| Revision as of 04:18, 16 January 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:17, 17 January 2016 edit undoElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits →This reads like an advertisement, but it's for a very controversial drug.: Promotional material removed.Next edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| ::Please stop defending your $%@$#%^!#!. Thanks. I was asked reasonable questions about the accounts here, and replied, as I am required to do, here, yet you direct your demand at me. I've <s>struck</s> the user's socks' comments on this page. So there's probably no more I feel the need to discuss. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 22:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | ::Please stop defending your $%@$#%^!#!. Thanks. I was asked reasonable questions about the accounts here, and replied, as I am required to do, here, yet you direct your demand at me. I've <s>struck</s> the user's socks' comments on this page. So there's probably no more I feel the need to discuss. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 22:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::James is entitled to defend his friend and ally, however his minimizing of his friend's sockpuppetry is, IMO, far from exemplary. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | :::James is entitled to defend his friend and ally, however his minimizing of his friend's sockpuppetry is, IMO, far from exemplary. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::{{big|For any follow-up on this editor or their various socks, etc., folks should join the conversation "elsewhere" at ].}} | |||
| :::--]<sup>(]•])</sup> 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | :::--]<sup>(]•])</sup> 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::I've removed some promotional material that Jytdog had just added. As Jytdog said himself, "per WP:MEDRS we don't source health content to popular media. please see WP:MEDRS". LOL. --]<sup>(]•])</sup> 01:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == HealthNewsReview.org == | == HealthNewsReview.org == | ||
Revision as of 01:17, 17 January 2016
 | Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sacubitril/valsartan.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sacubitril/valsartan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Pharmacology Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This reads like an advertisement, but it's for a very controversial drug.
All mention of any of the prominent critical responses, e.g. those mentioned at http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2014/09/barcelona-buzz-about-heart-drug-news/ is lacking from the article. Hence the tagging. Do not remove the tags 'till this is addressed in the article.--Elvey 01:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The information in the article is all based on WP:MEDRS compliant sources. In contrast, www.healthnewsreviews.org is not compliant with MEDRS, and probably fails even the lower standards of WP:RS. So thus far you have not presented a plausible argument that the article is unbalanced.
I'm removing the flag for this reason, but if you find MEDRS compliant sources that express views divergent from those currently in the article, please feel free to add them. As it stands, there is no dispute about the addition of reliable medical sources expressing other POVs, so the flag is premature. 2600:1010:B043:EC75:EFAD:9D0C:D710:2720 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Heres a pubmed search on the drug. There does not seem to be any controversy about this drug in the peer reviewed literature that I can see. It extends lives, and thats a good thing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Valsartan+sacubitril
2600:1010:B01D:46A9:1D35:CF9E:1113:134B (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Elvey: Since you obviously feel very strongly about this and your deletion of my comments on this Talk page seems to indicate a refusal to discuss with me, suggest we take this to the Medicine project talk page for outside input. 169.230.155.123 (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Posted a request for outside input at the Medicine page. 169.230.155.123 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good. Now log in and stop avoiding scrutiny by, e.g. using multiple accounts/IP addresses on multiple networks. --Elvey 20:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- all sources should follow Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) ,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Do you claim that all of the multiple sources of prominent critical responses, including the four mentioned at http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2014/09/barcelona-buzz-about-heart-drug-news/ violate MEDRS? If so, why? --Elvey 20:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure which four you are referring to. The Forbes blog is clearly non-MEDRS compliant. If I've correctly identified the other 3 sources as blogs, they are at a minimum lower quality sources than review articles published in peer-reviewed journals by cardiologists, and we generally don't use lower quality sources to rebut or "debunk" higher quality sources.
- I have no objection to the addition of the ICER source, but there is no controversy, they say pretty much what the other sources say with a bit more skepticism. Their conclusion states:
- "We judge there to be moderate certainty of an incremental to substantial net benefit for Entresto compared to standard of care with ACE inhibitor treatment in patients with Class II-IV CHF and reduced ejection fraction. There is moderate certainty because the PARADIGM-HF trial was a large, good quality study in which Entresto produced significant reductions in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality as well as in heart failure specific hospitalization and ED visits in comparison to an agent that itself has demonstrated clinical benefits in these domains. Some uncertainties remain, however, including the relative contribution of sacubitril versus valsartan to these results, the expected tolerability of Entresto, its clinical performance in real-world practice, and its potential for harm in certain patient subgroups.
- Given the entire body of evidence, our rating of comparative clinical effectiveness using the ICER Evidence Rating framework is B+ (“Incremental or better”).
- This material should be merged into the medical uses section with the other reviews and a more representative statement of the group's conclusions should be used.
- As for the IP addresses, I acknowledge responsibility for the 73, 169, and 2600 accounts. I am not a registered user (nor do the rules here require me to do so), so my edits will show up as whatever IP address I am at when I enter them. I have not attempted to deceive anyone or pretend to be multiple users. I apologize however, for not explicitly stating this connection before. 169.230.155.123 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- You claim you are not a registered user but that is not true; your account is blocked. Actually, 169.230.155.123 (talk • contribs) is a sock puppet of Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 (talk • contribs). Comments
struck, accordingly, and if I see any further activity, I will ask that all your many, many IPs be blocked. --Elvey 01:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- You claim you are not a registered user but that is not true; your account is blocked. Actually, 169.230.155.123 (talk • contribs) is a sock puppet of Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 (talk • contribs). Comments
- User:Elvey which of the accounts you mentioned is blocked? And while this user is using IPs it is not clear they are a sock puppet or pretending these IPs are different people. Or have is missed that? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- What are you getting at? Are you disputing anything I've said? That he's using many, many IPs - which is what the closes of WP:SPI I opened indicate? That it's avoiding scrutiny to not use the main account (Formerly 98) that he has opened, and rather edit from a veritable shit ton of IPs? That such scrutiny avoidance is by definition, sock puppetry? Do you know this user? You're in the same city, IIRC. --Elvey 03:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- You mentioned an account was blocked. I am simply asking you to list what account is blocked.
- The user is not pretending that this IPs are different people. That is required for sock puppetry to be present. Can you link to the case?
- Yes they have an abandoned account but it does not appear they are using that account.
- I have never meet this person. And no we are not in the same city. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree; avoiding scrutiny means sock puppetry is present. You asked for a link to the case; the case says in part, "Two sock IPs blocked." So, can you accept or are you still disputing that he was using many, many IPs - which is what the closes of WP:SPI I opened indicate? It sounds like you either dispute that it's avoiding scrutiny to not use the main account that he has opened, and rather edit from a veritable shit ton of IPs, or you dispute that such scrutiny avoidance is by definition, sock puppetry. Which do you dispute? Do you dispute that the user cannot edit with the vanished account? Sorry about the city mix-up. --Elvey 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- We all agree that this user is using a number of IP accounts. The question asked here and which is not answered is is this "abusive socking"?
- What I am saying is that this user was 1) being harassed 2) therefore vanished 3) decided they still wanted to edit Misplaced Pages so came back as IPs
- I am not sure if they still are able to edit from that Vanished user account. It has not been used since May 2015 If the IPs and the vanished user account were being used at the same time I agree their would be a big issue. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree; avoiding scrutiny means sock puppetry is present. You asked for a link to the case; the case says in part, "Two sock IPs blocked." So, can you accept or are you still disputing that he was using many, many IPs - which is what the closes of WP:SPI I opened indicate? It sounds like you either dispute that it's avoiding scrutiny to not use the main account that he has opened, and rather edit from a veritable shit ton of IPs, or you dispute that such scrutiny avoidance is by definition, sock puppetry. Which do you dispute? Do you dispute that the user cannot edit with the vanished account? Sorry about the city mix-up. --Elvey 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- What are you getting at? Are you disputing anything I've said? That he's using many, many IPs - which is what the closes of WP:SPI I opened indicate? That it's avoiding scrutiny to not use the main account (Formerly 98) that he has opened, and rather edit from a veritable shit ton of IPs? That such scrutiny avoidance is by definition, sock puppetry? Do you know this user? You're in the same city, IIRC. --Elvey 03:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any evidence of your 1 or 2, but even assuming 1 & 2, the sock puppetry inherent in 3 is not justified, even if it is somewhat understandable.
Has anyone else noticed that user reportedly claims to have no CoI, but edits from machines with hostnames including:
- DIR-601-169230155132.ucsf.edu.
- udp071243uds.ucsf.edu.
- null-c42c03300974.ucsf.edu.
FYI,Doors22
? (Apropos https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#COI_and_edits_by_Formerly_98 !)
It sounds like you either dispute that it's avoiding scrutiny to not use the main account that he has opened, and rather edit from IPs, or you dispute that such scrutiny avoidance is by definition, sock puppetry. Which do you dispute? --Elvey 03:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please use the Talk page to discuss the article. If you have issues with other editors please discuss them elsewhere. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop defending your $%@$#%^!#!. Thanks. I was asked reasonable questions about the accounts here, and replied, as I am required to do, here, yet you direct your demand at me. It has been found that you Formerly 98 have been using one or more accounts or IPs abusively. I've
struckthe user's socks' comments on this page. So there's probably no more I feel the need to discuss. --Elvey 22:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)- James is entitled to defend his friend and ally, however his minimizing of his friend's sockpuppetry is, IMO, far from exemplary. --Elvey 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- --Elvey 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop defending your $%@$#%^!#!. Thanks. I was asked reasonable questions about the accounts here, and replied, as I am required to do, here, yet you direct your demand at me. It has been found that you Formerly 98 have been using one or more accounts or IPs abusively. I've
- I've removed some promotional material that Jytdog had just added. As Jytdog said himself, "per WP:MEDRS we don't source health content to popular media. please see WP:MEDRS". LOL. --Elvey 01:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
HealthNewsReview.org
HealthNewsReview.org is peer-reviewed. http://www.healthnewsreview.org/about-us/reviewers/ I don't see any reason why it isn't a WP:MEDRS. --Nbauman (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Categories: