This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Melperone (Buronil, Eunerpan, Harmosin, Melneurin and other generic/trade names) is a typical sedative neuroleptic/antipsychotic, used for over 30 years in Europe now. Its only atypical propriety is, that it (and pipamperone/floropipamide, Dipiperon) is a butyrophenone derivative and is not a highly potent neuroleptic, such as other butyrophenone derivatives (haloperidol, benperidol, spiroperidol, trifluperidol, bromperidol or moperone). It causes quite little EPMS, but so does e.g. thioridazine and is not classified an atypical antipsychotic. Melperone is low-potency, sedative, 1st generation butyrophenone antipsychotic.-- Spiperon 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"More recent research is questioning the notion that second generation anti-psychotics are superior to first generation typical anti-psychotics. Using a number of parameters to assess quality of life University of Manchester researchers found that typical anti-psychotics were no worse than atypical anti-psychotics. The research was funded by the National Health Scheme of the UK.[1]"
Everything under, including risperidone had given me pains impossible to explain. It equates to continuous physical torture. Well I'm intelligent and particularly sensitive in nervous reaction, but the damage was equal to that of the mountain shepherd boy, with the difference that he was too stall to tell. He does not need the psychological functions that are disabled by the old medication and he has a higher thresh hold of pain, so he seems OK. Normal people feel just dizzy, they do not now the length at which their superior processes are disturbed by the old medication. In general there can be no intellectual recovery by using the old medication. Proper social involvement does require the processes that are disabled by them. Quality of life can not be measured good enough by people who measure contentedness with non-activity. The damage is taken. The parameters are subjective. My incapacity was totally there, a billion crisp shades of unknown pain and disabilities, including the one to convince the doctor the faint complain for the pain is your last and maximum strength, not a usual psycho-paranoid complaint against medicine and signature on documents. GOD I hate them, theory and lab doctors. Rats. Whores. Demented messengers of authority and current overwhelming empirical evidence.
So I just hope... . Watiki 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be very little inclusion of critical viewpoints on this page. I'm referring to the studies which indicate the inefficiency of antipsychotics, and potential for harm to the brain (beyond Tardive Dyskinesia). Ninmat ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"None of the atypicals (Clozaril, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon) have been approved for children, and there is little research on their effects on children. "
I believe this statement is outdated, considering: Abilify is approved for schizophrenia in children aged 13-17; manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder in children aged 10-17. Risperdal is approved for the same two indications, as well as irritability associated with autistic disorder in children aged 5-16. (Source: Abilify and Risperdal prescribing information). Hojoseph99 ( talk) 22:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Intro:
What the heck is this supposed to mean, to someone not schooled in the ways of medical technobabble? Wikipedia has a wide audience including high school students, so articles should be written using common terminology most people would understand. These two benefits use nearly impenetrable language, though that may be the intention, so normal people don't really know what is being described.
higher rate of responders -- probably more patients are likely to keep taking it, rather than stop taking it due to the motor control and other serious side effects that can manifest with the 1st-gen typicals
efficiency in patients with refractory disease -- refractory disease redirects to disease, which says nothing of refractories. This appears to mean "resistance to treatment", though it's unclear if this means the patient's body is resisting treatment, or if the patient themselves is resisting treatment due to not taking (or not wanting to take) the drug, for whatever reason, though probably again due to unpleasant 1st-gen side effects.
DMahalko ( talk) 05:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
After reading the introduction, my grasp on the differences between typical anti-psychotic drugs and atypical ones is tenuous at best. What makes this family of anti-psycohtic drugs unique or different from other types or groups? This question seems to be unanswered. Furthermore, medical vocabulary such as the word, "generations" to describe different types of drugs further obscures meaning, by the fact that it is introduced without specific reference to what the word refers. Upon further reading of the article however, it can be ascertained that these drugs are also referred to as Second Generation Antipsychotics, and that there is notable controversy over the differences in the effectiveness and mechanisms of these drugs versus First Generation drugs, if any. The presence of debate over this issue ought to be introduced and characterized in the first paragraph in order to better establish the differences or similarities between this class of drug and First Generation drugs, and perhaps some background information would further clarify which aspects of the drugs are controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimakides ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thats because there is no difference, both drug types will kill you. pharmaceutical companies call them different names because of patent issues (they get exclusive rights to sell them get it?). some people say new ones are much worse. It's just poison! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.188.159 ( talk) 18:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The article cited two articles by "Dirk Ziskoven" or "Ziskoven Dirk" but Google and Google Scholar can't find them and the PUBMED IDs link to completely different articles. I've deleted the citations and replaced with "citation needed" tags, but maybe the associated text should go as well? (In particular, one citation supports switching to another SGA instead of older antipsychotics when discontinuing clozapine/olanzapine due to those two drugs' metabolic side effects.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerhard gentzen ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Nowadays the term atypical antipsychotic is being challenged due to the fact that it tends to imply some special properties these medications have over the typical antipsychotic and since these special properties have not been entirely agreed upon it may be more accurate to refer to these agents as second-generation antipsychotics. Fuse809 ( talk) 01:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
== Does anybody find this article to have a very biased, negative point of view?
I am having trouble gleaning meaning from this article, as it comes across as a nonobjective slam piece. I expected to find a discussion of the article's point of view on this edit page, but it looks like nobody else here is seeing this slant. I am no expert on antipsychotics, and have no particular point of view on the subject. Does anyone else find this article to be polemical, and therefore not terribly informative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 ( talk) 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
===There are some problems with the article, but the overall conclusion that second generation antipsychotics offer minimal or no advantage over first generation antipsychotics is now well-entrenched in treatment guidelines from major psychiatric groups. Our articles are intended to reflect the positions of these expert authorities. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The following entries in the adverse effects table did not contain any useful information, just quotation marks, and should contain some data before reinsertion:
Comparison of side effects for atypical antipsychotics | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Generic Name | Weight gain | Metabolic Effects | EPS | Prolactin | Sedation | Hypotension / Orthostasis | QTc prolongation | Anti-ACheffects | Other Adverse Effects* & Notes | |||||
Carpipramine | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |||||
Clocapramine | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | Often classed with typical antipsychotics. | |||||
Mosapramine | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | Often classed with the typical antipsychotics. |
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The adverse effects comparisons table had 9 references at the top, each possibly related to any of the vast number of boxes in the table. I tried to integrate them where I could, but only managed to connect the one on Perospirone to its table entries. I moved the rest to here, because they need to be integrated to their corresponding boxes:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Mikael Häggström ( talk) 17:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atypical antipsychotic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This table should be about efficacy, but the legend states that the pluses and minuses indicate side effects. It seems to me that the legend is incorrect, and perhaps should be moved to another table. 147.91.1.41 ( talk) 08:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atypical antipsychotic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I checked the history to see the sourcing on the regulatory status table. This is the part which lists various drugs versus various government regulating bodies, and says which government permits which drug.
Fuse809 added this information in July-August 2013 in a table which also including some tolerability measurements. That's cool.
In March 2016 Mikael Häggström split this one table into two tables, one for regulation and one for drug tolerability. I also think that is better.
A problem was that Fuse cited about 10 sources, but in citing them, just listed them as general references rather than saying what came from where. I was wondering about when the regulation data was accurate. Since it was added in 2013, I am tagging it "as of 2013". Since the citation is uncertain I am tagging it "citation needed". I like this data being in the article but I do wish all the data in it could be easily verified by a source. That is a bit out of the way for me to research and fix.
Thanks for developing this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"The 5-HT2A receptor, however, is also believed to play a crucial role in the therapeutic advantages of atypical antipsychotics over their predecessors, the typical antipsychotics."
There is this statement under metabolism. I am not sure why this is under "metabolism" in the first place but more importantly the citation provided, which is this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23499243 Atypical antipsychotics and effects of adrenergic and serotonergic receptor binding on insulin secretion in-vivo: an animal model by Guenette MD doesn't say anything about it and as such doesn't in any way support this quite controversial claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.78.229 ( talk) 13:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The use of text colors is a good idea but needing a better choice of colors for contrast against the grayish background. This is especially true for lime green and orange, which would cause less eyestrain as green and dark golden rod (darkgoldenrod), respectively. Although less of an issue, red might do better as firebrick.
current | proposed |
---|---|
lime green | green |
orange | dark golden rod |
red | firebrick |
Opinions? — βox73 (৳alk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC) (edit: deleted sienna as alternate replacement for orange. — βox73 (৳alk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC))
@ Alexbrn: Re: This edit. Your input: “Overall there is no good evidence that atypical antipsychotics have any therapeutic benefit for treating schizophrenia.” Do you think that this is just a joke? That is a gross insult to the psychiatric profession and a flagrant act of trolling at its best. Moreover, this is what the study reported. “This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of available treatments for negative symptoms in schizophrenia.” “Most treatments reduced negative symptoms at follow-up relative to placebo.” ” Although some statistically significant effects on negative symptoms were evident, none reached the threshold for clinically significant improvement.” The study demonstrated some improvement of negative symptoms. It did not deal with the therapeutic benefit for schizophrenia as a whole. I’m going to spare myself from citing the tens of thousands of studies that invalidate your ridiculous claim. Reixus [Talk] [Contribs] 09:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Add - Reixus - now you're trying to add [1] a bunch of non- WP:MEDRS sources despite knowing well from the discussions at WT:MED this is not going to fly. What is going on? Alexbrn ( talk) 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
What about using antipsychotics to punish people? E.g. cataracts, brain damage, forced overdosages like they do in russia.
I have seen the death of 7 patients. They all complaint about bedingen forced to take large amounts E.g. 40 mg olanzapine a day causing vomiting blood.
I Status someone going into death of just 1 mg risperidon. Angiodeem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.231.37.210 ( talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, that is a very good point, please help us include details of these horrible drugs. They should not be given to animals never mind humans.
While corruption certainly exists, even within the medical community, these claims are anecdotal, and would require a reputable source to verify. Ray.MacNeil ( talk) 08:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
According to this table https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/epdf/10.1176/appi.books.9780890424841 made by THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION updated in 2021, there is some need to double check the binding profile. Iohhnky2005 ( talk) 11:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Melperone (Buronil, Eunerpan, Harmosin, Melneurin and other generic/trade names) is a typical sedative neuroleptic/antipsychotic, used for over 30 years in Europe now. Its only atypical propriety is, that it (and pipamperone/floropipamide, Dipiperon) is a butyrophenone derivative and is not a highly potent neuroleptic, such as other butyrophenone derivatives (haloperidol, benperidol, spiroperidol, trifluperidol, bromperidol or moperone). It causes quite little EPMS, but so does e.g. thioridazine and is not classified an atypical antipsychotic. Melperone is low-potency, sedative, 1st generation butyrophenone antipsychotic.-- Spiperon 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"More recent research is questioning the notion that second generation anti-psychotics are superior to first generation typical anti-psychotics. Using a number of parameters to assess quality of life University of Manchester researchers found that typical anti-psychotics were no worse than atypical anti-psychotics. The research was funded by the National Health Scheme of the UK.[1]"
Everything under, including risperidone had given me pains impossible to explain. It equates to continuous physical torture. Well I'm intelligent and particularly sensitive in nervous reaction, but the damage was equal to that of the mountain shepherd boy, with the difference that he was too stall to tell. He does not need the psychological functions that are disabled by the old medication and he has a higher thresh hold of pain, so he seems OK. Normal people feel just dizzy, they do not now the length at which their superior processes are disturbed by the old medication. In general there can be no intellectual recovery by using the old medication. Proper social involvement does require the processes that are disabled by them. Quality of life can not be measured good enough by people who measure contentedness with non-activity. The damage is taken. The parameters are subjective. My incapacity was totally there, a billion crisp shades of unknown pain and disabilities, including the one to convince the doctor the faint complain for the pain is your last and maximum strength, not a usual psycho-paranoid complaint against medicine and signature on documents. GOD I hate them, theory and lab doctors. Rats. Whores. Demented messengers of authority and current overwhelming empirical evidence.
So I just hope... . Watiki 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be very little inclusion of critical viewpoints on this page. I'm referring to the studies which indicate the inefficiency of antipsychotics, and potential for harm to the brain (beyond Tardive Dyskinesia). Ninmat ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"None of the atypicals (Clozaril, Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Abilify and Geodon) have been approved for children, and there is little research on their effects on children. "
I believe this statement is outdated, considering: Abilify is approved for schizophrenia in children aged 13-17; manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder in children aged 10-17. Risperdal is approved for the same two indications, as well as irritability associated with autistic disorder in children aged 5-16. (Source: Abilify and Risperdal prescribing information). Hojoseph99 ( talk) 22:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Intro:
What the heck is this supposed to mean, to someone not schooled in the ways of medical technobabble? Wikipedia has a wide audience including high school students, so articles should be written using common terminology most people would understand. These two benefits use nearly impenetrable language, though that may be the intention, so normal people don't really know what is being described.
higher rate of responders -- probably more patients are likely to keep taking it, rather than stop taking it due to the motor control and other serious side effects that can manifest with the 1st-gen typicals
efficiency in patients with refractory disease -- refractory disease redirects to disease, which says nothing of refractories. This appears to mean "resistance to treatment", though it's unclear if this means the patient's body is resisting treatment, or if the patient themselves is resisting treatment due to not taking (or not wanting to take) the drug, for whatever reason, though probably again due to unpleasant 1st-gen side effects.
DMahalko ( talk) 05:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
After reading the introduction, my grasp on the differences between typical anti-psychotic drugs and atypical ones is tenuous at best. What makes this family of anti-psycohtic drugs unique or different from other types or groups? This question seems to be unanswered. Furthermore, medical vocabulary such as the word, "generations" to describe different types of drugs further obscures meaning, by the fact that it is introduced without specific reference to what the word refers. Upon further reading of the article however, it can be ascertained that these drugs are also referred to as Second Generation Antipsychotics, and that there is notable controversy over the differences in the effectiveness and mechanisms of these drugs versus First Generation drugs, if any. The presence of debate over this issue ought to be introduced and characterized in the first paragraph in order to better establish the differences or similarities between this class of drug and First Generation drugs, and perhaps some background information would further clarify which aspects of the drugs are controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimakides ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thats because there is no difference, both drug types will kill you. pharmaceutical companies call them different names because of patent issues (they get exclusive rights to sell them get it?). some people say new ones are much worse. It's just poison! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.188.159 ( talk) 18:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The article cited two articles by "Dirk Ziskoven" or "Ziskoven Dirk" but Google and Google Scholar can't find them and the PUBMED IDs link to completely different articles. I've deleted the citations and replaced with "citation needed" tags, but maybe the associated text should go as well? (In particular, one citation supports switching to another SGA instead of older antipsychotics when discontinuing clozapine/olanzapine due to those two drugs' metabolic side effects.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerhard gentzen ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Nowadays the term atypical antipsychotic is being challenged due to the fact that it tends to imply some special properties these medications have over the typical antipsychotic and since these special properties have not been entirely agreed upon it may be more accurate to refer to these agents as second-generation antipsychotics. Fuse809 ( talk) 01:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
== Does anybody find this article to have a very biased, negative point of view?
I am having trouble gleaning meaning from this article, as it comes across as a nonobjective slam piece. I expected to find a discussion of the article's point of view on this edit page, but it looks like nobody else here is seeing this slant. I am no expert on antipsychotics, and have no particular point of view on the subject. Does anyone else find this article to be polemical, and therefore not terribly informative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 ( talk) 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
===There are some problems with the article, but the overall conclusion that second generation antipsychotics offer minimal or no advantage over first generation antipsychotics is now well-entrenched in treatment guidelines from major psychiatric groups. Our articles are intended to reflect the positions of these expert authorities. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 16:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The following entries in the adverse effects table did not contain any useful information, just quotation marks, and should contain some data before reinsertion:
Comparison of side effects for atypical antipsychotics | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Generic Name | Weight gain | Metabolic Effects | EPS | Prolactin | Sedation | Hypotension / Orthostasis | QTc prolongation | Anti-ACheffects | Other Adverse Effects* & Notes | |||||
Carpipramine | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | |||||
Clocapramine | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | Often classed with typical antipsychotics. | |||||
Mosapramine | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | Often classed with the typical antipsychotics. |
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The adverse effects comparisons table had 9 references at the top, each possibly related to any of the vast number of boxes in the table. I tried to integrate them where I could, but only managed to connect the one on Perospirone to its table entries. I moved the rest to here, because they need to be integrated to their corresponding boxes:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Mikael Häggström ( talk) 17:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atypical antipsychotic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This table should be about efficacy, but the legend states that the pluses and minuses indicate side effects. It seems to me that the legend is incorrect, and perhaps should be moved to another table. 147.91.1.41 ( talk) 08:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atypical antipsychotic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I checked the history to see the sourcing on the regulatory status table. This is the part which lists various drugs versus various government regulating bodies, and says which government permits which drug.
Fuse809 added this information in July-August 2013 in a table which also including some tolerability measurements. That's cool.
In March 2016 Mikael Häggström split this one table into two tables, one for regulation and one for drug tolerability. I also think that is better.
A problem was that Fuse cited about 10 sources, but in citing them, just listed them as general references rather than saying what came from where. I was wondering about when the regulation data was accurate. Since it was added in 2013, I am tagging it "as of 2013". Since the citation is uncertain I am tagging it "citation needed". I like this data being in the article but I do wish all the data in it could be easily verified by a source. That is a bit out of the way for me to research and fix.
Thanks for developing this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"The 5-HT2A receptor, however, is also believed to play a crucial role in the therapeutic advantages of atypical antipsychotics over their predecessors, the typical antipsychotics."
There is this statement under metabolism. I am not sure why this is under "metabolism" in the first place but more importantly the citation provided, which is this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23499243 Atypical antipsychotics and effects of adrenergic and serotonergic receptor binding on insulin secretion in-vivo: an animal model by Guenette MD doesn't say anything about it and as such doesn't in any way support this quite controversial claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.78.229 ( talk) 13:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The use of text colors is a good idea but needing a better choice of colors for contrast against the grayish background. This is especially true for lime green and orange, which would cause less eyestrain as green and dark golden rod (darkgoldenrod), respectively. Although less of an issue, red might do better as firebrick.
current | proposed |
---|---|
lime green | green |
orange | dark golden rod |
red | firebrick |
Opinions? — βox73 (৳alk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC) (edit: deleted sienna as alternate replacement for orange. — βox73 (৳alk) 21:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC))
@ Alexbrn: Re: This edit. Your input: “Overall there is no good evidence that atypical antipsychotics have any therapeutic benefit for treating schizophrenia.” Do you think that this is just a joke? That is a gross insult to the psychiatric profession and a flagrant act of trolling at its best. Moreover, this is what the study reported. “This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of available treatments for negative symptoms in schizophrenia.” “Most treatments reduced negative symptoms at follow-up relative to placebo.” ” Although some statistically significant effects on negative symptoms were evident, none reached the threshold for clinically significant improvement.” The study demonstrated some improvement of negative symptoms. It did not deal with the therapeutic benefit for schizophrenia as a whole. I’m going to spare myself from citing the tens of thousands of studies that invalidate your ridiculous claim. Reixus [Talk] [Contribs] 09:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Add - Reixus - now you're trying to add [1] a bunch of non- WP:MEDRS sources despite knowing well from the discussions at WT:MED this is not going to fly. What is going on? Alexbrn ( talk) 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
What about using antipsychotics to punish people? E.g. cataracts, brain damage, forced overdosages like they do in russia.
I have seen the death of 7 patients. They all complaint about bedingen forced to take large amounts E.g. 40 mg olanzapine a day causing vomiting blood.
I Status someone going into death of just 1 mg risperidon. Angiodeem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.231.37.210 ( talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, that is a very good point, please help us include details of these horrible drugs. They should not be given to animals never mind humans.
While corruption certainly exists, even within the medical community, these claims are anecdotal, and would require a reputable source to verify. Ray.MacNeil ( talk) 08:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
According to this table https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/epdf/10.1176/appi.books.9780890424841 made by THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION updated in 2021, there is some need to double check the binding profile. Iohhnky2005 ( talk) 11:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)