Talk:Trimetazidine

Trimetazidine induces reversible parkinsonism
It might be worth including a reference to this trimetazidine — parkinsonism connection in the article:

Trimetazidine induces parkinsonism, gait disorders and tremor

Reversible Parkinsonism linked to trimetazidine

Trimetazidine-induced parkinsonism

If parkinsonism appears, it is reversible on discontinuation of trimetazidine.

Note the repeated paragraph on effects on ATP production etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.211.212.225 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Drgao (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Performance-related use
As this is a banned drug, and one which has resulted in sanctioning of athletes, it would be useful to include information relating to the banning and consequences on this page. I can't work out how to add a new section, but if anyone can here are links for the info-

http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s4-hormone-and-metabolic-modulators/trimetazidine/ - The page outlining that it is banned http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25421604 - A research article outlining its use as a performance enhancing drug in athletes in Poland http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30173028 - A Chinese swimmer who was banned as a result of taking the drug 137.111.13.204 (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC) http://www.bbc.com/sport/winter-olympics/43180504 - Olympics, ban for a positive test

Anyone?
Anyone? 47.223.182.219 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Japanese page
there's a Japanese page under "トリメタジジン" 69.116.102.134 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Alleged Valieva doping
This revert was justified because 1) the narrative uses quotes and opinions rather than published science about how a TMZ dose and mechanism are alleged to apply, WP:SYNTH, 2) the content reads like a news summary, WP:NOTNEWS, 3) most of the sources are from popular science or the press, and the sources in journals are not WP:SCIRS reviews, and 4) the content is premature. Wait for the WADA and IOC reports when we can then write about actual conclusions, WP:RECENTISM. Zefr (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not true. Did you read Fabier's article? If it were not there, then this would be an original synthesis, and this is a statement of his position. Also, it is NOT a medical issue as you think. These are the questions of doping experts. This examination requires knowledge of jurisprudence, the possibility of testing equipment for laboratories, and only then medicine. In reality WADA does not deal with medicine at all, if you do not understand it from the sources. They formulate indicators from laboratory equipment and if it show a non-zero indicator, then the WADA Code is triggered. The principle position of WADA is the almost complete refusal of doctors to participate in the process. Your knowledge of medicine will not help you much here, because. WADA is a separate world where medicine plays a very small role. Even doping substances are determined WADA by non-physicians. They check popularity of usage of the substance. This is lab data. --Spellcheckz (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And without personal attacks like "speculation", please. I see you don't understand sources but you attacked another editors.--Spellcheckz (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And it's quite funny that you want to "wait for WADA's report". I think this is violation of Neutral_point_of_view. WADA  is not an "authoritative source" under the WADA Code. The fact is that doping disputes are considered by the CAS Court. СAS has full rights reject the WADA reports and WADA is obliged to comply. The WADA Code itself is built on the fact that WADA can make mistakes. The final decision is made by the Sports Court. CAS published resolution and I actually took sources from the motivational part of it, which I wrote about in the comments. As I understand, you are not interested in reading court decision. You want to use only the accusatory part, without taking into account the side of the defense and the court's decision. This is an obvious violation of Neutral_point_of_view.--Spellcheckz (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)