Talk:Gabasync

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Addictions and recovery Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of addiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What are they selling?[edit]

If the doctors are prescribing a combination of existing medicine, which is supplied by drug companies, not Prometa, how are they making money?--Jeff (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are selling a branded program of treatment, which includes the documentation for their protocol plus the right to use their branding (name, trademarks, promotional materials) and the fruits of their advertising and promotion 69.118.123.126 (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Studies[edit]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/07/60minutes/main3590535.shtml makes the claim "that no independent test on the treatment has been done." Is there a way to verify which studies are being done by those who do not have a profit to be made if certain results are provided? It seems idiotic that with most of the %150 million dollars raised for the drug going to marketing, as the 60 Minutes article reports, they couldn't spend a bit of it doing a proper test that would make everyone happy. They could just give samples to an independent research group, and let them do the test. Dream Focus (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up this Article[edit]

In the fourth paragraph of this article it states "patients have anecdotally reported..". ITNOG what is the difference between "reported" and "anecdotally reported"? None whatever; but the buzzword anecdotal is used to deprecate what has been reported. Anecdotal doesn't add information, just puts a spin on the information. Not Wiki.

Secondly, a anecdote is by definition something second-hand, informal or exaggerated; on what basis has the writer of this article decided that the reports are any of these? 71.181.177.77 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's a commonly used phrase in medicine, that's why. When there are reports from individual patients about a drug (as opposed to scientifically conducted double-blind studies) it is common to refer to them as "anecdotal" reports. Words often have more than one meaning. It's not "spin". See Anecdotal evidence. Ward3001 (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the usage of "anecdotally" is correct. It is specifically used to differentiate between scientific research with all the methods that entails, versus, well, anecdotes.--Jeff (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that 'Patients have reported' and 'Anecdotal reports' are both informative, but 'Anecdotal patient reports' is redundant. So one or the other ought to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.123.126 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your point, but it was not 71.181.177.77's point, who was trying to argue that use of the phrase was an attempt by the writer to be intentionally midleading. Ward3001 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the current event tag[edit]

I reverted 98.206.221.93's addition of the current event tag and replaced it with "As of" per WP:ASOF. The use of the current event tag, per WP:CURRENT, isn't to mark activities that are on-going. Instead,

This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors.
It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template.
It is expected, when used properly, that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days.

All of these conditions contradict its use. However, using "As of" is the appropriate solution. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it was an atypical use of {{current}}, but {{recentism}} and as-of didn't seem to precisely pin down the problem either. I intended the {{current}} as more of a section-wide as-of, since the section seemed to be heavily focused on what's happened over the last two months and what will happen in the near future. There are still five places where the word "currently" is used along with present-tense. But maybe that's fine... I'm not used to layman coverage discussing ongoing studies at length, but those more familiar with the subject matter may be more used to seeing this. --98.206.221.93 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the completed study will be published (if at all) sometime late in 2008 and more likely 2009. The other studies will be published in 2009 or 2010. This doesn't describe current events nor does it come close to being a "current event" requiring the tag. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken that the "as of" should apply to the entire set of currently planned studies. I've modified the text so that the "as of"'s scope encompasses all the studies. Thanks for pointing that out. ∴ Therefore | talk 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]