Talk:Thalidomide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. | |
| Unassessed | rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
Thalidomide is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
[edit] Effects in all animals tested
it did cause effects in all animals tested according to:
- someone would remove genuine content from an encyclopedia article, rather than just move it to emphasize the items of more general interest. Brian Rock 17:24, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Use of phrase "non-animal"
I tp://www.k-faktor.com/thalidomide/ which I would suggest to add to the article, although there are no external links so far. Would that be o.k.?
[edit] Notes and queries
Thalidomide analogues are being trialled for my(l)odisplasia (Spelling?) , and should be linked from here. I think Thalidomide is used to treat leprosy. Rich Farmbrough 10:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't immediately find evidence in Google for the very surprising claim that: "It was later discovered that the disabilities and deformities in many Thalidomide survivors are passed on to the survivor's own children through DNA.". Perhaps it should be deleted? Erik Corry
Erik, there were some articles about this last year, one of them on BBC. I will try to find it. L.D. Bear 17:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added info from a 2003 WHO newsletter (cited in external links). I was unable to find a retraction, or further information on the WHO site, so if anyone finds more updated information, go ahead and update. I did find medical articles from the 1990s saying the "second generation" link is unfounded, but thought a more recent article from the WHO might substantiate the claim enough to mention that the possibility has not been completely dismissed. --L.D. Bear 21:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There's a 2002 article saying second generation effects haven't been proven, at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1124708 . I found the WHO newsletter (and fixed the link on the main page) referred to above. It cites as "evidence" two news media articles. One is BBC in 2000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/952982.stm), the other Sunday Times Focus, 1997 (http://www.whale . to/drugs/thalidomide.html). The 1997 article is based on some of McBride's work that has been soundly criticized. Why is WHO citing the popular press instead of the scientific journal? I'm voting with the opinion pieces from the late '90's, saying that there's no data for thalidomide being a mutagen, and that the few cases where there is an apparent second-generation effect are actually mis-classified genetic defects that are NOT thalidomide-related. (See this article from Drug Safety, 1998 for more: http://www.thalidomide.ca/en/information/thalidomide_2nd_generation.html). I'd like to further down-play the possibility of second generation defects in the article - suggestions for how to do this? Csari 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tacked on some information about second-gen effects in the "technical details" section. Editing welcome. Csari 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
On a possibly-related note, why is this page tagged with "Carcinogens"?? Any data? Csari 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to add some information on repercussions of the thalidomide incidents? I am particularly thinking of a phrase I just came across in a Cato Institute Policy Analysis called "Demonizing Drugmakers: The Political Assault on the Pharmaceutical Industry." It's a relatively minor mention under a section on the FDA... "Today, the FDA must certify prescription medicines for both safety and efficacy. The latter requirement was passed after the thalidomide scare in 1962. In the absence of that unnecessary mandate..." etc. Politics aside, was the thalidomide scare responsible for expanding the FDA's role in drug approval? Thanks! --Shae 16:22, 28 May 2005
[edit] General
Let's not forget to quote our sources everyone. We need to improve Wikipedia's credibility.
CHEA!
82.233.236.67
I removed the reference to portmanteau words in relation to the term "Contergankind", which does not fit the definiton given in the article on portmanteau words. In fact, the German language uses such compound nouns on an everyday basis, and they are not generally considered neologisms, neither do they fuse different grammatical functions or meanings.
- Fair comment. I wrote this bit, and I stand corrected. --Portnadler 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
A discussion about merging Neurosedyn into this article is being held at Talk:Neurosedyn. // Habj 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Based on the discussion there, I have merged the articles. The old Neurosedyn article contained excellent information about specifics for Sweeden, perhaps someone can look at this revision [1] and see if any more needs merged over. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've also removed the internal links to Neurosedyn, since they now loop back here. --Portnadler 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BBC article about use of Thalidomide for brain tumours in children
I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to edit the article myself, and I don't even know whether this is new, but I noticed this on the BBC website today: Cancer children given Thalidomide. It's only a short article, with little detail, but it caught my eye. Loganberry (Talk) 14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "flids"
Where does this term come from? Is it through saying "thalidomide" quickly, and replacing the "th" with an "f", like a child would? Sorry, I'm no linguist, I'm sure there are technical terms for what I'm trying to describe... Or is there some other reason? Forgive me if I'm being painfully obtuse. Something tells me it's the first, but I want to be sure! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thalidomide and HIV/AIDS
For a while there was some talk about using thalidomide as an anti-HIV/AIDS therapy. Supposedly it worked well, though it was obviously ruled out for women who could become pregnant. What happened? Was it simply obsoleted by better treatments?
[edit] TOC
I'm not very good at editing but is there any way to move the table of contents from under the info box to under the first introductory paragraph? Its hard to find it because it almost looks like it blends in with the info box on teh right side. Rrten00 17:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FDA Approval and Thalidomide Today
I think the article would read better if the FDA approval was incorporated into the Possible indications section and the title changed. This would then give a more chronological description of the research that continued with Thalidomide from the 1960s to present day.
________
You might want to edit this for tone. The exclamation point, and exaspirated use of the term "incredibly," seem like editorializing.
[edit] Ambiguous use of phrase "in vivo"
The covertion between the (R) and (S) in terms of where it happens is unclear in this sentence under the heading "Teratogenic mechanism"
The enantiomers are converted to each other in vivo – that is, if a human is given (R)-thalidomide or (S)-thalidomide, both isomers can be found in the serum – therefore, administering only one enantiomer will not prevent the teratogenic effect in humans.
"In vivo" would suggest that the conversion takes place within the recepiant's body, however reference to a serum implies otherwise.
[edit] newly diagnosed
Any word on why it's only approved for newly diagnosed cases of MM? --Random832T 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible copyvio
Not sure what the "rules" are about this, but I couldn't help notice that the "History" section is copied nearly verbatim from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/2/404. Pnoeric 07:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- It looks indeed like an extensive rewrite of the page you provided. I will try and contact the author of the original history section. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Minor rephrasing suggestion
" The company began selling the drug over the counter in Germany in October 1957, under the brand name Contergan. The company claimed that "Even a determined suicide could not take enough Contergan to cause death" and "accidental overdoses by children would be unheard of with this drug." Soon the drug was being sold in 46 countries under "at least 37 names,"[3] without any additional independent testing, and was the drug of choice for pregnant women with morning sickness.[5] Not one of those statements turned out to be true. "
should be changed to
" The company began selling the drug over the counter in Germany in October 1957, under the brand name Contergan. The company claimed that "Even a determined suicide could not take enough Contergan to cause death" and "accidental overdoses by children would be unheard of with this drug." Not one of those statements turned out to be true. Soon the drug was being sold in 46 countries under "at least 37 names,"[3] without any additional independent testing, and was the drug of choice for pregnant women with morning sickness.[5] "
(i.e. i switched the order of the last two sentences)
Bayle Shanks 22:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Very true. That just occurred to me. 80.7.199.165 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
