Jump to content

Talk:Sacubitril/valsartan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sacubitril does nothing

[edit]

Why do they delete factual information (on the main page) from the LIFE clinical trial that clearly shows people lived longer and stayed out of the hospital longer using just generic valsartan? Look at secondary outcome, composite endpoints of effects. Whats wrong with posting clinical trial links?[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Brackett (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent physician researchers call into doubt whether sacubitril does anything at all. [2]

Delaware judge recently invalidated the combination patent. [3]

A careless cyanide release occurred in the entresto lab, 5 people were rushed to the hospital on gurneys, novartis forced chemists to dispense their fume hood waste OUTSIDE of the fume hood without proper ventillation because they thought it was too expensive to do it safely. Complaints to OSHA resulted in them harassing me and pushing me out, destroying my career as a chemist, I was the guy who generated reg# LBQ657, it's bunk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Brackett (talk • contribs) 11:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve Brackett. The reason I reverted your edits was because they were improperly sourced or contained WP:POV statements. Please have a look at WP:MEDREF and WP:MEDRS which say, among other things, that "Articles about health and medicine should generally not cite primary sources". Instead you should cite secondary sources which discuss the primary research.
As for the blog entry, in general per WP:BLOG blog posts should not be used as sources for articles. Among other things, anyone can publish a blog, the identity of the blog editor often cannot be independently verified, and blogs are not generally subject to peer review. Any information in a blog post which is sufficiently reliable probably relies on other sources which could be tracked down and cited. Further, based on my reading, the blog does not independently support the statement that any of the researchers are prominent.
As to your last comment about being targeted by the company, please also consider WP:COI and whether you are sufficiently distant from the subject to write independently. I can't quite follow your thought process so I'm not making any assumptions/pronouncements here, just suggesting you consider the possibility of COI.
I hope this helps explain, and apologies if my reasons for reverting the edits were not sufficiently explained in my original edit summary.Oblivy (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted references to prominent doctor/researchers debunking sacubitril. They go into explicit detail regarding the issues surrounding sales of this drug. Regardless of where they post this information, blog or youtube channel, they make clear arguments and many other doctors have become convinced. Pharmaceutical companies inundate the internet and social media with their hype and spin, it's next to impossible to find truthful information that could adversely effect sales, even worse they just threatened costly frivolous legal action against anyone who challenges them. Please review Dr Vinay prasads youtube channel video "do we have evidence for new drugs, Denmark lectures. I was the chemist who first made this sacubitril nonsense when I worked at Novartis in 2006. If I can't speak out about it then who can? Lastly, pharmaceutical companies have distorted the meaning of FDA approval. They approve so called drugs that don't do anything all the time, they admit it themselves. The FDA is a poorly funded government agency, no match for pharma crafty scientists and highly paid legal teams. There are very few people with the courage to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry, my work is important.
Sacubitril represents the loss of billions in healthcare dollars, even worse a Harvard professor is behind it. Please allow me to post in the talk section for sacubitril
Look for and read "6 things big pharma doesn't want you to know" by doctors without borders.
Also review "medical reversal" by Dr Prasad and Dr Cifu.
Again, I'm doing important work as a whistle-blower, please allow me to be heard Steve Brackett (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for whistle-blowing, but If you have secondary sources for the negative comments, perhaps we could have a section maybe called Controversies or Criticisms ? Would anyone object ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02816736
  2. ^ https://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2015/07/entresto-blockbuster-or-just-over-hyped.html
  3. ^ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/novartis-falls-as-judge-rules-entresto-patent-claim-invalid

More on generics - a new section perhaps

[edit]

Lead says there are generics, but rest of article doesn't say what they are. Presumably it should. Economics section says there is a generic to one component.

Now FDA has approved a generic that Novartis is contesting : [1] - Rod57 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sacubitril/valsartan&oldid=1238420618"