This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone please contribute to this as the numbers change. Thank you so much. Kenn
Wonderful work adding folks, again thanks
The link CDC Multistate Meningitis Outbreak Investigation page is to a page that is continually updated and changing. It's not a WP:RS, because it's not verifiable -- when somebody tries to get a fact, they get a page that doesn't support the claim that cites it.
We should change it to a fixed, unchanging page at the CDC, as I've been trying to do. In fact, since the CDC is a primary source, and WP:RSs should be reliable secondary sources, we should link to reliable secondary sources. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times have been publishing good stories about the epidemic, although some people may find other reliable sources. Just stay away from Yahoo News; they delete their stories before very long. -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Colleagues: I feel that the CDC is a reliable secondary source for the aggregated statistical data. It meets the basic WP:RS criteria: 1) It is not anonomyous, 2) it has a longstanding and good repuation, and 3) It is aggregating and reporting data from primary sources. the traditional press is not the only possible type of secondary reliable source, and in some contextsw the traditional press is not to be trusted: see WP:MEDRES. It is true that there are problems with using the ephemeral page at CDC instead of a permanent page. Let's work together to fix this. The ephemeral page will be very useful for interested readers, so we should link to it somehow. However, we may need to use the (less ephemeral) topmost CDC page for formal references. Can we find an acceptable way to do this? - Arch dude ( talk) 23:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good story from Reuters about how compounding pharmacies became popular to supply specialized formulations and generic drugs that were no longer available because they went off patent, how they had infections and other problems, which led to attempts at regulation, which they defeated by lobbying.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/772696 Reuters Health Information Insight: How Compounding Pharmacies Rallied Patients to Fight Regulation By Sharon Begley Medscape, Oct 16, 2012
-- Nbauman ( talk) 21:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Some editors add this number to the article. Does anyone have a source for "three cases"? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This event actually reminds me a lot of the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) scandal. Things starts out fine. Then the company directors starts to encourage or take short cuts that are dangerous for patients. But there are no checks or they check the wrong things. In the PIP case the sterility of the assembly were checked but not the substances used (breast implants). Patients start to get sick and the cause is traced. Media shock and court battles ensue. The actual culprints seems to be:
Poor inspections (wrong things, too few, not thorough, etc), lack of vigilance on correlated compliance failures, insufficient regulation, all applies. As usual. Next some Harrisburg-II ..? Electron9 ( talk) 01:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that we should list every single suit that has been filed. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 03:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"In July 2015 the 14 suspects accused of being involved in a criminal conspiracy that led to the fungal meningitis outbreak were scheduled to go to trial in April 2016." This needs adding; a source is here: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2015/07/02/date-set-fungal-meningitis-criminal-trial/29639717/
Mydogtrouble ( talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a charged topic and I would like to see a section added to the article. Numerous mentions were made by GOP candidate Mitt Romney of burdensome regulations and this situation seems to epitomize the necessity of those regulations. Any thoughts? -- Wikipietime ( talk) 06:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
NECC should have been under FDA regulations as a drug manufacturer, but escaped that through some kind of political deal. WHO cut the deal to put it back under the MA Board of Registration in Pharmacy, which doesn't regulate manufacturers is the question. FDA regs would have been sufficient. Political deal-cutting caused this, not insufficient regulations on the books.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 04:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really going to wade into this article as its a bit outside my interests, but just as a comment I was struck by its tone, which seems to be to obsessively calculate the exact level of blame assignable for every person and entity involved, and ensure that each of them is castigated appropriately.
We all know there was criminal behavior here, no shortage of regulatory negligence, and lots of legislative failure as well. But the moralizing is so thick it could be cut with a knife. As the truism goes, its not necessary to tell our readers that Hitler was evil. And to do so to some extent is insulting to the reader's intelligence. Just tell the story, they'll figure it out on their own! Formerly 98 ( talk) 15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
With this edit summary:
Prescribing of steroids for back and joint pain: entire section gave a 1-sided view of a procedure that is supported by most systematic reviews published post-2013. Rehashing that debate here would be off-topic, so removed) and IP editor removed this section. I have restored it while I wait to see the recent reviews that the editor speaks of. I don't see anything since the last Cochrane review. Gandydancer ( talk) 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Already formatted the source if someone wants to add to the article. [1] MartinezMD ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer: The article is somewhat long at 59kB (recommended divided at 60kB) and is about the outbreak. Why are the incremental dates of the vote steps of subsequent legislation needed when the final passage date is already in the section? The name, link, description, and passage date of the law are all in the paragraph as I had left it. The legislation is linked and it gives a detailed account of preliminary steps to pass it. In your reversion, you commented that it is not an improvement, but reducing long article sizes is. MartinezMD ( talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The first paragraph states that there have been over 100 deaths, but the infobox only says 64. The number of sickened people and non-fatal injuries also varies. RajanD100 ( talk) 01:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone please contribute to this as the numbers change. Thank you so much. Kenn
Wonderful work adding folks, again thanks
The link CDC Multistate Meningitis Outbreak Investigation page is to a page that is continually updated and changing. It's not a WP:RS, because it's not verifiable -- when somebody tries to get a fact, they get a page that doesn't support the claim that cites it.
We should change it to a fixed, unchanging page at the CDC, as I've been trying to do. In fact, since the CDC is a primary source, and WP:RSs should be reliable secondary sources, we should link to reliable secondary sources. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times have been publishing good stories about the epidemic, although some people may find other reliable sources. Just stay away from Yahoo News; they delete their stories before very long. -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Colleagues: I feel that the CDC is a reliable secondary source for the aggregated statistical data. It meets the basic WP:RS criteria: 1) It is not anonomyous, 2) it has a longstanding and good repuation, and 3) It is aggregating and reporting data from primary sources. the traditional press is not the only possible type of secondary reliable source, and in some contextsw the traditional press is not to be trusted: see WP:MEDRES. It is true that there are problems with using the ephemeral page at CDC instead of a permanent page. Let's work together to fix this. The ephemeral page will be very useful for interested readers, so we should link to it somehow. However, we may need to use the (less ephemeral) topmost CDC page for formal references. Can we find an acceptable way to do this? - Arch dude ( talk) 23:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good story from Reuters about how compounding pharmacies became popular to supply specialized formulations and generic drugs that were no longer available because they went off patent, how they had infections and other problems, which led to attempts at regulation, which they defeated by lobbying.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/772696 Reuters Health Information Insight: How Compounding Pharmacies Rallied Patients to Fight Regulation By Sharon Begley Medscape, Oct 16, 2012
-- Nbauman ( talk) 21:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Some editors add this number to the article. Does anyone have a source for "three cases"? Gandydancer ( talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This event actually reminds me a lot of the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) scandal. Things starts out fine. Then the company directors starts to encourage or take short cuts that are dangerous for patients. But there are no checks or they check the wrong things. In the PIP case the sterility of the assembly were checked but not the substances used (breast implants). Patients start to get sick and the cause is traced. Media shock and court battles ensue. The actual culprints seems to be:
Poor inspections (wrong things, too few, not thorough, etc), lack of vigilance on correlated compliance failures, insufficient regulation, all applies. As usual. Next some Harrisburg-II ..? Electron9 ( talk) 01:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that we should list every single suit that has been filed. Thoughts? Gandydancer ( talk) 03:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"In July 2015 the 14 suspects accused of being involved in a criminal conspiracy that led to the fungal meningitis outbreak were scheduled to go to trial in April 2016." This needs adding; a source is here: http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2015/07/02/date-set-fungal-meningitis-criminal-trial/29639717/
Mydogtrouble ( talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a charged topic and I would like to see a section added to the article. Numerous mentions were made by GOP candidate Mitt Romney of burdensome regulations and this situation seems to epitomize the necessity of those regulations. Any thoughts? -- Wikipietime ( talk) 06:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
NECC should have been under FDA regulations as a drug manufacturer, but escaped that through some kind of political deal. WHO cut the deal to put it back under the MA Board of Registration in Pharmacy, which doesn't regulate manufacturers is the question. FDA regs would have been sufficient. Political deal-cutting caused this, not insufficient regulations on the books.-- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 04:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really going to wade into this article as its a bit outside my interests, but just as a comment I was struck by its tone, which seems to be to obsessively calculate the exact level of blame assignable for every person and entity involved, and ensure that each of them is castigated appropriately.
We all know there was criminal behavior here, no shortage of regulatory negligence, and lots of legislative failure as well. But the moralizing is so thick it could be cut with a knife. As the truism goes, its not necessary to tell our readers that Hitler was evil. And to do so to some extent is insulting to the reader's intelligence. Just tell the story, they'll figure it out on their own! Formerly 98 ( talk) 15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
With this edit summary:
Prescribing of steroids for back and joint pain: entire section gave a 1-sided view of a procedure that is supported by most systematic reviews published post-2013. Rehashing that debate here would be off-topic, so removed) and IP editor removed this section. I have restored it while I wait to see the recent reviews that the editor speaks of. I don't see anything since the last Cochrane review. Gandydancer ( talk) 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Already formatted the source if someone wants to add to the article. [1] MartinezMD ( talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer: The article is somewhat long at 59kB (recommended divided at 60kB) and is about the outbreak. Why are the incremental dates of the vote steps of subsequent legislation needed when the final passage date is already in the section? The name, link, description, and passage date of the law are all in the paragraph as I had left it. The legislation is linked and it gives a detailed account of preliminary steps to pass it. In your reversion, you commented that it is not an improvement, but reducing long article sizes is. MartinezMD ( talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The first paragraph states that there have been over 100 deaths, but the infobox only says 64. The number of sickened people and non-fatal injuries also varies. RajanD100 ( talk) 01:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)