Talk:Polypill

message: This item is an original article produced for a website- it has not been posted. It uses information from the BMJ website and the original paper journal. I suppose therefore that the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper- Wald and Law- and with the British Medical journal. There is no known legal copyright for it. The information though is within the public domain and this is a summary of the facts within the public domain.
:Hello. You say it was produced for a website, but I note you don't say this website. That would be ok if you were the author, or if the author had agreed to release it under the GFDL, but your comments strongly suggest this is not the case. You admit that "the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper", but then contradict yourself by saying it's in the public domain. Copyright problems aside, if you've looked at any other articles in Wikipedia or indeed in any encyclopedia you will surely be aware that this doesn't look remotely like an encyclopedic entry, and very much like someone's personal essay deposited here where it doesn't belong. On top of this it is not formatted or linked properly and you appear to have made no effort to make it conform to Wikipedia's house style. Now it would be great if you could write a proper article about the polypill, but this is not it. It seems the user who marked it as a copyright violation didn't list it properly, but I have now done this so that the question can be considered. If the article is deleted, you're still more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but I'd recommend you create an account and read some of these first:
:* How to edit a page
:* How to write a great article
:* Cite sources
:* Wikipedia's Manual of Style
:Plus a whole load of others you may come across.
:— Trilobite (Talk) 06:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original first draft for this article

message: I wrote the article for my personal ( small company) website but assumed that it could be used on wikipedia too. There is no copyright issue, that I am aware as I wrote the article. The polypill has been subject to international conferences to discuss it's development. As a concept and development it is not copyrighted. The BMJ was used to check facts and not plagarised.
Confess naiviety to the wikipedia format etc. Only after I had posted it did I realise that it was not in keeping with the rest of the entries.Later I returned and found that I should not edit it so haven't.
More than happy to try resubmitting an improved version again
:Hello. If you wrote it and you're happy for it to be used on Wikipedia then the copyright issue is solved. You're more than welcome to rewrite the article - perhaps base it on the original text but with different wording and overall tone etc. The problem was that it didn't read much like an encyclopedia article, which is most likely what caused the editor who flagged it as a violation of copyright to do so. It would be good to have an article on the polypill, in fact I'm a little surprised we didn't have at least a couple of sentences already. You don't need to worry about the really finer points of Wikipedia format - someone else can sort that out, but I'd recommend looking at some of our other articles, particularly ones dealing with medical topics, to get a feel for how this could be improved. Thanks for contributing the article and apologies for the confusion over its copyright status - we get so many copy-and-pastes of other people's work (several hundred are deleted each week) that any article that looks out of the ordinary raises suspicions and is often assumed to be in violation of copyright. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting article, and a valuable addition to the wikipedia.  Stylisticially it does still read a lot like a journal article rather than an encyclopedia one, but that's easy fixed.  I'll make some adjustments over the next day or so (as I'm sure will others).  It really needs some citations (journal references and external links both to scholarly and newsy webpages). --  00:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: The Indian Polycap Study has been added with a massive new 6-header section, plus a link to its own article at Polycap. It seems a bit excessive and disproportionate to the rest of the article, and reads a little like it's partly about promoting the Polycap approach. I am not sure how to fix it or even if it needs fixing. Comments please? Oh, and I'd be most grateful if the editor could please stop the excessive bolding, which I do not think is supported by the Manual of Style at wp:mos and seems to add nothing. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now mentioned as possible wp:coi at User talk:Drmaseeh. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Indian Polycap Study 

message: I believe there is a conflict of interest here and at Polycap and have added the COI template to the article page. Drmaseeh has a username similar to someone featured in the article and has been adding extensively on this topic. The user has not responded to attempts to make contact. Thanks and best wishes  DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI 

message: Hi. The article has this: "Incidentally, the Polypill concept was floated a year earlier by Dr Salim Yusuf in an Editorial in Lancet in 2002." Reading the referenced paper I find the concept mentioned thus "(perhaps even a combination pill)." Is that "floating the Polypill concept"? I'm not sure: I worry that it is not. While I'm at it, I'm not sure about the use of "Incidentally" in that sentence and in this one: "Incidentally, the Polymeal was on the menu at the first Polycap Investigators' Meet at Bangalore." There's something about it strikes me as potentially unencyclopaedic: a bit chatty, or something. Oh, and both "incidentally" edits came from the same non-communicating, possible-COI-editor who was very busy here for a while but has currently stopped. Incidentally, for personal reasons I am no longer editing these articles and have removed them from my watchlist, and I wish you much luck with them. Oh, and it's The Lancet - sorry! :) Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polypill claim and "incidentally" 

message: PILL Collaborative Group, Rodgers A, Patel A, Berwanger O, Bots M, Grimm R, Grobbee DE, Jackson R, Neal B, Neaton J, Poulter N, Rafter N, Raju PK, Reddy S, Thom S, Vander Hoorn S, Webster R.
+ Collaborators (114) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21647425#
An international randomised placebo-controlled trial of a four-component combination pill ("polypill") in people with raised cardiovascular risk.
PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19857. Epub 2011 May 25.
Free PMC Article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21647425/?tool=pubmed
Abstract 
BACKGROUND:
There has been widespread interest in the potential of combination cardiovascular medications containing aspirin and agents to lower blood pressure and cholesterol ('polypills') to reduce cardiovascular disease. However, no reliable placebo-controlled data are available on both efficacy and tolerability.
METHODS:
We conducted a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a polypill (containing aspirin 75 mg, lisinopril 10 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg and simvastatin 20 mg) in 378 individuals without an indication for any component of the polypill, but who had an estimated 5-year cardiovascular disease risk over 7.5%. The primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), LDL-cholesterol and tolerability (proportion discontinued randomised therapy) at 12 weeks follow-up.
FINDINGS:
At baseline, mean BP was 134/81 mmHg and mean LDL-cholesterol was 3.7 mmol/L. Over 12 weeks, polypill treatment reduced SBP by 9.9 (95% CI: 7.7 to 12.1) mmHg and LDL-cholesterol by 0.8 (95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) mmol/L. The discontinuation rates in the polypill group compared to placebo were 23% vs 18% (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00, p = 0.2). There was an excess of side effects known to the component medicines (58% vs 42%, p = 0.001), which was mostly apparent within a few weeks, and usually did not warrant cessation of trial treatment.
CONCLUSIONS:
This polypill achieved sizeable reductions in SBP and LDL-cholesterol but caused side effects in about 1 in 6 people. The halving in predicted cardiovascular risk is moderately lower than previous estimates and the side effect rate is moderately higher. Nonetheless, substantial net benefits would be expected among patients at high risk.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000099426.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study in 2011 reported sizeble reduction in systolic BP & in LDL cholesterol after just 12 weeks of 4-agent polypill.  Side effects minor 

message: :I have  said sections completely. Gabbe (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifestyle Modification and "punishing the sinners": This seems to be an opinion and has no citations to indicate otherwise. 

message: This article says: "It is commonly manufactured as a fixed-dose combination (FDC)". The Combination drug starts with: A combination drug or a fixed-dose combination (FDC), and fixed-dose combination redirects to the Combination drug article. See also Talk:Combination_drug#Merge_from_Polypill.--Bawanio (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy if you could help me here. --Bawanio (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can definitely see a case for merging the articles, and encourage you to add the Template:Merge tags to both articles to encourage other editors to weigh in their opinions. That being said I should clarify in general that I'm by no means an expert on pharmacology or how articles on medicine should be written; my interested in the other drug-related article is much more from a social perspective than a medical one. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

text:   Thanks! Well reverted the merge earlier because I didn't discuss it first. So I'm discussing it with you guys now. --Bawanio (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

text: It looks like this proposal restarted at Talk:Combination drug#Merge from Polypill. Klbrain (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to Combination drug