, no problem. I have added an option IUPHAR_symbol parameter to the protein box. Examples for a receptor and an ion channel may be seen above and in the Nav1.9 article respectively. Does this look OK? Boghog (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "IUPHAR-DB ids may in the near future (NOV/DEC 2009) be unified to deal with the issue raised about single vs. multi-component"
Responded here. Boghog (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
For an example of an link from a GNF_protein_box, see Dopamine receptor D1. I have included the link in the symbols section which I think is logical. Does this look OK? Boghog (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks very good to me. Do I understand correctly: the way to use this template on a page is to add {{PBB|geneid=1812}}, where, in this case, 1812 is the number for the D1R? And where is the easiest place to look up the number for anything else? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I have figured out what the source of confusion is about. The {{IUPHAR2}} template is added to the pre-existing {{PBB}} template. The IUPHAR template does not create the protein box. The only thing that the IUPHAR template does is to add a link to the symbols section of the protein box. I hope this clarifies things. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. In answer to your question, I used the template {{IUPHAR2}} to create the link. For example the code {{IUPHAR2|DRD1}} (where DRD1 = HUGO gene symbol) returns: IUPHAR: D1. This template can then be appended to the AltSymbols list in the GNF_protein_box template (see for example this edit). There is an edit link right above the protein info box in the main space protein article. If you click on that edit link, it will take you directly to the corresponding GNF_protein_box template where you can insert the {{IUPHAR2}} template. So you don't need to lookup the geneid number (but it is right there under the human ortholog entrez entry in the infobox in case you need it). Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you lost me. Let's say I'm creating a page on "Molecule X." What do I put on the page to create a display for that molecule, analogous to what you created for the D1R? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The short answer is that there is already a corresponding Wikipedia article for virtually every receptor and ion channel listed in the IUPHAR database. So with very few exceptions, there should not be a need to create new pages. To add IUPHAR links, all we need to do is modify the existing pages.
The IUPHAR database currently has 513 entries. I haven't checked each and every one, but with the exception of EMR4 and GPR79 which are human pseudo genes, I am fairly certain there is already a corresponding Wikipedia article for a very high percentage of the IUPHAR database entries. Many of these pages were created by the Gene Wiki project. In particular because of their pharmacological significance, a special effort was made to create an article for every known human GPCR (see the {{G protein-coupled receptors}} and {{Olfactory receptors}} nav boxes). A special effort was also made to create an article for every known human voltage and ligand gated ion channel (see {{Ion channels}} and {{Ligand-gated ion channels}}. Looking ahead to the nuclear receptor family, a separate article already exists for each of the 48 human receptors (see section 2.1 in the {{Transcription factors}} template). Most of these pre-existing articles contain a PBB template, but some contain the older {{Protein}} template. An example for including an IUPHAR link in the later may be found above.
Nevertheless, there may be a few IUPHAR entries without corresponding Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately there is currently no straight forward way of creating new PBB articles but their should be soon. The easiest way of creating a new protein article is to use the older protein template which can be created using the template filler tool. To include a link to the IUPHAR database (assuming of course there is a corresponding entry in this database for your protein), simply add the parameter "| IUPHAR_id = HUGO_gene_symbol". I hope this is clear. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Opps, I forgot to mention, to use the template filler tool mentioned above, you will need the HGNC_id. One easy way to find these is to search here. Typing in "dopamine receptor d1" will eventually lead you here where you will find "HGNC:3020". Enter "3020" in the template filler tool to generate a protein template that can be copy and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noting that the template filler has been down for a few days. <shudder> Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, bummer. I hope it returns to life soon. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I was a little slow to get the point, but now I've got it! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Progess on IUPHAR links

All sounds plausible, thanks Boghog for the step-by-step explanation of how it works.

How best should we progress and how can I help from here with the process?
I could generate a list of all HGNC_id vs gene_names and iuphar_accessions, will this make life easier?

Thanks blackbutterfly (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

opps here is the list already.. download it from www.iuphar-db.org/DATA/IUPHARDB_to_HGNC_mapping.csv blackbutterfly (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thiazinam(ium)

Does anyone know whether Thiazinam (ATC code R06AD06) is the same as Thiazinamium? I suppose so, but I want to make sure. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The INN is Thiazinamium metilsulfate, by the way (INNs of charged compounds always include the counterion) and Thiazinamium chloride is the USAN. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ALPHA BLOCKERS!!

The articles alpha blocker and alpha-2 blocker are STUBS!!!!!! These are undoubtedly some of the most fundamental topics in pharmacology. Improvement is DESPERATELY needed!!!! I'm going to try and do a bit myself, but I thought this needed to be brought to the attention of the project. — Skittleys (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't shout, we know already that your shift-key is jammed. ;-) —Alfie±Talk 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, many high-importance articles are in bad shape. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Icos FAC

Icos is a Featured article candidate. Comments and reviews are welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Perhaps more focus could be placed on pharmacologic categorization? ---kilbad (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kilbad, earlier today I made this to-do list based on various ideas of my own and that I've seen around here. I haven't publicized it yet because it ended up being more like my own soapbox — especially concerning the drugbox template — and not a concrete to-do list. Anyway, I've put the categorization issue on the list already, so, don't worry, it's not being ignored. :) I was going to put up some thoughts on the scheme's talk page too. — Skittleys (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Template?

One that that we did over at WikiProject Cities was to develop a template or guideline for city articles. There's currently two, one for UK Cities and one for US cities. These templates serve as a guideline to cover the ideal structure of an article and help it through the GA and FA processes. I think they're also used by the reviewers at GAN & FAC, to a degree, to help judge the article's completeness as well. Over here at WP:PHARM, we have a brief section in WP:MEDMOS covering "drugs", but perhaps this could be expanded? What do others think? Dr. Cash (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea, actually. I think more guidelines are always good, even if you end up ignoring them. Interestingly, most of our drug-related FAs and GAs don't follow that scheme! I definitely see room for improvement in it...like having a section on formulations, etc., like in bupropion.... — Skittleys (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, hey, we already sort of have one! Check out our de facto style guide. It expands on the MOSMED guidelines. There's still room for improvement, though.... — Skittleys (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Article stats

For the first time in over a year, the hits/month stats on the front page have been updated! Hrm, amazing how Propafol is the number 1 drug article now, with 324093 hits, when it had only 17292 this time last year! *rolls eyes* Actually, surprisingly, most of the illicit drugs are not visited as frequently as before.— Skittleys (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a certain pop star to thank for that,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Drugs that don't exist

On a more humorous side of things,...

La Crosse woman accused of altering prescription slips

No, Graziquartet is not a real drug. FAIL!

Wonder how long it will take for somebody to create that article on here, now that the story's been listed on Fark.com? Dr. Cash (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But of course it exists! Will you make a redirect or shall I? :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk-page template to say "for Qs on meds, ask your pharmacist or physician?"

Greetings, pharmacologists, from a passing medical statistician (no, please, come back !–). I've just been editing the Mirtazapine article a bit and after having a look at Talk:Mirtazapine, added {{Q&A}} to the top, which says "This talk page is for discussion on how to improve the Mirtazapine article. If you would like to ask questions about the subject, please address them to the Reference desk". I thought there might be a more specific template for medical & pharmacological articles which says something about "consult your physician or pharmacist", but couldn't find one after a few minutes spent looking. Is there such a thing? If not, do you agree it could be useful? Surely many of the talk pages within your scope must get people asking questions about their medication rather than about improving the article (e.g. "How would this drug help someone's heart?", "Could I try taking this in the morning instead of the evening?" to quote/paraphrase two from this one talk page). Regards, Qwfp (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Proposal to link to external IUPHAR database

dopamine receptor D1
Identifiers
SymbolDRD1
IUPHAR214
NCBI gene1812
HGNC3020
OMIM126449
RefSeqNM_000794
UniProtP21728
Other data
LocusChr. 5 q34-q35
Search for
StructuresSwiss-model
DomainsInterPro

A proposal was made here to add IUPHAR database links to protein info boxes. An example using the {{protein}} template is found to the right. More specifically this proposal is to add a optional link to the {{GNF_Protein_box}} and then include the link on Wikipedia receptor and ion channel pages to the corresponding IUPHAR database entry.

Before implementing these links, I would like to ask the community if there is support for doing so. Any comments or suggestions you might have are welcome. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no objection, seems an authoritative source for the current nomenclature. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As you already know, I support it too. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Support. --Arcadian (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that's an excellent idea. Go for it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As one of the proposers, I surely encourage this idea, and it looks like a really good database. Could I ask the members of this wikiproject to try to pull Chido Mpamhanga into this work, they has been bashed around a bit (maybe it was all a bit strict, but I think it was all resolved in the end). They do seem to work with/for the organisation, and I think that they would be a welcome addition to the project. There might be more information there which can be used, and maybe their know-how can be used to expand some of the (very stubby) articles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 Completed (see here). Thanks to all the editors listed above for their support and especially Chido Mpamhanga for providing the database mappings and AndrewGNF for modifying the {{GNF_Protein_box}} template that made this easy to implement! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And thank you! I know it was a lot of work! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your efforts with this!!
I know the pseudogenes are not included in the IUPHAR-db at the moment. IUPHAR-db will soon be extending to Nuclear Hormone receptors. But i will keep you abreast of this. I will also point to your efforts when trying to encourage the IUPHAR committees to help in updating all the stubbier wiki-pages for ion channels and GPCRs. I'm sure it is to the benefit of all pharmacologists that these are updated!
Lastly could you help me with a step by step procedure of what to do when IUPHAR-db publishes its next set of receptors?
Kindest regards blackbutterfly (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to the addition of nuclear receptors to the IUPHAR database for which I have more than a passing interest ;-). In addition, I welcome any and all contributions the IUPHAR committe can make to Wikipedia protein and ion channel pages. In response to your request on how to update and extend Wikipedia links to the IUPHAR database, one needs to do the following:
  1. Update the {{IUPHAR}} template to add new IUPHAR database entries or edit existing entries. Each line of this tempate contains the HUGO gene name, the IUPHAR database link, and IUPHAR symbol. (Please note that the use of the {{IUPHAR2}} template is now deprecated.)
  2. On the corresponding Gene Wiki page, edit the transcluded {{GNF_Protein_box}} template. There is an edit link on the upper right hand side of the article right above the protein box which will take you directly to the template. For example, clicking on the edit link above the protein box in the Kv1.3 article will take you here. Then add the IUPHAR parameter to the template (see for example here).
  3. To add the IUPHAR link to family pages which use the older {{Protein}} templates, add the IUPHAR parameter as for example here. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Apologies have been rather busy this week and dropped out of touch. Thanks for the step by step guide on how to extend the Wikipedia links to the IUPHAR database. As promised I have started soliciting for help with the ion channels wikipages. blackbutterfly (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Upgrades to project

As I'm sure you've noticed if you're reading this, many components of this project have become inactive, and others need serious reworking. I've finally got sick of it, and so I'm taking the initiative to upgrade this project!

Some changes I hope will be made include:

  • Use of the A-class, as well as the template and category classes
  • A more formal (though not mandatory) process for rating articles as B-class (and A-class)
  • Incorporation of comments and checklists into the project banner (see, for example, the WikiProject Film banner or the WikiProject Chemicals banner; we don't need that level of detail (and I don't think task forces would be appropriate for us), but they're nice examples)
  • The reinstatement of the Collaboration of the Month
    • Note that I really don't want to be the organizer of this one! Any volunteers?
  • Refined importance criteria!
  • More suggestions as to what articles fall into what classes
    • Note that I have already begun this by customizing the standard assessment table with Pharm-specific examples (see here)! Please check it out and let me know whether you approve of the examples!
    • Has anyone rated articles recently?! When I was looking for example X-class articles, I found numerous articles in the wrong class. There are so many stubs that aren't stubs, and starts that are C-class or maybe even B-class, and there's numerous B-class articles that aren't up to par. This REALLY needs to be dealt with! The additions of comments and dates to the banner can help with this as well....

Ohhh no, there's other ideas, but I can't remember them now! Anyway, please let me know your thoughts, and ways in which you're willing to help out! I know a lot of these are very ambitious goals, but they're standard in many high-quality projects!

Right now, I'm filtering through the participants list and separating them into "Active" and "Inactive". Read more about why there. — Skittleys (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I had been trying to develop and organize a system for article assessment over the past 2-3 years or so, and I am also the one that did most (if not all) of the assessments. It's kind of slowed down recently, though there remains just under 200 "unassessed" articles, mostly due to the fact that it's been becoming rather tedious to get down to zero assessed articles only to see about 100-200 pop up again. It appears that there are editors out there that quite possibly run bots to create "stub" articles on just about every possible drug candidate out there just to make sure it exists. Most of these are really just research compounds (not even in clinical trials), but somebody thinks there needs to be a wiki article about it. So that's why there are so many. There's very little information in the literature about some of these compounds. Also, some of the assessments were done at least 1-2 years ago -- if an article has improved since its original assessment, feel free to reassess it.
With regard to article importance, I've generally been following the scheme that articles on general drug and pharmacology-related topics (broad topics, not actual drug articles) are classified as top-importance; high-importance are some of the major drugs on the market, and prototype compounds in each class, or late-stage clinical trial compounds that show promise and are getting a good amount of press. Mid-importance is for most drugs -- some are on the market, but they're not necessarily the prototypical compound in a class. It's kind of a catch-all for the vast majority of drugs out there. Low-importance is mostly for the drug-like compounds, drug candidates -- the stubs that are very, very obscure and unlikely to progress into actual articles.
With regard to article class: FA & GA ratings are pretty self-explanatory -- they must be externally reviewed by WP:FAN and WP:GAN. I've been treating A-class sort of like a GA+ -- the article must have at least achieved a satisfactory GA review listing, but must also go above and beyond, meeting several of the FA criteria and having very, very few issues remaining -- we're talking FA-candidate material here. B- and C-class have a lot of grey area -- I don't think C-class has been developed much in this project since it was created, and I've usually treated B-class as almost meeting the GA criteria, but may be short in some areas, like insufficient citations, or a really short lead section. Stub & Start classes are pretty nebulous. I usually see an article stub as an article with a single sentence or three plus an infobox (again, I think a lot of infoboxes and stubs are created by people with bots). Start-class is a bit more developed than that -- should have at least a good introductory paragraph and maybe at least 1 individual subsection.
It would be nice if we could have a more developed A-class review, which could fill the void between GA and FA, and with a purpose of collaborating with editors here in getting articles from GA to FA. If people are interested, that might actually happen.
I also started the collaboration of the month/week/fortnight about 2-3 years ago. I discontinued designating articles as the monthly collaboration because, despite having a reasonable amount of interest in nominating articles, most articles that were the current collaboration had very few edits, and it simply wasn't going anywhere, nor was it meeting its goal of moving articles towards FA. It seems like there were a lot of editors that were interested in getting their personal pet projects up for collaboration of the month, but then, once it became the current collaboration, editors just went back to working on their own pet projects and ignored it anyways. In lieu of this, we have had moderate success recently with announcing some pharmacology FACs here on the talk page of the project, and getting those promoted. So perhaps, instead of the monthly collaboration, we should focus our efforts more at moving more articles through WP:GAN, and getting them through an A-class review and supporting them through WP:FAC?
As an additional note, I've also noticed that the overall number of editors on wikipedia has been declining lately. Interest seems to be decreasing. It seems like a lot of people, particularly newer editors and anonymous editors, are growing tired of seeing their contributions simply reverted by a more experienced editor, and have just decided to give up. While I still think we need to take a firm approach towards reverting obvious and clear vandalism in articles, perhaps we shouldn't bite the newcomers so harsh. For example, rather than merely deleting an unsourced statement, try tagging it with the {{fact}} tag first. A lot of these newer articles aren't familiar with our citation requirements, nor are they familiar with how to add citations, either. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Cash, I am one such "newbie" pharmacology editor who is but one click away from tossing in the towel as well. I had been working on the fluoroquinolone articles for about six months now and if it were not for a few experienced editors who made the effort to guide and support me in this effort, as well as taking the time to peer review the articles as they came close to completion, I would have said "screw this" months ago. I can honestly say I have never encountered so many aggrogant, petty and hostile folks in my life as I have encountered here on wikipedia. Seems so many folks here are hell bent on deleting content they have personal issues with rather then reaching out and trying to improve or correcting someone else's efforts who is new at this. And when you check such mean spirited editor's contribution history, you find they have written no articles. Just hacked away at what others had contributed, deleting content willy nilly.
In the same breath I have also met some wonderful editors that make all the abuse I have encountered thus far worth the grief. Just thought I would drop a note off here to let you know that your assumptions are correct, in my opinion anyhow for what its worth. The hard asses are indeed chasing the up and coming editors away. If it were not for the helping hand I got from Fvasconcellos and Literaturegeek I would have surely walked away from this madness months ago and never looked back.Davidtfull (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You know there's a greater issue with Wikipedia as a whole when articles like Wal-Mart and Ann Coulter have fewer than 50 edits in the past month! Dr. Cash (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've definitely seen your name in the history of most of the articles. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people are contributing to the articles, but the assessment never gets updated. I know that there are some bots out there that automatically assess articles. I was going to look into this and see how it works. I don't know if having articles being automatically assessed is a good idea, but it may be useful in tracking major changes in article size, etc. With that data, we could find, say, a "stub" that is actually 20KB! Again, I'm going to look into it a bit.
I'm currently playing around with the project banner (see the sandbox). I was going to first implement the comments capability (because that's really easy), then look into the whole B-class checklist aspect of it. I think that might help out in several ways. I know that, in my experience, when I see a project banner with that scheme incorporated, I'm much more inclined to start doing assessments for them!
The reason I brought up the importance ratings at first was because I was surprised that some of the essential drugs are not a top priority. I understand now why that is, but it brings up another problem: the project's scope. It seems both too narrow and too wide at the same time.... I say too wide, because articles like the essential drugs seem like they should be top priority but they really arent when looking at pharmacology as a whole. Commercially-available medications are only one aspect of the project. On the other end of the spectrum, a lot of topics that do not actually fall under "pharmacology" are tagged, like capsule (pharmacy), polypharmacy, pharmaceutical industry and ethnopharmacy.
I've started wondering whether the project should be renamed (and broadened slightly more) to "Pharmaceutical sciences". There's a lot of articles out there that are tagged under "Medicine" but that I feel should be delegated to a child project (i.e., us), like pharmacy!!! In my search for examples, I've discovered that there are also articles that have no banners at all, like pharmacist!!!!! I really think that belongs here, more so than under WP:MED. Maybe we should think about another rename...? With redirects, of course.... I don't think it would be much of a change from the current project, though we may find some conflicts with WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, who have taken on all the biotech-related articles. And with that, we might find the one and only use for a "task force": to rate drugs on a separate importance scale than the project in general. So, meds like atropine and penicillin could be properly prioritized as high or even mid articles in general, with top importance in the drugs task force. I don't know if it should be a "task force" though...it doesn't seem like the right name. Thoughts, anyone? I know I'm being very ambitious here... — Skittleys (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As an additional note, most of my assessments are initial assessments, done on previously unassessed articles. So the main goal here is to just make sure that every article in the project has been assessed at least once, by someone. It would be very nice if additional assessments would be made, but I don't think there's a whole lot of organization to the project at the moment, so not a whole lot gets re-assessed. Perhaps we should create an Article Assessment and Review Task Force for the project?
Not so sure I'd create a Drugs Task Force? It seems like the vast majority of articles in the project right now (80-90%) are drug articles. Part of the reason that none of the drug articles themselves are assessed at a top-importance is an attempt to put an increased emphasis on some of the more general articles about the theory and other applications of pharmacology. I was also trying to avoid "importance wars" (for lack of a better word) with editors thinking that their drug was more important than someone else's. Anyway, as it is, most people are concentrating on drug articles -- and, to be honest, I think a lot of editors on drug articles overall are mostly editing because of some personal experience with that drug, as opposed to actual professionals in the field with expertise. Perhaps you've noticed that some of the most popularly edited articles are things like Cocaine, LSD, and Cannabis (drug)? Other commonly prescribed drugs (Vicodin, Sildenafil) are popular to edit as well. One popular, general, and broad (top-importance) article is Psychoactive drug, though that also primarily covers drugs of a more illicit nature,... Also, though we've tried to discourage it, you'll see quite a few psychoactive drug articles linking to and citing erowid.org, a drug reference site with a lot of information about the more illegal aspects of many drugs. Though there is, to a certain degree, some very limited useful information there -- we still should discourage it since there are far better citations to use in articles than that one.
Regarding renaming the project -- there used to be two wikiprojects -- WikiProject Pharmacology and WikiProject Drugs. At some point around 3-4 years ago (I think?), the two projects were merged into one. WikiProject Drugs, as you might imagine, had a lot of the editors that were more interested in drugs of abuse (mostly, very likely, due to personal experiences with them), and I think the projects were merged into WikiProject Pharmacology as one "catch-all" partially in an attempt to take some emphasis off the illicit drugs and make for a more general and academic project. I think I prefer WikiProject Pharmacology over WikiProject Pharmaceutical Sciences, just because it's simpler. Alternatively, we could go with WikiProject Pharmacy, but that might seem to imply we're a bit more geared towards hospital pharmacy practice & such, and Pharmacology seems to cover the science a bit better. Either way, the project name is just semantics,... Dr. Cash (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that the project name can probably stay as Pharmacology. Skittleys--thanks for jump starting things. I'll slowly try to work on assessments and reassessments; I try to use the breadth of ratings, including C-class. Dr. Cash and Davidtfull--I appreciate your reminder that we should keep trying to be as inclusive and encouraging as is possible. Shanata (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sildenafil aka Viagra, request comment

I would like to request comments for the article Sildenafil in regards to the section on "recreational usage." There is currently a dispute over this section between only two users at the moment: Myself, and Sandpiper. My current stance relies on several scholarly peer-reviewed studies. Sandpiper's relies on skepticism, an old stat textbook, and original research, and I do mean original. Please help.Legitimus (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab shot, oh, whatever, at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The best response to such comments is normally to ignore them, but after hundreds of words where I have challenged the refs without getting my points answered except by personal comments, the temptation to respond here is like shooting fish in a barrel. The only refs to which there is internet access did not support the article text, and frankly the published papers conclusions were unsubstantiated by the findings. Legitimus seems to believe it is appropriate to bias articles to discourage drug use 'recreationally'. In the case of viagra, I find this funny, because that is the only way it is ever used, except, perhaps, when it is used off label by doctors for other conditions. Sandpiper (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not bias to report information that appears in reliable sources, and there is no requirement that sources are available in full on the internet to be used. Many of the best scientific sources are not available without subscriptions. Regarding your belief that "the published papers conclusions were unsubstantiated by the findings", if you are correct, then you should be able to find some reliable sources to support your position. Without those sources though, we can only use the sources that we do have - even if an editor doesn't agree with them. I haven't reviewed the discussion at the article yet, I will do so in the near future. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hydromorphone: Readability problems?

The general advice on writing for the internet is "break blocks of text into manageable chunks".
Hydromorphone currently has possibly the longest lead that I've ever seen on Wikipedia, followed by several monolithic sections.
Does anyone feel that they can improve the organization of this article? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also almost completely unreferenced. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. For what it's worth, I've tagged it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I reorganized the article a bit and added several new headings to reduce the size of the lead and several of the other very long sections. However a lot more work is needed, especially with the citations. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'm glad I mentioned this. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was and still is a mess with dubious original research statements and promotional original research. I have cleaned out the indications section, lots more work to be done. The one good thing is as it it is mostly uncited we should be able to just delete most of the irrelevant and dubious statements without any discussion and without the time consuming need to check refs to verify etc. An easy clean up job.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talarozole classification

Hey, people, I'm wondering whether yo put that article in category:Benzothiazoles or category:triazoles. ANybody can help me? Circeus (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in both? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, both. The structure contains both moieties. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn,t sure if I was supposed to pick one (because it was more "important"). Circeus (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Psilocybin

Greetings pharm fans. I'm interested in taking this article to GA level and beyond, and would highly appreciate any comments on how it could be improved. I have access to all kinds of scholarly sources, and there's plenty of room for expansion. Please leave comments on the talk page if you're interested in seeing this high-traffic article becoming featured. Thanks kindly, Sasata (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article is not following WP:NPOV. If I was reading the article as a layperson I would think that it is a benign or mild hallucinogen which is hard done by and has great therapeutic value. In reality it is one of the most potent hallucinogens known, can induce an extreme psychotic experience, trigger or cause mental illness and cause flash backs, not to mention people being at great risk of injury as they often do not have a clue what they are doing due to the extreme disassociation from reality and distortion of reality (eg trying to climb out of a window of a 5 story high block of flats to go for a walk thinking a footpath was outside which happened to a friend of mine, her boyfriend stopped her so she is alive). I don't mean to sound harsh, the article is well developed and well referenced and clearly a lot of work has been put into it but I just think that balance needs to be added to it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
A good point. If I come across any reliable sources that can attribute these types of behaviors to the effects of psilocybin, I will certainly include them. I have seen some case reports of behavior like this where psilocybin use was combined with other drugs like cannabis and alcohol, these probably warrant a mention as well. Sasata (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I searched pubmed and to be fair there is surprising very little research into psilocybin and magic mushrooms compared to other drugs such as LSD or cannabis or whatever. I have added some papers which I thought might be useful to the talk page. Google books or if you or other editors have the time a library might be a better port of call for other good references.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes a library visit and a thorough lit search are in the works. To be honest I hadn't even noticed the pro-drug POV the article currently assumes until you mentioned it; I will hopefully fix the balance in the upcoming weeks. Thanks for your input. Sasata (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Google books can be good as well as you can search bookks via keywords and then if certain pages cannot be viewed you can then go to library to get full book. Saves a lot of time. Best of luck. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed text updates to prulifloxacin page

I’d like to propose additional text to the prulifloxacin page, which falls under the WikiProject Pharmacology, which includes more detail on the drug and it’s development path in the U.S. You’ll find my suggested text in full here: kdrichards. KDR 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine, although the studies (whether they are published articles or poster sessions) should be cited directly instead of the manufacturer's web page. See Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite conference for instructions on how to cite these. Thank you for requesting input before making the edit! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but this is a wiki. You don't need to "propose changes" to a page. Simply be bold and make them. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Dr. Cash, KDR is employed by a PR company employed by the pharmaceutical companies behind these products. Being bold is not appropriate in this case. He's abiding by WP:COI, and it's a laudable effort. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to see high-quality journal articles cited instead of (or in addition to) the manufacturer's websites. The websites might be useful |laysummary= options, though. Also, KDR, you might be interested in http://toolserver.org/~holek/cite-gen/index.php , which will turn PMID numbers into full citations at the click of a button (well, two of them: first on "Library of Congress", and then on "Send"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Prulifloxacin, in the same manner as Factive is associated with severe and disfiguring skin rashes. Prulifloxacin (within animal studies) has been shown to be toxic to cartilage and destructive to kidney tissue causing tubular nephrosis. In the kidney, tubular nephrosis with crystalline substance was observed. It also has been shown to be toxic to the liver resulting in increased BUN and creatinine levels and thickening of the liver. We also see hydrothorax, congestion and edema of the lung, adhesion of intra-abdominal organs, swelling of the kidney accompanied by fine yellowish-white foci, and atrophy of the testis. When Prulifloxacin was administered I.V. to rats, congestion of the lung was macroscopically observed. Prulifoloxacin was also shown to cause obstructive uropathy.
And this was back in 1996 and as we have seen such reactions that have been documented within animal studies have manifested within all the approved drugs in this class. So one cannot say that the animal studies are irrelevant here. I would have to ask this editor is he has any intention of adding such content to the Pruflifloxacin article, or simply state (unsupported by the citations used) as he has done that “It was tolerated as well as ciprofloxacin.” And thereby ignore the severe rashes, liver and kidney damage, adhesion to internal organs, and the rest of the serious adverse reactions we see associated with Prulifloxacin once the FDA approves this drug. Or perhaps he simply was unaware of this unacceptable safety profile as we see no mention of it on the manufacturers website.Davidtfull (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Presumably you're saying this in your capacity as the director of the Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation, which is IMO an equally biased source. At least the manufacturer's claims are ultimately restricted by the FDA; groups websites like yours can make whatever outlandish claims they want without any regulatory oversight at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying any of that. The articles found on Pub Med thirteen years ago are stating this. Here are the citations I was referring to:
A 13-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441) in dogs followed by a 5-week recovery test Yoshida M, Kawaminami A, Tawaratani T, Uchimoto H, Ishibashi S, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:113-29. Japanese. PMID 8709156 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A 4-week intravenous toxicity study of the active metabolite (NM394) of prulifloxacin (NM441) in rats followed by a 4-week recovery test Ishida S, Iketani M, Yamazaki S, Tamura K, Shindo Y, Iwakura K, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:131-48. Japanese. PMID 8709157 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Single and 4-week oral toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441) in aged dogs Ihara T, Akune A, Nakama K, Chihaya Y, Nagata R, Sumi N, Asaoka H, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:149-69. Japanese. PMID 8709158 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441)(1)--A fertility study in rats by oral administration Morinaga T, Fujii S, Furukawa S, Kikumori M, Yasuhira K, Shindo Y, Watanabe M, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:171-85. Japanese. PMID 8709160 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441)(2)--A teratogenicity study in rats by oral administration Morinaga T, Fujii S, Furukawa S, Kikumori M, Yasuhira K, Shindo Y, Watanabe M, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:187-206. Japanese. PMID 8709161 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Renal toxicity of prulifloxacin (NM441) in rats Kawaminami A, Tawaratani T, Ishibashi S, Oka T, Matsuyama S, Kakemi K, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:267-76. Japanese. PMID 8709167 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Single-dose toxicity studies of prulifloxacin (NM441) in mice, rats and dogs and the active metabolite (NM394) in rats] Shimazu H, Ishikawa Y, Nishiguchi Y, Yoshida M, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:33-44. Japanese. PMID 8709168 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A 4-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441) in rats followed by a 4-week recovery test] Nishimura N, Fukuda K, Yamazaki S, Tamura K, Shindo Y, Iwakura K, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:45-70. Japanese. PMID 8709169 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A 4-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441) in dogs followed by a 4-week recovery test] Oda S, Ide M, Tamura K, Nagatani M, Shindo Y, Iwakura K, Sumi N. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:71-88. Japanese. PMID 8709170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A 13-week oral toxicity study of prulifloxacin (NM441)in rats followed by a 5-week recovery test Ishibashi S, Nakazawa M, Tawaratani T, Uchimoto H, Yoshida M, Iwakura K, Sumi N, Shindo Y. J Toxicol Sci. 1996 Jun;21 Suppl 1:89-111. Japanese. PMID 8709171 PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
All I was asking is if this editor plans on presenting the good, the bad and the ugly, or if he itends to only provide content in favor of the drug. Now why would you find this to be unreasonable? You will note that the claims made on the research site are backed by well over 4000 citations and case studies spanning over forty years, and none of claims being made in regards to the safety profile or this class are outlandish in the least. And how can such content be considered bias when I did not even write it to begin with? I'm just the librarian of such articles. All of which are supported in the liteature. Why would you consider the Foundation to be an equally biased source when all it does is collect, review and present the medical journal articles and case reports dealing with this class? That would be akin to stating that Pub Med is to be considered a bias source. Ridiculous and frivolous. Is it not your peers who wrote such articles found on the research site to begin with? The exact same articles found on Pub Med? They certainly were not written by the Foundation.
Such advocacy sites are also subject to regulatory oversight via litigation involving making false statements. In the ten years that the research site has been online not ONE manufacturer, OR the FDA has challenged ANY of the site's content even though all have been frequent visitors and keep constant watch on the sites content. Whereas the same manufacturers have been cited time and time again by the FDA for presenting false and misleading information to the public and the physicians regarding the approved uses, effacicy, and safety profiles. You state that the manufacturer's claims are ultimately restricted by the FDA, which is true only in theory. But only to the extent that the content of such advertisements and sales aids are made known to the FDA. And even then it takes YEARS for the FDA to take any kind of regulatory action. So this type of argument is frivolous as it is a proven fact how corrupt the FDA is when it comes to such regulatory action taking place.
This editor has made a claim regarding the safety profile of this drug that is being backed by a propaganda sheet that does not even support the safety statements made. Yet you find this to be superior to the studies that I had just submitted that refute such a claim? Now that sir, with all due respect, is what I find to be outlandish here. Not the proven content of the research site that you have taken such exception to.
And you are mistaken to think that I can state anything I care to on the research site without risking being sued by the manufacturers or the FDA. Neither of which has taken place in the past decade though they all now who I am, where I live, and what I have been doing for the past ten years, as I have been in constant contact via letters, petitions, request under the Freedom of Information Act as well as emails. It is also to be noted that the research site has been cited to in other published medical articles as being a reliable source of information regarding this class. So how about we quit bashing the research site, the Foundation (and by extension myself), and stick with the proposed changes to the article under discussion here instead?Davidtfull (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with those sources are that they are toxicity studies which use very high doses, eg 30 mg per kg, 300 mg per kg or even 3000 mg per kg. Those studies are only meant to give indicators of possible adverse effects for further research or observation and to check for an approximate lethal dose. The mg per kg itself can't even be transfered at face value to humans as the metabolism and other pharmacokinetic factors differs significantly between animals and humans. To use an example diazepam has a half life of 2 hours in rats (or is it mice I forget) but in humans it is up to 100 hours, so for example what looks like an extreme dose may be only 10 times higher than a therapeutic dose and vice versa. Also animals can differ quite significantly from humans in adverse effects and even animal species can differ, animal studies can show a drug to be very safe but in humans it is very toxic and vice versa, they are only a rough guide. For example MDMA neurotoxicity differs significantly in rats and mice. I guess as it is a preclinical drug there may be an argument for using some animal studies due to limited research papers and no widespread clinical use but if they are used they need to be used very carefully and not misinterpreted and clearly labeled as animal studies. I made a statement about your potential bias but you admitted this in your COI statement on your userpage so didn't think you had a problem with people acknowledging your bias or maybe you just are taking issue with people referring to your foundation as biased, I dunno. Ok back to bed for me! :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It was David's organisation's effort via Public Citizen and evidence that he submited from the peer reviewed literature plus the Illinois Attorney General who forced the FDA to recommend black box warnings on fluoroquinolones. So I don't think they are outlandish; biased, yes and the polar opposite of pharmaceutical companies, yes certainly. Both pharmaceutical companies and organisations by people injured by drugs are both biased for obvious reasons. Also there is a scanned letter from the FDA which says that fluoroquinolone trials do not follow-up patients long-term after typically 10-14 day clinical trials, so denial of the long-term effects of fluoroquinolonees is equally POV and original research, although good quality peer reviewed evidence does exist for certain long-term effects, particularly tendon, peripheral nerve damage (which can be very painful and disabling) and to a lesser extent CNS toxicity and muscular toxicity (only limited long-term follow-up data etc). Also the sister quinoline derivative lariam for malaria equally has a controversial history with relation to toxicity, psychosis and long-term damage. Most other anti-microbials with no chemical relation have no such controversy. There are certainly undue weight issues and poor referencing format which David acknowledges in some of the individual quinolone drug articles which I had been working to resolve but got side tracked recently.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quinolones are also the top antibiotic cause of C Difficile, worse than even clindamycin,[10] C Difficile is a major concern in hospitals and even my local hospital has a policy severely restricting quinolone use. They may also be responsible for an emerging quinolone resistant strain of C Difficile which produces more toxins.[11] Certainly many people take these drugs without incident and it sucessfully treats serious bacterial infections but my point is that they are not benign antibiotics.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kdrichards, you state that prulifloxacin has a similar safety profile to placebo in your proposed submission but the reference didn't say that from what I could tell. Could you copy and paste the sentence which says that or else delete that if it is not backed up by reference.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Krichards, the proposed text is based entirely on press-releases. This is inappropriate since multiple peer-reviewed sources on prulifloxacin exist. If placed in the main space, the text is likely to be challenged and removed. For the standards of sourcing in medical articles please see WP:MEDRS. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I'm happy to go back and provide more specific citations. Updates to come soon. KDR 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdrichards (talk • contribs)
You are welcome. Here are some refs which may help you,[12], [13] but is a case report (maybe worthy of inclusion as it is a drug not yet approved), [14], [15], [16] this is same for other quinolones. There isn't a whole lot of information on this drug in humans but you should be able to get a basic article written with the available references.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
David, presenting only the "bad" is just as biased as presenting only the "good". Given that every single paper you name above is just in animal studies, and some of it at rather surprisingly high doses, your list might actually be worse the KDR's (although we won't know that until we get a much better source from KDR). Wikipedia doesn't want bias from either side.
And, for the record, I'm a "ma'am", not a "sir." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about calling you "Sir", I was unaware of your gender and no offense was meant.Davidtfull (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference to back-up the statement that prilufloxacin has a safety profile similar to placebo in a press release to the general public.[17] However, per WP:NPOV we would need to balance it out because the manufacturer is giving one view to the general public in a press release and another to the US government. In this statement in 2007 to the US government the manufacturers of prulifloxacin stated this. Patients treated with Prulifloxacin have experienced drug-related side effects including abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, renal toxicities, cardiac arrhythmias, photosensitivity, rash, excessive flushing of the skin and central nervous system effects, such as seizures. The FDA recommended that we conduct a study to determine the effect, if any, of Prulifloxacin on the prolongation of the QT interval, a condition that is associated with potentially life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias.[18] Having severe adverse effects such as seizures, renal toxicity, cardiac and photo toxicity, in early clinical trials is not similar safety to placebo; such trials also typically only involve a few hundred or at most a couple of thousand patients so to see such side effects as seizures and then to quote a press release on its own implying to the reader that it is as safe as placebo is very misleading. I think that both contradictory statements by the manufacturers should be stated or summarised in the article for neutrality.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the background on these two studies:
NCT00392574 Phase III
Acute Gastroenteritis in Adult Travelers

OPT-099-001 Drug: Prulifloxacin

On 1-16-2008 "safety parameters" was removed from the protocol and replace with "Clinical cure based on relief of signs and symptoms". Study completed on 2/2008 with only a 30 day follow up but I cannot find the studies results listed any of the FDA sites. Total of 375 participators. This study was done in United States, Mexico and Peru.
NCT00448422 Phase III
Acute Bacterial Gastroenteritis

OPT-099-002 Drug: prulifloxacin

The FDA site lists this second study as active but not completed as of March 2009, yet the sponsor’s in their press release state it was completed in February 2009. I cannot find the studies end results on any of the FDA sites. Total of 338 participators. This study was done in the United States, India and Guatemala.
As such I would guess we are looking at a total of about 700 patients. I find no evidence that a QT interval study is being done, even though the FDA requested one back in 2007.Davidtfull (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear my above statement was aimed at kdrichards and not whatamIdoing. To address WhatamIdoing's concerns, I agree with your advice to David regarding presenting both sides. I am in the process of moving all or as many citations as possible into inline citations (in individual quinolone drug articles) and removing undue weight and reducing article size, toning down or deleting POV statements (especially if uncited) and so forth. It is a lot of work, especially doing the inline citations and I do not have the time at present to start reading indepth the literature, but progress is being made. What is needed and will probably happen gradually over time is people to add balance by adding reviews, meta-analysis's to the articles. This edit by an ip editor for example is a move towards balance and neutrality. An unnamed doctor and I made excellent progress working alongside David on the adverse effects of fluoroquinolones article in bringing balance but unfortunately he (the uname doctor) has been (I think temporarily) forced off of wikipedia by drama on unrelated articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for everyone’s comments/suggestions. As way of follow up, please find updated citations now incorporated here: kdrichards. As for the language of being well tolerated compared to cipro, that is text that is already live and referenced on the prulifloxacin page with the following journal article: Keam SJ, Perry CM (2004). "Prulifloxacin". Drugs 64 (19): 2221–34; discussion 2235–6. To address the questions re QT interval data, a separate Phase I study was performed to assess the possible pharmacologic effect of prulifloxacin on cardiac repolarization as detected by corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. Prulifloxacin has not shown any effect on QTc interval in studies to date. KDR 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
While reviewing the updated references for prulifloxacin, please also check out my suggested page for Optimer Pharmaceuticals, the company developing prulifloxacin in the U.S. With prulifloxacin and the company's other lead drug candidate, fidaxomicin, already in Wikipedia it seems like the right time to get a page started. What do you think? KDR 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdrichards (talk • contribs)
You are welcome. You mean in comparison to placebo rather than cipro I assume, I can see that it is cited. The study saying that it is as safe as placebo is a single study.[19] The reference that I gave was referring to findings in all studies which found a range of potentially serious adverse reactions; granted they would be adverse effects which would be seen only occasionally, but placebo statement needs balanced for neutrality with a list of adverse effects reported in ref I gave. You are free cite the lack of QTc prolongation if you have a ref. Articles on drugs are meant to list the adverse effects associated with them, not simply state they are as safe as placebo. Do you not agree with listing adverse effects found in trials?
The article on the drug manufacturer is fine, apart from the placebo statement which actually isn't relevant to an article on a pharmaceutical company but is relevant to the drug article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ecinofloxacin

Can anyone find any sources to back this up? The reference currently provided is so riddled with typos that I'm having some trouble trusting it... :) Google, ChemSpider and INN lists turn up nothing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This pharmaceutical company lists it on their website.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The reference LG provided appears to be a copy/paste of a portion of our own quinolone article where ecinofloxacin had been listed as being under development. But Dr. T.R.Ramanujam, M.D. is indeed a legitimate physician and has written a number of articles concerning the fluoroquinolones and other medical issues going as far back as 1995. His native language is not English so some things look a little weird when translated.
These are only two other mentions of this drug being under development that I am aware of:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2007090646&IA=EP2007001080&DISPLAY=DESC
Within the patent application referenced above, ecinofloxacin is listed as an experimental quinolone, “such as clinafloxacin, gemifloxicin, moxifloxacin, sitafloxacin, trovafloxacin, ecinofloxacin, garenoxacin, or prulifloxacin.”
Which is rather bizarre as Clinafloxacin has been around since at least the nineties, (perhaps even the eighties) and has since been discontinued and removed from clinical use due to adverse reactions, Gemifloxacin (Factive) was approved in 2003, Moxifloxacin (Avelox) was approved in 1999, Sitafloxacin is not even available in the US, Trovafloxacin (Trovan) was withdrawn years ago for trashing livers, Garenoxacin was withdrawn in 2007 after a Non Approval Letter was issued by the European Medicines Agency due to concerns regarding lack of efficacy as well as serious adverse reaction profile.
As such out of all these drugs listed as being “experimental”, only two indeed are. That being prulifloxacin and ecinofloxacin. (Yet another glaring example of the ignorance found within the medical community regarding this class as this “invention” was described in 2007. You would think with a patent application that they would at least try to get thier facts straight.) Sorry, this was uncalled for and should have been worded differently, I apologize for this lapse of good judgement. It was not directed toward any of the editors here. The term ignorance was being used to describe a lack of common knowledge regarding this class, not the lack of intellegence of any one person.Davidtfull (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The other reference is in Viethamese:
http://www.impe-qn.org.vn/impe-qn/vn/portal/InfoPreview.jsp?ID=2810 (have to translate from Vietnamese though via google)
Which also states ecinofloxacin is in the beginning stages of development. As such we have three references we can refer to here. Other than this I have no other information regarding this drug. It does not show up on the FDA site, or any of the patent searchs I performed. As such I would question whether or not it is still even in development or if it has been abandoned. I can find no drug company sponsoring it either. As such I would recommend that this stub be removed until more information becomes available. There are have been tens of thousands of such analogs being developed over the years at any given time, and most have been are total failures. Perhaps this is yet another one of them. Davidtfull (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
David, please see WP:CIVIL, only a day ago you were upset at uncivilness directed towards you, but now you are being uncivil calling people ignorant. Furthermore it was uncalled for as all FV was asking for was evidence of the drug's existance not on the ignorance or lack of in the medical profession of adverse reactions. Surely you can get your point across without using negative desciptions of groups of people?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the comment was worded too strongly and I have stricken it out, I apologize to anyone here who may have taken offense.Davidtfull (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The vietamese article links back to wikipedia so copied it off of there, the article on WHO may have copied it from wikipedia. Even if it does exist it probably does not pass notability guidelines,WP:N. I am in agreement that the article should be deleted. I have proposed it deletion and recommend removing any mention of the drug from wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Icodextrin

Icodextrin is a stub for a peritoneal dialysis solution, or it's the molecule dissolved in the solution. I'm not sure what the notability factor is for pharmaceuticals. Any suggestions or comments? I brought this over here after a suggestion at WT:MED. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Drugbox

Could someone have a look at Template talk:Drugbox? I asked why drugboxes for monoclonal antibodies always display "Therapeutic monoclonal antibody"; and another editor requested inclusion of International Units. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Plateau principle

I just wanted to brag a bit on Plateau principle by new User:Jhargrov, which is one of the nicest looking articles by a new editor that I've seen in a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why such a pompous name is needed to describe a trivial consequence of dynamic equilibrium or saturation (as in Michaelis–Menten kinetics). There are thousands (millions?) examples of plateaus in all areas of science since the phenomena of equilibrium and pseudo-equilibrium are ubiquitous, for example, see diminishing returns in economics. The turgid style of the article is well-matched to its pointless subject. As for the technicalities, different people in different sciences may give the name "Plateau Principle" to very different things, just check Google. So some kind of qualifier like Pharmacokinetics Plateau Principle is needed. Besides, the most often used term in the fields other than pharmacokinetics is plateau effect, and the already existing article about it says all you need to know about the "plateau principle". The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Monoclonal antibodies revisited

I've tried to source all the mabs in Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code, but couldn't find anything for the following:

Additionally, I couldn't find reliable sources for the (possible) indications for these mabs:

Any help would be appreciated! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Biciromab was withdrawn during testing; try looking for its trade name, Fibriscint. Dorlixizumab was merely a proposed USAN—it may never have amounted to a real drug. Pritumumab is in the INN lists (see [31]). Its target is vimentin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added some more sources. If you can get you hands on ImmunoFacts, you'll probably find information on all of these. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get at that presently! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fibriscint seems to be 111-In biciromab, but I've found nothing whatsoever about "biciromab brallobarbital". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't access your other sources. Could anyone take care of the remaining mabs? Otherwise, may they rest in peace. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here's a bit of information that could be added to the tiny Epratuzumab entry "A recombinant, humanized monoclonal antibody against CD22 cell surface glycoprotein of mature B-cells and malignant B-cells which it destroys by antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (1). The manufacturers in August 2009 announced success (2) in early trials against lymphomas, leukemias and immune diseases such as lupus erythematosus.(3) (1) http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=42234 (2) http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS59586+27-Aug-2009+GNW20090827 (3) http://lymphoma.about.com/od/glossary/g/epratuzumab" HippoNorm (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but be bold! Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for more help creating missing topics in dermatology

The dermatologic-related content on Wikipedia continues to improve; however, we still need help to complete the Bolognia Push 2009! This is an effort to make sure that every topic found within this unabridged dermatology text is also found on Wikipeda. Please see the above link for more information, and, if you are interested in helping, e-mail me for the login information.

There are still hundreds of disease stubs and redirects to be made. We need your help! ---kilbad (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

The BHRT article is undergoing significant back-and-forth, any experienced and knowledgeable editors would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Antibiotic resistance-role of animals

The antibiotic resistance#Role of animals section is a bit of a disaster. I think it should be completely deleted, save for a couple of sentences that could be put elsewhere in the article. I'm willing to do this myself, but want some input from others. Thanks! Pdcook (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much of the section is long, rambling prose that could go or be made much more succinct. I would say that most of the sentences that are referenced could stay as a unique section--probably more like 1 long paragraph or a few shorter ones. Good luck with the re-write! Shanata (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. As a group interested in pharmacology, do you folks think the section is even germane to the rest of the article? Pdcook (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that the entire section should be deleted. It does have relevance to the article. What it needs is massively reduced in size and refined.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dihydrocodeinone enol acetate

FYI, Dihydrocodeinone enol acetate has been prodded for deletion as a hoax. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a hoax, just an oddly named and long outdated drug. Noted on Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Biciromab brallobarbital

Comments would be welcome: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biciromab brallobarbital. Thanks. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cicatrin powder and topical medications

There is no article on Cicatrin and it is not mentioned in the article on topical medications. With regard to the topical medications article, there is no mention in that article of topical meds applied in powder form. The article is also severely in need of references. Asking for help here because this is outside my area of expertise. DQweny (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hemopurifier discussion

More input would be appreciated Talk:2009_flu_pandemic#Hemopurifier_press_release. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Source #1

Source #1 (Vyvanse vs. Adderall XR) contains a very high amount of factual errors. It doesn't appear as if the person who edited that page knew much about either drug. I believe information from that source / the source as a whole should be omitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.147.16 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:PharmNavFootnote

User:Bixbyte and I have different thoughts about this template, and feedback from this community would be welcome. --Arcadian (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but where is the discussion? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It involves many pages, so the best overview is probably here. --Arcadian (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I would avoid mention of specific trial phases, and leave this for individual articles. My personal favorite classification for this template would be "Withdrawn from market", "In clinical trials", and "Development halted/terminated". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Fv's idea. "Fast track" could be interesting as well, but that might make it too complicated (4 footnotes should be the maximum in my opinion, and counting Essential Medicines we are already there.) Too many options like phase I/II/III also make the templates harder to maintain. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Closed system drug transfer device

Can we get some eyes on this article - the article is currently being written by a paid writer and many of the sources are behind paid walls - some expert help would be gratefully received. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

St John's wort: phototoxicity?

The article only describes phototoxicity in livestock. Is there any good evidence for phototoxicity in humans after systemic or topical exposition? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that this adverse effect has been documented in humans.[32], [33], [34].--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Interesting hypothesis: the use of hypericin as a photosensitizer for cancer treatment! PMID 19739671, PMID 16918348 Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
So the usual antidepressant doses seem to be mosty harmless. Thank you for the links! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Technetium (99mTc) nofetumomab merpentan

Could someone check if I've understood the chemical structure of merpentan right? The source is http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4894e/s4894e.pdf, page 22. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed system drug transfer device

There have been some problems with this article, see Talk:Closed system drug transfer device. Any input from those with knowledge of pharmacology would be useful. Thanks Smartse (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discovery and development of CCR5 receptor antagonists

It appears our friends at the University of Iceland are back. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made links to these pages from the bottom of the drug design page as they make useful case studies. Hopefully this becomes an annual wikiproject for the University as they have provided a nice collection of these review pages covering many of the main commercial drug targets of interest in recent years. Keep up the good work! Meodipt (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Expert needed at Medical uses of silver

When the article Medical uses of silver (formerly "Colloidal silver") was discussed at the ANI and the fringe theories noticeboard recently, I decided that I might take a closer look at it to see whether it would be possible to identify the core of the controversy and to fix it. Despite some difficulties (I had to file my first request for checkuser), I think I was largely successful. In any case, I don't think that there is much more I could contribute to the article. The most reputable sources are all articles in medical journals to which I don't have access. To improve the article further, we would need someone who does have access to them. So, if anyone is interested: --> Medical uses of silver<--. Zara1709 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Drug Discovery and Development: Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Agonists

Hello, we are pharmacy students from Iceland, we got a B rating and are very pleased and would be even happier if someone took the time to make it even better. In our opinon this site has potential to be a good article. hopur52009

Mifamurtide nominated for DYK

Comments at Template talk:Did you know#Mifamurtide, as well as expansions and copyedits to the article, would be welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Types of monoclonal antibodies

Are bispecific monoclonal antibodies the same thing as trifunctional antibodies, or are the latter a subgroup of the first? In other words, count BiTEs (and perhaps other types I am not aware of) as trifunctional antibodies as well? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Metformin FA push

I am planning to get Metformin to Featured article level by the new year. If anyone would like to help make this a collaborative effort, I have compiled a section-by-section list of useful sources here. Further suggestions for improvement would also be greatly appreciated! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also: which and how many trade names should be mentioned in articles about drugs, and where should they go? In the lead, as recommended by WP:LEAD? In a section about available forms, as provided for in WP:MEDMOS? Should the current wording of WP:MEDMOS be altered or amended? Discussion here. All input welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Important discussion on MEDMOS

There is a discussion on MEDMOS at the moment, basically about whether common brand names should be in the lead or not in the lead of articles. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Trade_names This will effect all pharmacology drug articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Cold-fX article be included in the project?

Should the article Cold-fX, a purported natural cold remedy, be included in the project? The article is already marked as needing a cleanup, and I thought the project members (regrets, I am not a member) might be more skillful than others in undertaking the work. --papageno (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This should be merged into the American Ginseng article. It also needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The product is a natural supplement based on ginseng, though natural products can still be considered "drugs" (they're just not regulated quite as heavily by the FDA). It is interesting that neither ginseng nor american ginseng are included within the scope of this project. It might be because most of WP:PHARM focuses more on the active compounds than something like this. I do kind of think that the Cold-FX article should be merged and redirected, in much the same way that many brand names of drugs redirect to the article about the active substance. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR Anabolic steroid

I have nominated Anabolic steroid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

NatureCare

The article NatureCare and its discussion at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NatureCare, may be of interest to participants in this project. Deli nk (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between fidaxomicin and lipiarmycin

After recent updates to the fidaxomicin page, I noticed that the lipiarmycin image file still links to the fidaxomicin page (not the same structure) and there is still a page redirect as well. Since the two are not the same, I wanted to suggest that edits be made so that the pages no longer connect. Lipiarmycins are produced by a different bug. The Italian Lepetit group reported the proposed structures of lipiarmycins. Lipiarmycin A3 is very similar to that of fidaxomicin, but no absolute stereochemistries on the ring portion. Below is a citation you can reference. Please let me know how we can proceed.

Lipiarmycins: Actinoplanes deccanensis ATCC 21983, the producer of antibiotics lipiarmycin A3 and A4, furnished also a related antibiotic designated lipiarmycin B, active against Gram-positive bacteria, including anaerobes, and against Neisseria. The structures of the two major components, B3 and B4, were reported in comparison with lipiarmycins A3 and A4; however no absolute stereochemistries were assigned on the macrocyclic portion (J Antibiotics 1988, 41, 308).

KDR 21:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdrichards (talk • contribs)

This may be a complicated issue. Chemical Abstracts lists "lipiarmicin", "lipiarmycin" and "lipiarmycin A 3" as synonyms of fidaxomicin (with the structure currently displayed at fidaxomicin). -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Liraglutide: Impartial overview on the potential side effects?

I'm a little concerned about the impartiality of this article. The last part of the overview text seems to be contradicting the FDA ruling on this drug in a fairly opinionated manner, even if some references are given. The argument isn't presented in a passive style. Chairdoors123 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proteases: Essential Tools of Angiogenesis

Sounds interesting, but isn't linked from anywhere and needs heavy copyediting. Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, since I haven't time to do anything about it at the moment. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article Protease, which some of the information could go into. Or this could become a daughter article of that. Maybe better if renamed to something like "Proteases in angiogenesis" or something? It doesn't fit this particular wikiproject too closely, though. It might fit the molecular & cellular biology project better? WTF? (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Texts from PubMed: Copyright?

It has been asked (Talk:Riociguat‎, Talk:Talarozole‎) whether text from PubMed can be used freely on WP, presumably based on this page. Does anyone know? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If by "text", you mean "abstracts from journal articles," then the answer is definitely and absolutely NOT.
The meaning of the paragraph beginning "Note:" is "Things written by the PubMed staff, like the 'PubMed comprises more than 19 million citations for biomedical articles from MEDLINE and life science journals' text on our main page is fair game, but anything published in a medical journal is copyrighted by the author and/or publisher, not us, and you need to respect their intellectual property."
The text in question is a simple and direct copyright violation of an abstract from a journal article and should be removed immediately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done for Talarozole. Haven't time to sort out Riociguat‎ at the moment, which seems to contain a number of individual sentences from various journal articles. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Copypasting individual sentences from various journal articles is much less serious than copying an entire abstract. There is an exception in international copyright law (Art. 10(1), Berne Convention) for quotations from published works "provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose." In any case, a single sentence which is purely factual, eg "Riociguat (BAY 63-2521) is a novel drug that is currently in clinical development by Bayer.", would not be protected under copyright as any protection would be tantamount to copyrighting the underlying facts. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 (Referring to Title 17 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government which reflects the current copyright laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 5, 2009) contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair use, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

This is the exact text:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Since Wikipedia is a non profit orginization, whose main purpose is to educate, there may be justification under the Fair Use doctrine as defined above; as an abstract is nothing more than a summary of the article in question. It is not a substanial part of the work as a whole. Rarely is it more than a paragraph or two.

So to state that "...definitely and absolutely NOT..." appears to be contradicted by the current copyright law enumerated above. Still to avoid such challenges it would be best to simply get permission from the authors first, if practical. But there is significant and substanial case law that supports Fair Use by nonprofit orginizations for educational purposes. Particularly if it involves issues concerning the pubic health. (which has shown to prevail over copyright laws everytime) Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 allows such material to be distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving such information for research and educational purposes. This is the law. However Wikipedia is free to set their own standards regarding such fair use and may very well state:

"...definitely and absolutely NOT..."

as policy. But this is not what is stated within Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. And a reasonable interpetation of this law would allow for the use of the text of an abstract within a article under the criteria set forth above. Whereas wikipedia policy may not, just to avoid any hassles. Not arguing the law here, just presenting it. Others may very well have a different opinion regarding the law. Which is why we have courts, lawyers and judges. But the courts have been very liberal when it comes to interpeting the fair use doctrine, as well as the use of items found within the public domain. Davidtfull (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a copyright violation as far as abstracts are concerned but it is counter to building an encyclopedia; we need to summarise in our own words sources to build an original resource otherwise wikipedia would just become known as a resource of plagiarism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Copying even something as short as a single sentence without indicating that it's a direct quotation is also plaigiarism.
For the purpose of a lawsuit, the abstract might be considered a separate thing, and it will almost always be considered a critical component. 100% of a short abstract certainly would be considered a "substantial part of the work as a whole" when the work is defined as the abstract itself; additionally, the most important sentences (which, in most papers would be (1) the abstract and (2) the conclusion) in a work have always been considered a "substantial part", even if they represent a quite small proportion of total words published.
Courts generally have not agreed that copying the most important paragraph from a paper into your own work as if it were your own work is either "reasonable" or anything other than a copyright violation. It's usually (but not always) okay to say, "Here's exactly what J. Smith wrote... and here's what I think about it", but this is not what the editor did in the above instances. The editor pasted the abstract into the article and pretended that it was his own work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that plaigiarism is to be considered taboo under any circumstances. And if indeed a editor had deliberately pasted an abstract into a article and then pretended that it was his or her own work, that would be an act of plaigiarisms and should be deleted, with the editor being reprimanded. And I also agree with you that "Courts generally have not agreed that copying the most important paragraph from a paper into your own work as if it were your own work is either "reasonable" or anything other than a copyright violation." Actually plagiarism is considered for the most part to be a criminal act as well as deliberatedly engaging in civil fraud. The courts indeed do frown upon such activity.
But I had not stated that the courts would (or should for that matter) defend plagiarism. I had stated that there is significant and substanial case law that supports the Fair Use Doctrine as employed by nonprofit orginizations for educational purposes, as well as stating that the courts have been very liberal when it comes to interpeting the Fair Use doctrine when it comes to matters concerning the health and welfare of the populance. And it appears that The National Library of Medicine allows the transmission or reproduction of protected items ast allowed by the Fair Use doctrine. I had simply provided what the definition of the Fair Use doctrine was here in the United States to help guide those who wish to avoid inadvertently violating the copyright laws. I certainly did not encourage or endorse plagiarism by providing this information.Davidtfull (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that PubMed has a (limited, non-exclusive) license from the copyright holders, which takes it out of the realm of fair use entirely. The publishers voluntarily submit article data, including abstracts, to the NLM, and essentially ask the NLM to provide this (for the copyright holders, very lucrative) service. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes this whole discussion so fascinating is the rules set by Wikipedia. First Wiki states that “it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge...” Further it is stated that: “Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant-minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources.” Which we can all agree to be referring to copyrighted works.
“Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.”
But you have stated that the use of anything found on PubMed would be a violation of copyright. And if we were to state the gist of the articles, rather than copy the relevant portion(s), we are, by the above definition, engaging in original research (synthesis of published material).
The only way we can show that our edits are not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material, which is usually found on PubMed. LG suggested that "we need to summarise in our own words sources to build an original resource." But if we do that, then to follow the logic presented thus far, we are either engaging in plagiarism, or deliberate copyright violations. Summarizing in our own words is also taboo as this is considered to be original thought or research as it is a synthesis of the published material.
Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." So this would rule out stating something in our own words, as this then becomes a close imitation, hence plagiarism. We cannot state our own understandings of these written words, as this becomes original thought or research. And we cannot state exactly what the author stated as this becomes a copyright violation.
A perfect catch 22. One must cite to a published and copyrighted work but one cannot state what that work contains without violating one of these three rules. Plagiarism, original research, or deliberate copyright violation. As such fair use is the only use available regarding the material found on PubMed that would circumvent these restrictions. But you stated that:
“I believe that PubMed has a (limited, non-exclusive) license from the copyright holders, which takes it out of the realm of fair use entirely. “
But it is not possible to take a copyrighted work(s) out of the realm of fair use entirely within the United States. Fair use is a legal and codified right granted to the public on ALL copyrighted work. The courts have determined that fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest in all instances. As such whether or not PubMed has a (limited, non-exclusive) license from the copyright holders to distribute submitted material is irrelevant; as this is a distribution contract between the author(s) and PubMed. No such contract was entered into by those who later view or use the articles on PubMed.
Fair use is codified in a number of laws, including the Constitution of the United States, commented upon within governing case law going as far back as the seventeen hundreds as it has its roots in the English Common law. As such the copyright holder cannot revoke or restrict the right of fair use on his or her works within the United States. The question remains what is to be considered fair use. And this is determined on a case by case basis taking the totality of all circumstances into consideration. As stated within Wiki’s article on Fair Use:
“Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances.”
So the bottom line remains the same. Whether the text from PubMed can be used freely on WP under the Fair Use doctrine “is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances”.Davidtfull (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No it is not original thought to summarise a source in one's own words if you are not distorting the conclusions, findings or facts of a source.
"and the representation of them as one's own original work."
Wikipedia does not claim to nor imply that we are the discoverer of historical or scientific facts, we report them don't claim or imply to be the originater of them. Therefore by your own quote we are not plagiarising.
It is sometimes ok to quote small proportions of a source per fair use eg a prominant statement by George Bush or some prominant instutional body or something but if done so it must be in quotes to show that it is a direct quote.
I don't really understand the point of this discussion. Surely you do not believe that the enyclopedia would be better off if people were instructed to copy and paste content? Or are you just discussing a point?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The point was to clarify that under certain circumstances copying and pasting a portion of an article found on PubMed would not be a violation of the copyright due to the fair use doctrine. But it may be a violation of one of the hundreds of various rules and guidelines found here on Wikipedia.
So no, I do not believe that an encyclopedia would be better off if people were instructed to cut and paste content. Nor do I believe that an encyclopedia would be better off if they are being told "...definitely and absolutely NOT..." either. As this provides the deletionist with even more justification for removing content that they personally disagree with. Even though the circumstances would justify such content being presented in that manner. This was the only point I was trying to make here. "...definitely and absolutely NOT..." I found to be far too harsh a judgment for the reasons I have stated. This was the whole point of this discussion. An attempt to provide a reasonable answer to the question asked, or to arrive at a concensus as to what that answer should be. "...definitely and absolutely NOT..." appears to be both the answer and the concensus reached, so there really isn't anything further to discuss.Davidtfull (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
David, I have the same reaction that Literaturegeek did. Same thing I always used to tell my college students: say it in your own words (unless it's a noteworthy direct quote, which these things from scientific abstracts almost never are) but base it on the sourced facts. It's really not that complicated. And regardless of what the law says, copying and pasting is always sloppy writing. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I see what you are saying David. It is not very common that content is copied and pasted. When it happens and if it is well sourced I tend to reword it rather than deleting copy and pasted content or else if appropriate put it in quotes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with LG and Tryptofish that such text should be rewritten, if possible without losing its meaning, as well. But as we see with the recent edit on Talarozole by ἀνυπόδητος this is not what takes place. That information was deleted from the article with no attempt to rewrite or edit it. Just toss it in the trash. And as we find with so much of the content of the drug articles the majority are cut and paste jobs from copyrighted sources; usually something found on Pub Med. And yes indeed copy and pasting is sloppy editing as it takes no mental effort whatsoever. But then again, just deleting something rather than rewriting it, just because it appears to be a copyright violation does not take any effort either. But as we start a New Year here hopefully we can all work together to improve upon this situation. I know that I for one would be willing to make such an effort.Davidtfull (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
If you disagree then there is nothing to stop you summarising the source and adding it back with your reasoning written in the edit summary. I admire your enthusiasm for improving the encyclodia and agree with your points but I think that it is a bit harsh about ἀνυπόδητος. I don't think that it is fair to criticise another editor's editing style publicly on a project such as this. I don't think you would feel happy if editors picked at some of your imperfections. ἀνυπόδητος is a productive wikipedian and none of us are perfect nor do we all agree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It is best to try to avoid commenting on an individual but rather to comment on the issue or content of an article. This is easier said than done and at times I could do with following my own advice LOL. Happy New Year to you and everyone here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I was not critiquing ἀνυπόδητος, or his style of editing in the least LG. I was just using that recent edit as one example of how such content ends up being deleted, rather than rewritten. As such it was not intended to be a comment regarding the acts of a specific individual. Davidtfull (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAT's collaboration over coffee

The FA-Team has started a collaboration to bring coffee (currently a GA) to featured status. You may see more information here and join the discussion on Talk:Coffee. Mm40 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_3"