Talk:11β-Chloromethylestradiol

The Soto, et al., paper seems unreliable and might not support any claims in this article
This is currently reference [6], I will call it the Soto, et al., paper. The citation is currently this:

Soto AM, Sonnenschein C, Chung KL, Fernandez MF, Olea N, Serrano FO (October 1995). "The E-SCREEN assay as a tool to identify estrogens: an update on estrogenic environmental pollutants". Environ. Health Perspect. 103 Suppl 7: 113–22. doi:10.1289/ehp.95103s7113. PMC 1518887. PMID 8593856

The paper is only available as a PDF with no OCR, which makes it harder to search, but the full text is available on PMID.

This Soto, et al., paper is cited only once in this Wikipedia article, and it doesn't really support any of the claims in the preceding sentence. The compound 11β-chloromethylestradiol seems to appear just once in this source, in Table 1, where it is listed as showing activity as an estrogen under the "E-SCREEN assay" which is the main topic of the paper.

The paper by Soto, et al., is primarily notable for other irregularities. The abstract, results, and discussion all mention the CUMULATIVE effect of exposure to xenoestrogens, and "Figure 3" and "Table 3" are referenced as showing the cumulative effect, but Figure 3 and Table 3 don't mention either *time* or *repetition*, so the idea that anything cumulative is being tested or illustrated is ridiculous. I also cannot find any mention of "methods" that relate to Figure 3 or Table 3.

That was just a spot-check based on one keyword, "cumulative", which has a fairly clear definition. Also, it seemed outside the scope of this paper, and the scope of the paper was already unbelievably broad. Like, what does this laboratory do? What equipment do they actually have? "All of it" seems to be the answer.

This comment is seven paragraphs long, including this final paragraph. I actually did read the Soto, et al., paper rather carefully. I didn't read every single sentence, because I think it may be fake and it was hurting my brain a little bit. I did a deeper dive into a few aspects of the paper, especially focusing on what the authors think is important, what they expended effort on, and claims that are most easily falsifiable. My best guess is that the authors like to avoid claims that can be double-checked easily with Google and PubMed. They probably spend substantial effort in consulting a thesaurus and harvesting keywords from similar journal articles. That was my impression, I am curious to hear what other Wikipedians think. Fluoborate (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this an abandoned drug?
This article is in the category "Abandoned drugs", and the first sentence says it was "never marketed". That statement has 6 references cited, and I read at least the abstract for all of those six articles. None of them say that this estrogen analog showed promise for treating any disease or was being tested for the potential to treat disease. One article talks about breast cancer cells, but it talks about binding kinetics and avoids the topic of clinical treatments entirely.

The codename ORG-4333 indicates it may have been developed by Organon. Perhaps someone can find literature from the company about why they developed it? Fluoborate (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)