Talk:BGR-34

Removed text
CC-BY-SA declaration; text below was removed from the article by me; I've left it here in case its removal breaks any references, which may also be used by future editors.  Baffle gab1978  23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Ayurveda is a system of medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent and practices derived from it form a type of alternative medicine. Whilst some researchers consider it to be pseudoscientific, others consider it a protoscience or trans-science system instead.  Baffle gab1978  23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Transcribed from discussion on WT:MED re: relevance of WP:MEDRS
The BGR-34 article is currently a Biology and Medicine Good Article Nominee. It concerns an Ayurvedic drug which appears to have received quite a bit attention in the lay press (largely in India) but very little in peer-reviewed medical journals. Accordingly, the long list of references is largely to articles in the lay press. I'm just wondering what the stance is on WP:MEDRS for this sort of article. I haven't been much involved in pharma articles so far, and even less so in articles on alternative therapies and wondered if this still applied. These kinds of sources seem to be very thin on the ground for this drug based on a quick PubMed search despite the drug appearing to be a notable subject and well worth including in the encyclopaedia. Secondly, what do others think of the neutrality? The article is quite critical of the drug which is probably justified, but I wondered if others felt that it was too slanted in this direction.

I was tempted to have a go at doing a Good Article review for this one, but wanted some opinions on sourcing and neutrality beforehand.

Also notifying the main contributor to the article. Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your willingness to do the GAR.
 * IMHO, MEDRS is applicable only if I wish to make a claim that the drug works or cures some disease or the like. That there is no MEDRS related to the drug is one of the core locus of criticism (and the article).
 * As to the negative slant, anything otherwise falls in FALSE BALANCE territory, IMO. Every report on the drug, that came out after the initial buzz, has been uniformly critical of it and the process invested in it. I also have two more sources (atleast one of which is more scathing than any I have read) but are sitting behind lofty paywalls:( &#x222F; WBG converse 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have raised the same queries (about MEDRS) over FTN days back but got no response.
 * If there is no response in the next 72 hrs over either thread; I think we ought to proceed to the GAR. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you didn't get much response. I hope to get round to the review in time but it won't be for a couple of weeks at least due to real life commitments. There's time to wait for an opinion from editors with more experience than me. Here's hoping someone responds on this board! PeaBrainC (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A significant part of this article isn't Biomedical information, but some of it is. If "ideal" sources aren't available, then you will have to use the best sources that you can find.
 * Also, the sentence with 13 refs at the end, in addition to 10 more refs in the middle, probably needs a little more thought. Pick the best sources, and skip the rest.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and .    - things have got busy in the real world so I'm not going to be able to do the review any time soon.  I will copy this discussion to the article's talkpage to inform anyone who gets round to doing the review any sooner. PeaBrainC (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and .    - things have got busy in the real world so I'm not going to be able to do the review any time soon.  I will copy this discussion to the article's talkpage to inform anyone who gets round to doing the review any sooner. PeaBrainC (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Similar drugs - others sub-section
In my opinion, the entire Others subsection should be deleted before this completes the GA review. While it shines a valid critical spotlight on the India regulatory agencies which have been involved in producing and approving products of unproven efficacy, the content has nothing to do with BGR-34. The immediately preceding subsection on other anti-diabetes drugs of questionable value is sufficient to show that BGR-34 does not have a unique history. David notMD (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The subsection aids in the readers' understanding of the broader issue of India's lackadaisical regulation and oft-dubious drug approvals in these areas. Also, many newspaper/journal articles et al have mentioned these other cases whilst commenting on BGR-34. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not delete the section, but hold by my opinion. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

IRT some sources
The following sources are correctly placed in the claims section, although they seem dubious for uncritically making them. The way the text contextualizes them is a good effort but I'm still unsure we'd need them if other sources can be used. The two claims are about side effects as well as it being an effective DPP-4 inhibitor. The dubious sources that appear to be promotional, possibly press releases: The current Alt News source could be used to cover the side effects claim instead, but I'm not sure yet which to use about DDP-4. Considering this article has the GA tag and that those sources passed through the process, I thought I'd post here instead of boldly removing them. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)