Talk:Aripiprazole

message: alcohols are classified but caffeine's have yet to be put into a class I would go as far as to say the presence of oxygen make's this a chlorite and the molecule structure makes it a caffeine and that explains one of the most common side effects "the jitters"2001:558:6012:1B:3576:163:83B8:C668 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  classification as a chlorite/caffeine 

message: I'm concerned about what seems like an anti-medication bias throughout this article, emaphasizing flawed studies and studies with equivocal results and apparently disregarding the documentation, which is extensive, of aripiprazole's utility in clinical practice. I think this article would need an expert to correct this, however. Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Ucbuffalo81. I would try posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. GMGtalk 19:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Ok thanks GMG. I'll see if I can't attract a clinical person!
Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: be specific about what sources you view as poor. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I now notice lots of Cochrane citations on a few antipsychotic pages. Cochrane is a UK organization. And, those who do "reviews" of usa clinical trials, don't understand usa fda laws, including how psychiatrist are bound by doctor, american academy of psychiatry, and the law. Thus, those cochrane articles say that usa studies have bias because of dropouts or they are sponsored by the pharmacy companies. Cochrane articles really need to be limited to wikipedia.co.uk most likely. I don't think a lot of usa antipsychotics are approved for UK. They are likely many many years behind the fda in development and approval. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-aripiprazole Bias (?) 

message: Cochrane reviewers and their publishing should be limited to wikipedia.co.uk rather than USA wikipedia. The UK and their MHRA are many years behind the usa and the fda. USA doctors who conduct clinical trials in the usa are bound by the american academy of psychiatry, usa law, and general researcher ethics. If you want to cite and support (non-peer reviewed) cochrane and uk reviewers, then you might as well cite them to discredit all usa fda drugs that aren't approved in the UK. However, as a general rule, for Cochrane studies, the arguments are that [1] there is "bias" from these ethically bound doctors because they are pharmacy funded studies, [2] because there is this "bias" they are "low quality," and thus, discreditable if not dismissible,  [3] there ought not be a dropout rate in any antipsychotic studies because all antipsychotics are on the assumption for being highly tolerable in the first place. Indeed, from this assumption, it is shocking that there is any dropout rate and low tolerance for something that used to be referred to more as "major tranquilizers." Why would people not tolerate tranquilizers? Don't they want to sleep lots? Why would anyone not be medicine compliant for such medication. For [1] the doctors and researchers are bias rather than outright liars and frauds with doctor licenses because they are too naive and stupid to be objective. Arguably, it takes something of more self and social awareness to be an outright liar and fraud than someone to be bias; thus, these license and ethically bound doctors must be the latter. For [2], citing, what I see as anti psychiatry, in this regard merits criticism against the greater funding process for clinical trials in the first place. Indeed, perhaps if the usa were less freemarket, then perhaps usa clinical trials could have direct government supervision and funding rather than from pharmacy companies that likely get some government grants. However, the healthcare system and research is not centralized in this way. This relates more to the greater economic and healthcare structural system than picking on all individual pharmacy studies which all have this funding structure issue. Rather, it is collective and exist in all studies. Note, i would not compare and be harsh against the UK and MHRA compared to the usa fda if there isn't an apparent anti psychiatry movement going on as i see it.
::What is "USA wikipedia"? Yes Cochrane reviews are peer reviewed. Cochrane is a perfectly suitable source per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I now accept as true your contention and argument that Cochrane is a reliable and reputable systemic review source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochrane and UK standards 

message: @Whywhenwhohow: In 9 edits, I have made 7 additions to the article. They are well-sourced.  You have reverted every single time.  Explain yourself.  You can't keep reverting with falsehoods like implying I said children, adolescents and young adults are elderly. <sic>
And particularly relevant to your claim putting words in my mouth:
 
I brought this up on your talk page on the 21s of last month!  RudolfoMD (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop vandalizing the article by repeatedly removing disclosure of the FDA-mandated warning regarding Abilify causing suicide of children, adolescents and young adults.