Talk:Simvastatin

message: #Support as proposer. The 2018 review makes it clear why the relatively low cost of this medication is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * Oppose because the (good) originally cited source (as opposed to the one added later) doesn't say that.  Actually, it's not even clear what that sentence is supposed to mean.  User:Doc James, when you wrote that the drug is "relatively low cost", is that supposed to mean that:
*# it's "a kind of mediumly-low cost" ('relatively low' as contrasted with 'actually low'), or
*# "the cost went down, relative to the price charged at a different time period/under other circumstances", or
*# "the cost is low, relative to the cost of other drugs"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: * Wrong RFC. (The FULL RFC, linked below in Discussion section, has already rejected a good portion of this text; the additions just complicate it further.) Previous RFC already answered this; the text does not belong in the lead, and much of the text in the body is also disputed. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Neither 

message: I saw this discussion at WT:MED, under this discussion about the recently closed RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. This (new and immediately second) RFC is premature and malformed for two reasons. First, there was essentially no prior discussion about what should be in this particular RFC about this particular drug, after the price text was (twice) removed per the RFC,   and then later reinserted (twice) by James.  Second, the text proposed for discussion does not encompass the full disputed text.  Any conclusion reached about that one sentence is not helpful for any purpose, and an RFC to discuss that one sentence is not be likely to yield any useful conclusions.The full disputed text is more extensive, using again and still the kinds of sources discussed at the recently closed RFC:
* 
James, could you please begin to use edit summaries?  Editors removing the text per the RFC most kindly used full and descriptive edit summaries about why the text was being removed.  Since there are 530 articles to be reviewed, these edit summaries are helpful.  When reinstating text already removed once, per the RFC-- knowing the reinstated text is controversial-- an edit summary should be more descriptive than "adjusted".  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *  while I agree with your particular response about goodrx (and the good fortune we have to be able to use that app in the United States), the issue here (not explained because of how this RFC was launched, without discussion about how to frame the question) revolves around the Wikipedia policies WP:NOTPRICE, and WP:WEIGHT, and the guideline, WP:LEAD. An RFC closed only this week found no reason to alter the given policies for drug pricing in the lead. The proposed text is skating around that conclusion, and not addressing WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD or WP:NOTPRICE.  So the overall question is actually a different one, as to whether this information belongs in the LEAD (per the RFC and Wikipedia policy) or the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  21:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *  Thanks for the clarification. The way I read the guideline regarding price discussions is for comparisons of something like pricing comparisons of Macintosh vs Windows computers is not something to go into Wikipedia, but that it is very reasonable to say that the price of computers has come down a lot since the 1960s, when computers were priced in the 10s of millions of dollars are now only a thousand dollars. Simvastatin is not really a product. It is a chemical entity which is offered as a product by a number of manufacturers. That products containing simvastatin used to cost over a thousand dollars a year and now just cost less than $50 a year is analagous to saying products that provided computing capability that used to cost $10 million now just cost about a $1000. Kd4ttc (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about RFC 

message: Some like all encompassing RfC. I prefer very narrow ones. We can have more RfCs on other issues later.
@WAID I think people understand relatively low cost. It is why this source had no problem says it is relatively inexpensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Consumer reports list the "nationwide retail average for January 2014" which is not the NADAC nor the cost to the consumer after discounts. And it still shows simvastatin as relatively inexpensive... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by User Doc James

message: First, "everyone is to put comments in their own section" is not how an RfC works, unless by mutual agreement of those formulating the RfC. (For clarity, I don't agree.) Secondly, we already had this RfC and already had an answer. We are not going to keep having them. Pricing information goes in articles in accordance with WP:NOPRICES; that being, only when secondary sources substantially discuss, not just briefly mention, such information. There is certainly not enough discussion in secondary sources here to go in the lead, and there really isn't enough for it to go in the body either, just price directories and very brief, one-liner mentions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , it is certainly important to read sources rather than, say, just looking at the number of times certain words appear. As an example, two of those nineteen instances of "price" appear in the name "Matthew Price", and have nothing to do with the price of anything at all. So far as when price is discussed in conjunction with simvastatin, that occurs only briefly, for a single paragraph. That does discuss the price drop after the medicine went off patent leading to its recommendation as a replacement for higher-cost drugs, and I see nothing wrong if the body of the article mentions that fact. However, it does not say the drug is "relatively inexpensive", only less expensive than a few possible alternatives. The rest of the mention of price are not about simvastatin in particular. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Seraphimblade

message: I'm sorry, but I can't believe anybody could read through Modernizing the World Health Organization List of Essential Medicines for Preventing and Controlling Cardiovascular Diseases and conclude there is "" It makes clear that simvastatin is the representative example of the therapeutic class of statins for the WHO EML, and the pricing is discussed both generically and in particular multiple times (23 mentions of "statin" and 7 mentions of "simvastatin"; 36 mentions of "cost" and 19 mentions of "price").
:  Okay then: 16 mentions of "statin" alone and 7 mentions of "simvastatin"; 36 mentions of "cost" and 17 mentions of "price", if you want to hit-pick. That simply isn't your "briefly mention". If you do read the whole article, you'll see it is completely devoted to how statins became part of the WHO EML and the relationship of that to pricing, with simvastatin being chosen as representative of all statins. The entire thrust of the article is that the price fall in statins, of which simvastatin is the representative, made them affordable relative to other drugs on the WHO EML. You'll note that "affordable" crops up in three separate paragraphs and a table. The whole article is about improving global access to drugs such as simvastatin. Simvastatin is specifically mentioned in Table 1  as well as three times in the section on "Additions Statins (2007)". It is then mentioned again in Table 2 . That's not a brief mention by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the addition of simvastatin to the WHO EML is the central theme of the article. Of course, the phrase "realtively inexpensive" doesn't exist exactly in the article. We don't create articles by gluing together phrases from sources. But it is a fair summary of how the article considers the cost of simvastatin, and I defy anyone to claim otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by RexxS 

message: Halt this, postpone due to COVID-19, keep the current status quo until after COVID-19.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Bluerasberry

message: What happens if I stop taking simivastasin because I’m having problems with my liver and I take amlopldine which I read should not be mixed. 47.151.163.243 (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Graham Beards (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statins