Talk:Pyrimethamine

message: Why is Pyrimethamine use only to treat protozoal infections ?
Presumably (from the mechanism) it also has antibacterial and anti-cancer properties ? Rod57 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it specific to protozoa 

message: Why is this not listed as a brand name, or as an alternative antimalarial? Certainly this packaging has relevance in terms of availability of the drug, no? Why is it relegated to a footnote in references, not even See Also? DAVilla (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me, . I inserted Fansidar, so it doesnt need to be in a see also section. you could have done it too....many of these antibiotic articles are in less than desirable shape.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansidar 

message: In the synthesis scheme there is trimethyl orthoformate used for the methylation instead of diazomethane. Maybe the person who made the scheme could correct this? I guess this would be faster than drawing the whole thing new from scratch.129.206.54.17 (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixup in the synthesis scheme 

message: Some news reports are saying this drug is 62 years old.  
It could no longer be under patent then but some how the rights to it have been purchased in 2015.
What is the true timeline of this drugs development?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a found a report in The Times on 25 August 1953 which attributes the discovery of pyrimethamine to the Wellcome Foundation Ltd, specifically their laboratory at Tuckahoe in New York. It was then trialled by the Wellcome Laboratories of Tropical Medicine in London. The report also mentions that investigation and development took nine years in all. Emma May Smith (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: See subj. -Mardus /talk 13:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pyrimethamine is off patent, but in order to sell the drug, a generic manufacturer must get FDA approval. To get FDA approval, the generic manufacturer must do an equivalence test, comparing their pyrimethamine to Turing's pyrimethamine, with tests that include a controlled trial of patients randomized to the generic's drug or Turing's drug. Normally that's relatively easy. But Turing established a closed distribution system, which allows them to approve the sale of the drug to any customer. If a generic company ordered 100,000 doses for the trials, Turing could refuse to sell it. This procedure has gone to court a few times, but the drug companies have settled under confidentiality agreements, so nobody outside the companies knows how they turned out.The Most Unconscionable Drug Price Hike I Have Yet Seen By Derek Lowe, September 11, 2014, In the pipeline --Nbauman (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any alternatives to this? 

message: "Call it censorship if you want, but I really don't think we should tell desperate people that they can get off-brand, bootleg medication if they just start Googling for sketchy international merchants"
Is it really Wikipedia's job to decide what information is immoral and should not be recorded and disseminated?
If there exist companies selling copies of this drug, that is simply a fact that is worth mentioning. It should not be up to us what information should be deleted for the good of the people. 207.61.204.116 (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral? 

message: The use of the word "However" in the sentence beginning "However, New York Times journalist[...]" is unnecessary and appears to be an attempt to editorialize on the previous sentence. 66.194.85.162 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  However? 

message: Almost all the points included  are verifiable, with  a minor exception - I was unable to access the citations 5, 9 and 21, not sure weather  there is a linking issue or some other type of malfunction. Possibly the sources are not accessible from the links provided anymore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchernovsan (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review from Group 24 Health policy class 

message: Thank you for your feedback. 
We reviewed citation #5 and found the link to the active and from a reputable source.
Citation #9 is a reliable text book which is accessible via Google Books, and the ISBN is verifiable.
We have removed citation #21 since the information and the source are both unable to be verified. Hjkim1988 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Group 24's Peer Review 

message: My edit regarding clinical trail for CLL/SLL was reverted  by Doc James, citing " high-quality reliable sources as references".  Does https://clinicaltrials.gov not meet the criteria for "high-quality reliable source"?  If it does not, than should the entry regarding clinicial trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis also be removed, since they are both from the same source?  Thanks!  Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is being used differently. For ALS it is only used to confirm that trials are underway. Your edit also used it as evidence that "researchers have discovered that pyrimethamine may target the STAT3 protein", for which a review or other peer-reviewed paper would be more appropriate. If the information is sufficiently notable one shouldn't be that difficult to find. PriceDL (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I understand this issue now.  I did come across something regarding STAT3.  Let me try to find it again.  Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MEDRS runs through the recommendations. clinicaltrials.gov is generally not sufficient. This of course is not always consistently applied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Faith Edit