Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84

Price of medications
Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing (which did have consensus), there is no consensus to add the pricing to the articles. There were several ways to present this information proposed in the discussion (such as wikidata). Please feel free to start a follow-up discussion regarding that. - jc37 09:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

-

I have been including pricing information in medication articles. We have a good source here that gives the price range found internationally and in a number of countries in the developing world. Often the variation between prices is less than 5 fold. I have also been providing the US price as presented in this book but there are other good options. The US is not only a large portion of the EN speaking population but a large percentage of our readership. Also most other countries are somewhere between the global price and the US price. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions:
 * 
 * 
 * 

A few late notes: WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources provide average wholesale prices – the price paid by pharmacy buyers, not the price paid by individual consumers.
 * Most of the sources provide a price range, not a single number.
 * We have sources that provide both US wholesale prices and global wholesale prices . There is no need to provide prices only from the US.
 * Most drugs are generic, and the typical price for most generic drugs is relatively stable for years.

Support including pricing details
The most important reasons to provide this information is that it is useful to our readers, it is notable, and it can be well referenced. More useful I would argue than which episode of which American sitcom a disease or medication occurred in. A whole sub-domain of medical research is based on prices, that of cost benefit analysis. I would like to address some of the opposes:
 * Support as proposer per the following reasons:
 * We do not have prices for all countries so we should therefore provide none.
 * Organizations like the IDA Foundation sell at the prices we are quoting to all low and medium income countries (this is more than 100 countries). This is better than we typically have regarding rates of diseases. Often rates of disease are only available for the United States and Europe and yet we still include them.
 * We do not give prices in all currencies.
 * We provide lot of numerical information such as the worth of a company in one currency. People know how to convert. We could build more tools to make conversion easier but that is another topic.
 * Prices change widely from year to year.
 * This is simply not true. If we look at the price data over time for salbutamol in the graph, prices generally remain stable for years. When they do change widely this is often commented on and should be included in WP. Prices do change when a med becomes generic but this is also notable and only occurs once.
 * Prices vary widely between similar countries
 * Also not true. We are quoting the wholesale prices available in all low and middle income countries. Prices in high income countries are also relatively similar. Typically for expensive medications there is no availability in the developing world other than going to the developing world and buying it.
 * Some people have some coverage in certain countries so they should not care
 * People are either paying directly as an out of pocket expense or indirectly via insurance or taxes. If you are lucky enough to have some entity paying on your behalf, how much they are paying is at least as interesting as what receptors something works on.
 * Some of the arguments appear to be that because we cannot provide perfect information we should provide no information.
 * We do not have perfect information for anything else either. How well does medication X work in Armenia or the DRC? We typically do not know as it has never been studied their. Or how well does medication X work among those with comobidites Y and Z? We also likely have no idea as meds are usually studied in a healthier than normal patient population (most people are excluded from trails). This however does not mean we should not provide data were it has been studied and among who it has been studied. Some applies to cost information.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Shelley V. Adams ‹blame credit › 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It is encyclopedic information, with decent sources available. With that said, ideally we could handle this with WikiData or something and pull it in, which would allow for things like automatic charting II  | (t - c) 04:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of the wholesale prices when decent sources are available. Drugs are manufactured products produced by large corporations; the price that a product sells for on the market is relevant commercially, even when/if it is unimportant medically.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. It would be good to be able to easily compare the average wholesale price of a drug in one market with the average in another/others. In one of the discussions he linked to above, James suggested a drop-down list of price x country in the infobox or sidebar, updated at Wikidata.
 * Knowing how slow Wikipedia and Wikidata can sometimes be in updating information, it might be prudent to always associate a price with its date: "The average 2015 wholesale price in the U.S. was x per standard dose. The average 2015 wholesale price in Australia was y per standard dose." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * support when reliable sources are available--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * support only per my comment in the middle previous discussion, and not in infoboxes: "If, as with some cancer drugs, the cost is exceptionally high, placing them out of reach of many patients even in the West, and that has been the subject of RS (it need not always be MEDRS-compliant) coverage, then certainly that should be added, in a section in the text. In England these matters are done in public in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval process, generating lots of RS coverage in some cases. Equally that aspirin is dirt cheap can easily be referenced. But I think we should avoid saying much about the mass of mid-price drugs, for the reasons set out above, plus the need (which we may not be able to cope with) to update when they come off-patent etc. We should just cover the extremes. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)" Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I wish to respond to Kashmiri's opposition arguments below, because they are all excellent reasons which must be directly addressed.
 * Kashmiri refers to this English Wikipedia policy which historically says, "no prices". What_Wikipedia_is_not. There is more discussion on this topic at WP:PRICES. I do not think the prohibition in the policy is on prices specifically, but instead, the prohibition is on primary data and information which is not backed by reliable sources. Prices often are those things, but not always. Sometimes reliable sources make price information available for consumer reference, and in that case, Wikipedia might include the information.
 * I agree that if price data is included then there has to be continual mindfulness about global markets. It is not acceptable to present only United States prices. I do not think Wikipedia has to be global, but there should be diversity in presenting data. If prices were presented, they could either be "international" somehow, or they could present more than one marketplace.
 * I disagree that price data is irrelevant in OECD countries. I work for a consumer organization, Consumer Reports, which does activism and lobbying that more medical pricing data be made more public. Consumer REports advocates for greater public awareness of how drugs are purchased, and what happens to the many people who for whatever reason seek to buy drugs on the open market without the support of other funding programs.
 * I am able to provide an organizational opinion that providing drug pricing information is not medical advice. Consumer Reports has published drug price information for decades and has done so in a way is not medical advice, and that establishes a precedent. Example publications presenting price information include the yearly Best Drugs for Less report, educational materials directing consumers to consider price, and consumer guides for ~50 classes of drugs (statins, for example) which compare "effectiveness, safety, and price". It often happens that there can be multiple drugs available to treat a medical condition and price is a major guiding factor in choosing which one is appropriate for the patient. It is politically difficult to acknowledge that people get different medical care depending on the money they have, but it is the reality, and having access to information on drug prices makes it easier for consumers have discussions with their health care providers about what sort of treatment matches their health care needs and the money they have.
 * I might agree that there is not consensus to add prices, but at the same time, I disagree that there is consensus to exclude them. I think it would be best to say that lots of people have varying opinions on the matter, and it is difficult to come to agreement on what is best. I do think there is consensus that without good sources to cite, Wikipedia definitely should not attempt to include price information.
 * Here are things that I would want to see if prices remained in Wikipedia articles:
 * Excellent sourcing. Right now International Drug Price Indicator Guide and the Tarascon Pharmacopoeia 2015 Professional Desk Reference Edition are proposed as sources. It might be worthwhile to critique these or any sources to confirm or deny that they are respected, reliable, and presenting the sort of information which meets Wikipedia goals to be international and meet general reader needs.
 * Discussion about what kinds of prices are acceptable, and what are not acceptable. For example, there might be consensus that Wikipedia only present prices at the consumer level, and exclude prices at the industry or wholesale level. Whatever the case, perhaps it would be helpful to discuss restrictions and limits in advance. makes a sensible suggestion that only the best established prices be mentioned. In the case of drugs, it is easier to describe the cheapest off-patent drugs and the latest, most expensive and highly controlled drugs. Discussing the mid-level markets where the variation is greatest is most difficult. I am not sure what is possible.
 * There should be discussion about international relevance. I have a lot of sympathy for India, which Kashmiri mentioned. In India practically everyone buys out of pocket from local pharmacies. India is a major drug market and would be a great contrast to pricing information from OECD countries. Even if there is no ready solution to providing drug information relevant to Wikipedia readers in India, I think it would be helpful to state that it is a problem if Wikipedia were presenting price information for some places but was not providing a solution for price information in India. China would be another good market to address, but I think it would be easier to eventually get data relevant to India since India's drug market responds to international drug import and export markets more than China's more state controlled market.
 *  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support — as long as we use international price points and not only US. Also preferable to solve this using Wikidata and including the information in the infobox. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks CFCF have been looking at importing prices by bot into Wikidata. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support — If someone wants to go through the effort of putting prices in, and other editors update them from time to time and it's clear to the reader what the source of the data is, then I would see it as a valuable contribution. EvMsmile (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cautious support. We're not a price comparison website (CHEAP VIAGRA HERE) but medication pricing is a public health issue and would be encyclopedic. JFW &#124; T@lk  09:48i, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support wherever sources are available. This is a major factor in the profitability of drug companies, and what drives the profitability of a particular company is almost always important information about that company. Not knowing that the vast majority of Cephalon's $2.8g in profit comes from two types of fentanyl (fentora, actinq) that either have expired or soon to expire patents and wo types of modafinil (provigil, nuvigil - yes guys sorry but they are the same damn thing,) might lead one to false conclusions about the future profitably of Cephalon - a company that makes 3b now - but only made 400m a year before they bought the rights to modafinil through the orphan drug program only to jack them up to what they are now - unless Cephalon manages to find another similar drug to exploit, their profits are likely to decline significantly within seven years. Such price increases greatly increase the skepticism the orphan drug program, and explains why some support policies similar to India's.  This is at the extreme end, but one of the drugs I am on costs approximately $20,000 a month while costing, if I'm reading the DoJ report correctly, under $20 to produce.  This combined with wikipedia'a article made more clear the reason behind the behavior of the pharmacist's at the pharmaceutical company - they've been under continuous threat of losing exclusivity for not reporting safety events. When you have tens of thousands of patent that costs you $20 a patient a month and make you $20,000 each, you're going to be obsessive about reporting any perceived safety event, while aggressively gaslighting you regarding any actual significant safety event that occurs.  Since it's a risk evaluation management drug w/ fda, I guess I'll be talking to the FDA and the state board of pharmacy tomorrow. I already had objections to things like the orphan drug program, but reading relaed articles on-wiki as well as this debate itself was certainly to me. Even if we reach a general 'no', I'd say still include price data for a drug patented by someone who works at the VA 9/10 of the time that treats a disease frequently acquired in war.. that he made too expensive for the VA, his regular employer, to pay for much of the time.  Sorry for the random typos keyboard issues today. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page
 * Would you clarify please whether you propose that the pricing, costs and company revenue are mentioned in individual drug articles or in manufacturer articles? Thanks. — kashmiri  TALK  11:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I am a registered Pharmacist in India and this is a useful information to have on Wikipedia. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority controls pricing for drug and prices are stable most of the time. Net worth of a company or organization is given only in one currency and people are smart to convert it in local currency. AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to respond briefly to this; I am sure we can all appreciate that there might be value in having access to wholesale prices determined by the NPPA in India, by the NHS in England and by others in other jurisdictions. The first issue is whether that is a proper role for wikipedia. I'd argue no, for reasons others have given elsewhere in this discussion. But second, this isn't even what is being proposed here, which is a range of wholesale prices made up from partial data taken in spot instances in specific places to give a range of values, which might be different by 100 or 1000 times. It'll be utterly useless for determining anything much about the likely wholesale prices in India or in any other jurisdiction that isn't known to be at one or other end of the range of prices. JMWt (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would be useful JMWt if you provided some evidence to support your claims. The IDA Foundation sells pharmaceuticals in India and they are typically within the ranges that are being provided. So yes the price range provided for low and middle income countries does help one determine the price in India as it is one of those countries. The price range in this group of countries for salbutamol is 1.12 to 2.64 USD. I highly doubt you could find a med that has a difference of 10 times let alone 100 or 1000 times on this website Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It'd be useful if you didn't just keep pointing to the same source and instead tried reading what others are saying. For example this WHO report which showed significant variations on the wholesale purchasing prices within India, with some states paying more than the lowest available retail price for salbutamol (page 83 of that paper). Even within India the WHO found significant variations in wholesale price for salbutamol - a sample medication you've introduced for discussion and not me. I don't know whether India is within the range you've described (I doubt it given the booming local pharma industry there) and cannot see how you could possibly know whether the wholesale price in other developing countries was within 10 times of the lowest stated. JMWt (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This "'paying more than the lowest available retail price" is one reason why we should include this information:-) The lack of transparency / availability of prices is one of the reasons why this occurs. User:AbhiSuryawanshi is from India maybe he could answer your question regarding if India is in this the price range presented. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was born with severe Asthma and Salbutamol literally saved my life in difficult times. I purchased it from various locations over a period of time. It is available in given price range. As I was born in rural India - it was difficult to understand how it worked and I learned about pharmacodynamics using Wikipedia. Along with functionality, pricing is another angle which is equally important and awareness can save many lives. Most of the drugs are subsidized in India and 'on humanitarian grounds' - Price range can help/encourage people to buy drugs and it might be useful to keep a check on malpractices. AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per User:Kevin Gorman and User:Bluerasberry — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The suggestion is just, people have the right to access information of prices in different parts of the world, and can be well referenced, so it is reasonable for inclusion. The price of medications are important at the international level. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support including pricing information because potential users may want to know the price. Pricing can vary and it will help the reader to know the real prices. People should not overpay for medications. Another idea could be to have one article with pricing for each medication for the different countries. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The hope is to include more discussion of how prices of a medication have varied over time and vary between different areas of the world as high quality references support. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm not sure if the price of every medication is notable, but to me, for example, vaccines where UNICEF/GAVI is involved in pricing, the pricing is, itself, notable.Smmurphy(Talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I think adding prices is a very good idea as it paints a picture that words cannot describe. I have edited various medical articles on Wikipedia, and I always feel that I cannot do enough on socioeconomic conditions regarding the article, without showing some sort of unintentional bias. An example of this may be "people in most parts of Africa have issues getting access to drugs due to the staggering price" hurts the readers perception of Africa. Instead of excluding the successful countries in South Africa explicitly in the sentence, creating awkward phrasing, and feeding into the perception of Africa as a monolithic structure. By providing the raw data, it can help relieve this bias and provide the reader with a better picture of why a health issue effects a region more than another. As long as the information comes from a reliable, third party source, I see no issue with this. I also wonder if WikiData integration would also be possible. Peter.C  •  talk  •  contribs  16:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - At least for the common and commonly used drugs. Ariconte (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ariconte thank you for your support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose including pricing details
— kashmiri  TALK  09:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose on various grounds, including WP policies:
 * WP:PRICE states clearly that Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue and item's current pricing is NOT encyclopaedic information.
 * Wikipedia articles are (mostly) about specific compounds used in pharmacology; WP even requires use of INN names. Whereas pricing can only be given for commercial products.
 * Per WP:GLOBAL, Wikipedia is a GLOBAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA and the majority of English Wikipedia readers are based outside of the US.
 * US drug prices are among the highest in the world . Consequently, quoting US prices will be very misleading.
 * The majority of OECD countries offer public health insurance coverage to their populations, with many (or sometimes all) drugs paid for by the state. Prices found in US pharmacies are utterly irrelevant for those populations.
 * We run a real risk that if we advertise lower prices, patients might be discouraged from buying the medicines they need, instead hoping to find them somewhere cheaper; and thus harming their health. That's the reason Wikipedia is very clear that IT SHOULD NOT OFFER ADVICE.
 * From the links listed by OP, there seems to be a consensus on not adding retail pricing on Wikipedia at all.
 * You missed the qualifiers at WP:NOTDIRECTORY which is "unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention"
 * It is not a medical product unless you can actually buy it.
 * 43% of our readers are in the USA
 * As mentioned we are providing a range of prices which applies to dozens if not more than a hundred countries. There is also a global market in medications.
 * US prices are among the highest in the world and therefore giving US prices typically provides an upper limit.
 * That the majority of OECD countries pays for medications for outpts will need a reference. It is not the case in Canada.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what section to comment in. Is the question whether prices can sometimes be included, or that we should include prices routinely? I don't think anyone will argue that pricing information is never appropriate – but if the proposal is to include prices routinely, then the proposal appears to violate WP:NOT. From NOTDIRECTORY, the use of pricing information requires a "justified reason," and specifically excludes "passing mention." The prices here appear to be passing mentions; the source is a database page with no commentary or context. I don’t have access to the Tarascon Pharmacopoeia, but I infer from the description that it's similar.


 * The standard here is that inclusion should require a source that includes the price as part of a discussion; simply listing it should not be sufficient. This is also in accordance with the comments of several other editors, including a couple in the discussion section that I think are otherwise most easily categorized as Opposes. If e.g. a drug's price has been criticized in the media, that's important information and it should be sourced appropriately. But finding the price in a database, or in any other context where it is presented without commentary, does nothing to establish its relevance to the article.


 * I also agree with the editors who oppose listing of prices in infoboxes; I see not listing prices in such a manner as one of the key qualitative differences that distinguish us from catalogues and other commercial websites. But inclusion in Wikidata is a different matter, and could be worth considering assuming that their policies allow it. Sunrise (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposal is for whether prices can sometimes be included. Yes some are arguing that they should never be included it appears. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify that part of my comment, I don't think editors will argue that sources like this should be excluded - in this case, we have an article in the New York Times where the drug's price is the main subject, and I'll support the use of that source in articles. But the sources being proposed above don't seem to be sufficient to meet the requirements at WP:NOT. (Also, allowing databases or other price reference guides would be essentially the same thing as allowing routine inclusion, assuming the guides are comprehensive). Sunrise (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The main source I have been using just deals with WHO essential medicines. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nothing good can come out of this - what seriously is it supposed to achieve? We know for a fact that the British NHS pays within a five-fold (what does that mean? 5 orders of magnitude? Five times?) difference of the wholesale price in India? I think, knowing how international products are traded, that's highly unlikely. And a conversion from USD to the local currency is going to mean almost nothing, as the wholesale price in any given market is going to vary enormously based on many different factors, so suggesting that it is "available" for this price means almost nothing outside of the USA.  And the fact that 43% of readers are in the USA (which I doubt anyway) means that 57% are not.  Why should the rest of us be fed information which is only relevant to a minority of readers in the USA? If you want USA-centric information, why don't you start your own digital encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 5 fold means five times. What is being provided is both the US price and the global wholesale price. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And what do you think that's telling someone who isn't in the USA? You are presumably aware that a "global wholesale price" doesn't exist, right? JMWt (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you look at http://erc.msh.org/dmpguide/ Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, although on quick search, "buyer prices" are only available for South Africa, Sudan and one or two developing countries. Still, hope you don't intend to duplicate this database on Wikipedia? — kashmiri  TALK  22:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can access that page, but there is pretty good evidence that global prices vary much more than the quotes you've given, which appear to compare spot prices in a small number of locations. It is fairly easy to find wide disparities in price for specific medications in the literature, for example this recent article from the Lancet "The price per bottle of all originator DAAs varied substantially: for sofosbuvir it ranged from $300 (India, Pakistan) to $20 590 (Switzerland); for daclatasvir from $175 (Egypt) to $14 899 (Germany); for simeprevir from $241 (Egypt) to $14 865 (Australia); for ledipasvir-sofosbuvir from $400 (Egypt and Mongolia) to $24 890 (Germany); and for ombitasvir-paritaprevir-ritonavir (or 2D regimen) from $400 (Egypt) to $20 215 (Switzerland)." I accept that's not talking about wholesale prices, but I'm not sure why we should have confidence that the reference you're using is fully comparing the full range of prices worldwide. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the range of prices in the developing world rather than the developed world. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In this section, editors are invited to present their arguments. Room for discussion is below, in the following section. It will be helpful if you, the proposer of this RFC, patiently wait for the outcome, refraining from picking an argument instantly with those who dare to oppose. Try not to discourage people from commenting please with such a behaviour! Thanks, — kashmiri  TALK  18:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:kashmiri you have made your position clear. User:JMWt asked a specific question and I responded. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The prices quoted by the IDA Foundation is avaliable in more than 100 countries per . Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong, strong oppose per who makes a number of very good points including about our global nature, national insurance schemes, not listing prices, and misleading readers. A global wholesale price doesn't reflect at all the large amount of other English-speaking countries who may subsidize or nationally or regionally negotiate or mandate prices. Some of these other large countries include the UK and India and as per  57% of our readers. As a non-US reader I am completely opposed to a misleading and potentially harmful effort that doesn't reflect the reality of sale prices for 57% of our readers, nor take into account insurance rebates etc. I don't think this issue can be dealt with in the same nuance that we'd expect of a WP article, and such a nuance certainly not in an infobox.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:LT910001 the BNF discusses prices in the UK. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - see my comment in the discussion below for my rationale, and 's excellent comment. This does not belong in Wikipedia. Garzfoth (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. Per NOT. While there are many cases where prices can and should be included as part of encyclopedic content, it has to be on a case-by-case basis. Unless I'm overlooking something, I'm not seeing arguments that clearly show NOT should be overruled for all medications. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose with basically the same caveats as Johnbods support above. Per WP:NOT we shouldn't attempt to become a pricing list but where price has been a factor in the coverage then prices should be included. I don't think it should be in the infobox as it will always need more clarification than an infobox can provide as to where and when the price is from. SPACKlick (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not terribly excited about this, but I generally agree with the foregoing opposes, and in any case I am generally reluctant to support any form of tabular data that requires regular updating. It is an invitation to error, confusion and embarrassment, as well as being doubtfully encyclopaedic. I an unconvinced anyway, that any such table could give comprehensive and intelligible information on the subject, but am not inclined to study how deeply I am in error on this point. If instead there were to be a link to an off-WP site that could supply the service, I reckon I could hold still for that. JonRichfield (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Summoned by bot) Oppose, basically per User:Sunrise above, with no opposition to inclusion on a case to case basis (when price of a single drug or a group of few drugs has been discussed by an RS); strong oppose to listing retail prices in a particular country.
 * The most deciding argument in my mind is "which price"? Just as for pretty much any product, "the" price does not exist as there are various retail/wholesale prices (this has been said multiple times already), but unlike any products, few if any drugs have a large international market with listed prices for similar products. On a particular day, bananas or oil have an "international" value on the market (despite minor differences among the products); drugs except maybe aspirin or other big-quantity-sellers do not have that.
 * I think however that the updating issues is not a problem, if we decide we want to include prices we can just use prose with WP:ASOF. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Preditable, price info depends on: country, insurance policy, personal situation, drug process. There is no single reasonable 'single' cost estimation. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that we're talking about the wholesale prices, not what a particular person pays at the pharmacy counter? Also, do you realize that while there's no "single" cost, there are very good sources that provide price ranges, which would let us make well-sourced statements along the lines of "two to five cents per dose in most countries, as of 2016"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even 'wholesale prices' are fragmented by region, insurance policy, legal policy, paybacks, prescription incentives, dose-per-cure, other marketing tools, etc., in general. Legal drugs do not have a free market (unlike e.g. oil and copper). Worse, wholesale prices are not public and so rather meaningless to our Reader. Even if we simplify the problem to regions only (price in a country), we enter a 200-point data row. (the similar legal status of infobox drug has 8+1 separate regions/jurisdictions; rightly there are questions about this infobox data expansion into vapourspace). -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you look at http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/view.asp?ccid=579 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One country sourced, 199 to go. What is your argument? How does it reply to my the other dimensions mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am seeing 8 countries listed and an international median price. This is how Canada determines the max price that a med can be sold at. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * re "I am seeing 8 countries listed " Are you playing who's dumb? That's 192 countries to go (I'm generous). And again you did not answer my primary point. -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something, because that link seems to be comparing prices in, or before, 2004. What relevance does that have to 2016? JMWt (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One could find newer references. This 2013 review the price is $2145 in 2013 while the max we see in 2005 was $2116. The price was fairly stable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide specific pricing information, especially in something as specialized, complex, and variable as drug prices. However, when multiple reliable sources actually discuss (as opposed to just list or note) an item's price, it may be suitable for inclusion in that particular case. (The Martin Shkreli incident would make a good example.) But as a general practice, no, we do not and should not routinely include pricing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you thoughts on this as a source http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/view.asp?ccid=579 ? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did mean to get back to you on this, but have been rather swamped. Something like that doesn't discuss the price, just lists it. That's the exact type of thing that doesn't justify including pricing information. In order to provide due weight to including information on price (which should be an exception, not the rule), reliable references should go into detail about why the price matters. That could be something like the Shkreli incident, or conversely, if sources discuss how a new treatment will revolutionize practice by making a formerly prohibitively expensive treatment affordable, we should reflect that in the article. But we shouldn't ever be including pricing information as a matter of course just because a source happens to list the price, it would require significant coverage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We include a lot of things that are just "listed" such as the chemical makeup, the boiling, and the molecular weight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose in some cases, support in others - Like many of the other folks in this discussion, I support including price details when they are the subject of discussion in reliable sources, but I oppose routinely including price information from databases per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Yes, the information is useful, but Wikipedia is not a repository of all useful information. It's an encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Kaldari no one is saying this should not be based on reliable sources. We use the British National Formulary to discuss use of medications in pregnancy and there effectiveness. They also discuss pricing details for meds in the UK. The World Health Organization discusses pricing of the medications on the World Health Organizations list of essential medicines. Both Canada and India have maximum prices set for new patented medications. No one is suggesting a reference to an online pharmacy is to be used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the prices are discussed (not just mentioned) in reliable sources, I'm fine with that. I've changed the title of my vote so it is more clear that I am only opposing conditionally. I honestly wasn't sure where to even put my vote since neither of the headers are clear what is being supported or opposed exactly. In the future, I would suggest asking a specific question in your RfC, as this one is very vague. Kaldari (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Kaldari here for example is a CADTH review which does cost benefit analysis which of course depends heavily on the cost and therefore discusses the cost. When the Canada agency that determines med prices last did the max allowed price calculation in 2005 the price was more or less the same as in 2013.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. There are four basic reasons: 1) if you start including sales information on one product, there is no reason to exclude another; 2) price information on most commodities changes too often to renew it all the time, and outdated information lowers the quality of the articles; 3) price information on any kind of products tends to be unclear and dubitable, which in turn opens the way to NPOV; 4) Wikipedia is too Amerocentric as it is, there is absolutely no need to tilt it even more. --Oop (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How does adding pricing info for the developing world make Wikipedia more Amerocentric User:Oop? Doc James  (talk ·  Oppose in some cases, support in otherscontribs · email) 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I have also been providing the US price as presented in this book but there are other good options. The US is not only a large portion of the EN speaking population but a large percentage of our readership" I think taking that as a principle for building a global encyclopedia is very much wrong. (A fun fact: right now, I'm in a philosophy conference, listening to a Texas philosopher talking about ethical calculations using a geometric method. I'm tempted to bring up the case.) --Oop (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia isn't a global encyclopedia, per se, even though it aims to have as broad coverage as possible - its in English, which automatically cuts out the billions of people that don't speak English. What makes the Wikimedia projects global is that there are Wikipedia encyclopedias in 250+ languages. Nathan  T 13:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. It is a global encyclopaedia edited in English by people around the globe and reflecting topics important in a range of different geographical locations. What it clearly is not is an "American Wikipedia". That's an incredibly offensive position. JMWt (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Very Strongly oppose. I won't recite the policies and guidelines listed by the other editors who also oppose this idea, but I completely agree them. Do we really want the encyclopedia to become the place where consumers come shopping for the best prices on medications? What about medical equipment? Therapies? Surgical supplies? Also I have concerns with the assumption that a medication manufactured here in the US, under the watch of the FDA is the same medication sold in Namibia or Haiti. Just because a drug has a certain 'title' does not mean that the other ingredients such as fillers are identical. Also, in less regulated countries, there is no guarantee that the drug even contains its active ingredients. Some global entrepreneurs may see this new information on a drug as a marketing tool and begin to influence the pricing structure to attract mail-order sales. In the poorest countries, I envision the nightmare of a whole industry springing up based upon the lowest pricing 'proven' by citing Wikipedia. I love Canada and have gone there to pick up some medications that were much less expensive that were subsequently confiscated by US Customs as I reentered the US. (I didn't know that this was illegal, oh well, now I do.) If some wants prices on medications, let them go to Google. This new proposal is humorous and ironic, since I recently had information about the availability and prescription requirement on a biological 'drug' deleted from an article with no explanation. So at best, this practice of providing pricing information is currently inconsistently practiced. Another concern is that the prescribing requirements differ between countries. If I am a consumer and I see that a prescription drug is slightly more inexpensive in Mexico AND I don't want to or can't afford to pay a physician in the US to prescribe it, I most certainly would drive across the border to purchase my self-prescribed medication. Are we also going to include the information that a drug is NOT available at any price in the US, Canada, UK, Australia? But hey, according to Wikipedia there is another country where you CAN get it? Please no. Best Regards,
 * <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#90EE90;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Bfpage &#124;leave a message 10:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bfpage we do not include medication dosing information but yes we do include where a medication is and is not available already. The discuss is to include wholesale price as described by reliable sources. This is different than just googling the price. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What I pay my pharmacist, what the pharmacist pays the wholesaler, and what the manufacturer receives from the wholesaler, are likely to be very different amounts. And there's likely to be a subsidy paid by, or a tax received by, my country's government. Pharmaceuticals are nothing like oil, aluminium, bitcoins, or even cars, which are all, more or less, fungible.
 * Oppose any exact numbers, per WP:PRICE. On the other hand, qualitative analysis of prices may be included in case-by-case basis depending on the notability of the corresponding research, per WP:DUE . Staszek Lem (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose except in specific cases like Oseltamivir or Pyrimethamine where the price is a genuinely significant part of the story. Including pricing as a matter of course has far too many potential downsides—confusion when prices vary between countries, patients who don't understand wholesale pricing and think their pharmacist is ripping them off when they get charged more than "what Wikipedia says the price should be", patients who are discouraged from seeking treatment when a high price spooks them, patients outside North America who don't understand that US/Canadian prices are generally much higher than elsewhere and thus assume the medication they're being sold at $1/10$ of what Wikipedis says is the going rate must be a placebo rather than the real thing so don't bother taking it… Remember, Wikipedia's main readership is primarily comprised of people with a medical knowledge no higher than "aspirin for headaches, antihistamines for hay fever". For us to include information with such a high potential to cause confusion (and which would create a permanent maintenance backlog, since the prices would need to keep being re-checked) there would need to be a clear and obvious benefit; I can't see a benefit in this case, since to most readers prices would at best be meaningless clutter and at worst be actively misleading, and those who do want to know the wholesale prices can easily find them elsewhere, likely with more up-to-date data than that being used by Wikipedia. &#8209; Iridescent 22:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – the information is highly variable both spatially (due to different prices in different countries) and geographically (due to changes in prices over time). It will be difficult to provide this information in a globally comprehensive way and it will have a strong tendency of becoming outdated over time. Due to these factors, Wikipedia in general avoids including pricing information on anything (not just drugs), but there is no reason to treat drugs differently here from anything else. The existence of reliable sources for pricing information doesn't overcome the concerns about the information's high spatiotemporal variability, since however reliable they may be, they are generally speaking non-comprehensive sources giving prices only in certain markets at certain times. If a drug is exceptionally notable for being of high price (see e.g. media stories about whether private insurance companies or public health systems should pay for some extremely expensive drugs), there can be a justification for including information on its price in those specific cases, but not generally. SJK (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with the guidance at WP:NOT that was should not be including prices. I find the other examples of exceptions to that guidance unconvincing, as they all seem to be instances when the price was an important part of that particular subject, like a first at a a particular pricepoint or extensive coverage of the price in particular. There are also a few articles which, despite being FAs, have prices which wouldn't survive an RfC on the subject (if anyone cared that much). What's proposed here is a blanket exception not for a particular article but for an entire category. There are some good arguments in favor, don't get me wrong, but I think for an exception to WP:NOT to be made on that scale, there needs to be (a) truly compelling reasons, or else (b) a discussion at WT:NOT about the application of that guideline, absent something more specific. For the record, though, it seems reasonable, if there's agreement on a source/database, to include an external link to price information (for example, in an infobox). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT says "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention". The proposal is simply to follow WP:NOT. The proposal is to use independent sources and there is a justified reason as this represents an entire sub field of medicine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, this may be an area of ignorance for me. Are you saying that in the body of reliable sources about a particular drug, there would be sufficient coverage of the price such that you could make a claim of WP:WEIGHT? I would be very reluctant to say that any whole category of product is going to have price be one of the things the sources cover to a sufficient extent. That's because the bigger issue with WP:NOT is the part you left out: "Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers." Together I understand this to mean that price does not have inherent informational value relevant to Wikipedia. While we have the effect of influencing purchase decisions, that's not the point. So we need more than just the informative value of the price to merit including it in an article, and wouldn't include the price by default even where a affordability is a relevant subject to the broader subject. We should include prices when there's a weight claim to include in a particular article, with sources that discuss the price as an aspect of the subject, not at a point of data. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are agencies in many countries that set maximum allowed prices for prescription pharmaceuticals. They do this by reviewing the prices in different jurisdictions. For essential medicines the World Health Organization does a cost benefit analysis for each of them. So for essential medicines at least there is plenty of sources to justify WP:WEIGHT.
 * I would argue that this information deserves more weight than say what song lyrics it occurs in Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's more or less in line with what I would presume: that there are some articles for which price should be included given WP:WEIGHT. But that's already allowed under current policies/guidelines, as you've said, and an RfC wouldn't be necessary for that. I interpret this RfC as seeking consensus for a blanket exception such that any article in a particular category could/would include price regardless of weight.
 * As an aside, you won't typically get an argument from me if you want to remove "in popular culture" sections/sentences. :) &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a hard call, but I think Doc James is probably right. It's probably more efficient to have an RFC about whether to do this generally (not "always", but under appropriate circumstances) than to fight a hundred individual battles with editors who have never read anything more of NOTPRICE than its shortcut, or who have difficulty understanding that the line in NOTPRICE that says "unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention" means "if you have an independent source and a justified reason, then you actually should include the price".  Or who just misunderstood the goal, as evidenced by the themes in multiple comments here.  We could mash several together to get an objection that amounts to, "Don't include wholesale prices in developing countries in Africa, South America, and Asia, because no two Americans pay the same retail price for a drug."  Unless they go to Walmart, in which case hundreds of them cost $4. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right about what? Or, more specifically, what is the point of disagreement which I have wrong? I can't really blame anyone for being confused, as this is an RfC with no question to answer. The question has to be inferred by a general statement that someone has been adding price information and the section headings ("Support including pricing details" and "Oppose including pricing details"). Hence I don't see how one could interpret this RfC as anything other than seeking consensus to add prices to articles about medications broadly. Of course I wouldn't interpret an RfC to mean "should we follow the rules as they current exist", because consensus is already established for that and opposition here wouldn't actually overturn those rules. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that Doc James is right to start an RFC. Even though what he wants to do already is permitted under the "rules as they currently exist", many editors are unaware of what the rules actually say.  Having this discussion helps people get on the same page. Besides, we seem to be learning useful things, e.g., from Nathan's comments about the incompleteness of the data behind the U.S. numbers.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Rhododendrites Yes this RfC was for a confirmation of WP:NOT's "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention". It was not for an exception to WP:NOT Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Cost benefit analyses are done in many areas of the world and these rely on the cost of medications.
 * Cost is also taken into account by the World Health Organization when they put together their essential medicines list.
 * In many areas of the world medications are purchased in the international market. Medicine San Frontier for example puts together a price list to help with their work. Thus the international price applies to around 100 countries. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't feel like we should include price information in an encyclopedia. Here's why: Another major point is that when a generic for a brand-name drug comes out, prices can change drastically overnight. Medication prices are always changing, and there's no way that we can keep up with prices, which will be completely inaccurate for anyone seeking pricing information anyways as we're generally listing wholesale prices, which do not factor in several additional layers of profit margins, and are utterly useless to the average person. Here's a personal example for a hypothetical drug (although this is actually based on a real medication I'm on). I pay a fixed copay for this drug of $A. The pharmacy claims the drug cost $B on the info accompanying the drug (and that my insurer saved me $(B - A)). My insurer's report says they paid the pharmacy $C for the drug. $B is much greater than $(A + C). The cash price that pharmacy would charge for the same drug is $D according to GoodRX, which is close to the pharmacy's official cash price of $B. If you use GoodRX's discount program, you would pay $E. Confusing, right? Garzfoth (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The price varies depending on country
 * In Canada, the end-user price varies depending on province/insurance. Wholesale prices are controlled to some extent by the government.
 * In the UK, the end-user price is a flat fee set by the NHS. Prices are controlled to some extent by the government.
 * In the US, the end-user price varies depending on insurance status (have insurance vs. paying cash) and insurance benefits (lots of different ways to handle drug coverage - percentage-based, flat copays, deductables, etc). Additionally:
 * It varies based on what pharmacy you go to (store X (e.g. CVS) vs. store Y (e.g. Walgreens), retail vs. discounted retail (e.g. Walmart) vs. mail-order)
 * It varies if you use discounts, which can be third party ("drug savings card"?), manufacturer coupons (usually time-limited), manufacturer-paid (low income programs), etc
 * It varies based on the pharmacy benefits manager used and the drug formulary.
 * It varies based on insurance plan


 * I don't much like the idea of simply including the price indiscriminately or as a matter of routine. And considering what Garzfoth said just above, it may be better to use wholesale than retail pricing, or to indicate a range of prices. But I think the decision about whether to include pricing at all depends upon context. As Doc James said, it becomes relevant in the context of cost-benefit analysis, etc. So if, for a particular drug, there is content about something significant concerning cost-benefit or other analyses or classifications, then specific pricing information can and probably should be stated explicitly in that content. On the other hand, simply saying routinely for each drug that its typical price is such-and-such strikes me as unencyclopedic, and I would not want to see prices in infoboxes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Tryptofish We are using the whole sale price and we are providing a range of prices. We are not writing for "patients". Someone pays. Many people care about the price and price often determined what meds are covered.
 * This is not typically true "Medication prices are always changing" Medication prices are typically more or less stable for years. For example:
 * Price for salbutamol in a bunch of countries in 2014 between 0.0056 and 0.0132 per dose
 * 2006 0.0043 to 0.0145 per dose
 * 1996 0.0055 to 0.0095 per dose
 * 20 years and the lowest price per dose changed by only one hundredth of a cent
 * Yes when meds become generic the price decreases. It is notable not only when the med becomes generic but the new lower cost if any.
 * By the way we are talking about meds on the WHO essential medication list. All these meds have had cost benefit analysis done.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that adjusted for inflation?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 05:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not think so. So a slight decrease in price over the years than. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * US cell-phone pricing—which depends on carrier, contract-length, special promotions, etc.—is almost as confusing as US drug pricing, but the iPhone article is full of prices. Complicated pricing schemes (and the resulting obfuscation) are all the more reason to include an approximate "market price" that might be difficult for the average reader to locate independently. —Shelley V. Adams ‹<small style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle;font-size:70%;line-height:1em;">blame credit › 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, they seem to be violating WP:PRICE in the iPhone article. But that article has been cared for by Apple fans, and here we are dealing with serious stuff, not tech gadgets :) — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  09:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And than we have a whole family of articles on Price of oil. And Toyota Prius C have the initial price in the lead and other prices in other places. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The lone opponent has some interesting ideas, but I don't think that they hold up under scrutiny:
 * "WP:PRICE states clearly that...current pricing is NOT encyclopaedic information."
 * PRICE says that encyclopedic relevance can be established if the prices are discussed in good sources, and discussion of price is typical for generic drugs and universal for drugs still under (or recently released from) patent protection.
 * Who said that it would only include "current pricing"? It'd be far more interesting to include information about how the price changed over time (e.g., once a decade for as far back as our sources go).
 * "pricing can only be given for commercial products."
 * If it gets sold, then it's a commercial product, so this seems like a tautology. Perhaps you mean that prices can only be given for particular combinations of brand name/manufacturer/location/time?  That wouldn't be factually true; we have good sources that give wholesale prices from around the world, based upon the compound itself.
 * "quoting US prices will be very misleading....Prices found in US pharmacies are utterly irrelevant for those populations."
 * Who said that we'd be quoting only US prices? Who said that we'd be giving prices for any pharmacy?  The goal is the wholesale price, not retail.
 * "We run a real risk that if we advertise lower prices, patients might be discouraged from buying the medicines they need"
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, even to protect people from their own ignorance about the difference between global wholesale prices and local retail prices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that WP is the wrong place for such data to reside, though (depending on discussion results) it might be a good place for readers to find it. Price data is still data, and there's no real reason to bind it to an English language text format. It would be much more at home on Wikidata in a language-neutral form. Then insertions, revisions, national prices, currencies, and references inserted there once will be reflected on all using wikis simultaneously. We should avoid creating a local crapheap on w:en that just has to be cleaned up after the fact. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikidata has now been set up from what I understand to handle this data. I am not much of a Wikidata editor though.
 * I have just shown that the price of salbutamol internationally has not changed in 20 years User:LeadSongDog so not sure what "cleanup" you are referring to? Yes medications become generic once in their existence. We have a number of currencies that are used internationally with the USD and Euro being two of them. Many countries in the developing world either us USD or prefer it to their national currency.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Every wp article that gets price info added into it would then need it removed once there's a way to use instead. It would seem simpler and better to just get the location right the first time. LeadSongDog  come howl!  19:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hum okay thanks. Are we using for anything outside of the infobox at this point? I could look into doing that.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Doc James: For sure you mean Zimbabwe? Neither China, nor India, nor Brazil, nor Russia (which combined account for more than 50% of world's population) do not "prefer USD" in drug pricing to the best of my knowledge. But ok, let's agree on USD or EUR, that still does not address the key questions raised above. And BTW even if price of salbutamol, a patent-free small molecule, has not changed in 20 years (I can't locate your proof, though), the most problematic and expensive drugs are those still covered by patents and/or in the marketing exclusivity period, and their prices can vary several orders of magnitude between countries. —  kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  17:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at were I provide prices for salbutamol by year you will notice a link to the reference beside each.
 * With respect to countries that like USD I am thinking of Cuba, much of Central America, and much of Africa. In Tanzania they request payment of not only bribes but entry fees and hotel rooms in USD. Iran also requires payment of hotel fees and tour fees in either USD or Euro.
 * You mention "vary several orders of magnitude between countries". Several orders of magnitude fold is very small. If they varied by 10 or 100 fold that would be a stronger argument.
 * We already give a price range of salbutamol of 1.12 to 50 USD. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth pointing out here that one order of magnitude is 10 fold; two orders of magnitude equals 100 fold. In any event, I'm not entirely convinced that it is a good idea to quote an "international price" in USD due to currency inflation and changes in forex valuations.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. I have not seen prices vary by several orders of magnitude (100 fold) among OECD countries (except for brief periods of time). Would be interested in seeing a reference for this if one can be found.
 * Our sources often quote the price in USD. I know the MSF uses Euros. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying an international price shouldn't be quoted in USD; if one quoted at all, it should be in USD because that's easily the most actively traded/liquid currency in the world. I'm just not convinced that a USD quote would be particularly useful to someone who doesn't live in the US because they'd literally need to look up their exchange rate and convert it to their currency for context (i.e., to compare the price of the drug relative to the price of other things they buy in their currency).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many outside the US know the conversion between their own currency and USD. Otherwise it is fairly easy to look up. Would be interesting to build a tool that uses a readers IP add the local currency in brackets. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many outside the US know the conversion between their own currency and USD. - you know that how?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 16:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a red herring. Whether or not individuals know this, the USD is the reference currency for interbank transactions on the foreign exchange market.(see http://www.bis.org/press/p130905_fr.pdf) We already have guidance at wp:CURRENCY saying that country-non-specific articles should use United States dollars, euros, or pounds sterling. We also have templates that can do the conversion EUR, GBP and apply historic inflation inflation where needed, and even a navbox: Exchange Rate, which renders as, e.g. .LeadSongDog come howl!  18:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

ok, but that's quite misleading, because there are lots of reasons why products have different wholesale prices in different markets. An item might well be available for $x in the USA but be a completely different price elsewhere. Given that some medications are particularly sold in some jurisdictions at or below cost and some are vastly expensive in others, some spot wholesale price in one place is totally useless when one desires to know how much it would be to get a wholesale purchase where I am, Unless I happen to be in the USA. There is no "global wholesale" price of anything. How are you imagining this information would be informing the global WP reader? JMWt (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a red herring at all. It's a real problem that is resolved by listing the US price with the price quoted in other major English speaking countries' currencies; the converted price needs to be updated with the closing exchange rate from the preceding day in order to circumvent the issue.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @ not just a matter of exchange rates at all. You can look at how national pricing of the new Hepatitis drugs such as to gain some insight into the determinants of pricing in non-US countries. As you may have encountered there are legislative approaches to essential and nonessential drugs, pricing of generies, and national or regional negotiation strategies that countries employ -- not to mention that many of these costs are not passed on in many non-US countries to the end users, who may have national or private insurance policies that reduce or rebate the costs of the drugs. Not an issue that can be simply dealt with by exchange rates.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize this. There's 4 price issues that have been discussed in this section: wholesale price variability in USD over time, USD inflation, pricing USD in other currencies, and the additional cost of a drug above the wholesale price which is unique to each nation and varies by government subsidization and/or private insurance. I'm just talking about the forex issue here.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 02:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems rather obvious that we cannot provide "it costs X at the retail pharmacy at the corner of Main and Bank in city Y" for every retailer. Sensible retail pricing is likely not going to be at all feasible. It might be attainable to say that globally the wholesale prices for a standard quantity range from a low seen at about INR M to a high seen at about SFR N, with dated USD equivalents and citations of the form "On that date, one SFR was worth USD d. The reader can do the arithmetic if sufficiently interested, it's good practice for them.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So many editors keep focusing on individual consumers. There's more to the economy than the guy who got prescribed antibiotics this morning and is trying to figure out whether he can save a little bit of money by going to a different pharmacy.  Average global wholesale prices are far more important (to the world, to public health, to the global economy, to governments) than whether a given individual pays X or Y.
 * Also, we should just use whatever currency is used by our sources. It happens that it will be mostly US dollars.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

break
The problem is, "global average prices" simply do not exist. Of course, if a drug is sold in US for $100 and in Bhutan for $1, one could say its "global average price" would be $50.50. But of course nobody sane will agree - the two economies or populations simply don't compare. An improvement would be, of course, to weight the "country wholesale price" for country population, getting closer to median price per global inhabitant. But this would not account for actual drug price, because drug consumption per inhabitant varies greatly from country to country. So, a still better way would be to try to calculate the mean price per unit sold globally – this would perhaps be the most informative of anything we can ever have. Not the "US wholesale price" as proposed by OP. However, the problem is that quite a number of payers (for example, nearly all payers across EU) procure drugs (or at least all reimbursed drugs) under confidential contracts and never disclose the quantities purchased or the prices paid; nor is patient aware of the price if the drug is received through government-funded healthcare.

These are all considerations one has to keep in mind when proposing to come up with any statistics that involve a large number of countries as well as data that is only estimated, not actual. And that's the reason we don't have sources that give "global average price" for drugs. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or one could provide a price range. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Tellingly, Price of medications is a redlink. And can someone provide a fleshed-out example or two for this addition? So far, I only met general wordings like "1000 US$ per 500mg vial" (I'm generous here). -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At salbutamol "The wholesale cost of an inhaler which contains 200 doses is between $1.12 and $2.64 (USD) in the developing world as of 2014. " Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * salbutamol also says: "In the United States it is between $25 and $50 for a typical month supply". Why is it that I must pull this out myself? Why can not you provide an argument, even when it is supposed to help your point? Quite a non-constructive talk approach, Doc James.


 * -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry not sure what the issue is User:DePiep? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is, : you don't argue, you just throw in a link or a word. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

it would be interesting to hear you describe what you think an average wholesale price is, and what specific usefulness it might provide to any reader. I'm not opposed at all to having cost information in some or many drug articles where relevant, but it may be more useful to phrase it in terms of "average cost of therapy" (i.e. Avastin is $300k for a course of therapy treating X, $150k treating Y, etc.) But drug AWPs probably don't mean what most people would naturally assume them to mean, and even for an economic analysis would probably be of limited value. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 18:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with you about "average cost of therapy/course of treatment". I tend to use what the sources say.
 * The primary meds I have been working on are those on the WHO list of essential medicines. They are typically the only ones within this reference. For the price in the developing world they list it per dose aswell as provide the defined daily dose. Am not providing the average but the range of available prices in the developing world. These ranges are typically fairly small. If one is buying for an NGO, pharmacy, or government in the developing world these details are useful. The price the consumer pays than is this plus markup. We say how much a Toyota_Prius_C costs as well as many other goods which I also think is useful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked the question of what you think a wholesale price for a drug represents, because generally speaking the reported wholesale prices (which are tracked as an average in the United States, and published by data aggregators like Medispan) are often higher than what a consumer would pay. The AWP of a drug might be $100, but the price to the pharmacy could be $3 and to the consumer $45. This is why I'm not convinced that including wholesale prices (which often don't reflect an actual price paid by anyone in any part of the supply chain) is very useful. If you had references for average manufacturer price or average sale price (AMP and ASP), or used the federal upper limit (FUL), this would be at least somewhat more useful data for the US. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 13:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Nathan The proposal is to at least include the wholesale price in low and middle income countries (of which there are more than 100) and as provided by this source for essential medicines. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So my question is this: do you think these wholesale prices actually mean anything to anyone? See below for a somewhat more detailed explanation of why I think they may not. This isn't medicine so much as it is the business of medicine, which is what I do; expertise in one doesn't necessarily overlap with the other, which I hope the medical professionals participating here realize. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 02:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Nathan, I don't think that the goal is to provide "specific usefulness...to any reader". I think the goal is to educate readers about general economic issues, e.g., by teaching them how much prices vary between developed vs developing countries, how stable the prices for generic meds normally are, and how the cost of drug #1 generally compares to the cost of drug #2 (e.g., a drug that's off patent or from a different class).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again - if the prices you are reporting don't reflect any particular reality, and don't even fit in the same frame of reference as you comparatively report them, then the usefulness of the information and the comparison is really questionable. A wholesale price in the US, reported as an average of wholesale prices reported by a sample of wholesalers, doesn't reflect anything close to what anyone pays and isn't meant to. Its similar to the sale vs list price phenomenon in that it is a marketing tool; Amazon will list something at $500 and then discount the price to $425 and say you are saving $75, even when all other sellers of the same item also charge $425. Similarly, a drug with a wholesale price of $500 or $1000 or $15,000 might have actual sale prices anywhere between 1% and 80-90% of that amount - with no pattern in the variation. This is all true for US wholesale prices; if wholesale prices in other countries follow a more rational pattern, then any comparison is intrinsically apples and oranges. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if a pharmacy in the U.S. typically sells medications for 60-75% below the average wholesale price then reporting the wholesale price without that critical context is misleading at best. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 02:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "typically sells" mean to you? Is that "the pharmacy bought the drug for $20 and I paid $5 (and my health insurance company paid $15, but let's ignore that, so we can say it's a 75% loss)"?  Or "the pharmacy bought the drug for $20, I paid $5, and my health insurance company's marginal cost was $0, but they paid a flat fee of millions of dollars to the pharmacy chain, so their actual cost, after properly allocating everything, was rather higher than $0"?  Or something else?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sale price in this context is the combination of the patient payment and any third party payment, i.e. the whole amount paid to the pharmacy for the drug dispensed. Total reimbursement is typically a lesser of calculation with an average wholesale price discount (between 15 and 30%) as a baseline, and then various other discounts which combine to make AWP - 75% a common overall rate of reimbursement. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 12:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

On further reflection, it seems to me that there are varying reasons for someone to want such information: to compare costs of different products within one jurisdiction; to compare cost of one product across jurisdictions; or to compare costs over time as one product moves through development to patent licensing and then to generic or orphan status. Each of these would, if suitably sourced, be information of value to some readers. None depends on retail/wholesale price ratios, except to the extent that such markup varies between jurisdictions. So it should just boil down to the question "Can we reliably source this?" LeadSongDog come howl!  19:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would the British National Formulary be sufficient User:LeadSongDog for UK pricing? We deem it to be suitable for other content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While it is no doubt reliable, their website strongly suggests that they are restrictive about licensing use of the data. I am inclined to doubt the applicability of such restrictions, to databases of facts, but before we get too far down that path, we should have an informed discussion of whether we need to be concerned about them. Alternatively, we could pursue getting an explicit WP compatible license.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One would paraphrase and attribute the BNF. With facts not being copyright-able I do not think we have a concern. This will be no different than saying drug X has side effect Y with a ref to them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

FAs have plenty of prices
For example: PowerBook 100, Macintosh Classic, Sunbeam Tiger, Talbot Tagora, Sunderland Echo, Wonderbra, Maraba coffee, Holden Commodore (VE), Odwalla, Maserati MC12.

In other words more than half of all FA in WP:Brands contains pricing information, many of them fairly extensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Amphetamine includes price information (street price of illicit amphetamine in Europe during 2012) as well, although IIRC the only reason it's there is because it was requested at the FA nomination.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 21:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't believe you really think medicines are traded like Maraba coffee or newspapers. Why don't you try to find out the global wholesale price of Windows OS instead? — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  20:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is this field called economics which is the "study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative use". It applies to all sorts of stuff even medications. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Doc James, those aren't valid comparisons (as I suspect deep down you know). The articles on computers, cars, videogames etc list the price at the time of release; Sunbeam Tiger and PowerBook 100 mention what they sold for in 1964 and 1991, not annually-updated cites to Auto Trader and Computer Shopper to list what one can currently buy one for, and when we talk about including pricing info we're certainly not proposing "Methadone cost nine pfennigs per gramme when it was introduced in Germany in 1937". Yes, Sunderland Echo lists the current price, but that's because the concept of a paid-for local newspaper is so unusual in Britain (even behemoths like Metro and Manchester Evening News are given away free and funded by advertising) that it has to be pointed out, since otherwise readers will assume that it's a freesheet. &#8209; Iridescent 23:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All these articles have prices and they are perfectly valid comparisons. Price_of_oil lists prices over time. The arguments you have put forwards would be like trying to delete the article on the price of oil because it does not tell you the price of gasoline at the pump. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Public health issue
The price of medications are a critically important aspect of global health. Yes many people in the developed world are partly shielded from the issue of price by their governments. But governments still address these issues and Wikipedia is write for all including those in government.

Our article on the rabies vaccine for example contains "The wholesale cost in the developing world is between 44 and 78 USD for a course of treatment as of 2014. In the United States a course of rabies vaccine is more than 750 USD. "

That information makes it perfectly clear why when a child gets bitten by a dog in the developing world, they often do not get immunized against rabies. The family and the NGOs can often not afford the ~50 USD and therefore the vaccine is often not available / given. This explains the current situation where we have a perfectly preventable disease continuing to kill about 50k people a year. To put that into context Ebola killed 11k people over 2 years.

Removal of pricing details will mean that Wikipedia will continue to tell you what video game, television shows, songs, and books feature rabies. Our readers will continue to be able to figure out which Beavis and Butt Head and House MD episode featured the disease but will struggle to figure out why it continues to kill so many people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * agree, readers should have this very important information which affects their daily lives (especially when you compare all the non-essential prices readers already get)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * One argument is that those who sit on government committees know where to find pricing details better than we can provide them. As someone who is on one of these government committees the answer is that that statement is wrong.
 * Evidence provided by one of those opposing pricing info was "in India... some states paying more than the lowest available retail price for salbutamol (page 83 of that paper)" which means those in governement do not know how to accurately find these details and thus supports there inclusion
 * Doctors Without Borders has done a fair bit of work to increase price transparency and this is something they are interested in collaborating on.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity page invoking a medical controversy
More eyes would be helpful on a Talk page and its article (a WP:BLP, btw). The topic of Lyme disease is confusing - and our chronic Lyme disease article may be contributing to the confusion by conflating chronic untreated borreliosis with chronic post-treatment Lyme syndrome. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * commented (so did WAID)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion
A merge discussion is taking place here to determine whether Gene and Genomic organization should be merged. Seems important. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

more opinions(merge template still in place)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Genomic organization needs editor help/edits, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Any other BibSonomy users?
Does anyone else here use BibSonomy to manage bookmarks and/or references? I've been wondering if a WP:MED-oriented group there might be useful for collecting and sharing sources, articles about medical content on Wikipedia, and handy online tools (see bibsonomy_dev for an active example). I do not envision it replacing anything that currently exists here. It would be an additional resource -- for everyone: open-source (LGPL), 100% web-based, collections publicly visible by default.

Just thought I'd put the idea out there to see if anyone is interested. —Shelley V. Adams ‹<small style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:middle;font-size:70%;line-height:1em;">blame credit › 13:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * interesting, but I think you may need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Von Willebrand disease
this mid importance article could use some help/edits, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverts of inter-wiki links
Could perhaps someone tell Andreasmperu not to vandalize my inter-wiki links linking medical articles of the English and the German WP? Things like that had happened before, and it had turned out pointless to talk to this person. And could you please reinstall these three edits:


 * https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1640338&oldid=prev&diff=354876265
 * https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18710618&oldid=prev&diff=354874872
 * https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q208166&oldid=prev&diff=354874624

Thanks a lot. --Saidmann (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, probably not. Wikidata is a different project, and German is a different language.
 * Are your edits absolutely, incontestably correct translations of the names for these psychiatric conditions?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For further information, just one example: Endolymphatic hydrops needs to be linked to the German sister article Hydrops cochleae. The usual installation of the linking, however, is in this case blocked by the wrong association of the German item to some useless - mysterious bureaucratic - item. So, this false association must first be deleted. Once this is done the installation of the EN-DE linkage works fine. Now, this user Andreasmperu in Wikidata appears to refuse to understand the problem of the false association that first needs to be deleted. Andreasmperu reinstalled the false association, which again precluded the EN-DE linkage. It is just silly and hopeless. As I said, this happened several times before, and I do not know what else to do. Greetings. --Saidmann (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * PS. The link to Endolymphatic hydrops could now be fixed from the side of the German article. So I must give another example, which cannot be fixed either from the English or the German side: Borderline personality disorder is now linked to German sister article but not to the articles of the other languages. --Saidmann (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * PPS. I could now also fix the Borderline personality disorder problem. Hope Andreasmperu will not revert it this time. --Saidmann (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It has happened again. Andreasmperu undid the correct EN-DE link and reinstalled the false one. Now he again threatened to block me. See here.


 * Please help.


 * Borderline personality disorder needs to be linked to Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung and not to Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung, which is definitely wrong.


 * It is hard to understand that expert knowledge is blocked by a person who apparently has no clue on the issue. And Wikidata does not seem to provide a channel do deal with such problems.


 * Please help.


 * --Saidmann (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Has he discussed any of these edits? I notice it seems he the editor never responded to WAID's question on his/her talk page Sizeofint (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * He has never discussed anything, neither has he given a reason for his reverts. --Saidmann (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's more complicated than just matching names. I've asked at d:Wikidata:Project chat, using the most recent example.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for dealing with the matter. I added some further information to your inquiry at the Wikidata:Project chat. --Saidmann (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

NTX Technology
This cropped up in my quarterly search of articles linking to naturalnews.com. At first I thought NTX referred to naltrexone, but it turns out to be a "technology". I'd be surprised if there is a relevant WP:MEDRS, and the article itself seems promotional. Manul ~ talk 18:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article presents nonsense and is an unambiguous attempt to advertise. I requested speedy deletion. --Zefr (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree spam. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, but the fact that it passed the AfC process made me hesitate. Manul ~ talk 19:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving images for CT
Anyone know how to make these such as the one seen here ? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These are mp4 video. They have to be converted to ogg video or webm. The available documentation for doing this is at Commons:Commons:Video. This documentation is insufficient for many people and it needs to be rewritten. Video still is not easy to manage.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Better to make a gif. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 13:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, yes, but that source is not CC-licenced. Do you have any other content in mind? Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 21:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I have CT scans. I want to make similar videos under an open license not upload this video. (likely this video is not copyrightable but that is another issue entirely) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you send them to me I will prepare them for you :). Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So the thing is that there are typically hundred of images in a set. I am looking for a program that does screen capture into a video of only a specific part of the screen. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What filetype are they? Or are they not anonymized and need to be made into video first? If we're talking about a large amount of data I can set up an FTP-server, or we could send a thumb-drive. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 22:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Depending upon your computer setup, you may already have the software to do this. For example, QuickTime Player on a Mac can make screen-capture recordings, for any part of your computer screen.  I've made videos on how to trigger a bug in the visual editor a few times with it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You said CT rather than MRI, and did not mention the body part, but I think it's worth noting in this context (posting medical images) that when one is dealing with head imaging the images may be difficult to de-identify because 3D reconstruction can render a recognizable face. Not an issue for other body parts, and CT is generally not suitable for 3D reconstruction of skin. Just FYI. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes good point about MRI and 3D reconstruction. Am on PCs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Try asking your favorite web search engine for information about "screen capture video on windows" (whatever version you're running). It looks like some versions come with tools for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you know what filetype they are? Using a direct converter may be simpler than filming off the screen. DICOM can be stripped of identifying data and then converted directly into gifs or videos. If they are jpeg they can be combined to gifs or videos, while they can also be uploaded individually, which allows for some interactive scrolling solutions.
 * If direct conversion is not possible, there are programs such as Gifster that take a screen and record it into a gif. The problem with this solution is that you will need smooth scrolling of the images, otherwise they will look choppy, so scrolling with your mouse or mouse-wheel can cause them to be low quality and will distort the image. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 09:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of split discussion on Autoimmune disease
The article Autoimmune disease is currently being discussed for splitting. If you are here to discuss and provide consensus, click here. DS Crowned (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Paid editing
This article was written for pay Multitarget stool DNA screening test as per Talk:Multitarget stool DNA screening test.

It is not horrible but is as is typically of paid editing slight promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * its the "front page" of their site...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK review
I wrote an article on the Variegated squirrel and I wonder if someone with medical knowledge would be able to review the medical aspects of the DYK nomination? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * the Bornavirus section seems to be fine in terms of its reference(though you could add a review(or any MEDRS source) which defines the term...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is the proposed DYK hook - "... that humans can catch a fatal viral disease from pet variegated squirrels?" Are you happy with this hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * as long as it is referenced (MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Launching offline medical app in Chinese
Hey All. In the next few days in collaboration with Wikimedia CH we hope to launch the Chinese version of our offline medical app. I have put together a bit of a press release about it . Anyone able to copyedit or wish to provide feedback? Trying to keep it to one page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * concise and to the point,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

EMFs and human health
Would appreciate thoughts on these additions, in particular on the quality of the source. Its claim "We can barely imagine how the combinations of neuropsychiatric effects, including those in Table 4, will influence human behavior and social interactions, now that the majority of the human populations on earth are exposed to ever increasing intensities and diversity of microwave frequency EMFs" seems extraordinary. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * its MEDRS compliant per...however table 4 is objective, the above text is "subjective", I therefore agree w/ you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If author Pall was a WP editor, we'd admonish his/her edits as WP:SYNTH. The review article resembles synthesizing primary in vitro and animal studies into a conclusion described as clinical fact, which normally we would refuse as non-MEDRS. The epidemiological studies of Table 3 are not MEDRS quality RCTs. No I'd say this review is not MEDRS-compliant. Similarly, this review assembles basic research to support a case for VGCCs as the site of neurological abberation by EMFs, another example of WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY if it were a WP article. These Pall articles and the author's publishing history show a fondness for speculating, as there are numerous papers published in Medical Hypotheses, not a location for conclusive clinical research, and certainly not MEDRS quality. --Zefr (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * seems to be primary/corresponding author (few secondary authors)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't MEDRS say something like "Do not perform a detailed peer review" once upon a time? I believe that it still says something about not rejecting a review article on the grounds that you don't like its inclusion criteria.  Also, WP:OR applies to editors, not to sources; the reason that review articles and other high-quality types of secondary sources are so valuable to us is precisely because they synthesize content for us – including "subjective" content.
 * IMO the relevant policy-based reason for being concerned about this is DUE, not (MED)RS. Alex, if I were you, I'd start by asking myself the question, "Isn't there some guy named Martin Pall who writes a lot about Multiple chemical sensitivity?"  A minority POV is still a minority POV, even when that POV is presented in a peer-reviewed review article in a real journal.  The source can be "RS" (including "MEDRS") and still not be worth including (or in need of careful framing, e.g., "Proponents such as Author claim that...").
 * On the more general issue, I know that a lot of us are comfortable with MEDRS, but we've got to get out of that "I've got a hammer, so everything's a nail" mode. Stuff that's undue should be rejected as being undue – or else, one of these days, someone's going to turn up with nonsense from a major journal, and we'll have trouble.  Every major journal has published a bad paper at some point – and will again, in the future.  You need a bigger toolbox, if you want to protect Wikipedia from overemphasizing minority POVs.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Electromagnetic radiation and health could use some help/edits, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Atrial septal defect
Hello all! I want to call to your attention the approximately 50 edits made by over the past 2 days. I initially reverted one of his edits (over Huggle) due to poor grammar, but going over the whole series I think it needs more thorough checking. A perfunctory check revealed some inadequate sourcing, in-line external links, likely WP:SYNTH, etc. I appreciate any comments. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems from a comparison of the article before and after the IP's edits that most of the changes are the addition of 4 or 5 paragraphs in the the Patent foramen ovale section, which discuss the pros and cons of surgical closure in the prevention of stroke. I'm not convinced that the sources are strong enough to fully support the text, but other opinions would be appreciated. I'll clean up the raw urls before doing anything else. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems from a comparison of the article before and after the IP's edits that most of the changes are the addition of 4 or 5 paragraphs in the the Patent foramen ovale section, which discuss the pros and cons of surgical closure in the prevention of stroke. I'm not convinced that the sources are strong enough to fully support the text, but other opinions would be appreciated. I'll clean up the raw urls before doing anything else. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Intra amniotic antigen installation for fetal growth disruption
Not sure what to make of this article--it's over 51k bytes and was just created in a single edit by a new user. Other eyes would be appreciated. Everymorning (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Parts are wrong and other parts are copyright infringement. Deleted. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

These articles are similar
 * Cord blood transfusion (trimmed but still needs more)
 * Human fetal tissue research in regenerative medicine (redirected to already existing page for a second time)
 * Non fetal stem cell (redirect to Adult stem cell)
 * Pregnancy specific biological substances (trimmed it down to a single sentence)
 * Anthropometric measurement of the developing fetus

We have these accounts
 * User:Khubbajechele
 * User:Bajechele
 * User:Priyodarshi
 * User:Bmmdps07

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have been put together as a book here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

So much of these articles are misleading like "The blood of a healthy newborn is always sterile than the adult blood because of the presence of a P-glycoprotein functional barrier between the mother and the fetus in the placenta, also known as the blood-placental barrier" I guess the word is "healthy". No different than a "healthy" adults blood though as soon as an adults blood is infectious it is no longer healthy. What we appear to have is boosterism / spamming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While I think your actions are well-justified in this instance, I disagree with your statement that "as soon as an adults blood is infectious it is no longer healthy" if by "infectious" you mean that it contains bacteria or viruses that could be transmitted from one person to another. Bacteremia is fairly common (e.g. this review), and viremia is even more common (about half of healthy adults chronically carry at least one anellovirus e.g. ). &mdash; soupvector (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hum interesting. Blood of newborns is not sterile either though was more my point. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New WikiProject Medicine Main Page
Together with WikiProject X we are a bunch of editors who have been redesigning the WikiProject Medicine page, in part because it was a jumble of things built up over 10 years. We've tried to strip out the essentials, while leaving anything that still is useful — trying to make the most often used parts more accessible.

One major reason why this was done is to make it easier for new editors to understand what our project is and to make it easier to join. The beta is available at WikiProject Medicine/sandbox and includes new links and new tools as well as a rework of the old.

Before this is pushed live, I want to know if you have any questions or comments or any features you feel are missing. Remember, this page should welcome new users, and it is possible to keep all the older infrastructure on another page, so that seasoned editors can find what they need to! Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 08:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * looks great, very useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its me, but I want to know where the content box for the various topics under discussion is going to go? Somewhere near the top, I hope? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good, although I'm not too enthusiastic about the banner. I don't think most of the images will be meaningful to most people - either they require specialist knowledge to identify/appreciate (why show a keratometer instead of something immediately recognizable like a microscope?), or their primary contribution appears to be aesthetics (what's added by a picture of some syringes?) I also don't think it's representative of the full range of medical topics - I think it's overemphasizing hospital and laboratory work, and underemphasizing the social aspects of medicine among other things. There's nothing immediately recognizable as relating to infectious disease, nutrition, clinical research, and so forth. That said, some of these things probably don't have any good pictures available, so it might be difficult to address this. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 13:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a first draft for a banner, and I am willing to redesign it per the request of users. — throw me some good free images that I can include that you think are better. Also remember, there are more images if you expand the banner up to a width resolution of 2560px.  Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 14:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to see WP:Anatomy readded to list of related projects if possible. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * — This will be solved before the page goes live — the problem is that list is auto-generated by number of overlapping articles. So I chose to add the section on the side with the images — currently I haven't finished how to overlay the text and link on top the image — but I will. The same is true for WP:NEURO, WP:VET, WP:ANIMALANAT. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 09:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First thought: Didn't we just redesign the project pages a year or two ago?
 * Second thought: I think you need to spend more time looking at it using different combinations of screen size and font size.  For example, you're using col-begin to create fixed column numbers, and that means that it's hard to read on narrow screens.  Try zooming in about six times and see what that looks like.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1.) No, we really didn't we added lots of stuff, but it really isn't more useful. I don't know anyone that actually uses the page, and for new users the page is actually absolutely horrendous — we're scaring away new potential contributors — all we managed to do was bloat the page.
 * 2.) The site currently doesn't work well in the mobile viewer, I'm thinking about how to solve that, but it is a bit difficult. But this is true for the page as is. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 09:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed some of the narrow screen/mobile viewer issues. Some of these are a little more difficult. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 17:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

On behalf of WikiProject X, I would like to thank Carl Fredrik for his leadership in the re-design. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the layout or any of the WikiProject X tools, most of which are on display at WikiProject Medicine/Tools. As far as being viewable on mobile goes, we are currently developing a MediaWiki extension that will replace the template-based approach of WikiProject X with a proper WikiProject interface; this will allow the WikiProject layout to adapt to mobile interfaces. Harej (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * maybe the partners module could include other--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Offline medical app in Chinese
Hey All The offline medical app is now available in Chinese here. Please share as appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases
I stumbled upon Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases. Not sure what to do with it. A lot of work which unfortunately seems to duplicate information placed under individual disorders. I am tempted to AfD it but would appreciate if someone more knowledgeable could assess its value. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  20:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * it has MEDRS and MEDMOS issues--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The broad question is whether the topic itself needs a separate article. At least as regards spinal muscular atrophy, the part on therapies is based mostly on primary sources, outdated, unjustly selective, and simply misleading, and I'd rather see it go. I see no point to duplicate the contents of spinal muscular atrophy. I suspect the same might be as regards other disorders listed in that student work. — kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  10:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at it, and it needs a lot of work. It does feel like a student wrote a paper and decided to post it on Wikipedia.  However, I think it's a valid topic and should be kept.  (If not, then a bold WP:MERGE is a better choice than AFD.)
 * Picking up sections from other articles is actually a Good Thing™, as it provides specific examples and makes it possible for the reader to get all the information in one place. I'm inclined to keep that feature, even though the specific contents of most sections need to be replaced.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you have a point, however the article seems to have serious referencing issues...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * should any editor have time, Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases could use help/edits, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)