Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology

Archives
WP:DRUGS Archive 1: 2004 – 7/2006 WP:DRUGS Archive 2: 8/2006 - 2/2007 WP:PHARM Archive 2007 2008

ATC code pages

I have started including group names and navigation templates in the lead sections of the ATC level 2 pages (see e. g. ATC code A01). Any objections or alternative suggestions?

Also, the ATC code pages should have a uniform layout. The third-level groups are sometimes headers (as in ATC code A01), sometimes not (as in ATC code A02). The first layout is clearer, in my opinion; but it produces rather long TOCs. The first layout also seems to be the more common, so it would be less work changing in this direction. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors

Hello. We have had a article requested with the above title at WP:AFC. I have little idea whether it should be created or not and am looking for advice. There's not much to it yet; it seems to be a loosely rewritten version of http://compbio.epm.br/kunitz/. If anyone would care to take a look and venture an opinion, it can be found at Articles for creation/Submissions/KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors. Thanks, Martin 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to ask over at WP:MCB. The subject of this request concerns "natural" protease inhibitors, that is, a class of proteins, not the protease inhibitors used to treat HIV. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what it's about, as you can probably tell ;) Martin 01:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC name changes

P-kun80 appears to be systematically changing the IUPAC names of large numbers of drugs, with no reference given for the change (eg saquinavir diff: [1]). The edit summaries state "corrected IUPAC name" or "corrected IUPAC name (according to stereochemistry of the given image)". Could someone with chemical knowledge please take a look and see whether these make sense? I'm worried that the IUPAC name ought to be identical to whatever's given on the package insert. Thanks for your help, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that most of the IUPAC names on chemicial/pharmaceutical articles come from PubChem or from ChemDraw's "Autonom" feature. 79.121.106.220 (talk · contribs), presumably the same as P-kun80, said on my talk page that he is using ChemBioDraw v11. Some of the changes P-kun80 is making are certainly an improvement - such as adding stereochemical assigments. I appreciate the effort he is making to fix these. But different programs for automatically generating IUPAC names give different results, and I really don't know if one is better than any other. IUPAC names aren't absolute - they are based on "recommendations" (that can change over time). At the very least, we should make sure that the structure and IUPAC name can be derived from each other. P-kun80's changes are definitely consistent with that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The IUPAC names given on package inserts are quite often inaccurate. No chemical naming tool generates "perfect" (notice the scare quotes—there is no perfect) systematic names 100% of the time; a 2006 study found that ACD/Name is the most accurate and reliable software package, and I believe it is used by quite a few Wikipedians (I use the somewhat limited freeware version), but I've checked a few of these recent changes and they check out OK. My only concern is that these new names may conflict with our data validation efforts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As Edgar181 have said, ChemBioDraw v11; cross-checked with MarvinSketch's similar feature. But if I should not do this, then someone should tell me how to find those pages which completely lack IUPAC names (and at the same time, describe a substance.) By the way, yes, that IP is mine.P-kun80 (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Microdosing

Greetings to all, Reading the Microdosing page, I would be really interested to hear if anyone has any experience of using this technique and what you thought of it. Any views would be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisastockdale (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up requested pharmacology list - removing non notable requests.

Proposing to do it here Need to get second/third opinion. Now we have hundreds of requests of non notable proposed drug names and chemicals or misspelled diseases. And each day dozens article removed from Wikipedia because of non notability. Look at articles for deletion. So what I thinking is to remove non notable chemicals from requested articles list to save time and efforts(and requests for AfD take ppl time to discuss/vote etc., not mentioning actual creation of the arrticle itself).

Please comment on talk page of requested list. Thank you. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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 [2] ("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)

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, [3] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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 numbe 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 created a new draft outlining the top 3-4 levels of pharmacologic categorization from discussions that have been ongoing. Find the draft at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization#Draft_III, and please share your thoughts! kilbad (talk) 21:27, 2 February 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

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, JaGa^talk 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.

• Aspartame

• Aspartame controversy

• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies

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

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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" ([4], [5] 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)

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)