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
Could add info on clinical trials, side effects and cost - especially since it is being promoted as having fewer side-effects than statins. -
Rod57 (
talk)
14:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/12/e060172 implies that there was fraud and deaths were covered up. I could use some help covering the issue in the article. I see this kind of shit over and over; I fear my anger may come across in my contributions if I edit directly. (No, no COI, just sick of corruption in medicine.)
RudolfoMD (
talk)
07:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RudolfoMD: Individual studies can be used sometimes and with caution in editing health-related articles on Wikipedia, but the recommendations of
MEDRS should be kept in mind.
If you want to propose a change here, on the talk page, rather than editing the article directly, it would allow other editors to weigh in and see if a consensus can be found. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Good advice/valid points. Consensus - another reason to seek help.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/12/e060172.responses has several comments on the paper. In the last one, Amgen was asked to release more info - back in January. Perhaps they have. If so, that would be reassuring; if not, that's a red flag.
Is Altrimetric itself a better source for saying that concerns about mortality rate reporting in the FOURIER study attracted some controversy in the media -
https://bmj.altmetric.com/details/140671672/news? You urge me to propose a change, so perhaps saying just that/something like that?
Or should the industry news articles be used, or something else said? (Seems clear these are not the general news media MEDRS discourages.)
RudolfoMD (
talk)
23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Just a note, I have closed the {{help me}}, as this has become a consensus-building process and no longer a one-off help request. I have cross-posted at
WT:MED to hopefully get more involvement.
Primefac (
talk)
08:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
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
Could add info on clinical trials, side effects and cost - especially since it is being promoted as having fewer side-effects than statins. -
Rod57 (
talk)
14:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/12/e060172 implies that there was fraud and deaths were covered up. I could use some help covering the issue in the article. I see this kind of shit over and over; I fear my anger may come across in my contributions if I edit directly. (No, no COI, just sick of corruption in medicine.)
RudolfoMD (
talk)
07:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RudolfoMD: Individual studies can be used sometimes and with caution in editing health-related articles on Wikipedia, but the recommendations of
MEDRS should be kept in mind.
If you want to propose a change here, on the talk page, rather than editing the article directly, it would allow other editors to weigh in and see if a consensus can be found. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Good advice/valid points. Consensus - another reason to seek help.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/12/e060172.responses has several comments on the paper. In the last one, Amgen was asked to release more info - back in January. Perhaps they have. If so, that would be reassuring; if not, that's a red flag.
Is Altrimetric itself a better source for saying that concerns about mortality rate reporting in the FOURIER study attracted some controversy in the media -
https://bmj.altmetric.com/details/140671672/news? You urge me to propose a change, so perhaps saying just that/something like that?
Or should the industry news articles be used, or something else said? (Seems clear these are not the general news media MEDRS discourages.)
RudolfoMD (
talk)
23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Just a note, I have closed the {{help me}}, as this has become a consensus-building process and no longer a one-off help request. I have cross-posted at
WT:MED to hopefully get more involvement.
Primefac (
talk)
08:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply