> --- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop >> mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the >> media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's >> exactly what happens on these articles, but it's unfortunately >> Wikipedians who are doing it. Their motives are good -- to keep out >> nonsense -- but the effect is to turn those articles into something >> the manufacturers and their PR people would be very happy with. >> >> Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There >> is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the >> company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription >> of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another >> statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material. >> >> Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you >> almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia: >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4974840/Wonder-drug-that-stole-my-memory.html >> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5257744/Statins-life-saving-wonder-drugs-or-just-life-damaging.html >> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/4204363/The-worrying-wonder-drug.html >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498489.stm >> >> Sarah > > > To be sure, information on side effects can be found in the scholarly > literature. This is usually where the press gets it from. > > Enter simvastatin + "memory loss" in google scholar, and you get 1,950 > (!) hits, including this study from 2001: > > http://www.atypon-link.com/PPI/doi/abs/10.1592/phco.21.7.767.34577 > > "Statin-associated memory loss: analysis of 60 case reports and review of > the literature" (2003) has 130 scholarly citations, providing ample > justification to include the study's findings in the relevant article(s). > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12885101 > > As far as reporting of such scientific results is concerned, scholarly > sources are preferable. > > What the media add, as in the BBC article you linked, is the > socio-economic, current-affairs angle -- pointing out the economies > involved, the millions and billions that pharmaceutical companies make > off these drugs, and the promotional and propaganda efforts that this > necessarily entails. > > That is something clinical studies will not address. Articles on such > products need something like a "reception" section. Media articles are > indispensable for that. > > WP:MEDRS specifically allows the use of media sources for such purposes. > If editors edit-war this information out, it needs to go to a > noticeboard, or to arbitration. > > Andreas
I added a section on memory loss to that article, and used the source you cited as well as a Wall Street Journal article. I don't much care for the Telegraph myself, and didn't use it. In fact it was an anecdotal account of a single person. Now, let's see if anyone shows up to remove this black mark... And observe how they go about it. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l