Talk:Premarin

Neutrality

Why is the neutrality disputed in the "controversy" section? Everything that is currently there, as far as I know, is correct: the horses generally are poorly-bred, there is not much of a market for them, and many foals go to slaughter. Eventer 21:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That article sounded pretty neutral to me.

I am also confused as to why this article has been disputed. Surely it is "fact" that animal rights activists state that the horses are treated poorly and the foals are treated as byproducts. This section did not say that the horses were or were not treated badly, only that animal rights activists claim they are.

In fact if the "Controversy" section was not included in the article, then it could be considered biased. 58.6.192.25 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag removed - it was obviously a drive-by tagging as no explanation has been given and no response has been made here to the above comments. 58.6.192.25 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute: "However, PMU horses only represent 0.01% of equines in North America [2]. There has been an increase in the number of registered horses on PMU ranches with almost all horses now being registered stock. [3] The vast majority of these purebred foals are sold for pleasure riding and driving." Considering that these "facts" are taken from the NAERIC, the organization that represents the interests of the PMU ranchers, I think it's pretty darn biased. Apparently, the bit about foals being sent to slaughter has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.27.46 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and retag. I just came across this article and it seems to me that the 'controversy' section could be considered to be from a neutral POV if most of the claims were attributed to certain groups/persons. The first paragraph is a good example of how it should be done with "Animal rights activists claim..." whereas in the 3rd paragraph, the claims of cruelty seem to be made by the page author. I think this page has good content, but these claims need to be attributed and not just plunked into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.241.105 (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to what I just wrote, it seems that a big revision of the Controversy section was done on 23:23, 9 October 2008 and is where these unattributed claims come from. I'm new to this editing business, but can one propose to have the article revert to its old form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.241.105 (talk)

• The section is clearly whitewashed, so an unbalanced tag applied. It is a matter of tone, mostly. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay....Premarin comes in 0.9mg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.78.106 (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more than a matter of tone. The section makes broad claims about the improvement of conditions using anecdotal descriptions and without citing any sources. The entire section beyond the first couple paragraphs could be slapped with a [citation needed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.58.114 (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the very last line, stating that the operations are "out-of-view and inaccessible to the public". Having easily obtained permission to see multiple farms involved in this industry, from the ranchers themselves, the statement seems to have little factual basis. Makes one wonder if the editor who wrote it actually did their research, or if I just got lucky with the farms I chose to approach. 68.83.158.45 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section is severely unbalanced, contains a whole load of weasel words, and citations are nonexistant. This article would be a great candidate for a cleanup tag. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Conjugation

You really have to do better in the pharmacology and chemistry sections. Conjugated in CEE has nothing to do with the hydrophilic groups but with the additional double bond(s) in ring B! I mean really. ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.27.236 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you've got it backwards. The "conjugation" refers to attachment to a hydrophilic group (sulfate in this case) as described at biotransformation, not the organic chemistry meaning of alternating single and double bonds as described at conjugated system. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are right. The conjugated is not meant chemically and indeed, in one case the conjugation on ring B is not even given. Very confusing, but you are right. Sorry. I was myself confused by an article discussing ring B. But sorry, yes, I got it backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.27.236 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Still though, "The ring B unsaturated estrogens, as the name indicates, differ structurally from the classical estrogens by the presence of one or two additional double bonds in the ring B of the steroid nucleus. This does apply to the minor two estrogens in Premarin, but is not the cause of the name CEE (conjugated equine estrogens), which refers to the sulfate group in the estrogen metabolites only. So again, Edgar, good job, to correct me here again. I tend to be a bit compulsive in my critique but we all learn from that, at least I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.27.236 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NYT article

[1] Source about lawsuit against Wyeth.

conjugated equine estrogens

Is premarin the only form of CEE? Seems weird that only one company would make the only product like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)