Talk:Eliprodil

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Eliprodil.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Unsure as to edit

I am fully aware of Jytdog's reputation of attacking stubbed articles, and I was extremely careful to use secondary sources on my material (aside from the glaucoma and multiple sclerosis headings, which by the way, I believe are important facts to those wishing to study Eliprodil for possible research). My research on the drug was shrunk down to a measly paragraph, ensuring that Eliprodil will live its life out as a stub.(Also, excitotoxicity was not properly linked).

Brooke.johnson144 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke.johnson144 my goodness i don't know if i should be flattered or disgusted. in any case thanks for striking the personal attacks. Please point out any edits I made that you think are not valid. I am happy to talk and explain my rationale, and to hear yours. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the mechanism of action, it is important to note that Eliprodil binds to the polyamine site of the receptor, it is one of the few NMDA antagonists that bind in this way (and it was cited by a secondary source). Also, I believe it is important to mention the other drugs that are similar to other NMDA antagonists, because these can (later) be expanded upon. This would paint a clearer picture as to why many NMDA antagonists have failed as treatment options to TBI. Lastly, why Eliprodil failed in clinical trials also contributes to painting that image as to why NMDA receptors fail in clinical trials. Since researches believe it may having something to do with the initial hypothesis, other researchers may want analyze that initial hypothesis and how it can be improved or modified. Again, I understand that the MS and glaucoma headings were deleted because they were not cited by secondary sources, but I included this information so that emerging scientist in the field could also look at these studies-- and might possibly try to expand upon them. Brooke.johnson144 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for talking! First, let me say that I am sorry that your instructor put you and the members of your class, and WP, in a bad situation. But now let me address your points, one at a time:

there was no discussion of why the polyamine site matters. the content you added amounted to trivia about a failed drug. Why does it matter? Can you describe that in plain english?
do you really understand that this drug was in clinical trials for TBI? Its my understanding that this drug failed in acute stroke -
i am sorry to say this, but your description of why this drug - and every single drug that has been tried in stroke since tPa was approved - failed, just misses the boat. (and your source was really old). Are you aware of STAIR and what prompted it? (please do answer) PMID 25196155 is pretty good at giving the big picture, by the way. Bottom line is that stroke has been the graveyard for many a promising drug. Not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars. Discussing the clinical trial of this drug, without discussing the nightmare of clinical trials for stroke, is ... the kind of thing that should be deleted. It doesn't belong in a live WP article. (and again, i am sorry that your teacher had you editing WP when you are just learning about something) And by the way, something that your instructor should have had you learn about, is that one of the most important (and thrilling and dangerous) things you to have to think about if you have a molecule that modulates a target, is what to use it for. It was insanely, gorgeously risky for Syntholabo to go after stroke. Why the hell did they do that? The answer to that would be amazing content.
For any given drug class and specific drug molecule, you can find dozens of papers exploring various potential uses. The content you provided wasn't encyclopedic content. You found a random patent application on glaucoma and a random paper on an MS model. there are also patent applications on various retinal diseases and corneal diseases, cancer, and pain, and that was literally 1 minute of searching google patents. The NINDS did a clinical trial in parkinsons - that is way more important than the in vitro studies for MS and the glaucoma patent application. This section came no where even close to discussing all the research that has been done with this compound, in vitro, in vivo, and in humans. I am sorry but it was just bad work.
that is some of my response. There is more but that is enough for now. The questions for you are:
why does the polyamine site matter and you describe that in plain english?
do you really think this failed a clinical trial for TBI?
are you aware of STAIR and what prompted it? Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My my! Let's see if I have the brain capacity to work through all this! The polyamine site matters because it is a scientific fact? I am unclear as to why it wouldn't matter? Doesn't it matter that esomeprazole binds to cysteine residues on a proton pump inhibitor rather than an acetylcholine receptor? This renders them more effective than older drugs to treat heartburn- and it is why they are prescribed. I suppose I just need a little more clarification on this question. I am also curious as to whether you read the Ikonomidou article in full? I acknowledge that it is older than your referenced article, but the science is still sound. Your referenced article explains the exact same premise behind NMDA receptors as previously studied claims, to which the Ikonomidou states why it was probably wrong (the De Keyser article gives a little more clarity here, if you read the section in Box 1, it explains how AMPA receptors also play a role in this pathway). The pathway in question may actually contribute to neuron protection in the long run, as opposed to hurting it. Also I got a little lost in all your words. Are you asking, did Eliprodil fail clinical trials for TBI? I will agree, it went to trials to initially treat stroke patients-- which suffer from the same damage (possibly) caused by the glutamate pathway. The theory behind this damage is still the same, and if it did specifically go to trial for TBI, then it would fail.(Also, eliprodil has a serious side effect of increasing cardic repolarization time, another reason it failed stroke trials and why it would fail TBI trials).

Lastly, If eliprodil did go to clinical trials for Parkinson's disease, and it is so important, why isn't that in the Wikipedia article? Just curious.Brooke.johnson144 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all we have here, is what we write to each other. you wrote "This would paint a clearer picture as to why many NMDA antagonists have failed as treatment options to TBI". That is what I was reacting to. Maybe you made a mistake? fine. we all do. But that is what i was responding to.

there are lots of scientific facts. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. We are trying to make meaning here. Not collect trivia. (NOTE - the link in what i just wrote is to a policy - see below for why that matters)

also, you seem to think we are jousting here. We are not. My questions were real questions. I look forward to your real answers. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the STAIR thing - please take your time and read sections 4 and 5 of the review I linked to. A lot of the reason for the faiiures is there.. I was hoping you would take the initiative to at least find out about STAIR. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to quickly comment and say that my professor did not put I, the rest of my class or wikipedia in a bad situation. I thought, and correct me if I am wrong, Wikipedia was open to intelligent people making constructive changes to articles by expanding upon the knowledge put said articles? Everything I had previously stated in the article was presented in a way to let people know that the knowledge was out there, to help people find sources and for that knowledge on a subject to grow. I can't understand why having that knowledge out there would be a bad thing and why it would need to be removed? If the knowledge I had presented was wrong or incorrect in any way, by all means, remove it. But to simply remove something because YOU deem it unimportant, takes away from the openness of wikipedia. Don't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooke.johnson144 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP is open to everybody! Editing WP is a privilege that is freely offered to all. When you sign up for an account, you agree to follow all of WP's policies and guidelines. (and editors who consistently violate the policies and guidelines, and who are not interested in learning, get thrown out - they lose their privileges. Never a happy thing, but you would be surprised how many people mistake Wikipedia for some blog) The policies and guidelines for editing are not simple, and they are especially involved for health and medical related content. It take time to learn them. Squeezing all that learning in, on top of the course material, is a really hard, and I would say, unfair challenge for the students. And WP suffers because the resulting articles are not good. This is hard thing to hear, but competence in the subject matter and in WP policies and guidelines matters. Sorry. And the regular back and forth of editing is really distorted -- you and your classmates have these weird deadlines - but in WP there are no deadlines. It is just not good. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that I am getting nowhere here. And since you have superiority (and apparently more competence in the subject), I will simply just stop wasting my time and yours with the "jousting". I want to make a few notes, however, and say that for drugs that are not on the market, there is very little secondary information on them. And to raise these articles from stubs to articles, primary sources have to be used. Some of my fellow classmates were able to sweep under your radar-- and use primary sources. Maybe you can find them. Second, you have also seem to forgotten WP:DNB. I have my done research on this topic, and I wanted to contribute what I learned. But since editing seems to be open to select few elitist, I will refrain from contributing to this community, and instead go back to contributing to a more sounder community of scientists. Good luck in your endeavor of finding the other articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooke.johnson144 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if by "getting somewhere", you mean getting your content into WP without actually talking with me or other editors and dealing with policies and guidelines, you are correct. that is a dead end. i am sorry you are not interested in engaging and really learning how things work here. Too bad. Some newbie editors are interested in learning and don't just chuck attitude and sarcasm. In any case, good luck to you. (and the community is aware of the articles from your class and we are working through them. it takes time to clean all this up, and try to talk to people. there is no deadline here.) Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]