Talk:Pyridoxine/doxylamine

Biased use of language
I have concerns with this addition to the article:
 * The commonly reported 'fact' above regarding teratogenic activity excludes other known effects on fetuses and newborns found in worldwide research from many different sources in scientific communities, provided on the first external link listed below.

As written, the text makes the article appear to be in an argument with itself. This should be rewritten or reverted.

In the same edit, a link was added to the article "How a Commonly Used Drug Caused Birth Defects" (part 2 of 2) written by one of the Bendectin plaintiffs. I think that if we are to link to this article, we should do so in context. Right now there is nothing to suggest that the article is not written by a disinterested individual. Michael Slone (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is obviously biased. Also, Daubert did not "overturn" Frye, which is still used as the standard in some states.173.63.178.189 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This article sounds like it was written by the drug company making Bendectin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.120 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unfounded section
I removed a section that claimed, in essence, Bendectin to be teratogen, a view that has been soundly refuted in the scientific literature. There is no scientific review of Bendectin implicating it as a teratogen. Links provided were not based on scientific articles and also did not work. Ekem (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Improve citation for #18
Citation number eighteen in the article links to a blurb and a paywall. While the full article might be credible, linking to it in this form doesn't meet standards because it doesn't include any information which could be used to verify the claim; it merely states it as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlightfox (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence disputing the efficacy of Diclectin
New evidence, more accurately suppressed existing evidence, has emerged that Diclectin is ineffective in combating nausea associated with pregnancy.

See these sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/diclectin-pregnancy-nausea-vomiting-persaud-duchesnay-confidential-industry-documents-health-canada-1.4491300 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/scientific-expert-advisory-panels/diclectin/record-proceedings.html

In addition the FDA released a report in 2013 which recommended approval but indicated that the "treatment effect was small" - https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2013/021876Orig1s000CrossR.pdf

I have neither the time nor the experience to update this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.245.183 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Already added the 2018 review that those popular press peices are based on on the 19th. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added several recent articles on pregnancy and nausea and tried to remove much of the old medicine (being polite here). Evidenced Medicine does not support the claims made in this piece. It really could use a total rewrite, but I don't have the time. THEWOODMANIII — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWoodmanIII (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Mechanism
There is no discussion of the proposed mechanism for how the addition of a b6 vitamin improves the action of doxylamine. Does pyridoxine alone have an effect against morning sickness? If not, what is it about this combination that forms a synergizing product? ThreeRocks (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)