Jump to content

Talk:Sildenafil/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Dosage info in article

Is it wise for Wikipedia to have dosage recommendations for Viagra, which is a perscription medication? Dispensing medical advice can be very risky, espcially for a public-domain forum like this one. (It could also encourage spammers to edit in their own 'recommendations.')

Yes it is perfectly acceptable. You go to any drug encyclopedia in the library and they always give recommended dosage. In fact it is useful. One time years ago I looked in one of those books for dosage because the dosage on the lable sounded off. I checked online and then called the doctor who said it WAS the pharmacy that was in error, but he said it the extra dosage wouldn't have harmed me. So it is not only within encyclopdia standard but it's helpful as well

4.143.229.216 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Nick

I think the only criterion should be truth. Is the information given in the "Dosage and price" section objectively true? I don't know, but if it is, then it should stay. AxelBoldt 11:05 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)
If its a perscriptions, it shud not be listed in here you shud only find it if you ar perscriptions. Altho thay mite rite in the ensiclopedia wat is usaly is and wat efect is usaly is, evin tho you shud not actely do that, becuse enybudy reeding shud no to prescripsen instrucsens insted.

Origin of name

Does anybody know the origin of the name "viagra"? Yes, "viagra" comes from the contraction of two words VIGOR and NIAGARA, for the word VIGOR it doesn't need to be explained and is NIAGARA from the waterfall giving an impression of a fontaine of hennessy happiness with an impressionant rate, also the first letter V is for VICTORY for those who couldn't before and the form of the legs open from a woman.129.93.17.168 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)marcus

What nonsense! 129.93.17.168 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)jackheels

The word vyāghra means tiger in Sanskrit. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to sildenafil

Policy seems to be that in the naming of drugs, the generic name is used. This limits intercontinental confusion and decreases the smell of advertising (and spam, see above).
JFW | T@lk 22:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Should this be under Sildenafil citrate? Sildenafil citrate was redirecting to Viagra so I switched it to redirect to Sildenafil. Frunge.

You're right, I should have tidied up the double-redirects. Generally, it seems wikipedia names pharmaca (drugs) after the active ingredient. IMHO it would be folly to name all adjuvants (enalapril malleate, atorvastatin calcium, imatinib mesylate). Correct me if I'm wrong—the Wikiproject Drugs never really hit off, and whenever I do pharmacology subjects I just follow my intuition.
JFW | T@lk 09:36, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

One disadvantage of putting naming the article 'Sildenafil' is that if you browse Category:PDE5_inhibitors, it's not immediately obvious that Viagra and Cialis (as they are currently best known, due to spam) work on similar principles, unless you happen to know the drug name. - Jon Dowland 14:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"citrate" in the name must have been from the previous "Viagra" page -- the CAS Registry number and structure are correct -- for sildenafil -- and so the "citrate" should go.

Bob Hanson —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Viagra-Blindness

How do we manage Viagra-Blindness issue? Is it acceptable to post that there are rumors that... See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/26/eveningnews/main698124_page2.shtml for instance --Dennis Valeev 22:02, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Spam, spam, spam...

There seems to be no end to the Viagra linkspam. Is there anything we can do about this besides constantly reverting the page? ~K 03:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Get it protected, I believe, if it's happening regularly enough within a short time-span.


How about mentioning the prevalence of viagra | cialis | levitra in spam email? I know I'm not the only person in the world who gets multiple spam emails a day from third-rate web sites trying to sell me these drugs over the internet without a prescription. Obviously, I don't want to endorse the sites, but rather point out the fraudulent use of it online...
How about mentioning the neverending (and utterly annoying) Internet propaganda for Viagra-likes on this page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.53.146 (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
According to a major German email security firm, 43% of spam is for pharmaceuticals, esp. Viagra. The wording is a little unclear (which has nothing to do with the fact that I am not a native speaker). They almost seem to say that the enitre 43% is specifically for Viagra, but then it also seems like they mean all pharmaceuticals. See http://www.eleven-securityblog.de/2012/05/zahl-des-monats-mai-2012-43-aller-spam-e-mails-sind-pharma-spam] Bostoner (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For fact-checking

In some countries like Mexico, India where the patent on Viagra have expired, big drug manufacturers manufactured, where it is marketed under the brand name Caverta, Silagra, Edegra, Kamagra, Meltabs. These pills contain exactly the same ingredients as the branded one but cost a quater of the original branded one. --Calton | Talk 15:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Image

The image of the sildenafil molecule was deleted. Who is going to upload a new one? I can have a go, but my MDL ISIS 2.5 is not exporting images to PNG for some odd reason. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. ~K 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Scored?

This line looks wrong: Sildenafil is not scored, meaning there is no guarantee that the drug is evenly distributed throughout the tablet, therefore it is not advisable to cut it to change dosage. Is there some meaning of "scored" I'm not familiar with? I thought if a pill was scored it meant the pill was notched to allow easy splitting, nothing about even distribution of the active drug. Am I missing something? Fan1967 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about the meaning. The issue being raised is that if the composition of the pill is not homogeneous and one physically cuts it in half, one may not get "half the dose". Whether this is the reason the pill is not scored here...dunno. DMacks 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


I am just wondering, if this sentence is incorrect, could someone remove it? I don't want to do it because I am not familiar with this drug, and don't personally know if it is right or wrong.
> Sildenafil is not scored and it is not advisable to cut it to change dosage since the active compound is not distributed homogenously in the tablet.
I want to send a link to this page to someone and don't want to scare them about cutting the pill.

Kelliann 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Viagra FAQ notes:
Can I cut my pills in half?
VIAGRA pills should not be cut in half. No studies have been done to determine if half a pill is effective.
Also, even if it were homogeneous (which I don't know) the actual cutting may be hard to do evenly. A FAQ I found through Google (NB: commercial company, so potential bias towards their special cutter, but underlying issue sounds believable even if their cutter is no better than any other) says:
What about the pill cutter my pharmacists sells for about $10? Will it cut Viagra?
No. Inexpensive pill cutters are available, but they are designed to cut uncoated pills such as aspirin that are already "scored" or notched to facilitate easy cutting. The coating on Viagra is extremely hard and very difficult to penetrate, even with a razor. If you do manage to slice through the hard coating, the ingredients inside the Viagra tablet usually crumble unevenly, making it impossible to get an accurate dose.
DMacks 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the article as it is suggests that the only reason for not cutting the pill is difficult. The pill is additionally not evenly distributed with active ingredient - I think that's worth adding back in. Empirical evidence suggests that cutting the pill (normally I use my teeth) does work, but it's almost certainly not advisable... 212.183.134.210 07:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


This is clearly marketing-material. Most doctors prescribe the highest dosage strongest pills and then tell you to cut them up, thereby saving a lot of money on the ridiculous price this is sold for in Western countries. Don't believe the marketing spin that "half a pill is not effective", it is a lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.239.109 (talk)

To the user above - as previously stated, there has been no study to prove that the drug is homogenous throughout the pill in its final state. It IS evenly distributed during the dosing phase, but as each pill is subsequently assessed as a whole unit, if segregation occurs after dosing, this will not be detected.
As for the 'marketing spin' that half a pill is not effective, it depends very much on the theraputic dose of the drug and the individual's unique body chemistry. Half a pill may still be effective in a 60kg middle aged man, but not in a 90kg young athlete. If you decide to split pills in order to extend a prescription, it's at your own risk. Oni no Akuma 09:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Was half the above written by an employee of pfizer? First, i don't see how any practical manufacturing process could unevenly distribute the active ingredient within one pill. These must be made from stock mixed compounds mixed in quantities for thousands or millions of tablets at a time with highly uniform composition. Second, quibbling about whether the tablet is split exactly in half is ridiculous since an error of 10% or more is not going to make any difference. Third, best I recollect from reading about this is minimum dose to have some effect is around 10% the maximum pill dosage of 100mg and patients are advised to experiment whether more or less is better for them, starting around 50mg. Quite how they are supposed to do that without cutting them up, I have no idea. Sandpiper (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not an employee of Pfizer, but I do work in the pharmaceutical industry. I'd like you to take note of what I actually wrote - after dosing, each pill is tested as a whole unit as that's how they're designed to be taken. If the contents segregate AFTER dosing, the normal content homogenity tests for oral dosage forms will not detect this and there is no regulatory requirement to check for this. I freely admit that it's unlikely that this will occur hence why I said 'Cut up your pills at your own risk', not 'Don't cut up your pills as it won't work'.Oni no Akuma (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Multi-address spambot

This article appears to be monitored by some sort of spambot with a wide range of IP addresses at its disposal. Within minutes after unprotecting the article today, it picked right back up again. Semi-protection (both on and off) will be tested throughout the week. If this continues through the long term, I suggest that this article be protected in the same manner as George W. Bush. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for more information

I've made a request for more information about how this drug compares to similar ones. I think other people would like to know more about this too. Thanks to anyone who can help. Eje211 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Effects on women

Can anyone provide an authoratative cite to support the claim that Viagra "is also capable of arousing women for greater sexual drive" ? I have seen no research to support this claim and in fact IIRC recent studies show this to be false. 06:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of a reference or link to the study? Oni no Akuma 11:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of any mention of women at all? Bitwiseb (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Death of Sani Abacha

I went looking for a cite for:

Sani Abacha, suspected cause of his death ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

but couldn't find any. Well, I found mention that a dose of Sildenafil may have led to his death, but only inasmuch as it is the suspected vehicle for an unrelated poison (if one believes that he was poisoned at all).[1] DMacks 17:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation

I've changed the citation style to cite.php throughout. No paper was cited more than once, making this the most preferable referencing system for this article.

I also removed a few papers reporting effects on Raynaud's, given that a randomised controlled trial is available.

We should work on the unreferenced parts of the article. The speculation in its naming is unsourced and could do with a WP:CITE. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed some text

I removed the following text because it just sounds like one editors guesses. Pls provide a source before reincluding:

The name "Viagra", like many drug names, is a marketing invention. It was possibly inspired by the Sanskrit word "vyāghra", which means "tiger". The word rhymes with "Niagara" (Niagara Falls is a popular honeymoon destination and Niagara, being such an impressive waterfall, evokes a sense of incredible erectile and ejaculatory strength). The sound of the word also suggests the words "vigor" and "virile"‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed].

I also removed this, because it is unsourced speculation:

It has been suggested that Viagra would lead to a marked drop in the demand for certain traditional remedies, such as tiger penises and rhinoceros horns and that the drug may therefore help to preserve these endangered species. However, this is unlikely in that these parts of endangered species are not only used to treat impotence. Rhinoceros horns, for example, are used as a treatment for high fever. Furthermore, since Viagra has not been shown to possess aphrodisiac properties, it is unclear that the natural remedies would compete with this new clinical drug.

Ashmoo 04:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of both. Although plausible, this article needs to be referenced as tightly as possible, and both factoids were unsourced and failed WP:V for a very long time. JFW | T@lk 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

More Legislative History Needed

I think more needs to be put into the entry about Viagra's legislative history, by state. For instance, several states have recently halted Medicaid spending on Viagra for conviced sex offenders. I'm thinking in the first "History" section, more about this should be included. Scunning 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently, in the United States, the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan will not cover sildenafil or other erectile dysfunction drugs, even in cases where ED was caused by factors like prostate surgery. (Medicare and You Handbook for 2010). Supplemental prescription drug plans may or may not cover ED drugs, but increasingly they are starting to deny coverage, ostensibly to align with Medicare (see, for example, MVP Health Care formulary, 2010), but largely for cost containment. PhotoSci (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)PhotoSci

Negative studies

Probably shouldn't be included, but sildenafil actually worsens sleep apnea syndrome[2]. JFW | T@lk 19:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

the methodology in this study is absurd. people don't take viagra at bed time. it's effects are clearly mostly worn off by "bedtime" the way it's used. this is a prime example of a study that could actually be used as a source of wiki that is in reality a lousy study. not all science is equal. i have no idea what they were trying to prove here. clearly, to be a study of how viagra affects apnea you have to take it when people most often take it which would be in most cases 3 to 6 hours before sleep. nasal congestion is a known side effect, and it only lasts a few hours. i only write this as an reminder to editors to be on the lookout for dubious studies used as a reference for wiki text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Viagra saves a baby

[3] opened the vessels in the childs lungs allowing it to take in the oxygen being delivered. Could be added to other uses section. Anyone agree?-Ravedave (Adopt a State) 05:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This use is in fact mentioned above, albeit in medical terminology. One single newspaper article doesn't necessitate adding a section like "viagra saves baby" or some nonsense like that. Maybe if it were routinely used, it would be notable. Perhaps that link should just be in the links section? Fuzzform 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Page is a mess...

This page is full of junk information about anecdotal use of Viagra, rather than any substantial information about the compound. For example, why is there a description of the pill in the first paragraph? This is not something you would find in any other page about a pharmaceutical. And why is there information about cutting the pill in half? It's probably sustained release, anyway. Fuzzform 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

UK?

Given that sildenafil was first synthesized in England, why is there no info about when it was approved by the authorities there? The History section goes straight from the British trials to the American FDA approval, which looks silly. Oh, and in reply to the "More Legislative History" bit above: why only "by state"? The US isn't the only country where Viagra is used! 81.158.3.1 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

People write what they know and/or can find references to support. If you have additional information on a topic or feel something is written poorly, feel free to edit the article to include or improve whatever you think is appropriate...that's how Wikipedia works. DMacks 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unique SMILES formula

There are multiple possible ways of writing a SMILES formula, but one of them is a canonical form intended for database lookup. This "Unique SMILES" formula, which might be a better choice to put in the infobox, is CCCc1n[n](C)c2C(=O)NC(=Nc12)c3cc(ccc3OCC)S(=O)(=O)N4CCN(C)CC4

71.41.210.146 05:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another competitor drug

Yohimbine is another drug that improves erectile function. It is also inexpensive, and available over the counter in France (I don't know about other countries). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.57.227.118 (talk)

added --Selket Talk 20:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yohimbine is no longer recommended for prescription to remedy Erectile Dysfunction. More information on Yohimbine is available on Wikipedia Wiki Article, but alternatives should be confined to the Erectile Dysfunction page surely? --Glowplug1 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Further ancectdotal history?

I've got an anecdote about the discovery of viagara's effect on erectile disfunction - should/could this be added to the history of the drug? During the First in Man pre-clinical trial, it was noticed that all the subjects (all young males as per a FIM trial) were spending a lot of time in bed. The attending medical staff became worried about possible side effects the drug may be having - it turned out that all the patients had erections and hence were too embarrassed to move around. I have a source (the doctor in charge of the FIM clinic was a lecturer at my university), but nothing verifiable via the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oni no Akuma (talk • contribs)

No, everything in Wikipedia should be verifiable. It needn't be verifiable via the Internet, but a reliable source that can be checked must exist for all information. Personally gathered hearsay, regardless of how reliable you regard the source, would not meet those criteria and would probably fall under the verboten category of no original research. If you can find the same story published somewhere in a reliable source, then it would probably be welcomed. --Kbh3rdtalk 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No information on what it does

Frankly this article sucks... it mentions [briefly!] what Viagra is approved for and what it does biologically, but no information on what effects it has. Does it simply produce an erection for 4 hours? If not, what then? This is the information the article should have. -Rolypolyman 14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article explains what effect it has (it produces an erection), then explains the possible side effects it may have (side effects section) and other possible uses for the drug (Other uses and non medical use).
Adding the pharmacokinetics data to the article may not be appropriate as 1) it's quite technical, 2) a lot of the published data is scattered throughout various journals and collating them together may constitute original research, 3) anybody capable of fully understanding the data will have sources other than Wikipedia to obtain the information from.
If people feel it will contribute to the article, then I'll add it. Oni no Akuma 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have substantial scientific detail for some articles and IMO does well not limitting ourselves to targetting slightly-curious consumers or school essay-writers. A sentence or few about how it works (bio/pharma level stuff) wouldn't be out of place, something to the level of the first paragraph of the Clinical Pharmacology: Mechanism of Action section of the label. I think all scientific terms, enzymes, etc there already have very detailed wiki pages of their own. DMacks 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The information in that first paragraph is all mechanism of action, which is already covered in the article. Rolypolyman seems to want additional information beyond this and the information I'm proposing to add would be covered under the Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism section and downwards.
Would this level of detail be appropriate?Oni no Akuma 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be excessive in my opinion, concur that someone that needs that info can find it somewhere other than Wikipedia rather than WP editors rereresummarizing existing summaries or engaging in OR of our own. The FDA label is already linked from the article (different link than I used, but appears to be the same content?). DMacks 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Both the FDA label you've linked and the article link are the same paper, just submitted twice due to regulatory requirements (one's a New Drug Application, the other is normal drug information). Oni no Akuma 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My impression is a 4 hour errection is possible, if a person can remain sexually motivated that long. Most of us loose the erection quite quickly if we think about something else. Ccpoodle 20:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically yes, if a person can remain sexually interested for the entire period, you can maintain an erection for the entire duration of effect. However from the paper DMacks posted, it states that a duration of effect was ONCE observed for 4 hours. That means at the 4 hour mark, the patient was still better able to get an erection and maintain it than previously without sildenafil, not that he had an erection for the whole 4 hours. Oni no Akuma 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Generic Alternatives

I think its important to cover the fact that generic alternatives exist. Viagra may be the most known brand, but there are others and these should be listed, for example Kamagra (still contains Sildenafil Citrate), which is manufactured by Ajanta Pharma, which many people think is fake (probably as a result of so many scam sites), but which actually isnt. Perhaps Kamagra should have its own page which Sildenafil and the Erectile Dysfunction pages link to? I am happy to edit/supply info. --Glowplug1 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind about any generics is that since sildenafil is still in patent in the US (and in most other western countries) their legal distribution is limited to those countries (mostly outside the west) which don't honor drug patents and/or have alternate drug patent rules. mr_Handy 23:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


I have to agree. I myself use Kamagra and it works perfectly. Cant believe there isn't any info about it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.10.120 (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has this not been addressed? I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of the world's sildenafil pills are indian generics. For generics not to even be mentioned is a little bizarre. They are entirely legal in many countries, and one wonders whether people receiving money from pharmaceutical companies are trying to eliminate them from this page for fear of promoting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.100.49 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, you can see easily see the reason why there is little to no information on generics - nobody has added such information in the first place, rather than it being apparently suppressed. If you have verifiable information that you wish to add regarding generic versions of viagra, feel free to add it yourself.Oni no Akuma (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm actually astounded by the repeated use of a commercial brand name in so many places where the actual compound that this page is about should be used instead. i'm new to to this page and i can't say if there is scrubbing going on here but this page largely reads more like an ad for a commercial product than it does about a compound. i'm going to give this a day or so to see if there are objections but i think i should go through and replace the trade mark name with the compound name wherever appropriate. an example would be "Argentina for their discovery that Viagra aids jet lag" replacing the brand name with the compound.

and YES, there needs to be a prominent mention that this compound is made and sold legal around the world. Pfizer lawyers may disagree but that isn't stopping it from being made by major drug companies in other countries like india and UK in facilities approved by the FDA. this page itself includes the UK overturning of the patent many years ago. generic manufacturing is not legal in the us but it is legal in other countries. i'll be working on how to add this but may be asking for help on how to do it in a fair, objective, and verifiable way. wiki should read like the global resource that it's supposed to be. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Effect on Oxytocin levels

A new study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison has found a link between Viagra use and elevated levels of oxytocin in rats. Perhaps the section on Viagra-as-aphrodisiac should be amended —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.123.166 (talk) 07:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)


Fight Viagra with Exercise

Before you try viagra fight sex problems with exercise. A study of 55 men with erectile dysfunction showed 75% improved or regained normal performance by doing pelvic exercises, or Kegels, each day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burty2007 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a laugh

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. - Cyborg Ninja 22:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also good for jet lag!

This year's Ig Nobel Prize in Aviation went to Patricia V. Agostino, Santiago A. Plano and Diego A. Golombek of Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Argentina, for their discovery that Viagra aids jetlag recovery in hamsters.[4] This is a real study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.[5] --Itub 13:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Marketing section?

The lack of a marketing section for something like Viagra seems like a rather large oversight :/ Anyone up for taking a crack at one?--SeizureDog 19:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a few good newspaper articles by the New York Times. I'll see if I can add the information, but I might be busy.
Shubinator (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The link to the "prescribing information" is broken - it should be http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/uspi_viagra.pdf. I'd fix it but I refuse to register an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.248.245 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Article lacks any historical data or accuracy

It is not a known fact that British scientists discovered "Viagra"--it is only known that they sythesized it into a pill form once sildenfil was discovered to increase blood flow to the penis, helping men suffering from erectile dysfuntion (ED). Literature on this subject contradicts. It is only documented that researchers for Pfizer's Kent facility are responsible for Sildenfil's synthesis into pill form (Viagra). The sources attributing British scientists with its "invention" come only from the British press; but others, including Pfizer itself, dispute these claims--or they are silent about the truth. Either way, you cannot state something as fact when even Pfizer disputes its accuracy. The controversy surrounding Viagra's development should be discussed more in the article, at least. More importantly, I am shocked the article failed to mention anywhere that sildenfil's original purpose was to treat heart disease, not ED. I read in the article that one of Viagra's contraindications is heart problems. Where is the history here?? Pfizer learned later through trial studies in the United States sildenfil's positive results in the treatment of ED. There needs to be more historical research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidosdad (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually they discovered its ED effects during the First in Man clinical trial in Canterbury. Your points would be perfectly fine to add to the article, provided there's a verifiable source. I don't have such a source and although I heard the story from one of my lecturers, who was the doctor who ran the FiM clinic, I can't add this to the article. Oni no Akuma (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The "dispute" about inventorship of Viagra was a comedy of errors started by the British press and compounded by Pfizer's own public relations department who are/were not scientists. The concept of inventorship has a very precise meaning in patent law. The chemists who designed the chemical compound that is now called sildenafil were Andrew Bell, Dr David Brown and Dr Nicholas Terrett and were assigned as inventors in the original patent. Of course this was for the original heart disease indication. Susbsequently the effect on erectile dysfunction was discovered during phase I clinical trials and an additional "use patent" was filed for this new application of the drug. Finally, process patents also exist which cover the industrial synthesis of the drug (which is very different from the original lab synthesis) and it was these latter patents naming Peter Dunn and Albert Wood as inventors of the industrial process that caused the confusion. So who invented Viagra ? Well clearly Bell, Brown and Terrett were the first to design sildenafil. So how do you explain the response of Pfizer's PR department ? Quite simply this was an error made by someone who does understand patent law that has never been refuted. Yes, hundreds of people contributed to the progress of sildenafil from the lab to the clinic but not of them are in the legal definition "inventors". That term can only be reserved for the chemists who designed the original compound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanrarmour (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

- The name and its use is displayed in a 1970s mexican movie called: La Cariñosa Motorizada (1977), about the story of a prostitute who falls in love and decides to quit the business. In one scene an older man places a call asking for "La Cariñosa" and when he confirms the date, he pulls a compartment in his desk and its a bottle of Viagra and he takes one pill smiling along. Then he takes another and he grabs a letter opener and holds it firm suggesting the use of the pills (an erection is suggested). I was so intrigued and I could not find any content on the internet corroborating the fact. But the movie DOES contain such reference. So weird nobody mentions anything. Links to the movie date and review: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~dwilt/addenda.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmedici (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the movie clearly show a bottle of blue pills with a viagra logo, or did it show an oral dosage form pill that gave an erection? I highly suspect that it was the latter as that concept has been around as long as aphrodisiacs have. In any case, viagra's ED effect wasn't even discovered until 2000-ish. Oni no Akuma (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month

This article is the newest Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month! Let's try and get it to meet the featured or good article criteria. Please see WP:MEDMOS for some info on how to format drug-related articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a699015.html#side-effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.190.113 (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Viagra.com is U.S. centric. There is also Viagra.ca for Canada, and maybe others for other countries. Should we add those, or is it standard practice to only link to the U.S. site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.111.46 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming "Viagra"

The name, Viagra, was penned by professsional "namer" and New Jersey resident Arlene Teck. Arlene is a creative thinker who has named other medicinals, businesses, processes, and other endeavors and products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.1.68 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Impact of Viagra,

Viagra though has been the subect of much "spam" and related such, this article needs a section (EG 1.5) devoted to the impact that viagra has brought about; Cultural or economical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.53.229 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Recreational Use

the current version states "It is sometimes used recreationally, though this use is somewhat pointless in young, healthy men, as they receive no benefit from the drug.[25]" and cites USAToday as a source. regardless of what that article says, viagra still gives young men longer lasting harder erections, with *significantly* reduced rebound time between erections, it also allows young men to overcome performance anxiety. there are countless reports on Erowid.org verifying this fact in the sildenafil vault, and elsewhere online, it just makes pharmacological sense. do you think all these young men would be paying money for it if they were only receiving a placebo effect? the article should be edited because this current version is blatant misinformation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.184.237 (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're half-right, and I have found a scholarly source to help with this issue: http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v15/n3/abs/3901005a.html
Viagra has no effect on the quality of the erection and sexual performance, as demonstrated by this placebo controlled study, but it does reduced post-orgasmic refractory time.
Placebo effects are very powerful and, much like young male obsession over sexual matters, not to be underestimated.Legitimus (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
ok i see that you need a scholarly source to prove this but i can *assure* you that you are wrong and the effects of sildenafil are not placebo, it works so well that priapism is a serious concern, one can be walking down the street and merely think of sex for a moment and get a massive erection that lasts 20 minutes. tell me thats placebo. thats like saying that SSRIs will not have any effect on people without depression, who are you kidding? anyway if you need a source thats one thing, but you should just open up your mind to the obvious fact that the same enzyme inhibition which gives suffers of ED erections will also aid the erections of the healthy, i would bet my life on it, try it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.184.237 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
A young man without ED, getting an erection for 20 minutes? That's astounding! That never happens to such men normally without a PDE5 Inhibitor. Sorry, but you're going to have to prove it.
What exactly do you define as young? It is well documented that sexual performance shows a steady decline from about teenage onwards. If sildenafil has any effect then obviously it will exert that effect restoring performance from the very start of deterioration. So in the case of the teenager that means his 20 mins from a stray thought becomes 30 mins from a stray thought. Still has an effect. Maybe the rest of us who are no longer teenagers consider either situation to be equivalent, but it isn't as a matter of fact. Sildenafil is a recreational drug under virtually all circumstances, does anoyne take it other than for pleasure? Perhaps male prostitutes? I recall seeing a documentary in the early days of viagra where some young male was intervied who had taken part in trials. He said something like 'I was getting an erection watching coronation street'. I presume he meant, 'getting an erection when I would not normally expect to get one while watching coronation street'. Talk about denying reality in this section of the article. Sandpiper (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Legitimus, I think that comment about having to prove a statement was by you, though somehow you neglected to sign it. Every wiki editor must be fully aware that using wiki rules to distort facts is plain bad faith editing contrary to the overriding interests of the encyclopedia. Wiki lawyering to defend a POV is entirely frowned upon. A claim for cold fusion might need quite a lot of supporting evidence, but for the efficacy of sildenafil, just look at pfizers accounts.
I note the article currently cites a newspaper article as its authoritative source. Hmm. I challenge this as a reputable source for such matters. The newspaper article starts by stating that young men generally are using viagra because of perceived benefits, 'young men add viagra to their drug arsenal'. Do we say this? It then proceeds in a plainly very unbalanced way to rubbish viagra. You yourself have just argued that it has a major placebo effect, if nothing else. Is this mentioned in the wiki article? It claims illicit viagra is expensive. It is certainly correct to say they might pay 30$, but a quick search will find you any number of cheaper offers on the internet. The article is seeking to mislead and thus discredits itself. The newspaper claims such drugs may be impure or other than what they claim, yet despite searching I have not managed to find any study of what exactly is likely to be in such pills. (well I did once find one by the dutch police, which said most conterfiet viagra was basically what it said it was, the most likely discrepancy being small errors in dose) As a whole, the wiki article fails to make it clear that reputable pharmacutical generic viagra is manufactured in a number of countries, though how it may come to be distributed internationally is more suspect. Viagra is not an aphrodisiac and no one reputable has ever claimed it is: I'd entirely agree with any comment that it does not increase desire or improve the sensation of the sexual experience. But that is not the entirity of the matter, the experience as a whole depends on factors like showing off, impressing your partner, confidence in the face of adverse factors, as the newspaper article states. As to our comment that it does not increase hardness of erection (implicitly in all men, not just 'young' ones), this is total rubbish. Self evidently it affects hardness as it helps some get an erection at all. In practice it increases hardness across the board. Try some. wiki does not require sources for self-evident facts. The newspaper claims viagra is being abused by young people. Again, this is very POV, because what exactly distinguishes use by a young person to enhance sexual experience, from that by an older person? That the older person is unable to have any sexual experience without it? I think not, seek out some prescribing guidelines and this is obviously not the case. I'm sure a case may be made against use of viagra, but I suspect such a case would affect the older users as well as the younger ones, but it is not made in this source. The wiki article argues that recreational users are being misled by myths about viagra, whereas they are just as likely to be paying attention to the stated facts of what it does. Where is the source to support our claim that misconceptions about its mechanism and function... has in turn led to its use recreationally by healthy men. Sandpiper (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The ref has been changed by Legitimus. I asked him in an extended exchange on his talk page whether the new ref substantiates the claims in this article, but have had no relevant comment on this point, except perhaps that he disclaims responsibility for the text not having written it. He also did not comment on criticisms I made there of the Mondainin ref. I have therefore amended the text. Sandpiper (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I have removed the sentence:These myths include that the drug increases actual penis size, increases the hardness of the erection, or improves the quality of the sexual experience. My general knowledge suggests viagra does not permanently increase penis size, however does increase erection hardness (thats what it is prescribed for!) and probably rather depends on circumstances whether it improves the experience. Sandpiper (talk)

I have no interest in justifying the references to completely irrelevant, ulterior-motive challenges of a reliable source. I initially felt Sandpiper's comments to be frankly belligerent which only served to make me more disinclined to respond to such challenges (per the "don't feed the troll" principle. I welcome comments by other users and suggest no action be taken until that has happened.Legitimus (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also problematic was:While anecdotal benefits are commonly reported, it is believed that the majority are little more than placebo effects. I asked legitimus what the ref which he inserted actually says, but got no specific answer. Sandpiper (talk)

If you must know, Mondaini first states "Since sildenafil has no effect on libido and since healthy young men usually have good-quality erections, there is no obvious reason to expect the drug to have a beneficial effect in young men without ED. However, due to media interest in the drug (often a so-called ‘lifestyle drug’), there seems to be a significant demand for sildenafil by young healthy males who wish to enhance sexual performance."
Mondaini found a 33% improvement in erectile qualify and function from placebo, with no statistically significant difference compared to real sildenafil. Furthermore, Mondaini then states: "These data suggest a strong placebo effect in these young men. This is an important data and parallels the high percentage of success of placebo in andrological patients with psychogenic ED."Legitimus (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I read the mondaini abstract, which is the only one of your refs with a web link. My rewrite of this article precisely reflected mondini's findings, although admittedly I did not go into the studies shortcomings. I can't say what the other refs have in them, there is no link and you have not commented. Properly speaking, what Mondaini found was that more people reported an improvement in erection using viagra rather than using placebo, but given the very small sample size (10 people) the result was not statistically significant. The sample was too small to tell if it was a statistically significant result. However, even with the very small sample he found a significant reduction in refractory time. i.e. mondaini demonstrated a real effect of viagra in his test group. You also inserted This study also noted a especially powerful placebo effect in the control group.(ref name=Mondaini/) There is nothing in the mondaini abstract claiming that the placebo effect was especially powerful. yes, that there was one, but no, to claiming it was big or small. The obvious objection to this trial is that it seeks to test the effect of viagra in an ordinary situation, but obviously if the subjects are taking a famous drug (or think they are), then the trial condition he was specifically seeking has been disturbed. Had he continued the trial over time, then it would have been interesting to see if the the placebo effect persisted or the difference between placebo and viagra groups altered.
Perhaps you can provide the specific section of the ref supporting your insert, The reasons behind such use include the belief that the drug increases libido, improves sexual performance (ref name=JAPA/), or permanently increases penis size. I don't see a particular problem with this wording because it does not asssert that this is a false belief, as it previously did. However, I would want to be satisfied that the JAPA ref does have some sort of evidence that these specific beliefs are significant reasons for this recreational use.
More importantly, I must insist on a specific quote from the source (JAPA) for your POV insertion of 'inappropriate' when describing this recreational use. What is the evidence that it is inappropriate? Sandpiper (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much of a problem with your current wording of Mondaini's findings, so that's at least one point we can agree on. Though in this talk you have one glaring misread: The sample was 60, not 10, and this is visible in the public abstract.
Regarding the placebo effect, I have already stated that Mondaini called it "strong" and notes it is particular high much like in other studies (which I need to look up). And it should go without saying that when 1/3 of your sample group has a placebo effect, that is pretty darn significant. This finding should not surprise anyone in that sexuality is heavily rooted in the mind.
Now regarding the "beliefs" of recreational users, both Mondaini and JAPA make reference to it. Mondaini mentions it in my aforementioned quote. JAPA says: "Opioid abusers were seeking the drug to improve sexual performance that might be adversely affected by long-term opiate use. Healthy men were also seeking the drug in the belief that it would improve their sexual performance." (According to the drug reference I have, Sildenfil will work on a person under the influence of opioids, but this is advised against because it increase the risk of priapism.). Under the study section titled "Epidemiology of Recreational Use" the first sentence is "Soon after sildenafil was marketed in the United States, inappropriate use in several patients in the Iowa Medicaid system was noted." There is a long list that follows after that.Legitimus (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see this is going to be very difficult to sort out without a copy of the references in their entirity. The mondaini sentence you quote above says 'a strong placebo effect'. That is not at all the same as what you wrote, 'an especially powerful placebo effect'. If you are citing refs as imprecisely as this we are not going to be able to agree. I'm afraid it somewhat undermines my faith that you are reporting the refs accurately. Off the top of my head, I seem to recall that trials on antidepressants produced similar sized placebo effects.(not that the manufacturers put it quite like that).
The result was 10 people responding with improved erection on placebo and 12 on viagra, which is what I was thinking of when talking about sample size. A sample of 10 positive results. I'm afraid I've forgotten most of my statistics and having a nice chunky textbook in my hand is not a quick way to remember. However, I remember a professor standing up and saying 'random errors go as root n'. What I'm not sure is whether that's root 10 or root 30, but it doesnt make much difference. the expected range of results would then be something like 10± 3 or 5 and 12± 3 or 5. So making a ballpark estimate of how the experiment might have turned out if the random factors had fallen differently, the results could equally have been placebo 7/30, viagra 15/30. Apologies that this is a very hand-waving non-rigorous proof, but as I recall is basically correct. Small sample results are very unreliable. Anyway, basically the random error on the actual result is much bigger than the difference between the two results so it is not mathematically significant. Which makes absolutely no comment on whether there is a real effect hidden inside the results which a bigger sample would have revealed.
To be honest, whoever wrote the abstract was wrong. What he should have said was that the trial revealed a positive effect on refractory time but no mathematically significant effect on erection size. (I presume he means size, but the abstract just says 'improved' and obviously does not mean waiting time to achieve next one). The trial did not prove that sildenafil has no effect in 'improving' erection. It determined a statistical maximum limit upon what any such effect might be. Even that would only be a statistical estimate and unreliable on these sample sizes. I couldn't tell you what the formula to calculate that is, but the result certainly isn't zero. Perhaps the full article goes into this, but somehow I doubt it. What Mondaini's conclusion should have been was 'more research with a larger sample is needed, but the result suggests viagra works for healthy adults'. From the info in the abstract it beats me where he has evidence to sustain his conclusion, Sildenafil should not be given to young healthy men to improve their erections and patients should be advised against recreational abuse of the drug. He might have grounds for saying this, but he certainly didn't get it from the study results. If what healthy men are looking for is reduced refractory time, then he proved it works and logically they should be using it. Are you seriously suggesting young guys would not be interested in this proven effect?
As to beliefs, again I point out it is most important to note that a belief may be well founded and correct. It should also be noted that this belief is broadly the hypothesis which the trials set out to test, so if the author is starting with a presumption it is false, he starts out badly. Re inappropriate use in several patients in the Iowa Medicaid system, that sounds very much like it was inappropriate in the sense that medicaid was not willing to pay for peoples leisure activities, not that there was anything inherently wrong in taking viagra. Sandpiper (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
i'm sorry, but basically the study seems to me littered with problems which make it unreliable and this accounts for my incredulity that the article was written with such bold claims that viagra has no effect on younger people. If I had better things to do with my time, obviously I wouldn't be writing for wiki anyway, but I feel i'm teaching someone about the mathematical realities of trials who ought to know this stuff already. Sandpiper (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Aside from that patently absurd attempt at statistical analysis (and I praise god the board of the APA doesn't answer to a random druggie on the internet regarding what studies it approves for publishing), do you know the sort of people who read wikipedia looking for information? Usually the young and often uninformed. Do you want some kid in highschool or college reading this and thinking he can get it on like a pro in bed if he goes out and illegally obtains some little blue pills? And then ending up in the ER? If this drug is so bloody safe, why isn't it over the counter and sold at truck stops? You ever consider that?Legitimus (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
well, in some countries, it is (including famously the USA, from something I was reading, under a different name, until someone found out because it worked too well). I expect it will become so in more too, once it falls out of patent. I would much rather sale on demand of antibiotics was restricted than sale on demand of viagra. Inappropriate use of antibiotics does harm to everyone and much of this is done via prescription. My opnion as to why viagra is available in most countries only on prescription is because the medical profession has created a nice little closed shop whereby you can only get medications if they get their cut of the money first. The proper way to aid the public is by providing accurate information. If that means telling college kids viagra will give them a stiffer dick, when this is true, then this is exactly what we should do. If you want to explain viagra's bad effects, then do that instead of pretending it does not have desireable ones. You seem to be betraying your own bias, that this article should mislead so as to discourage use. That course only ever leads to discrediting of the source of information. The last thing the internet needs is another unreliable source of information abut viagra. Sandpiper (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I came here in response to the request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology. I'm not going to get into the discussion of supposed motives of the editors here, but I will try to be helpful. I've made some pretty minor copyedits to the section in question. I think the present version of the section is alright. In the context of how it is currently written, there is no need for the word "illegitimate," in that it is clear that this is "off-label" use (which, come to think of it, might be a better word choice), and there is no need to raise the judgmental implications of illegitimacy. I think that it is very good that the present version describes the placebo effect in the way that it does, because that is good science. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well actually I said "inappropriate" rather than "illegitimate." But I would point out that off-label has it's own meaning in medicine, and refers to a qualified person prescribing medication for uses other than that which it has been approved by the governing body. The scope of this specific section really was intended to cover usage that is illegal. But I am more or less satisfied with the current version of the section. Legitimus (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The article ought to mention a strong placebo effect, I have no problem with that: the study found a strong effect, and this is as you would expect, again as the study says. However I have a big problem with 'especially powerful', which is not supported by anything said so far and in view of the debate above seems to have been chosen to discredit the drugs pharmaceutical effects.
What do you mean by illegal? You seem to be arguing that all use of drugs except by legally sanctioned routes is bad and every such use of any drug, however appropriate and sensible that use may be, should be condemned because of the way the drug was obtained. That is absurd. Are you arguing that the recreational use described here is in fact not off-label, in the sense that the people concerned are using it precisely as intended and licensed? I have had a similar debate to this over the seat belt issue. I have met several medical people over the years who have commented how the introduction of seatbelts had dramatically reduced the numbers of vehicle injury patients, so they swear blind seatblets are marvellous. Yet if you analyse the national published figures on road deaths in the UK before and after belts became compulsory, you will see there was no statistically significant change. People's judgement is biased by their own incomplete knowledge and experience. Many people claim the published figures showed there was a change, but it isn't there. I think Mondiani's study was well worth publishing, but all that says is that the medical world is littered with inadequate studies which are the norm. It all comes down to money.Sandpiper (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize to Legitimus for misremembering the word you used, but the end result is the same in any case. And I agree with Sandpiper about "especially powerful." I hadn't noticed it before, but I agree that it carries an unnecessary POV, and I've changed it to "significant." Beyond that, let me offer some advice to you both, for whatever it's worth (maybe not much). I'm guessing that the wording on the page now is a reasonable reconciliation of both of your concerns, and there might not be much more to accomplish (in terms of edits to the page) by continuing this debate. It sounds to me like you both are taking the issue too personally, so maybe this would be a good time to step back. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I didn't bother reading Sandpiper's last post and I going take this article off my watchlist for now.Legitimus (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't take offence: its a first for me to be offered a place on a drug rehabilitation program for making an edit which someone didn't like. Legitimus, perhaps you might wish to consider that sometimes the only issue people have is that pages are not factual, or at least not in accord with the refs given. I regret that you do not feel able to continue watching the page, because the refs you inserted benefit the page. Its just that they didn't support the text which was there. Sandpiper (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chemical synthesis

"Viagra" should be deleted from the following sentence: "The preparation steps for synthesis of Viagra (sildenafil citrate) are as follows:" since it is the compound (sildenafil citrate) which is synthesized and not the drug product (of the brand name Viagra). --Szaszicska (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point! I fixed it. Actually, the ref (and the list of steps in our article) doesn't account for the citric-acid component at all, so just "sildenafil" is the correct term here I think. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny wording

"These myths include that the drug increases actual penis size, increases the hardness of the erection, or improves the quality of the sexual experience. This has in turn led to its use recreationally by otherwise healthy men."

What's the function of the word "otherwise" in this sentence? It implies that at least some part of the user is not healthy, which is not intended. Either the implication is that the recreational use of Viagra by healthy men makes the person somehow ill (mentally?) or the healthy men have erectile dysfunction after all. I'd say, remove the "otherwise". It sounds funny. Remmelt (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Steath value judgement inserted into study results sentence?

Under Recreational Use there is this sentence: "Studies on the effects of viagra when used recreationally are limited, but suggest that it has little effect when used by those not suffering from erectile dysfunction, and having sex within a stable relationship. (italics mine)

Was "having sex within a stable relationship" actually part of any study results? Seems like a subjective Trojan thought, tacked on stealth-wise by some prudish editor..

-- WanderingFool (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It was one of the criteria for candidates chosen for the study cited. ie only people having sex within a stable relationship were included in the study. So the study says nothing about, eg people having sex with someone they just met. Incidentally a second criteria was 'Subjects had used no medication in the 6 months prior to the study', which if true surely ruled out most of the population except the extraordinarily healthy. Now, if the study had been conducted on the not insignificant proportion who customarily take antidepressants, or even those taking aspirin for their hangovers? Who knows what the results might have been. Sandpiper (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

myalgia

On the page Vardenafil, myalgia is mentioned as a side effect. Not on this page, is there an explanation for this? Is this side effect more known by levitra than by viagra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.115.131 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Online consutlation" citation needed

I hope somebody with editing rights for the sildenafil page will note the following and do an edit.

The sildenafil entry under the heading "History" has a request for citation needed for the following statement: Numerous sites on the Internet offer Viagra for sale after an "online consultation", often a simple web questionnaire.

The citation or reference could be as follows. See example of an online consultation for sildenafil at http://www.doctorfox.co.uk/erectile-dysfunction/

There are numerous website offering sildenafil on a doctor's private prescription following online consultation.

Additional supporting information: websites in the UK can prescribe sildenafil legally if they are regulated in the UK by the Care Quality Commission and the sildenafil is supplied by a pharmacy registered the the RPSGB (Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain). Both these apply to the website I have referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Tony Steele (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

The Sildenafil article has been semi-protected for most of the past two years (except for one week in 2009) due to spam and vandalism. This seems like a reasonable page for using the new pending changes software so that casual editors can again make edits to the page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sildenafil/Archive_1&oldid=1075508117"