Talk:Hydrazine sulfate

"Statistically significant"
How is a P value of 0.1 statistically significant diff? Even the paper in question does not make this claim, it states

Citing this paper to state that the drug produced a "a statistically-significant trend toward survival" is not "correcting a misrepresentation of the medical literature", it is exactly the opposite. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't edit-war to introduce factual inaccuracies, this edit reinstates the exact same problem as I have explained above. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources
Dear Mr. Vickers,

Thanks for your message of 6/12/2009.

It is not with my wife you have been communicating, but with me.

In your message you write that you must rely on the most reliable sources. In this case-in a dispute involving the results of medical studies, it is the medical literature which is the most "reliable source."

In my previous e-mail to you I presented an example of your present statement on hydrazine sulfate being factually incorrect, in which it was stated that the California (Harbor-UCLA) studies did not show any statistically significant improvement in survival or other benefit, whereas in fact they did-and I provided you with an exact quote from the California studies so stating.

I suggest you extend yourself and consult the medical literature itself. You can do it by computer and it might take you all of 5 minutes. The exact reference is: Journal of Clinical Oncology 8:9-15, 1990. The authors state: "For PS [Performance Status] 0-1 patients survival was significantly prolonged with hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (P = .05). The survival at 1year was also significantly increased (P = .05) for hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (42% alive v 18%, respectively."

Do you understand that these studies showed a survival increase statistically significant to the P = .05, level? It doesn't matter what your cronies are telling you about these studies. The studies speak for themselves and show a statistically significant survival benefit.

Why would you possibly want to carry incorrect and medically misleading information on Wickipedia, no matter who communicated it to you?

I am certainly determined to straighten out this situation by going to the highest levels of government, if needs be.

In the meantime perhaps you would have the courtesy to personally communicate with me, as you obviously have with the long time adversaries of this drug.

Joseph Gold, M.D. Phone: 315:472-6616 E-Mail: jg@scrinst.org

Judytaylorgold (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Dr Gold, the trial itself showed no overall benefit. After the trial was completed, the investigators performed a subgroup analysis (a procedure fraught with the possibility of generating false results) and reported that one of these subgroups produced a P value of less then 0.05. This statistical analysis is already discussed in the article, and is given the correct amount of weight, with the drawbacks of the analysis discussed using a secondary source (the JCO editorial).


 * I strongly urge you to read Conflict of interest and Neutral point of view.


 * As to your idea of lobbying the government to influence the content of a private website run by a charity, I can't see how that would work.


 * Yours sincerely Dr Tim Vickers, 17:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Vickers, I have some questions which I'm hoping you can address. I'm a medical journalist trying to sort through the complexities of the hydrazine sulfate issue as they apply to Wikipedia and elsewhere. I think discussion and debate is productive for all concerned and as a matter of record here on the Discussion pages. I'm hoping you will agree. Thus to my questions:


 * 1) can you please explain how you reached the conclusion that the Chlebowski study showed no "overall" benefit? The study conclusions appear quite explicit as per the study conclusions and discussion. While there were no statistically significant benefit for the unfavorable group, the investigators report that for "...the favorable PS patients (PS 0-1), survival was significantly prolonged with hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo addition (median survival, 328 days v 209 days, respectively; P < .05, a 17-week increase). The survival at I year in the PS 0-1 patients also was significantly increased (P<.05) for hydrazine compared with placebo addition (42% alive v 18%, respectively)." I realize you have raised the issue of subgroup bias, but would excluding patient groups based on mobility and ambulation, vs. not be less biased? Also, was not Chlebowski an acclaimed oncologist who carefully adhered to strict clinical trial guidelines?


 * 2) When the NCI negative HS trials were completed in 1990, the GAO investigated a number of possible biasing issues with the trials, specifically possible incompatibility problems deriving from the concurrent use of MAO inhibiting drugs with HS---also an MAO. Defending their position, the NCI then conducted a post study retrospective analysis of patients who enrolled later in the trials and who were alleged not to be taking any MAO's etc. but who still, nonetheless, didn't benefit from HS therapy---thereby mitigating the MAO concurrent use claim. However, is this after-the-fact analysis of patients also not considered a form of subgroup analysis as you define it in your previous commentary? whether yes or no, does not concurrent use of incompatible drugs---which the GAO admitted was the case---render any study conclusions invalid, pro or con? While the NCI says there are no compatibility issues with the concurrent use of MAO's and/or other psychotropic drugs, can you point me to the published research substantiating that claim? (fyi, the Russians have prohibited concurrent use of MAO's in their use of or clinical trial analysis of Sehydrin as per their study citations).


 * 3) Last question if I may. While hydrazine sulfate is considered "disproven" in the United States, it is considered "proven" in Russia as an adjunctive treatment for disease stabilization. Russian investigators have found disease stabilization in 30-35% of patients so treated (please see full article: http://scri.ngen.com/article10.html). Therefore, does the Russian experience mitigate or challenge the conclusions of the 3 American trials, and the formal declaration of HS being "disproven"? In effect, why is the American conclusion valid but the Russian invalid---especially considering the trial flaws as noted by the GAO?

Thank you for any clarification you might wish to renderRonsword (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That initial conversation was nearly a year ago - you'd be better off starting a new section at the bottom of the page. As an investigative journalist, it's your job to report new and interesting information to the public, however as a wikipedia editor, it is not your job to try to report the news.  Our core content policies are neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability.  In other words, we have to discuss topics as they are found in the best mainstream sources (so heavy weight to scientific journals and high-quality books), we have to source those discussions to the sources, and we are not allowed to make our own observations about the sources, the evidence base, or the implications of any sources.  We cite reliable, secondary sources in proportion to their views by the appropriate scholarly body, and most of those bodies are critical of HS.  As pointed out elsewhere, this is a primary study making it a priori inappropriate, irrespective its poor design, unimpressive findings and age.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Leningrad study
I've removed this since no source was provided, if this was the same trial as is already discussed in the previous paragraph, I don't think it is worth quoting at such length. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Side-effects: different compound?
The side effects section starts with the term "Hydrazine hydrate" and this is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Is this a typo? If not, the difference between Hydrazine Sulfate and relevance of this needs to be explained.

If the significance of this section is not clarified the section ought to be removed. I will do so in a few weeks if there is no clarification. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The cited references refer to "sulfate" rather than "hydrate" so it appears to be a typo, which I fixed.Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Pricing of capsules
I have removed the pricing of tablets/capsules, this seems way too specific, certainly for the opening section. This kind of information is not contained on other chemical pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PartySloth (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hydrazinium bisulfate and hydrazinediium sulfate
This article is about the salt hydrazinium bisulfate,. Apparently there is a compound hydrazinediium sulfate with formula [] [] This would be an isomer of hydrazinium bisulfate. Are they really different compounds? If so, the isomerism should be mentioned. If not, the article should be corrected. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)