--- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor
would try to stop
mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the
media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's
exactly what happens on these articles, but it's unfortunately
Wikipedians who are doing it. Their motives are good -- to keep out
nonsense -- but the effect is to turn those articles into something
the manufacturers and their PR people would be very happy with.
Look at our article --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There
is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the
company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription
of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another
statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material.
Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you
almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4974840/Wonder-drug-that-stole-my-memory.…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5257744/Statins-life-saving-wonder-drugs-…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/4204363/The-worrying-wonder-d…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498489.stm
Sarah
To be sure, information on side effects can be found in the scholarly literature. This is
usually where the press gets it from.
Enter simvastatin + "memory loss" in google scholar, and you get 1,950 (!) hits,
including this study from 2001:
http://www.atypon-link.com/PPI/doi/abs/10.1592/phco.21.7.767.34577
"Statin-associated memory loss: analysis of 60 case reports and review of the
literature" (2003) has 130 scholarly citations, providing ample justification to
include the study's findings in the relevant article(s).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12885101
As far as reporting of such scientific results is concerned, scholarly sources are
preferable.
What the media add, as in the BBC article you linked, is the socio-economic,
current-affairs angle -- pointing out the economies involved, the millions and billions
that pharmaceutical companies make off these drugs, and the promotional and propaganda
efforts that this necessarily entails.
That is something clinical studies will not address. Articles on such products need
something like a "reception" section. Media articles are indispensable for that.
WP:MEDRS specifically allows the use of media sources for such purposes. If editors
edit-war this information out, it needs to go to a noticeboard, or to arbitration.
Andreas