Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/9 August 2011/Gabapentin

Where is the dispute?
The first few sections of the Gabapentin article.

This section should explain where the problem is. Link to the articles where the dispute is taking place.

This article, contains a number of claims that have not been supported by the data. Gabapentin is not approved for neuropathic pain by the FDA, but rather only post-herpetic neuralgia. Plus, a number of off-label uses are suggested where more recent data show no benefit or no superiority to extant interventions. Pfizer has been found guilty not only of promoting off-label use illegaly, but also, beyond just scientific misconduct, actual fraud in suppressing negative data that contradicted the indications for which they were pumping up sales. It is important that both clinicians and patients have a clear idea of the data, the risks and the benefits. I included some updated language in the Talk section. These include review of studies that refute

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:JaguDorje
 * User:Jmh649

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it: JaguDorje (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
A calm explanation of what the problem is. Be as precise as you wish, but avoid general statements such as "User:X has a POV regarding article Y", as that's usually unhelpful. Provide diffs if possible, but try to keep the description brief. A list of issues that need to be addressed, such as this, would also help.

The article as it stands makes numerous claims that suggest benefits for off-label use which are at the very least in dispute. Indeed, proper assessment of such off-label therapeutic value for several indications has been rendered exceedingly problematic by the fraudulent activities of the manufacturer. These findings of fact should be included. In addition, numerous "Positive" findings are not well supported as there are extant data that conflict with the mentioned findings. As a result, physicians and patients have been misled by the company; they should not be misled by a Wiki entry.

What would you like to change about this?
Here, tell us what you would like to changed. Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that.

I would like my edits accepted. I would like the article to accurately reflect the approved indications and fully discuss the data for the off-label uses.

How do you think we can help?
We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.

I would like the article to more accurately reflect the data while recognizing the serious problem that suppression of negative data has on our understanding of how best and when to use medications. (This is not a unique case.)

Administrative notes
This dispute appears to have been resolved. I've notified both editors that it will be closed unless someone asks for it to be kept open by 20:00 UTC September 2, 2011. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Talk page discuss would be a good first place to begin. I assume all involved are reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)