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 2009

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" ([1], [2] 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)

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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – 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

• List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens, Category:IARC Group 1 carcinogens
• List of IARC Group 2A carcinogens, Category:IARC Group 2A carcinogens
• List of IARC Group 2B carcinogens, Category:IARC Group 2B carcinogens
• List of IARC Group 3 carcinogens, Category:IARC Group 3 carcinogens
• List of IARC Group 4 carcinogens, Category:IARC Group 4 carcinogens

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)

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)

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:Rocknroll714 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)