![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Oxeladin.
|
Is this Ethylmorphine? Biscuittin ( talk) 10:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Bequisan is not Oxeladin, see [1]. This leads me to wonder whether the whole article is a hoax. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the Hoax tag because I have found a WHO ref. [2] Biscuittin ( talk) 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire article reeks of conflict of interest. I've rarely seen pharmacology articles praising a drug that much, let alone with that amount of unsubstantiated claims. There is also no explanation of its actual mechanism of action, and much like the (probably scam) medicine
pholcodine, its sellers claim that it somehow selectively acts on the cough center. For bloodborne drugs in general, there is no way of selectively acting on specific parts of the nervous system other than targeting receptors or receptor sub-types that are specific to said parts : the cough center does not have that kind of target. Such claims are unfortunately very common, but nonetheless nonsensical.
Also noteworthy :
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Oxeladin.
|
Is this Ethylmorphine? Biscuittin ( talk) 10:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Bequisan is not Oxeladin, see [1]. This leads me to wonder whether the whole article is a hoax. Biscuittin ( talk) 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the Hoax tag because I have found a WHO ref. [2] Biscuittin ( talk) 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The entire article reeks of conflict of interest. I've rarely seen pharmacology articles praising a drug that much, let alone with that amount of unsubstantiated claims. There is also no explanation of its actual mechanism of action, and much like the (probably scam) medicine
pholcodine, its sellers claim that it somehow selectively acts on the cough center. For bloodborne drugs in general, there is no way of selectively acting on specific parts of the nervous system other than targeting receptors or receptor sub-types that are specific to said parts : the cough center does not have that kind of target. Such claims are unfortunately very common, but nonetheless nonsensical.
Also noteworthy :