Talk:COVID-19 drug repurposing research/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

FDA tweet

Twitter is not a reliable source, and the informal wording suggests it is not supposed to be taken as an official statement by the FDA. Quoting the tweet without the context of the article that was attached to it is potentially misleading about the scientific reasons for opposing the treatment. Should we remove the tweet? TWM03 (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it should stay. It's a tweet from an official US federal government agency. The article doesn't provide much more context; it's pretty much just "Stop it." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least link to the article as per WP:HEADLINE? TWM03 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Fluvoxamine

Appropriate here? (The article section already cites The Lancet Global Health.) Mapsax (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

New information on ivermectin side effects

Hello, as the title suggests new information has revealed the side effects of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment from the New England Journal of Medicine. I believe this would be a good contribution to the article. Obama gaming (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a letter so not WP:MEDRS, but maybe some of the statistical information may be useful - not here though, as this is an article about research activity. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh I just read it again, there are references within the letters to said statistics. Also, which article do you think I should put this under? Regards Obama gaming (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe at COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin ? Alexbrn (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers mate I'll take a geez Obama gaming (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Spironolactone

"Scientists offer hope after trials show a combination of spironolactone and dexamethasone work far better than dexamethasone alone" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/spidex-drug-cocktail-could-defeat-new-covid-variant/ 2600:8804:6600:83:89EB:A1DD:FFCA:B3CA (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Any WP:MEDRS? This seems to be a news story based on a tiny trial in an iffy journal. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Humour content

Background: The Ivermectin section of this article contains a humourous tweet from the FDA with the text "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." I removed this yesterday, with the edit summary "Rm humorous FDA tweet. The FDA's actual position is in the adjacent text, and the joke is very unbefitting for an encyclopedia article on a medical topic." This was then reverted by User:TrangaBellam with the summary "Disagree."

Wikipedia is intended to present neutral, informative, encyclopedic content, not to make fun of wrong people. Specifically, this article is supposed to explain about COVID-19 drug repurposing research. I have yet to see any possible justification for keeping the joke tweet in the article. --Yair rand (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In absence of any attempt at justifying its inclusion, I have removed the aforementioned humour content. --Yair rand (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• It's fine. If it's what the FDA are saying then it's due (and of course behind it is the serious point that some people were taking horse paste for COVID, which is ... unwise). Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn: If it's necessary to make the point specifically about the use of ivermectin products intended for animals (beyond the existing mention of the resulting hospitalizations and deaths), the article can use the FDA's actual position statements on that. One does not explain medical knowledge in an encyclopedia through the use of jokes. --Yair rand (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    • One conveys how the FDA responded in this fashion by citing them though; that's the knowledge, and an interesting wrinkle to boot. We of course also say why ivermectin is what it is, using more sober words. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I added this tweet on 9 September, so of course I think it should stay. The tweet is about irrational collective behavior, misinformation and lack of evidence. The last aspect is related to the research, the first two are not. Of the five paragraphs on ivermectin, only the first two are about research and results. It would make sense to move the other three to COVID-19 misinformation § Ivermectin and then move the tweet with them. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This study found that zinc supplementation might be helpful

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923946/#s0020title

I am unable to add it to the main article, insufficient perms. If someone can add it to the article, tag me! --Cripplemac (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The journal is in the field of "Computational and structural biotechnology" and is not MEDLINE indexed. Both of these sugget it isn't a sufficient source for the claim. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fluvoxamine: weak sources?

@Alexbrn: In this edit, recommendations by the private JHMI and by the independent Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table (partly funded by Public Health Ontario) were removed because they were considered weak sources. They look like filtered information sources to me, am I wrong? Of course the assessment by the NIH could be mentioned. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, looking again the Ontario source (but not the Johns Hopkins one) is fine - except it's about clinical practice so not really relevant to an article on "repurposing research". Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the recommendation is based on low certainty evidence, COVID-19 § Treatment doesn't seem like a good place to mention this. Why not the Johns Hopkins source? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Because of WP:MEDRS. What one hospital does might be weird/wrong (and, in the USA, increasingly so). Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Omega-3

@Alexbrn: You reverted https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636763/ (Free PCM article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318894/) -- why do you think it's a weak source? --Bawanio (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

One is not a review in a Frontiers Media journal, the other is in a weak, non-MEDLINE indexed source. If Wikipedia is going to entertain the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that fish oil is an effective treatment for COVID-19 (seriously?) then we're going to need appropriate golden sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)