Talk:Ethosuximide

Affordability

This book discusses affordability in prose form of anti epileptic medications in LMIC.[1] As such it fulfills the RfC requirements IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This does not meet the RFC and WP:NOTPRICES requirement: "secondary sources discuss[ing] pricing extensively" [for that drug] or as policy states it "mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". This is very much "passing mention" of ethosuximide and a single figure in a table in a 900 page specialist textbook on Epilepsy. That is not mainstream media. Further, the price in the source, is for Italy in 2001 (not 2011 -- the book was only published in 2008). A twenty-year-old Italian retail price has zero weight or relevance in an English encyclopaedia. The article text here juxtaposes wholesale prices in 2014/2019 for a month supply of a given daily dose, with a retail price in 2001 for a year's supply of approximately half that daily dose. This baffling mix of incompatible numbers is unacceptable. The RFC conclusion was clear. All these prices are unacceptable. -- Colin°^Talk 09:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Disputed content

Per the broad discussion here about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and specifically the issues raised about the use of 2001 data from one country to support price statements at Ethosuximide here, the pricing content here is disputed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC

We have the sentence "As of 2008 it was generally affordable in many areas of the world."

Based on a 2008 textbook from Wiley on Epilepsy that states

In 28 countries, which contain over 40% of the world population, the per capita annual gross nation product barely suffices to buy a year's supply of carbamazepine or valproate for one or two patients... For most patients living in these countries, only phenobarbital, phenytoin, and ethosuximdie may be avaliable at prices affordable by the general population, and many of the newer drugs may not be avaliable at all.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Revised RfC Statement: [2] 00:51, 5 April 2020 by Doc James

• Should the lead of ethoxuximide summarize the section on cost as "As of 2008 it was generally affordable in many areas of the world."

Support

• Support we have textbook by a well respect medical publisher. I have provided an exact quote of the text above. We have other sources that also describe it as inexpensive.(2005 textbook,2019 textbook) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support based on sources, just to clarify as I never write this much it should be noted that references speak for themselves, I hope this matter can be solved, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

First, I oppose the !voting rather than discussing format here. Second, this is yet another RFC [3] to dispute the already held RFC (which is not a productive way to proceed IMO). Third, the problems per the discussion about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, specifically the issues raised about the use of 2001 data from one country to support price statements at Ethosuximide here, make this source obviously unsuitable for this text. A thorough read of the source shows that the data for this drug is based on 2001 prices in one country only, Italy. As the data is two decades old, based on a decade-old source, WP:WEIGHT is not met for inclusion, per WP:NOPRICE. None of the cost data in this article is policy-compliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I also dislike this "please vote" style. Can't we just talk about it? Or have a ==Poll== section that doesn't treat supporters and opposers as the only possible responses, and as parties that need to be carefully segregated from each other? My own view doesn't fall neatly into "Support" or "Oppose", but the (very) few editors who use this style tend to disregard comments in the "Discussion" section when they're trying to figure out what the conclusion is, so it doesn't even feel like it would be worth it to say what my view is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I object to creating poll-RFCs for every issue. This seems to be a coronavirus infection on Wikipedia. The textbook is 12 years old and their data is based on a price in Italy from 2001, so nearly twenty years old. If you read this article, and the last source offered above, you will see that Ethosuximide has been dropped by many manufacturers and is unavailable in many markets. This is why James had to cite a 2014 MSH record for a supplier who delivers by their own fleet of trucks to the north of the Democratic Republic of Congo for the "Developing world" price, rather than use the 2015 record -- because there isn't one: there are no developing world suppliers at all that MSH list.

To add to that, the textbook rather weirdly bases their "affordable" conclusion by taking the per capita annual gross national product of a nation and comparing this with the retail price in Italy that was seven-years out-of-date when the book was published in 2008. Even if we accept their €133 price (the price in Italy, not in the developing nation pharmacy), that is $145, or $12 a month. The WHO/HAI reckon that a drug is unaffordable if it costs more than a days wages to buy a month's supply. There are no African nations where the the standard wage of a government employee reaches anything like $12 a day. Many don't even reach $1.2 a day. It is rather important to get economic facts from economic experts rather than neurologists. Don't you think?

Any affordability statement (low cost, inexpensive) is likely to have only regional applicability for the market/readership of the book or article, and also be subject to chronological irrelevance with time. A North American textbook or a UK textbook, will be concerned with such matters in their domestic market. Such statements clearly cannot be extended to nations with different economic levels or drug price policy and availability: such statements are not international in scope. -- Colin°^Talk 09:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of responding to these biased RfC's. They're clearly efforts at IDHT and CONLOCAL. The ArbCom case should sort these behavioral problems out. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

(per WAID above), if discussion is needed then lets discuss--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do. Start with why policy and a massive RfC specifically to address such disputes are being completely ignored. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

are they being ignored?...are you certain?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a proposal to include numerical prices. It is just a rough cost and I do not think the prior RfC ruled that out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. You've been asked multiple times how anyone could assume that the RfC, policies, consensus applies solely to "numerical prices". Those questions have been ignored so far.

So, Ozzie10aaaa, there's a nice example for you right there. But if you want to demonstrate that you are taking the RfC, policies, and consensus into account, please do so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Im certain with time this will work out, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Then what's the point of this RfC, if editors refuse to engage? Votes don't create consensus, collaboration does. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure so what source and what text do you want to have summarize cost? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I like the clarification of the RfC statement.[4] Apologies if my attempt to make it clear that the RfC was changed adds confusion to the situation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Such an old reference makes it seem like it's not so noteworthy. Can we find something more recent? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Price in one country misrepresented as the price in the developing world

A sentence that was discussed in great detail, and universally condemned, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices is still present in this article.

I see that:

• User:Colin removed it recently in this edit
• User:Doc James restored it in this edit a couple of hours later.

If you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices#Comments about neutrality and due weight for Doc James' comments on 3 April, you will see him say that "we can adjust that one to that one country." Regardless of whether you believe that the RFC authorizes use of this database at all, I thought we had achieved, if nothing else, an agreement that pretending that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is "the developing world" in this specific article was a bad idea. James, did you maybe just forget about those conversations? Or have you changed your mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)