Talk:Ampligen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ampligen is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Trials 2 Expert Help 3 With regard to User:Zanzibarlo and User:Zarzine 4 With regard to User:Thedreamdied 5 With regard to contributing 6 Citations 7 Asensio etc 8 Ampligen and HIV

[edit] Trials

There seems to be some disagreement between sources... [1] suggests that phase III clinical trials have been completed. while another part of their website [2] suggests they are currently enrolling, in agreement with the government clinical trials website, [3]. If anyone could shed some light on this, it would be welcome. Thedreamdied 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The first link probably refers to the Phase III trial started in June 1997 (see e.g. http://www.cfids-me.org/cfscc/amptestimony.html). The other two links seem to refer to a different (new) study. FWIW... AvB ÷ talk 16:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thank you. Thedreamdied 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC

The entire Ampligen entry is incorrect and needs to be rewritten by a specialist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zanzibarlo (talk • contribs).

[edit] Expert Help

I feel that the entire 'Mechanism of Action' section is a bit confusing/weak and probably misleading/wrong. Perhaps you could help out? Thedreamdied 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire Ampligen entry is incorrect and needs to be rewritten by a specialist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zanzibarlo (talk • contribs).

[edit] With regard to User:Zanzibarlo and User:Zarzine

Blanking the article is unhelpful: and suggesting that "The entire Ampligen entry is incorrect and needs to be rewritten by a specialist" with the explanation "It was for the greater part incorrect, misleading and biased" is unhelpful - where is it incorrect, where is it misleading, and why is it biased? Feel free to correct any errors you see, with valid sources. Thedreamdied 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With regard to User:Thedreamdied

Your contribution contains big mistakes (e.g. Ampligen phase III trial for CFS was completed in 2004, Bioclones' marketing rights are being challenged by Hemispherx Biopharma, Ampligen raw materials are no longer manufactured by Ribotech) and lacks relevant indispensable elements (e.g. the results of the phase II and phase III trials for Ampligen for CFS, relevant Ampligen patents)while containing a lot of irrelevant material (patent to infuse tobacco ). The serious side-effects you refer to lack correct evidence. The link you offer is a testimony of one person who cannot even prove that her problems were caused by Ampligen... I consider you lack the necessary competences and knowledge to write a serious article about Ampligen. It's a hopeless task to correct all the mistakes and the set-up of this entry, so someone should start from scratch.Wamper 11:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that there may be some mistakes in the article - information on Ampligen is not readily available, it seems, and I will make the corrections you have outlined.

Secondly, you may class information as 'indispensable' but that does not neccessarily make it so - the article is not intended to be a list of every result for every clinical trial.

On the subject of the serious side effects in the section 'Impact', you are on reflection probably right. The evidence probably fails verifiability, and I will remove it.

However, to suggest that I 'lack the necessary competences and knowledge to write a serious article about Ampligen' somewhat misses the point of wikipedia - it is compiled by people who are not necessarily experts on what is written. Instead of being overly critical and unhelpful, it would be more useful if you were to constructively help in improving the article, making corrections where you feel they are necessary and adding relevant information.

Incidentally, I didnt add the bit about infusing ampligen with tobacco. Thedreamdied 13:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I don't feel called upon to contribute, let me suggest you to compare the Wikipedia Ampligen entry with the information in the following fairly dependable research report http://www.boenningandscattergood.com/research/CI/HEB%20%282006.12.1%29.pdf and in the Sec filings of Hemispherx Biopharma http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000946644&owner=include As Ampligen is an experimental drug, I would wait for an EMEA European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) http://www.emea.eu.int/htms/human/epar/eparintro.htm or FDA equivalent Wamper 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] With regard to contributing

I have nevertheless tried to correct some errors and have added a number of useful references. The original entry was a blot on Wikipedia.Wamper 10:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the original entry was, although relatively new, already a good Wikipedia article and shaping up to be a great one when you and your clones came along. The article had been built up from scratch almost singlehandedly by the editor whose work you are still putting down and obstructing by undue use of the Wikipedia AfD process. The same editor had just been put down personally, harassed, edit-warred and generally suffered from attacks by a string of single-use accounts. What makes matters worse is the possibility that User:Thedreamdied is probably a CFS patient, hampered in editing here by an intractible illness and looking forward to become a Hemispherx client if the drug is approved. As you may have noticed, all this has led to your and all of the other accounts being marked as possible sock puppets of the first abusive user. Currently you are not an editor in good standing. I could say more but I'll spend the time I intended to edit the article on bringing your recent edits up to Wikipedia standards.

Nevertheless, it is good to see you doing what many thousands of dedicated editors have been doing all along: making Wikipedia great by improving articles. I hope this means that you are discovering what makes Wikipedia tick and intend to do some real editing here. If so, you are most welcome. Please remember to make sure your edits adhere to WP:NPOV and other rules, and only (re-)introduce disputed edits after a consensus has been reached on the talk page. If you think an article, sentence or word introduces bias, all you have to do is discuss on the talk page and where necessary use our WP:DR process, e.g. bringing in uninvolved editors to make sure the consensus process is working and the rules are being followed. AvB ÷ talk 12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS You have already demonstrated that you can initiate an AfD. Do you think you, as the nominator, are up to closing the AfD in keeping with the relevant rules and procedures? The result of the AfD is, obviously, a Speedy Keep. I'll also try to find an uninvolved editor with a mop but it would be simply excellent if you took up the chore. AvB ÷ talk 12:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have given it the try, please check it out, as I'm not sure it is OK.Wamper 13:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looking at it now. AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

For all citations, a separate entry in the References section is required. I added one citation with a template as footnote, but maybe you prefer to stick with embedded citations, in which case the references need to be added separately another time. Tikiwont 10:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CITE for information on how to include inline citations in articles. The 'references' section is for inline citations. If you want to add extra titles that are not cited by the article text, they would go in a 'further reading' section. Dr. Cash 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asensio etc

I'm not sure its really that relevant to the article to have so much about it. Perhaps a 'Hemispherx Biopharma' article could be created, with an explanation of their controversial history? Thedreamdied 14:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the fortunes of Ampligen are likely to be closely tied up with ALL the obstacles it has met on its way. So we should not forget one. But feel free to cut down the Asensio story if you think it is too wordy.Wamper 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the fortunes of Hemispherx are likely to be closely tied up with the fortunes of Ampligen. Normally I would say that a separate company article is a good idea, but I'm not so sure in this case. The story of Ampligen is the story of Hemispherx. For now I've created two Hemispherx redirect pages. AvB ÷ talk 11:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Hemispherx have other drugs, some of which i put on wikipedia, such as Alferon LDO, which are now ignored by the redirect to this article. Thedreamdied 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if the articles on the separate products would be small, we tend to write a single article on both the company and its products, redirecting the drug names to the main article. But you're right, I thought they only had Ampligen and Ampligen-derived Oragen. Since Alferon is clearly unrelated to Ampligen, it may indeed be useful to start a separate HEB article. I think we have sufficient content regarding the drugs themselves to warrant separate articles. AvB ÷ talk 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ampligen and HIV

According to here, Ampligen is mainly for CFS as well as HIV, which is barely mentioned in the article. AMP 720 is listed here, and there seems to be quite a lot of info available generally. Thedreamdied 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)