lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Detoxication

message: When I was undergoing treatment, I was present at a lecture which informed us that the difference between these two terms consists in "detoxication" meaning a treatment without the use of pharmacology. On this page I'm reading something totally different. Can anyone make this clear? --Duncan MacCall (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something you heard at a lecture is not reliable. From what I can tell here is that detoxication is a term for a metabolic process, detoxification refers to the results from a treatment. Either way the terms are distinct, and should not be merged.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is incorrect. There is no difference what so ever between the two words. They are alternative spellings of the same thing. Up until the late 1960's, both spellings were used interchangeably. After that, detoxification became the preferred spelling and detoxication fell from use and isn't even recognised by my spellchecker. Just look in any dictionary. While some people may use the two words to mean different things, there is no standard for differentiating them and these modern uses are neologisms not real meanings. This can be exemplified by that fact that there are zero sources in this article and zero links form other pages even after ten years, making this an unsourced orphan. Then content here should be merged with detoxification and this page changed to redirect. Before someone asks me for source, I'll point out that I don't have to, and could never give a negative source. The burden of sourcing is on those who wish to keep this article as it is, to provided sources showing that it is true. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Rincewind42; I'll start a merge with Drug metabolism discussion.Klbrain (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detoxication vs detoxification 

message: I propose merging Detoxication into Drug metabolism. As defined here, the terms are synonyms, that the Drug metabolism page is much more developed.Klbrain (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Flavin-containing monooxygenase system

message: I redirected to the main FMO page, as unlike cytochrome P450s, which can be though of as contained within a broader category of P450-containing systems, FMOs do not have a separate set of enzymes as electron donors. Instead there is a flavin prosthetic group which helps mediate the electron transport from NADPH. Jed (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect to Flavin-containing monooxygenase
Talk:Discharging method (discrete mathematics)

message: Todo: add a list of other "significant" results proved by discharging.
These could include: Borodin's proof that every planar graph with minimum
degree 5 contains a triangle with degree sum at most 17 and Borodin's proof
that every planar graph with maximum degree at least 12 has edge-list chromatic
number equal to maximum degree. Ptrillian 06:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: From reading Wilson's book "Graphs, colourings and the four-colour theorem" (beginning of Section 11) and from a quick look at Wernicke's paper I think that what was done in that paper is precisely the proof in the way Wilson describes in Theorem 11.2. But my German is not good enough to be sure. If someone can confirm this, could you change the text to reference Heesch's work (I cannot find in Wilson's book which article(s) of Heesch did include this idea), it is mentioned at length in the introduction of the first paper of Appel and Haken. Davidsevilla | Talk 12:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check if Wernicke actually used the method in his 1904 paper
Talk:Clinical pharmacology

message: The last sentence of the first section, "At least, that is the theory" doesn't sound very professional. In fact it sounds a little bitter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.145.1.155 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I recently evaluated this article as part if a class assignment. I found that it could be improved in the following ways:
*Although the article does touch on what a clinical pharmacologist does, I believe that giving more examples of what the career consists of would improve the article 
*Explaining the branches of Clinical Pharmacology
*Adding citations from reliable sources 
Stunall (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: I have recently made the following changes to this article to improve it. I have added a section titled History. Adding this section was my major edit to this article because there was no History section before and I believe the history is very important to anything. I also added some definitions to the branches section for some quick basic knowledge. Finally I added an Education section. I contemplated doing this section for a while because each institute would require different coursework to earn the degree. I ended up adding the section, including only the general requirements necessary for each degree.
Stunall (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits Made 

message: This was actually not a bad edit by  but it should not be the opening sentence of the lead section.  and  should be used for all references. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition
Talk:New Drug Application

message: Referring to the "Before Trials" section: what does 'P1' mean in the statement "typically from animal studies after P1?" Thanx.
: Phase 1 clinical trial - probably ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: P1! = Phase 1 ? 

message: Some companies make a rolling submission - Perhaps that could be explained in this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add something about a rolling submission 

message: Since this article is only about the US FDA procedure would it not be better to capitalise all the words ? (or is there some guideline that forbids it ?) - Rod57 (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the FDA seems to refer to it using capital letters (example).  The original title included capitals, but it was moved in 2015 to lowercase without (as far as I can tell) any discussion.  I suggest moving it back to New Drug Application.  Deli nk (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about a specific process and therefore is a proper name that, according to WP:NCCAPS is capitalized. AHeneen (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not rename to New Drug Application 

message: As in . Maybe they are for extra indications (conditions) for a drug that that has already had an NDA approved ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add something about Supplemental NDAs 

message: Somewhere, maybe In the actual application section, should we mention that the FDA may respond with a Refusal To File (RTF) ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Refusal To File
Talk:Okazaki fragments

message: The last 3 paragraphs of this article were narrow and poorly written. They unnecessarily extended the article without a payoff.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.54.191 (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two Okazakis; I have included their names and the source from where I found my information. Taylorkingmtsu (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of last 3 paragraphs 
Talk:Diphenoxylate

message: 'Nuff said. Mjpresson (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 completely unreferenced sections! 

message: The reference section reads like a tutorial for writing controlled substance prescriptions (in general) in the United States, not a mere reference explaining why diphenoxylate when combined with a belladonna alkaloid (or other abuse deterrent) re-assigns it from Schedule C-II to Schedule C-V.  Radical surgery needs to be performed here... This recommendation is not limited to this section alone, the article "wanders" far too much. PA MD0351XXE (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reference" section goes a bit overboard
Talk:George Nares

message: I believe this county was named after the commander. http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/property/placenames/detail.php?id=23870  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.121.168 (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Nares, Far North Queensland, Australia 

message: I am removing the reference to HMS Newport being the first ship to pass through the canal. As discussed in the talk page of the canal this is a myth that is unsupported by any reports of the time or during Nares lifetime. I shall add a reference to his survey of the canal the following year Kognos (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Through the Suez Canal
Talk:Drug reaction testing

message: I know that some genetic testing, particularly genealogical DNA tests, are seen as not very scientifically valid, since genetic testing is in its infancy.  Do these same criticisms apply to drug reaction testing or not?  --Hirsutism (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific validity? 

message: How similar is this article to the (much longer) pharmacogenomics?  Are they candidates for merging? --Hirsutism (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity to [[pharmacogenomics]]?
Talk:TX-0

message: Hello. I proposed some kind of merger of TX-0 resources to include Expensive Tape Recorder here and didn't get much support (archive). At this time it would probably look unbalanced but it is OK from my point of view in the future if it helps. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 06:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in the See Also section there are links to Expensive Typewriter and Expensive Tape Recorder, but since See Also doesn't really tell you why you should click them, part of what you wish to accomplish and an overall improvement of the article would be to add at least a brief discussion of these programs in a paragraph just above the See Also section. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:1D29 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital audio

message: I thought that PDP-1 serial number 1 went to J.C.R. Licklider at Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) and functioned at BBN for decades.
PhysicsStudent 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely true. When the ARPAnet crashed it had to be restarted from a PDP-1 at BBN, or so I have heard. ARPAnet control was at BBN. Phone was 661-0100 if memory serves. Occasionally the PDP-1 would also crash, and had to be restarted from paper tape. Snezzy (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDP-1 

message: The web site dedicated to the tixo, Tixo.Org, is starting to appear again after being offline for some significant time. I would be happy if someone would reinstate it as an external link if appropriate.
--85.226.77.16 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tixo.Org 

message: The current revision of this page contains the text "a 12" oscilloscope hooked to output pins of the processor".  What's that supposed to mean?  It sounds like a 21st century viewpoint of both processors and pins.  I propose removing the reference to processor and pins.  Groogle (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Output pins?

message: This may or may not be accurate, but since there are no citations for the history of the TX-0 and TX-2, it's worth noting that Severo Ornstein claims in Computing in the Middle Ages that the TX-1 preceded the TX-0: 
Fourthark  (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I also have the book by Ornstein.  I'll make the change.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that the T in TX-0 stands for Transistor, but if that's true, whence comes the claim that the prior TX-1 was to be a vacuum tube machine? 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TX-1 

message: edit: it's not an oh, it's a zero, but the font style makes digits show up short and squat, see TX-10 for example  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:1D29 (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  title of this page is TX-lower case o?
Talk:Polystyrene sulfonate

message: The picture is for polystyrene sulfonate (PSS). There's no sodium.
:Fixed.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: the chemical uses for this polymer are much more widespread than the pharmaceutical ones...
:Agreed.  I tried to address this imbalance.  The medical part seems to be pretty good, but my guess is that the medical app is peanuts compared to water softening.  The article discusses both the acid and the sulfonate forms, which is not ideal.  Also I noticed that we do not have an article on solid acids.  --Smokefoot (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  chemistry? 

message: I removed some statements questioning the medical effectiveness of SPS (Kayexalate). Not sure what the original author's agenda is (trial lawyer?), but a single inflammatory journal article doesn't make this a bad drug. We have been using it for decades. It works. We don't use it for modest hyperkalemia -- just extreme hyperkalemia (the kind which kills people). Anyone who has given kayexalate and checked a follow up K level knows that it's effective. Ischemia is a small risk, primarily when it's mixed with sorbitol -- and ischemia can be serious and even fatal -- but ischemia should not be listed as the primary side effect.
I also removed the case report of asipration. Anything that goes in the mouth can be aspirated, but aspiration is not a standard side effect of SPS in any reference that I checked (FDA, AHFS, Epocrates).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.183.25 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  medical uses 

message: The name of the page is the former, but halfway down the page "polystyrene sulfonic acid" is used with no indication that the two are the same.
Are they the same thing? If so, should "polystyrene sulfonic acid" be listed as an alternate name at the top of the page? 
Yours cordially.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.149.74 (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out! I hope it is clear now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polystyrene sulfonate vs polystyrene sulfonic acid
Talk:Enteric coating

message: Seems the formatting is totally jacked on this article, as if someone just cut and pasted. Lame. Clean up, please?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmer2003 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut out most of it and left the most relevant parts. 68.231.151.161 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad formatting 

message: It would be nice if this article talked about some specific coatings that are in use.  Their chemical composition, manufacturers, etc. BillMcGonigle 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted 

message: Enteric refers to the small intestine? Really? I mean this article needs help... Seriously.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.160.112 (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a reference that can be used - industrial coatings:
http://www.drugdeliverytech.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=07D44780A5E542A396C841EDB6B9DB3B
Aratinga77 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  total mess 

message: How would the consumer know if a medication is Enteric coated unless the label stated EC? I have huge pills that have to be crushed in order to swallow none of which have EC anywhere on the label. 24.30.128.50 (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you know? 

message: Hi, I'm a pharmacologist, I recently saw that this article required attention and here I am. However, it's a pretty long shot to write it fully as there's a lot to talk about and the article itself seems just a mere skeleton.
I will add critical info about the medical and chemical implications of Enteric Coated medications, but I'm not good with formatting, so if anyone wants to help cleaning up and making it more readable... well you're welcome to do that!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daimyo2 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone seeked for a pharmacologist help? 

message: "The time required for an enteric-coated dosage form to reach the intestine mostly depends on the presence and type of food in the stomach. It varies from 30 minutes up to 7 hours, with an average time of 6 hours.[6]" references a source from 1934! -- over 80 years old, and the range of 30 minutes to 7 hours?! seems a bit difficult to swallow (I mean, if the information is really meant to be useful and reliable).  From what I recall from physiology, meals only take 3-5 hours to move through nearly the entire digestive tract; it is hard to believe that an average capsule or tablet can stay (intact?) in the stomach for 7 hours.  Is there updated information with a more recent source (there must be)? Jdevola (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stomach emptying time
Talk:Ethnopharmacology

message: I propose that Ethnopharmacy be merged into Ethnopharmacology. The Ethnopharmacy article is currently a stub and its content can easily be treated under the heading of Ethnopharmacology.  The Ethnopharmacology article is of such a small size that the merging of Ethnopharmacy will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does seem however, that what is meant with the term is something akin to "ethnobotany" or "ethnomedicine". PErhaps it should be mergered to Ethnomedicine. The article ethnopharmacsy does have a point when it says that it should not be mixed up with ethnopharmacology. Ethnopharmacology, like I said, is sort of like a subfield of drug development, whereas what that article is about is a subfield of anthropology/ethnology. I googled the term, and yes, there are journals and books that use this term. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think ethnopharmacology should be merged under Ethnopharmacy, and not the other way around. The text says they are different, in that ethnopharmacology only deals with a specific topic. Also it says ethnopharmacy involves the study of ethnopharmacology. Sidelight12 Talk 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Merger proposal
Talk:William E. Dodge

message: I've become interested in Dodge descendants and am trying to trace them online. It would be useful for this entry to list William E. Dodge's children, with links, in an organized fashion. Charles and William E., Jr., are listed. There is also Norman White Dodge, father of Marcellus Hartley Dodge, whose widow Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge established the foundation which bears her name. 
Dodge descendants were important in the history of the American University of Beirut, including Bayard Dodge and his son David Dodge. Somehow this family history ought to be linked in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.72.91 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Re:  recent edits and reverts of User:Elskay Ootymae.  While this editor's contributions certainly have a pov, they were probably made in good faith.  It is quite true that Dodge, and many of his associates, could be seen as Carpetbaggers due to their methods of land acquisition after the Civil War.  Information on these activities, double checked and sourced, should be included in this article.  WBardwin (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Carpetbagging
Talk:Essential medicines policies

message: The article approaches the subject with two inbuilt assumptions:
* [subject] is inherently good
* Sri Lanka is perfect (Seriously, nothing is given to suggest that their policy or version of it has had any problems, needed revisions, anything)
It's also written like "Whig history": this thing is inevitable and is the natural result of history. 150.250.43.209 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|unbalanced}} 
Talk:Loading dose

message: A nice simple explanation for a pharmaceutical layperson. Thanks contributors. 72.94.230.117 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful. Thanks.

message: I honor your request to merge but I feel that loading dose and a bolus are two distinctly different things. Therefore I feel that we should keep them seperate. Perhaps linking the articles is a better idea Alin0Steglinski (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge - Decline 

message: i agree with this statement. because there is a huge difference between loading dose and Bolus. please cheak that out. thanks....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbihossain28 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  i agree 
Talk:Smith Spectrum

message: "That is why most big Division-1 schools are scared to schedule games at the Spectrum. It, simply put, is a difficult place to win a ball game." This line appears to have been copied out of the press guide, or maybe a souvenir program. Just about every major college football or basketball program makes a similar claim about its home facility. 4.243.152.108 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not encyclopedic
Talk:Phospholipidosis

message: Refs need to work. And refs need to follow WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to help if the editors looking to improve the article add their suggestions to the talk page, we can review them and make sure they meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and the information.  JenOttawa (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref
Talk:Distribution (pharmacology)

message: Pl 2409:4042:2E23:25C:0:0:14CA:1A12 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Route of administration affects absorption, but not distribution (in the strict pharmacokinetic sense). Klbrain (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How route of administration affects on the drug distribution
Talk:Crossover study

message: I revised and greatly expanded this article. I motivate many of the changes below:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 00:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

message: NEW: 
It would be useful to provide an example of a cross-over designs, e.g. from Jones & Kenward (page 142):
AABB
BBAA
ABBA
BAAB
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - could someone add a simple example preferably comprehensible by non-statisticians? Ben Finn (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction:  

message: I added many links, all of which are mentioned in the article (I trust!). 
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: It would be useful to warn people about the disadvantages of 2-period 2-treatment designs: risk of carry-over biasing estimates, inefficiency, etc. Jones and Kenward recommend 3 or 4 period designs when feasible. (2-period 2-treatment designs are easy to teach and easy to test, but they are not recommended generally!)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations and Disadvantages
Talk:Nothing Lasts Forever (Thorp novel)

message: I propose that the following changes be made to this article:
*1. Removing references to Die Hard in the character descriptions.  Those are superfluous, and better suited for a Die Hard Wiki than an article about Thorp's novel.
*2. Removing the image of the Browning automatic.  That is cloying detail which could be trimmed.
These edits would be of benefit to improving the article.  Thoughts, anyone?TH1980 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been five days.  Since there have been no objections, I have proceeded with these proposed edits.  I am still open to discussion about this, however.TH1980 (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes