Talk:Suramin

message: I don't know much about the chemistry of this but so I don't what to just change the image, but which image should be use?  
 
Note this is not about image type but that the vector image (the SVG) does not have the branches with sulfur, hydrogen, and three oxygens.  I just don't know if it should not be used for this reason. Scaper8 14:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does. The sulfonic acid groups are expanded in the SVG, as they should be for clarity, while on the PNG they are depicted as shorthand. I'd use the SVG, as it provides a more accurate depiction of the molecule. Fvasconcellos 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, it was not the sulfur group but the one with carbon (I was looking at the wrong thing when first typeing this, sorry).  I will however, change the image for the time being to the SVG image. Scaper8 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the methyl groups are shown as well—they're just implicit (i.e. not labeled "CH3"), as is customary on skeletal formulae. Fvasconcellos 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , the SVG image has an error in it.  One of the sulfonic acid groups shows a double bond to an OH and a single bond to an O, instead of the other way around.  Can you provide an updated image with a correction?  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Ed. I didn't create this image originally so I am loath to overwrite it, but I will create a new version. Thanks for bringing this to my attention (can't believe it's been 10 years!). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for fixing it "in-place" at the original image file. Otherwise we would have to go through a "replace all uses, hold discussion of value of old image (presumably has none), delete old image (obvious outcome of discussion)" for no real gain. DMacks (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That was part of my reasoning as well. Besides, Ayacop hasn't edited since 2012 (a shame). I think this provides a more satisfactory outcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, thank you, .  I originally approached you as I noticed you are an active editor and Ayacop is not.  EdChem (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which image? 

message: The relation between 309 F (which is Fourneau 309) and Germanine could be of some interest : it shows the relation between Deutsch and French politics and scientists. That is why I dare (or dared ?) to set a link from Fourneau to French page Ernest Fourneau. Regards. --Thierry (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanine and 309 F 

message: Cloudy urine has to be examined for casts. Slight clouding or frothy urine indicated albuminurea, it is an unfortunate aspect of the drug that is worth the risk in life threatening protozoal infections. If the albuminurea get heavy then that should be a great cause of concern. Casts in the urine demand that treatment be stopped. The drug accumulates in the kidneys more than any other organ. The statement that the urine changes are "non-harmful" can be harmful to the patient and their family who would be the first ones to notice this problem, and might let it slide with this statement discounting the risks. I have cited Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 6th edition (1980), pages 1080-1071 as a source. Blood in the urine is also stated in this source. Expanding the market to children with Autism greatly based on small clinical trials also greatly expands likelihood of an increased number of children needing kidney transplants or artificial kidney treatments. This statement of "non-harmful changes in the urine", poses risks, it should be edited out.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.105.9 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-Harmful Changes to Urine"?, shows market bias

message: This article really needs a mechinism of action section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.4 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: MOA?

message: Is this the same Suramin that was used for trials against HIV?  I know it was tested in the 80s... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2432836 -Etoile ✩ (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV Trials? 

message: The chemical name is incomplete.  Please update  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.21 (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed, not sure when that happened. Thank you for noticing and happy editing! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC name is incomplete 

message: The recent addition has been removed by two editors (Formerly 98 and DMacks), claiming it is not in accordance with WP:MEDANIMAL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Animal Even though i pointed out the addition is not breaching MEDANIMAL, DMacks stated in his revert = BRD do not edit-war a disputed item, especially if the dispute centers on interpretation of a guideline. 
: The addition was: A study concluded that suramin was able to reverse  autism-like symptoms, originating from environmental factors, in mice. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115163535.htm -- There is no cherry picking or no hiding that this is an animal study, thus the addition appears to be a valuable contribution to the article here. prokaryotes (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i get your point, that makes at least some sense, thanks for explaining! However, concerned parents will read this research elsewhere, and WP has become more limited. Also this could impact research grants or funding. In my opinion this belongs in the article. I added it, reverted one time, now it's up for other editors to decide. Im done here. p.s. Mice are very close to humans, thats why they are often used in research, i.e. Ebola studies, and im not a Microbiologist, even though my nickname might suggest that. prokaryotes (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism reverse study in mice 

message: Group 27 plans for Suramin Page:
Sections to add:
* Mechanism of Action
* Adverse Effects
* Interactions
* Society and Culture?
* Pharmacology
* Pharmacokinetics
* Resistance
Sections to expand/modify:
* Medical Uses
* Adverse Reactions
* Chemistry
* Research
Databases and search engines used will be from the following:
LexiComp, Micromedex, UpToDate, Pubmed 
Aneelamm (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Project Outline 

message: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
On the whole, the submission reflects a neutral point of view, especially with regards to the chemistry and pharmacology. This information is presented in a factual tone without evidence of bias. One area that appears to be more biased is the "Research" section, in particular the last five single-line paragraphs. While these are exciting developments in expanding the place of suramin in therapy, these are stand-alone primary sources that have yet to be verified or cited in widespread use of the drug. Including them here might be seen as advocating these particular groups.
Ktham (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Group 27 will not make any changes in response to this recommendation, as the nature of exploratory research is such that it is often pioneering work to be verified by the scientific community. Once the results of such research is validated, then they can be applied and often included in reviews and tertiary sources and thus no longer under active, exploratory research. SF355317 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Group 27 will also refuse to make changes in response to this recommendation, as the source is used under history, and Group 27 has no control over the nationality of the scientists who first published the formula for suramin.SF355317 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Group 27 will not make any changes in response to this recommendation, as the nature of exploratory research is such that it is often pioneering work to be verified by the scientific community. Once the results of such research is validated, then they can be applied and often included in reviews and tertiary sources and thus no longer under active, exploratory research. SF355317 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Group 27 will not make any changes in response to this recommendation, as the nature of exploratory research is such that it is often pioneering work to be verified by the scientific community. Once the results of such research is validated, then they can be applied and often included in reviews and tertiary sources and thus no longer under active, exploratory research. SF355317 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group 28 edits