--- 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
I added a section on memory loss to that article, and used the source you
cited as well as a Wall Street Journal article. I don't much care for the
Telegraph myself, and didn't use it. In fact it was an anecdotal account
of a single person.
Now, let's see if anyone shows up to remove this black mark... And
observe how they go about it.
Fred